Emergent Marketing Strategies and Performance: The Effects of Market Uncertainty and Strategic Feedback Systems
| Date | 01 April 2014 |
| Published date | 01 April 2014 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00843.x |
Emergent Marketing Strategies and
Performance: The Effects of Market
Uncertainty and Strategic
Feedback Systems
Simos Chari, Constantine S. Katsikeas, George Balabanis1and
Matthew J. Robson
Leeds University Business School, Maurice Keyworth Building, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK,
and 1Faculty of Management, Cass Business School, City University, 106 Bunhill Row, London EC1Y 8TZ,
UK
Corresponding author email: S.Chari@leeds.ac.uk
Although many process-based studies appear in the strategic management literature,
little attention has been devoted to the formation process of marketing strategies.
Drawing on enactment and information-processing theories, this study views the external
environment as a source of information (i.e. enacted) and organizations as information-
processing entities. We propose a conceptual framework of antecedents and market
performance consequences of emergent marketing strategies and test it with a sample of
214 UK enterprises. The results suggest that dimensions of market uncertainty (i.e.
dynamism and complexity) and strategic feedback systems influence the formation of
emergent marketing strategy. Furthermore, the data reveal that market uncertainty
aspects condition the association between emergent marketing strategies and market
performance in different ways. These findings provide new insights into how emergent
marketing strategies evolve and influence organizational outcomes.
Introduction
The bulk of strategic marketing research empha-
sizes the study of content issues pertaining to deci-
sion choices of a firm’s marketing programme and
market segmentation, targeting and positioning
(Shashittal and Wilemon, 1996). However, in
contrast with the proliferation of process-based
studies in the strategic management field (see Hut-
zschenreuter and Kleindienst, 2006), few studies
on marketing strategy making (MSM) exist (e.g.
Atuahene-Gima and Murray, 2004; Menon et al.,
1999; Neil and Rose, 2004), and those that do are
largely detached from the substantial work on
marketing strategy content (Varadarajan, 2010).
Notwithstanding the corporate role of marketing
in organizations (Mattsson, Ramaseshan and
Carson, 2006), research on marketing strategy is
an ‘incomplete, multi-dimensional jigsaw puzzle
with some of its aspects more complete than others
and associations between the theoretical domains,
of strategy content and process, insufficiently
defined’ (Shashittal and Wilemon, 1996, p. 17).
Furthermore, research in MSM has advanced
along two paths – strategy formulation and imple-
mentation – that have moved apart, with limited
efforts to bridge the gap (Malshe and Sohi, 2009).
Traditional strategic planning surmises that man-
agers deliberately formulate plans in the firm; that
is, strategies are analytically planned processes in
which long-standing goals and courses of actions
are formulated and then implemented (Lechner
and Müller-Stewens, 2000). In modern business
settings, however, strategy formulation and
bs_bs_banner
British Journal of Management, Vol. 24, 145–165 (2014)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00843.x
© 2012 The Author(s)
British Journal of Management © 2012 British Academy of Management. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd,
9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
implementation are intertwined (Malshe and
Sohi, 2009). Management scholars (e.g. Covin,
Green and Slevin, 2006; Lowe and Jones, 2004)
contend that strategies are more likely to be emer-
gent (i.e. realized patterns of actions not explicitly
intended) than deliberate (i.e. patterns of actions
realized as initially designed) (Mintzberg, 1994).
Despite the wide acceptance of intended (deliber-
ate) and realized (emergent) strategies in the lit-
erature (Balogun and Johnson, 2005; Smith, 2011;
Titus, Covin and Slevin, 2011), the distinction
between these two levels of strategy is largely con-
ceptual and rarely acknowledged in empirical
studies (Sminia, 2009).
Prior work has identified uncertainty as a
crucial constituent that influences the strategy
making process (Elbanna and Child, 2007).1Mar-
keting scholars (e.g. Homburg, Krohmer and
Workman, 1999) have long suggested that market
uncertainty constituents play a significant role in
the strategy making process. However, empirical
findings concerning the effects of market uncer-
tainty on strategy are inconsistent, largely because
market uncertainty is a multi-component con-
struct (Atuahene-Gima and Li, 2004). Despite
calls (e.g. Atuahene-Gima and Li, 2004) for
studies to examine the roles of different aspects of
uncertainty in strategy making, researchers have
paid scant attention to this issue. Furthermore,
prior work has yet to demonstrate how firms
employ feedback mechanisms to deal with uncer-
tainties surrounding their choices.
Drawing on enactment (Freel, 2005; Smircich
and Stubbart, 1985; Weick, Sutcliffe and Obst-
feld, 2005) and information-processing (Daft and
Lengel, 1986; Rogers, Miller and Judge, 1999;
Smith et al., 1991) theories, we examine the effects
of market uncertainty and strategic feedback
systems (SFSs) on emergent marketing strategies
(see Figure 1). Our literature review identified
two dimensions of uncertainty as particularly rel-
evant: market dynamism, or the degree of market
change and instability over time (Cui, Griffith and
Cavusgil, 2005; Simsek, 2009), and market com-
plexity, or the number and diversity of key market
actors and the dispersion of actions needed for
complex markets (Gavetti, Levinthal and Rivkin,
2005; Kabadayi, Eyuboglu and Thomas, 2007).
SFSs refer to mechanisms that exploit informa-
tion to maintain or alter patterns of organiza-
tional decisions (Chenhall, 2003). Perceptions of
market uncertainty pressurize managers to review
their strategies and, based on the SFSs’ feedback,
fine-tune the scope of their intended marketing
strategies. Here, marketing strategy comprises
a firm’s behaviours and operational decisions
concerning the 4Ps (i.e. product, price, place/
distribution, promotion) and scope refers to the
1Managers’ perceptions are subject to influences at mul-
tiple levels of analysis, e.g. individual characteristics,
group processes and environmental context (Miller,
1993). For our purposes, we emphasize the context of the
external environment (i.e. market uncertainty).
SFSs
MARKET UNCERTAINTY
EMERGENT MARKETING
STRATEGY
(Intended minus Realised)
•
•
•
•
Product
Price
Distribution
Promotion
MARKET
PERFORMANCE
FINANCIAL
PERFORMANCE
MARKET
COMPLEXITY
MARKET
DYNAMISM
Figure 1. Conceptual model
Note: The emboldened paths are hypothesized relationships. The lightface path is not hypothesized because it has been studied previously
(e.g. Homburg, Grozdanovic and Klarmann, 2007; Morgan, Katsikeas and Vorhies, 2012).
146 S. Chari et al.
© 2012 The Author(s)
British Journal of Management © 2012 British Academy of Management.
To continue reading
Request your trial