(مقالات این شماره فصلنامه، به مقالات منتخب سیزدهمین کنفرانس بین المللی مدیریت اختصاص یافته است.) تحقق ترکیب توانمندی های دوگانه‌ی اکتشاف و بهره داری از طریق طراحی رابطه بخش‌های فروش و بازاریابی

نوع مقاله: مقاله مستقل

نویسندگان

1 کاندیدای دکترای مدیریت، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف

2 دانشیار دانشکده مدیریت و اقتصاد، دانشگاه صنعتی شریف

چکیده

در ادبیات استراتژی ترکیب قابلیتهای دوگانه‌ی اکتشاف[i] و بهره‌برداری[ii] "دوسوتوانی سازمانی[iii]" نامیده می‌شود. سازمان‌ها باید از یک طرف در کوتاه‌مدت حداکثر بهره‌برداری از منابع موجود را بنمایند و از طرف دیگر در بلندمدت به کمک اکتشاف وارد ساحتهای کاملا جدیدی شوند و خود را با تغییرات محیطی تطبیق دهند. در این تحقیق نحوه تحقق دوسوتوانی از طریق طراحی مناسب رابطه بین بخش‌های فروش و بازاریابی مورد بررسی قرار می‌گیرد. بخش‌های فروش و بازاریابی علی‌رغم تشابه در حوزه‌های کاری، تمایزات ساختاری[iv] زیادی دارند. مطالعات قبلی نشان می‌دهد که ایجاد تعامل مناسب بین این دو بخش چالشی جدی برای بسیاری از سازمانها است. این تحقیق به صورت کیفی انجام شده است و در آن روی پنج سازمان تولیدکننده کالاهای مصرفی در ایران مطالعه موردی صورت گرفته است. خروجی تحقیق یک چارچوب نظری جدید جهت تبیین مکانیسم‌ها و پی‌آمدهای پیکربندی[v] بخش های فروش و بازاریابی است. نتایج این تحقیق نشان می‌دهد پیکربندی مناسب رابطه بین بخش های فروش و بازاریابی نه تنها می‌تواند چالشهای موجود را برطرف نماید بلکه با استفاده از تمایزات ساختاری و مکانیسم‌های یکپارچه‌سازی[vi] بین این دو واحد می‌توان زمینه را برای تحقق دوسوتوانی سازمانی فراهم آورد. همچنین پشتیبانی متقابل دپارتمانهای فروش و بازاریابی از رویکردهای یکدیگر عاملی مهم در تحقق دوسوتوانی است.




[i] Exploration                                                                         


[ii] Exploitation


[iii] Organizational ambidexterity


[iv] Structural differentiation


[v] Configuration


[vi] Integration mechanism

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Realizing combination of exploration and exploitation capabilities by designing Marketing and Sales Relationship

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mahdi Ghandi Arani 1
  • Manoochehr Najmi 2
چکیده [English]

In the strategy literature, the combination of the dual capabilities of exploration and exploitation is called "organizational ambidexterity". Organizations in one hand should maximize utilization of current resources, and in other hand, they should enter new sphere to adapt themselves with environmental changes. In this research, we study how to realize ambidexterity by designing appropriate relationships between marketing and sales departments. Despite similarities in working areas, there are structural differences between sales and marketing departments. Previous studies indicate that the proper alignment between the two departments is a critical challenge for many organizations. Based on a multiple case study method, and a qualitative approach in data analysis, we studied five FMCG companies in Iran. Research output is a new theoretical framework for explaining the mechanisms and consequences of configuration of sales and marketing departments. The results show that appropriate configuration of the relationship between sales and marketing departments not only can solve existing challenges but also by using integration mechanism and structural differences between two departments can pave the way for realizing organizational ambidexterity. Mutual support between sales and marketing is an important factor in the realization of organizational ambidexterity.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Marketing and sales relationship
  • organizational ambidexterity
  • integration
  • structural differentiation
قندی آرانی، مهدی و نجمی، منوچهر (1393)، فصنامه علوم مدیریت، دوره 2، شماره 35، صفحه 1-24

Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of management, 17(1), 99–120.

Benner, M., & Tushman, M. (2015). Reflections on the 2013 Decade Award:“ Exploitation, Exploration, and Process Management: The Productivity Dilemma Revisited” ten years later. Academy of Management Review, amr–2015.

Birkinshaw, J., & Gupta, K. (2013). Clarifying the distinctive contribution of ambidexterity to the field of organization studies. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 287–298.

Day, G. S. (2013). An outside-in approach to resource-based theories. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–2.

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2002). Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research. Journal of business research, 55(7), 553–560.

Dubois, A., & Gadde, L.-E. (2014). “Systematic combining”—A decade later. Journal of Business Research, 67(6), 1277–1284.

Easton, G. (2010). Critical realism in case study research. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 118–128.

Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of management review, 532–550.

Flick, U. (2013). The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis. Sage.

Galbraith, J. R. (1974). Organization Design: An Information Processing View. Interfaces, 4(3), 28–36.

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The Antecedents, Consequences, and Mediating Role of Organizational Ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.

Homburg, C., & Jensen, O. (2007). The thought worlds of marketing and sales: which differences make a difference? Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 124–142.

Homburg, C., Jensen, O., & Krohmer, H. (2008). Configurations of marketing and sales: a taxonomy. Journal of Marketing, 72(2), 133–154.

Homburg, C., Workman Jr., J. P., & Krohmer, H. (1999). Marketing’s Influence Within the Firm. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 1–17.

Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition. The Journal of Marketing, 1–15.

Jansen, J. J. P., Tempelaar, M. P., van den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Structural Differentiation and Ambidexterity: The Mediating Role of Integration Mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 797–811.

Järvensivu, T., & Törnroos, J.-Å. (2010). Case study research with moderate constructionism: Conceptualization and practical illustration. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 100–108.

Jaworski, B. J. (2011). On Managerial Relevance. Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 211–224.

Junni, P., Sarala, R. M., Taras, V., & Tarba, S. Y. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity and Performance: A Meta-Analysis. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 299–312.

Ketokivi, M., & Choi, T. (2014). Renaissance of case research as a scientific method. Journal of Operations Management, 32(5), 232–240.

Ketokivi, M., & Mantere, S. (2010). Two strategies for inductive reasoning in organiza. Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 315–333.

Klag, M., & Langley, A. (2013). Approaching the conceptual leap in qualitative research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 15(2), 149–166.

Kotler, P., Rackham, N., & Krishnaswamy, S. (2006). Ending the war between sales and marketing. Harvard Business Review, 84(7/8), 68–78.

Lavie, D., Stettner, U., & Tushman, M. L. (2010). Exploration and exploitation within and across organizations. The Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 109–155.

Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1967). Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 12(1), 1–47.

Lee, J.-Y., Kozlenkova, I. V., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Structural marketing: using organizational structure to achieve marketing objectives. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 1–27.

Levinthal, D. A., & March, J. G. (1993). The myopia of learning. Strategic management journal, 14(S2), 95–112.

Mantere, S., & Ketokivi, M. (2013). Reasoning in Organization Science. Academy of Management Review, 38(1), 70–89.

March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization science, 2(1), 71–87.

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. SAGE Publications,

Montgomery, D. B., & Webster, F. E. (1997). Marketing’s interfunctional interfaces: the MSI workshop on management of corporate fault zones. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 2(1), 7–26.

MSI. (2014). 2014-2016 Research Priorities. Cambridge: Marketing Science Institute.

Okhuysen, G. A., & Bechky, B. A. (2009). 10 Coordination in Organizations: An Integrative Perspective. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 463–502.

O’Reilly, C., & Tushman, M. (2007). Ambidexterity as a dynamic capability: Resolving the innovator’s dilemma.

O’Reilly III, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational Ambidexterity: Past, Present and Future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.

Piekkari, R., Plakoyiannaki, E., & Welch, C. (2010). “Good”case research in industrial marketing: insights from research practice. Industrial Marketing Management, 39(1), 109–117.

Porter, M. E. (1991). Towards a dynamic theory of strategy. Strategic management journal, 12(S2), 95–117.

Raisch, S., Birkinshaw, J., Probst, G., & Tushman, M. L. (2009). Organizational ambidexterity: Balancing exploitation and exploration for sustained performance. Organization Science, 20(4), 685–695.

Reichertz, J. (2010). Abduction: The Logic of Discovery of Grounded Theory. The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory: Paperback Edition, 214.

Rouziès, D., Anderson, E., Kohli, A. K., Michaels, R. E., Weitz, B. A., & Zoltners, A. A. (2005). Sales and marketing integration: a proposed framework. Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 25(2), 113–122.

Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra-and interorganizational cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 7–23.

Smith, W. K., & Tushman, M. L. (2005). Managing strategic contradictions: A top management model for managing innovation streams. Organization science, 16(5), 522–536.

Stettner, U., & Lavie, D. (2013). Ambidexterity under scrutiny: Exploration and exploitation via internal organization, alliances, and acquisitions. Strategic Management Journal.

Strauss, A. L., Corbin, J. M., & others. (1990). Basics of qualitative research (Vol. 15). Sage Newbury Park, CA.

Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research from grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186.

Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Sage publications, INC.