بررسی تأثیر استراتژی کسب‌وکار، بخشندگی و پویایی محیطی بر عملکرد بازاریابی؛ تبیین نقش ممیزی بازاریابی (مطالعه موردی: شرکت‌های تولیدکننده دارویی)

نویسندگان

دانشگاه سمنان

چکیده

آشنایی سنجیده و علمی با بازارهای گوناگون و توانمندی‌ها و کاستی‌های هر بنگاه، مستلزم بررسی‌های دوره‌ای و مداوم از عملکرد آن بنگاه است. ابزار پیاده‌سازی این فرآیند مهم و حساس، ممیزی بازاریابی است. در سایه ممیزی بازاریابی می‌توان فهمید شرکت در چه موقعیتی قرار دارد و چگونه می‌تواند به سمت تعالی و پیشرفت حرکت نماید. هدف این مطالعه توسعه و آزمون مدلی از پیامدهای ممیزی بازاریابی است. این پژوهش کاربردی بوده، از حیث هدف توصیفی است. جامعه آماری از 1454 شرکت دارویی تشکیل‌شده است. با توجه به جامعه آماری به کمک جدول مورگان حجم نمونه 285 به دست آمد و درنهایت با نمونه‌گیری ساده، 325 پرسشنامه به‌صورت الکترونیکی جمع‌آوری گردید. پایایی ابزار تحقیق به‌وسیله بررسی سازگاری درونی و روایی آن از طریق روایی همگرا و واگرا موردسنجش و تأیید قرار گرفت. بررسی فرضیه ها تحقیق نیز در قالب مدل معادلات ساختاری و به کمک نرم‌افزار Smart PLS2 انجام شد. در سطح اطمینان 05/0 نتایج نشان داد الف: بخشندگی بیشتر محیطی دلالت بر اجرای کمتر ممیزی بازاریابی دارد، ب: پویایی محیطی در کنار یک استراتژی کسب‌وکار فعال نقش مهمی در اجرای ممیزی بازاریابی ایفا می‌کند، ج: ممیزی بازاریابی می‌تواند به شکل جدی بر عملکرد بازاریابی شرکت تأثیرگذار باشد و د: ممیزی بازاریابی همچون یک میانجی در رابطه بین عوامل محیطی و عملکرد بازاریابی عمل می‌کند.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Surveying Influence of Business Strategy, Generosity, and Environmental Mobility on Marketing Performance; Determining Marketing Audit Role (Case Study: Pharmaceutic Companies)

نویسندگان [English]

  • Morteza Maleki,
  • Atefeh Shabani

چکیده [English]

Scientific familiarity with different markets and positive and negative points of each institute involves periodic and permanent study of that institute’s performance. The tool for implementing this important procedure is marketing audit. Under marketing audit, position of company and quality of its progress can be understood. The purpose of this paper is developing a model of marketing audit outcomes. This is descriptive functional survey. Statistical population includes 1454 pharmaceutic companies. Sample volume was 285 companies using Morgan table and 325 electronic questionnaires were gathered by simple sampling. Its validity and reliability were measured and approved respectively by convergent and divergent validity as well as study of internal compatibility. Examining the hypotheses were done by structural equation model using SPSS software. In confidence level of 0.05 findings showed that: A) more environmental generosity refers to less marketing audit, B) environmental mobility alongside active business strategy plays important role in implementation of marketing audit, C) marketing audit can seriously affect company’s marketing performance, D) marketing audit is median in relation between environmental factors and marketing implementation.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Marketing Audit
  • Marketing Environment
  • Marketing Performance
8. Sidhu, B. K., & Robert, J. H. (2008). The marketing accounting interface- lessons and limitations. Journal of Marketing Management, 24 (7e8), pp: 669-686. 9. Pimenta da Gama, A. (2011). Marketing audits: the forgotten side of management? Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 20(3/4), pp: 212-222. 10. Mylonakis, J. (2003). Functions and responsibilities of marketing auditors in measuring organizational performance. International Journal of Technology Management, 25(8), pp: 814-825. 11. Clark, B. H., Abela, A. V., & Ambler, T. (2006). An information processing model of marketing performance measurement. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 14(3), pp: 191-208. 12. Kotler, P., Gregor, W. T., & Rodgers, W. H. (1977). The marketing audit comes of age. Sloan Management Review, 18(2), pp: 25-43. 13. Mokwa, M. P. (1986). The strategic marketing audit: an adoption/utilization perspective. The Journal of Business Strategy, 6(4), pp: 88-95. 14. Berry, L. L., Conant, J. S., & Parasuraman, A. (1991). A framework for conducting a services marketing audit. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 19(3), pp: 255-268. 15. Brownlie, D. (1993). The marketing audit: a metrology and explanation. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 11(1), pp: 4-12. 16. Wilson, A. (2002). The marketing audit workbook- tools, techniques & checklists to exploit your marketing resources. London: Kogan Page. 17. Aldrich, H.E. (1979). Organizations and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. 18. Dess, G., & Breard, D. (1984). Dimensions of organizational task environments. Administrative science quarterly, 29, pp: 52-73. 19. Egeren, M. V., & O'Connor, S. (1998). Drivers of market orientation and performance in service firms. Journal of Services Marketing, 12 (1), pp: 39-58. 20. Tang, Jintong. (2008). Environmental munificence for entrepreneurs: Entrepreneurial alertness and commitment. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research, 14(3), pp: 128-151. 21. Castrogiovanni, Gary J. (1991). Environmental munificence: A theoretical assessment. Academy of Management Review, 16, pp: 542–565. 22. Dickinson, S., & Ramaseshan, B. B. (2004). An investigation of the antecedents to cooperative marketing strategy implementation. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 12(2), pp: 71-95. 23. Khandwalla, Pradip N. (1973). Effect of competition on the structure of top management control. Academy of Management Journal, 16, pp: 285–310. 24. Kyriakopoulos, K., & Moorman, C. (2004). Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and exploration strategies: the overlooked role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), pp: 219-240. 25. Li, Y., Wei, Z., Zhao, J., Zhang, C., & Liu, Y. (2013). Ambidextrous organizational learning, environmental munificence and new product performance: Moderating effect of managerial ties in China. International Journal of Production Economics, 146(1), pp: 95-105. 26. Lai, K., Wong, C., & Lee Lam, J. (2015). Sharing environmental management information with supply chain partners and the performance contingencies on environmental munificence. International Journal of Production Economics, 164, pp: 445-453. 27. Goll, I., & Rashid, A. A. (2004). The Moderating Effect of Environmental Munificence and Dynamism on the Relationship between Discretionary Social Responsibility and Firm Performance. Journal of Business Ethic, 49, pp: 41–54. 28. Song, M., & Parry, M. E. (2009). The desired level of market orientation and business unit performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37, pp: 144-160. 29. Ottesen, G. G., & Grønhaug, K. (2004). Exploring the dynamics of market orientation in turbulent environments: a case study. European Journal of Marketing, 38(8), pp: 956-973. 30. Jogaratnam, Giri. Tse, Eliza C. Olsen & Michael D. (1999). Strategic posture, environmental munificence, and performance: an empirical study of independent restaurants. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research, 23(2), 118-138. 31. Radulescu, V., Cetina, L. (2012). Customer analysis, defining component of marketing audit. Social and behavioral Science, 62, pp: 308-312. 32. Chin, W. (1998). The partial least squares for structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research, pp 295-336. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 33. Ashill, N. J., Rod, M., & Carruthers, J. (2008). The effect of management commitment to service quality on frontline employees' job attitudes, turnover intentions and service recovery performance in a new public management context. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 16(5), pp: 437-462. 34. Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. NewYork, NY: McGraw-Hill. 35. wu, Wen- Kuei., Chen, Hui-Chiao., Huang, Yi-Xiu. (2015). Antecedents and consequences of marketing audits: Empirical evidence from Taiwanese firms. Asia Pacific Management Review, 20(3), 156-164. 36. Jaiyeoba, O.O (2013). Performance outcome of Market Orientation Behaviour among Botswana’s’ Small service firms. Journal of Management Research, 6(1), pp: 52- 69. 37. Oregan, N., M. Sims and A. Ghobodian (2005). High performance: ownership and decision-making in SME’s. Management Decision, 43, pp: 382-96.