This paper reports the results of a study examining the relationships between market and customer dependencies and the structure of the marketing departments (boundary-spanning units) in 44 electronics/telecommunications companies in Canada. Data were collected by means of personal interviews with senior management and marketing officials in each company. The results show that product market dependency has positive effects on specialization and the level of integration of the marketing function, while customer dependency has a positive impact on centralization of decision making in the departments. When these relationships were compared in high and low performing firms in the sample, they were mostly evident only in more succesful ones. In addition, product market dependency had a positive impact on departmentalformalization in more successful units. Implications of the findings for research on dependence-structure relationships are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ADAMS, J. S.The structure and dynamics of behavior in organizational boundary roles. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.
2.
BLAU, P. M.Exchange and power in social life. New York.: Wiley, 1964.
3.
BROGDEN, H. E.A new coefficient: Application to biserial correlation and to estimation of selective efficiency. Psychometrika, 1949, 14, 169-182.
4.
CHILD, J.Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology, 1972, 61-22.
5.
CHILD, J.Organization: A guide to problems and practice (2nd ed.). London: Harper and Row, 1984.
6.
CHILD, J. & MANSFIELD, R.Technology, size and organizational structure. Sociology, 1972, 6, 369-393.
7.
DASTMALCHIAN, A.Environmental dependencies and company structures in Britain. Organization Studies, 1984, 5, 163-177.
8.
DASTMALCHIAN, A.Environmental characteristics and organizational climate: An exploratory study. Journal of Management Studies, 1986, 23, 609-633. (a)
9.
DASTMALCHIAN, A.Organizational resource dependencies and goal orientation. Journal of Business Research, 1986, 14, 387-402. (b)
10.
DASTMALCHIAN, A., & JAVIDAN, M.Centralization and organizational contex: An analysis of Canadian public enterprises. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 1987, 4, 302-319.
11.
DE BRETANI, V., & DROGE, C.The company, product and market dimensions of situationspecific new product screening scenarios. In J. C. Chebat (Ed.), Marketing (Vol. 6, Part 3), Administrative Science Association of Canada, pp. 52-61.
12.
DONALDSON, L.Strategy and structural adjustment to regain fit and performance: In defense of contingency theory. Journal of Management Studies, 1987, 24, 1-24.
13.
DRAZIN, R., & VAN DE VEN, A. H.Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1985, 30, 514-539.
14.
EMERSON, R. M.Power dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 1962, 20, 453-460.
15.
GALBRAITH, J. R.Organization design. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
16.
GRINYER, P. H., & YASAI-ARDEKANI, M.Dimensions of organizational structure: A critical replication. Academy of Management Journal, 1980, 23, 405-421.
17.
HALL, R. H.Organizations: Structures and processes (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1982.
18.
INKSON, J. H. K., PUGH, D. S., & HICKSON, D. J.Organizational context and structure: An abbreviated replication. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1970, 15, 318-329.
19.
JACOBS, D.Dependence and vulnerability: An exchange approach to the control of organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1974, 19, 45-59.
20.
KOOT, W.Organizational dependence: An exploration of external power relationships of companies. Organization Studies, 1983, 4, 19-38.
21.
LAWRENCE, P.The Harvard organization and environment research program. In A. H. Van de Ven and W. Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on Organization Design and Behavior. New York: Wiley, 1981.
22.
LAWRENCE, P. & LORSCH, J. W.Organizations and environments. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1967.
23.
LAWRENCE, P. R., & LORSCH, J. W.Developing organizations: Diagnosis and action. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1969.
24.
LEFTON, M., & ROSENGREN, W. R.Organizations and clients: Lateral and longitudinal dimensions. American Sociological Review, 1966, 31, 802-310.
25.
MANSFIELD, R.Dependence and interdependence in organization-client relationships. In P. Abell (Ed.), Organizations as Bargaining and influence systems (Vol. II). Heinemann: London, 1980.
26.
MANSFIELD, R., TODD, D., & WHEELER, J.Structural implications of company-customer interface. Journal of Management Studies, 1980, 17, 19-33.
27.
McCANN, J., & GALBRAITH, J. R.Interdepartmental relations. In P. C. Nystrom and W. H. Starbuck (Eds.), Handbook of organizational design (Vol. 2). New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.
28.
MINDLIN, S. E., & ALDRICH, H. E.Interorganizational dependencies: A review of the concept and re-examination of the findings of the Aston group. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 20, 382-393.
29.
MONTANARI, J. R. & FREEDMAN, S. M.Organization structure and administrative control: A question of dimensionality. Journal of Management, 1981, 7, 17-31.
30.
OSBORN, R. N., HUNT, J. G., & JAUCH, L. R.Organization theory:An integrated approach. Toronto: Wiley, 1980.
31.
PENNINGS, J. M.The relevance of structural-contingency theory for organizational effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 20, 393-410.
32.
PENNINGS, J. M.Structural contingency theory: A multivariate test. Organization Studies, 1987, 8, 223-240.
33.
PENNINGS, J. M., HAMBRICK, D. C., & McMILLAN, I.Interorganizational dependence and forward integration. Organizational Studies, 1984, 5, 307-326.
34.
PFEFFER, J., & COHEN, Y.Determinants of internal labor markets in organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984, 29, 550-572.
35.
PFEFFER, J., & SALANCIK, G. R.The external control of organizations. New York: Harper and Row, 1978.
36.
PUGH, D. S.The Aston program of research: Retrospect and prospect. In A. H. Van de Ven and W. F. Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on organization design and behavior. New York: Wiley.
37.
PUGH, D. S., & HICKSON, D. J. (Eds.). Organizational structure in its context: The Aston programme LFarnborough, Hants: Gower, 1976.
38.
PUGH, D. S., & HININGS, C. R. (Eds.). Organizational structure: Extensions and replications-The Aston programme II. Farnborough, Hants: Gower, 1976.
39.
PUGH, D. S., HICKSON, D. J., HININGS, C. R. & TURNER, C.The context of organizational structures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 14, 91-114.
40.
RUEKERT, R. W., WALKER, O. C., & ROERING, K. J.The organization of marketing activities: Contingency theory of structure and performance. Journal of Marketing, 1985, 49, 13-25.
41.
SLOCUM, J. W., Jr. (Ed.). Special issue on organizational design. Journal of Management, 1984, 10(1, Spring).
42.
STARBUCK, W.A trip through the elephants and rattlesnakes in the garden of Aston. In A. H. Van de Ven and W. F. Joyce (Eds.), Perspectives on organization design and behavior. New York: Wiley, 1981.
43.
TROMPSON, J. D.Organizations in action. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
44.
TOSI, H. L., & SLOCUM, J. W., Jr.Contingency theory: Some suggested directions. Journal of Management, 1984, 10, 9-26.
45.
VAN DE VEN, A. H., & JOYCE, W. F. (Eds.). Perspectives on organization design and behavior. New York: Wiley, 1981.
46.
VAN DE VEN, A. H., DELBECA, A. L., & KOENING, R., Jr.Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. American Sociological Review, 1976, 41, 322-338.
47.
WHEELER, J., MANSFIELD, R., & TODD, D.Structural implications of organizational dependence upon customers and owners: Similarities and differences. Organization Studies, 1980, 1, 327-348.
48.
WOODWARD, J.Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press, 1965.
49.
ZEFFANE, R. M.Centralization or formalization?: Indifference curves for strategies of control. Organizational Studies, 1989, 10, 327-353.
