Top

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

Published in:

15-03-2022 | Review Paper

The performance impact of marketing dualities: a response surface approach to resolving empirical challenges

Authors: Youngtak M. Kim, John R. Busenbark, Seung-Hwan Jeong, Son K. Lam

Published in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science | Issue 5/2022

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

We examine issues associated with various operational measures and model specifications in marketing-duality research that focuses on either a balancing or a combining perspective. In Study 1, we use archival data to demonstrate various operationalizations and models that subscribe to either perspective to test the impact of the exploration::exploitation duality, which produce mixed results. We then show that the multidimensional response surface approach constitutes a superior omnibus test that coalesces the two perspectives. Study 2, a simulation-based study, affirms the severity of biases in the existing approaches and the comprehensiveness and precision of the response surface approach. The cumulative evidence shows that the existing perspectives employ transformed measures that fail to distinguish firms with different approaches to the two activities underlying a duality. Thus, they suffer from many conceptual blind spots, produce mixed statistical conclusions, and are sensitive to changes in mean values. Our findings provide guidelines for the study of marketing dualities.

previous article Boundary spanner corruption: a potential dark side of multi-level trust in marketing relationships

next article Corporate lobbying and product recalls: an investigation in the U.S. medical device industry

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Available only for authorised users

Note that the use of difference score is prevalent but heavily criticized in the domain of marketing (e.g., Peter et al. 1993). Nevertheless, the use of ‘gap’ scores and ratios remain prevalent in marketing (e.g., expectation disconfirmation gap). The observed interaction is spurious when the coefficient of the product term in the regression is significant even when there is no true interaction. The observed interaction is misleading when the observed interaction term is positive (or negative) while the true interaction is negative (or positive). The use of only the product term without the lower-order term can be found in research that relies on the product term as an index of ambidexterity (e.g., Gibson and Birkinshaw 2004; Jasmand et al. 2012).

We recognize that firms may be able to achieve higher levels of performance even when their approach to ambidexterity is highly imbalanced. Our polynomial approach can accommodate contextual variables (e.g., resource slack, firm age) by incorporating a moderator, either through split group analyses or through interaction models.

In sensitivity analyses, we varied the number of observations from 250 to 2500 and found materially similar results regardless of the sample size.

The median R-squared value is 0.43, ranging between 0.39 and 0.48 across all the iterations. Our conclusions do not change if we increase or decrease the variance explained. In terms of the condition index that may lead to unstable estimates, the highest number reported across all of our iterations is 10.86. The average across all of our simulation specifications is 4.821. Specifically, the average condition index for the polynomial model is 10.86, the sum total is 3.27, the conventional interaction is 6.09, raw difference is 2.48, the ratio is 2.49, and the absolute difference is 3.74. By “average condition index,” we mean the average overall condition index number across all the different iterations (meaning changing values of the mean and 1000 runs per mean value) of the simulation per model specification. These condition index values are all below 30, indicating that multicollinearity is not a major concern (Kennedy 2008).

We can also store the mean value of the beta coefficients, but we find that these become skewed, such that the betas do not follow a normal distribution when the model features an operationalization of ambidexterity that biases the estimator. Since the coefficients the models predict should follow a normal distribution (Cohen et al. 2003; Wooldridge 2010), we store the medians to ensure our results are not distorted.

We recognize that the combining or balancing perspectives might be appropriate for specific research contexts. For example, younger firms are less likely to have resource slack allowing them to pursue concurrent ambidexterity.

Abadie, A., Athey, S., Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. (2017). When should you adjust standard errors for clustering? (no. w24003). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Aguinis, H., Gottfredson, R. K., & Joo, H. (2013). Best-practice recommendations for defining, identifying, and handling outliers. Organizational Research Methods, 16(2), 270–301.CrossRef

Ahearne, M., Mathieu, J., & Rapp, A. (2005). To empower or not to empower your sales force? An empirical examination of the influence of leadership empowerment behavior on customer satisfaction and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(5), 945–955.CrossRef

Andreassen, T. W. (2001). From disgust to delight: Do customers hold a grudge? Journal of Service Research, 4(1), 39–49.CrossRef

Arnold, T. J., Fang, E. E., & Palmatier, R. W. (2011). The effects of customer acquisition and retention orientations on a firm’s radical and incremental innovation performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 234–251.CrossRef

Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 61–83.CrossRef

Atuahene-Gima, K., Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2005). The contingent value of responsive and proactive market orientations for new product program performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(6), 464–482.CrossRef

Baum, C. F. (2006). An introduction to modern econometrics using Stata College Station. Stata Press.

Baum, C. F., & Lewbel, A. (2019). Advice on using heteroskedasticity-based identification. Stata Journal, 19(4), 757–767.CrossRef

Bell, S. J., Auh, S., & Eisingerich, A. B. (2017). Unraveling the customer education paradox: When, and how, should firms educate their customers? Journal of Service Research, 20(3), 306–321.CrossRef

Bello, D. C., & Gilliland, D. I. (1997). The effect of output controls, process controls, and flexibility on export channel performance. Journal of Marketing, 61(1), 22–38.CrossRef

Berger, J., Humphreys, A., Ludwig, S., Moe, W. W., Netzer, O., & Schweidel, D. A. (2020). Uniting the tribes: Using text for marketing insight. Journal of Marketing, 84(1), 1–25.CrossRef

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

Blocker, C. P., Flint, D. J., Myers, M. B., & Slater, S. F. (2011). Proactive customer orientation and its role for creating customer value in global markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 216–233.CrossRef

Boumgarden, P., Nickerson, J., & Zenger, T. R. (2012). Sailing into the wind: Exploring the relationships among ambidexterity, vacillation, and organizational performance. Strategic Management Journal, 33(6), 587–610.CrossRef

Boyd, B. K. (1995). CEO duality and firm performance: A contingency model. Strategic Management Journal, 16(4), 301–312.CrossRef

Bromiley, P., Rau, D., & Zhang, Y. (2017). Is R&D risky? Strategic Management Journal, 38(4), 876–891.CrossRef

Busenbark, J. R., Yoon, H. E., Gamache, D. L., & Withers, M. C. (2021). Omitted variable bias: Examining management research with the impact threshold of a confounding variable (ITCV). Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211006458

Cannella, A. A., Park, J.-H., & Lee, H.-U. (2008). Top management team functional background diversity and firm performance: Examining the roles of team member colocation and environmental uncertainty. Academy of Management Journal, 51(4), 768–784.

Cao, Q., Gedajlovic, E., & Zhang, H. (2009). Unpacking organizational ambidexterity: Dimensions, contingencies, and synergistic effects. Organization Science, 20(4), 781–796.CrossRef

Carter, R. E., Henderson, C. M., Arroniz, I., & Palmatier, R. W. (2014). Effect of salespeople's acquisition–retention trade-off on performance. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 34(2), 91–111.CrossRef

Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Kalm, M., & LePine, J. A. (2020). Divided we fall: How ratios undermine research in strategic management. Organizational Research Methods, 23(2), 211–237.CrossRef

Certo, S. T., Busenbark, J. R., Woo, H. s., & Semadeni, M. (2016). Sample selection bias and Heckman models in strategic management research. Strategic Management Journal, 37(13), 2639–2657.CrossRef

Certo, S. T., & Semadeni, M. (2006). Strategy research and panel data: Evidence and implications. Journal of Management, 32(3), 449–471.CrossRef

Chan, T. Y., Li, J., & Pierce, L. (2014). Learning from peers: Knowledge transfer and sales force productivity growth. Marketing Science, 33(4), 463–484.CrossRef

Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.CrossRef

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Comeau-Vallée, M., Denis, J.-L., Normandin, J.-M., & Therrien, M.-C. (2017). Alternate prisms for pluralism and paradox in organizations. In W. Smith, M. Lewis, P. Jarzabkowski, & A. Langley (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of organizational paradox (pp. 197–215). Oxford University Press.

Day, G. S., & Wensley, R. (1988). Assessing advantage: A framework for diagnosing competitive superiority. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 1–20.CrossRef

DeCarlo, T. E., & Lam, S. K. (2016). Identifying effective hunters and farmers in the salesforce: A dispositional–situational framework. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(4), 415–439.CrossRef

Dittrich, K., Jaspers, F., van der Valk, W., & Wynstra, F. (2006). Dealing with dualities. Industrial Marketing Management, 35(7), 792–796.CrossRef

Edwards, J. R. (1995). Alternatives to difference scores as dependent variables in the study of congruence in organizational research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(3), 307–324.CrossRef

Edwards, J. R. (2001). Ten difference score myths. Organizational Research Methods, 4(3), 265–287.CrossRef

Edwards, J. R. (2002). Alternatives to difference scores: Polynomial regression and response surface methodology. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analysis (pp. 350–400). Jossey-Bass.

Edwards, J. R., & Cable, D. M. (2009). The value of value congruence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 654–677.CrossRef

Edwards, J. R., & Parry, M. E. (1993). On the use of polynomial regression equations as an alternative to difference scores in organizational research. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1577–1613.CrossRef

Feldman, E. R., & Montgomery, C. A. (2015). Are incentives without expertise sufficient? Evidence from fortune 500 firms. Strategic Management Journal, 36(1), 113–122.CrossRef

Fisher, R. J., Maltz, E., & Jaworski, B. J. (1997). Enhancing communication between marketing and engineering: The moderating role of relative functional identification. Journal of Marketing, 61(3), 54–70.CrossRef

Gabler, C. B., Ogilvie, J. L., Rapp, A., & Bachrach, D. G. (2017). Is there a dark side of ambidexterity? Implications of dueling sales and service orientations. Journal of Service Research, 20(4), 379–392.CrossRef

Ganzach, Y. (1997). Misleading interaction and curvilinear terms. Psychological Methods, 2(3), 235–247.CrossRef

Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. Academy of Management Journal, 47(2), 209–226.CrossRef

Groysberg, B., & Lee, L.-E. (2009). Hiring stars and their colleagues: Exploration and exploitation in professional service firms. Organization Science, 20(4), 740–758.CrossRef

Gupta, A. K., Smith, K. G., & Shalley, C. E. (2006). The interplay between exploration and exploitation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 693–706.CrossRef

Han, M., & Celly, N. (2008). Strategic ambidexterity and performance in international new ventures. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 25(4), 335–349.CrossRef

He, Z.-L., & Wong, P.-K. (2004). Exploration vs. exploitation: An empirical test of the ambidexterity hypothesis. Organization Science, 15(4), 481–494.CrossRef

Heavey, C., & Simsek, Z. (2017). Distributed cognition in top management teams and organizational ambidexterity the influence of transactive memory systems. Journal of Management, 43(3), 919–945.CrossRef

Henderson, A. D., Miller, D., & Hambrick, D. C. (2006). How quickly do CEOs become obsolete? Industry dynamism, CEO tenure, and company performance. Strategic Management Journal, 27(5), 447–460.CrossRef

Herhausen, D. (2016). Unfolding the ambidextrous effects of proactive and responsive market orientation. Journal of Business Research, 69(7), 2585–2593.CrossRef

Houston, M. B., Walker, B. A., Hutt, M. D., & Reingen, P. H. (2001). Cross-unit competition for a market charter: The enduring influence of structure. Journal of Marketing, 65(2), 19–34.CrossRef

Hughes, D. E., & Ahearne, M. (2010). Energizing the reseller's sales force: The power of brand identification. Journal of Marketing, 74(4), 81–96.

Hulland, J. (2020). Conceptual review papers: Revisiting existing research to develop and refine theory. AMS Review, 10(1), 27–35.CrossRef

Hulland, J., Baumgartner, H., & Smith, K. M. (2018). Marketing survey research best practices: Evidence and recommendations from a review of jams articles. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(1), 92–108.CrossRef

Jansen, J. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Management Science, 52(11), 1661–1674.CrossRef

Jasmand, C., Blazevic, V., & De Ruyter, K. (2012). Generating sales while providing service: A study of customer service representatives' ambidextrous behavior. Journal of Marketing, 76(1), 20–37.CrossRef

Josephson, B. W., Johnson, J. L., & Mariadoss, B. J. (2016). Strategic marketing ambidexterity: Antecedents and financial consequences. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 44(4), 539–554.CrossRef

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.CrossRef

Kalnins, A. (2018). Multicollinearity: How common factors cause type 1 errors in multivariate regression. Strategic Management Journal, 39(8), 2362–2385.CrossRef

Kang, J., Kang, R., & Kim, S.-J. (2017). An empirical examination of vacillation theory. Strategic Management Journal, 38(6), 1356–1370.CrossRef

Kang, J., & Kim, S. J. (2020). Performance implications of incremental transition and discontinuous jump between exploration and exploitation. Strategic Management Journal, 41(6), 1083–1111.CrossRef

Katsikeas, C. S., Auh, S., Spyropoulou, S., & Menguc, B. (2018). Unpacking the relationship between sales control and salesperson performance: A regulatory fit perspective. Journal of Marketing, 82(3), 45–69.CrossRef

Katsikeas, C. S., Morgan, N. A., Leonidou, L. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (2016). Assessing performance outcomes in marketing. Journal of Marketing, 80(2), 1–20.CrossRef

Kennedy, P. (2008). A guide to econometrics (2nd ed.). Blackwell.

Khuri, A. I., & Cornell, J. A. (1996). Response surfaces: Designs and analyses (2nd ed.). Marcel Dekker, ASQA Quality Press.

Kim, S. K., & Hsieh, P.-H. (2003). Interdependence and its consequences in distributor-supplier relationships: A distributor perspective through response surface approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 40(1), 101–112.CrossRef

Kraus, F., Haumann, T., Ahearne, M., & Wieseke, J. (2015). When sales managers and salespeople disagree in the appreciation for their firm: The phenomenon of organizational identification tension. Journal of Retailing, 91(3), 486–515.CrossRef

Kumar, N., Scheer, L. K., & Steenkamp, J.-B. E. (1995). The effects of perceived interdependence on dealer attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 348–356.CrossRef

Kurt, D., & Hulland, J. (2013). Aggressive marketing strategy following equity offerings and firm value: The role of relative strategic flexibility. Journal of Marketing, 77(5), 57–74.CrossRef

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), 219–240.CrossRef

Lado, A. A., Dant, R. R., & Tekleab, A. G. (2008). Trust-opportunism paradox, relationalism, and performance in interfirm relationships: Evidence from the retail industry. Strategic Management Journal, 29(4), 401–423.CrossRef

Lam, S. K., DeCarlo, T. E., & Sharma, A. (2019). Salesperson ambidexterity in customer engagement: Do customer base characteristics matter? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(4), 659–680.CrossRef

Lavie, D., & Rosenkopf, L. (2006). Balancing exploration and exploitation in alliance formation. Academy of Management Journal, 49(4), 797–818.CrossRef

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

Lawrence, J. M., Scheer, L. K., Crecelius, A. T., & Lam, S. K. (2021). Salesperson dual agency in price negotiations. Journal of Marketing, 85(2), 89–109.CrossRef

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

Lewis, M. W. (2000). Exploring paradox: Toward a more comprehensive guide. Academy of Management Review, 25(4), 760–776.CrossRef

Lubatkin, M. H., Simsek, Z., Ling, Y., & Veiga, J. F. (2006). Ambidexterity and performance in small-to medium-sized firms: The pivotal role of top management team behavioral integration. Journal of Management, 32(5), 646–672.CrossRef

Luger, J., Raisch, S., & Schimmer, M. (2018). Dynamic balancing of exploration and exploitation: The contingent benefits of ambidexterity. Organization Science, 29(3), 449–470.CrossRef

Luo, X., Slotegraaf, R. J., & Pan, X. (2006). Cross-functional “coopetition”: The simultaneous role of cooperation and competition within firms. Journal of Marketing, 70(2), 67–80.CrossRef

Mallapragada, G., Grewal, R., & Lilien, G. (2012). User-generated open source products: Founder's social capital and time to product release. Marketing Science, 31(3), 474–492.CrossRef

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

Markides, C., & Chu, W. (2009). Innovation through ambidexterity: How to achieve the ambidextrous organization. In L. A. Costanzo & R. B. MacKay (Eds.), Handbook of research on strategy and foresight (pp. 324–342). Edward Elgar.

Matta, F. K., Scott, B. A., Koopman, J., & Conlon, D. E. (2015). Does seeing “eye to eye” affect work engagement and organizational citizenship behavior? A role theory perspective on lmx agreement. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1686–1708.CrossRef

McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114(2), 376–390.CrossRef

McKenny, A. F., Aguinis, H., Short, J. C., & Anglin, A. H. (2016). What doesn’t get measured does exist: Improving the accuracy of computer-aided text analysis. Journal of Management, 44(7), 2909–2933.CrossRef

Menguc, B., Auh, S., Katsikeas, C. S., & Jung, Y. S. (2016). When does (mis) fit in customer orientation matter for frontline employees’ job satisfaction and performance? Journal of Marketing, 80(1), 65–83.CrossRef

Michaels, R. E., Cron, W. L., Dubinsky, A. J., & Joachimsthaler, E. A. (1988). Influence of formalization on the organizational commitment and work alienation of salespeople and industrial buyers. Journal of Marketing Research, 25(4), 376–383.CrossRef

Mick, D. G., & Fournier, S. (1998). Paradoxes of technology: Consumer cognizance, emotions, and coping strategies. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(2), 123–143.CrossRef

Miklós-Thal, J., Raith, M., & Selove, M. (2018). What are we really good at? Product strategy with uncertain capabilities. Marketing Science, 37(2), 294–309.CrossRef

Mittal, V., Anderson, E. W., Sayrak, A., & Tadikamalla, P. (2005). Dual emphasis and the long-term financial impact of customer satisfaction. Marketing Science, 24(4), 544–555.CrossRef

Mizik, N., & Jacobson, R. (2003). Trading off between value creation and value appropriation: The financial implications of shifts in strategic emphasis. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 63–76.CrossRef

Mom, T. J., Van Den Bosch, F. A., & Volberda, H. W. (2009). Understanding variation in managers' ambidexterity: Investigating direct and interaction effects of formal structural and personal coordination mechanisms. Organization Science, 20(4), 812–828.CrossRef

Mullins, R. R., Ahearne, M., Lam, S. K., Hall, Z. R., & Boichuk, J. P. (2014). Know your customer: How salesperson perceptions of customer relationship quality form and influence account profitability. Journal of Marketing, 78(6), 38–58.CrossRef

Nadkarni, S., & Chen, J. (2014). Bridging yesterday, today, and tomorrow: CEO temporal focus, environmental dynamism, and rate of new product introduction. Academy of Management Journal, 57(6), 1810–1833.CrossRef

O’Kane, P., Smith, A., & Lerman, M. P. (2019). Building transparency and trustworthiness in inductive research through computer-aided qualitative data analysis software. Organizational Research Methods, 24(1), 104–139.CrossRef

O’Reilly, C. A., & Tushman, M. L. (2013). Organizational ambidexterity: Past, present, and future. Academy of Management Perspectives, 27(4), 324–338.CrossRef

Papies, D., Ebbes, P., & Van Heerde, H. J. (2017). Addressing endogeneity in marketing models. In P. Leeflang, J. Wieringa, T. Bijmolt, & K. Pauwels (Eds.), Advanced methods for modeling markets (pp. 581–630). Springer.CrossRef

Pearson, K. (1897). Mathematical contributions to the theory of evolution.—On a form of spurious correlation which may arise when indices are used in the measurement of organs. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 60(359–367), 489–498.

Peter, J. P., Churchill Jr., G. A., & Brown, T. J. (1993). Caution in the use of difference scores in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(4), 655–662.CrossRef

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.CrossRef

Ransbotham, S., Kane, G. C., & Lurie, N. H. (2012). Network characteristics and the value of collaborative user-generated content. Marketing Science, 31(3), 387–405.CrossRef

Rapp, A., Beitelspacher, L. S., Grewal, D., & Hughes, D. E. (2013). Understanding social media effects across seller, retailer, and consumer interactions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 41(5), 547–566.CrossRef

Reinartz, W., Thomas, J. S., & Kumar, V. (2005). Balancing acquisition and retention resources to maximize customer profitability. Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 63–79.CrossRef

Rogan, M., & Mors, M. L. (2014). A network perspective on individual-level ambidexterity in organizations. Organization Science, 25(6), 1860–1877.CrossRef

Rosing, K., & Zacher, H. (2017). Individual ambidexterity: The duality of exploration and exploitation and its relationship with innovative performance. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(5), 694–709.CrossRef

Ross, W. T., Anderson, E., & Weitz, B. (1997). Performance in principal-agent dyads: The causes and consequences of perceived asymmetry of commitment to the relationship. Management Science, 43(5), 680–704.CrossRef

Rossi, P. E. (2014). Even the rich can make themselves poor: A critical examination of IV methods in marketing applications. Marketing Science, 33(5), 655–672.CrossRef

Rothaermel, F. T., & Deeds, D. L. (2004). Exploration and exploitation alliances in biotechnology: A system of new product development. Strategic Management Journal, 25(3), 201–221.CrossRef

Rust, R. T., Moorman, C., & Dickson, P. R. (2002). Getting return on quality: Revenue expansion, cost reduction, or both? Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 7–24.CrossRef

Rust, R. T., Moorman, C., & van Beuningen, J. (2016). Quality mental model convergence and business performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 33(1), 155–171.CrossRef

Rutz, O. J., & Watson, G. F. (2019). Endogeneity and marketing strategy research: An overview. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 47(3), 479–498.CrossRef

Saboo, A. R., Chakravarty, A., & Grewal, R. (2016). Organizational debut on the public stage: Marketing myopia and initial public offerings. Marketing Science, 35(4), 656–675.CrossRef

Sarkees, M., Hulland, J., & Chatterjee, R. (2014). Investments in exploitation and exploration capabilities: Balance versus focus. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(1), 7–24.CrossRef

Semadeni, M., Withers, M. C., & Certo, S. T. (2014). The perils of endogeneity and instrumental variables in strategy research: Understanding through simulations. Strategic Management Journal, 35(7), 1070–1079.CrossRef

Sharma, A., Kumar, V., Yan, J., Borah, S. B., & Adhikary, A. (2019). Understanding the structural characteristics of a firm’s whole buyer–supplier network and its impact on international business performance. Journal of International Business Studies, 50(3), 365–392.CrossRef

Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46–55.CrossRef

Sleep, S., Bharadwaj, S., & Lam, S. K. (2015). Walking a tightrope: The joint impact of customer and within-firm boundary spanning activities on perceived customer satisfaction and team performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(4), 472–489.CrossRef

Sleep, S., Lam, S. K., & Hulland, J. (2018). The sales-marketing integration gap: A social identity approach. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 38(4), 371–390.CrossRef

Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403.

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

Sunder, S., Kumar, V., Goreczny, A., & Maurer, T. (2017). Why do salespeople quit? An empirical examination of own and peer effects on salesperson turnover behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 54(3), 381–397.CrossRef

Uotila, J., Maula, M., Keil, T., & Zahra, S. A. (2009). Exploration, exploitation, and financial performance: Analysis of S&P 500 corporations. Strategic Management Journal, 30(2), 221–231.CrossRef

Van der Borgh, M., de Jong, A., & Nijssen, E. J. (2017). Alternative mechanisms guiding salespersons’ ambidextrous product selling. British Journal of Management, 28(2), 331–353.CrossRef

Van der Borgh, M., de Jong, A., & Nijssen, E. J. (2019). Balancing frontliners’ customer-and coworker-directed behaviors when serving business customers. Journal of Service Research, 22(3), 323–344.CrossRef

Van der Borgh, M., & Schepers, J. (2018). Are conservative approaches to new product selling a blessing in disguise? Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 46(5), 857–878.CrossRef

Venkatesh, V., & Goyal, S. (2010). Expectation disconfirmation and technology adoption: Polynomial modeling and response surface analysis. MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 281–303.CrossRef

Vorhies, D. W., Orr, L. M., & Bush, V. D. (2011). Improving customer-focused marketing capabilities and firm financial performance via marketing exploration and exploitation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(5), 736–756.CrossRef

Voss, G. B., & Voss, Z. G. (2008). Competitive density and the customer acquisition–retention trade-off. Journal of Marketing, 72(6), 3–18.CrossRef

Wan, W. P., & Yiu, D. W. (2009). From crisis to opportunity: Environmental jolt, corporate acquisitions, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(7), 791–801.CrossRef

Wieseke, J., Kraus, F., Ahearne, M., & Mikolon, S. (2012). Multiple identification foci and their countervailing effects on salespeople's negative headquarters stereotypes. Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 1–20.CrossRef

Wiseman, R. M. (2009). On the use and misuse of ratios in strategic management research. In D. D. Bergh, & D. J. Ketchen (Eds.), : Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 75–110.

Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data (2nd ed.). MIT Press.

Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R. J., & Griffith, D. A. (2007). An examination of exploration and exploitation capabilities: Implications for product innovation and market performance. Journal of International Marketing, 15(4), 63–93.CrossRef

Yu, T., Patterson, P. G., & de Ruyter, K. (2013). Achieving service-sales ambidexterity. Journal of Service Research, 16(1), 52–66.CrossRef

Yu, T., Patterson, P. G., & de Ruyter, K. (2015). Converting service encounters into cross-selling opportunities. European Journal of Marketing, 49(3/4), 491–511.CrossRef

Zhang, Z., Wang, M., & Shi, J. (2012). Leader-follower congruence in proactive personality and work outcomes: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 111–130.CrossRef

Title: The performance impact of marketing dualities: a response surface approach to resolving empirical challenges
Authors: Youngtak M. Kim
John R. Busenbark
Seung-Hwan Jeong
Son K. Lam
Publication date: 15-03-2022
Publisher: Springer US
Published in: Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science / Issue 5/2022
Print ISSN: 0092-0703
Electronic ISSN: 1552-7824
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-022-00848-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 5/2022

Boundary spanner corruption: a potential dark side of multi-level trust in marketing relationships

Not the relationship type? Loyalty propensity as a reason to maintain marketing relationships

Corporate lobbying and product recalls: an investigation in the U.S. medical device industry

Economic policy uncertainty and shareholder wealth: the role of marketing, operations, and R&D capabilities

Possessive brand names in brand preferences and choice: the role of inferred control

A model of online shopping cart abandonment: evidence from e-tail clickstream data