Organizational culture and relationship marketing: an interorganizational perspective.
| Autor | Larentis, Fabiano |
I Introduction
Due to its collaborative nature, Relationship Marketing between companies allows them to reach sustainable competitive advantages and higher business performance, through partnerships and complementary expertise (Gummesson, 2008; Hunt, Arnett, & Madhavaram, 2006). Nonetheless, based on the importance and practices of relationship marketing, it is important to consider the business processes associated with it.
Relationships are complex and multifaceted because they demand not only resources and partners' selection, but also the formation of trust and commitment by frequent and qualified interactions, as well as the level of cooperation and the existence or emergence of compatible values (Hunt, Arnett, & Madhavaram, 2006; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Palmatier, Dant, Grewal, & Evans, 2006). Regarding that, what happens among individuals, from different organizations, involved in these relationships? What is the role of organizational culture?
These questions are asked because the practices of relationship marketing come from the organizational area of marketing, a boundary area in companies, where individuals from different organizations interact with each other: the so-called boundary spanners (people from organizational boundaries). Boundary is a line or region which divides and set limits (Halley, 2001). Organizational culture, on the other hand, is a system of common meanings and symbols, shared in the organizational context (Alvesson, 2013). Meanings lead to the interpretation of the object/speech, and symbols to the expressions of these meanings.
The frequency and the quality of these interactions, along with the emergence mainly of trust, commitment and cooperation, can make individuals from different organizations start understanding each other in different ways, thus being able to share symbols and meanings, and the organizational culture (Alvesson, 2013). Also, organizational culture from an interorganizational perspective is noticeable: groups do not limit themselves to one organization's domain (Van Maanen & Barley, 1985). Hence, organizational cultures involved can, through particular systems of meanings and symbols, be changed because of interorganizational relationships, due to relationship marketing strategies and processes.
In that context, comprehending organizational culture is comprehending organizational life in all its richness and variation (Alvesson, 2013). Organizational culture can be specific to determined groups and contexts, not only a consistent set of symbols and meanings shared by all organizational members (Martin, Frost, & O'Neil, 2006).
Therefore, this study aims to analyze the contribution of interorganizational relationships to organizational cultural changes, through a multiple case study in two Brazilian companies. In particular, it is intended to comprehend how aspects of the relationship interfere in the system of symbols and meanings, and identify the existence of an interorganizational culture, arising from interactions.
This study is justified firstly because it connects two subject areas traditionally investigated separately. The role of organizational culture in relationship marketing is significantly under-researched, despite consensus about the importance of this topic (Iglesias, Sauquet, & Montana, 2011) Secondly, it considers the development of interorganizational relationships through cultural lenses, bearing in mind relationship marketing practices, which means the formation and presence mainly of trust and commitment (Gummesson, 2017), thus contributing to academics as well as to managers. Current studies on organizational culture interface, on an interorganizational context, normally focus more on organizational culture differences rather than on organizational culture compatibilities (Lu, Plewa, & Ho, 2016). In addition, research should consider how the firm's culture is developed from the enactment of marketing activities over time, and how divergent structures and cultures are aligned (Moorman & Day, 2016). Thirdly, an emerging market context is investigated. According to Narasimhan, Srinivasan and Sudhir (2015), research on emerging markets is increasingly critical to academics and managers, by providing managerial guidance and expanding the substantive and theoretical knowledge of markets and marketing.
2 theoretical background
2.1 Organizational culture
Culture implies a collectivity. Organizations are symbolic entities, because they work by following models implicit on their members' minds (Hofstede, 2001), which will interfere in the satisfaction of the ones involved and, consequently, in the company's performance (Gregory, Harris, Armenakis, & Shook, 2009). Culture is a historical product from a group, it affects interpretations and it guides behaviors (Alvesson, 2013; Hogan & Coote, 2014; Van Maanen & Barley, 1985; Vetrakova & Smerek, 2016; Yin, Lu, Yang, & Jing, 2014).
Cavedon (2003) deals with organizational culture as a network of meanings flowing inside and outside the organizational space, being simultaneously ambiguous, contradictory, complementary, diverse and analogous, showing the organizational homogeneity and heterogeneity. For Alvesson (2013), organizational culture is seen as a system of symbols and meanings, shared in the organizational context, in a way through which individuals define their environment, express their beliefs and make judgments. Meaning refers to the way an object or expression/speech is understood. Symbol condenses a set of meanings in a specific object and announces it in a compact way. The author stresses that culture does not necessarily establish clearness and consensus among large groups of people, but it guides them to deal with the instances of ambiguity without much anarchy. therefore, organizational culture involves symbols and meanings, by considering symbols the expression of meanings, such as in language, history, myths, rituals, ceremonies and artifacts (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008). Symbols are external sources of information and are used as representation of social and psychological processes. Rites, rituals and ceremonies are acts that shape expressions and give value to symbols. Myth, as a dramatic narrative of imagined events, usually explains origins or changes, combine the cultural shapes and consolidate them in a specific event (Strati, 1998).
Organizations are marked by social practices that can be considered cultural. These practices, however, may not represent the organization as a whole: culture is developed within work environments (Van Maanen & Barley, 1985). In this sense, Martin et al. (2006) propose four different perspectives of organizational culture: perspective of integration, perspective of differentiation, perspective of fragmentation and a three-perspective framework. In the perspective of integration, culture is a set of cultural expressions, which generate the consensus of all the organization, called unitary culture by Van Maane and Barley (1985). According to them, this happens when the members of an organization deal with the same problems and when a common system of understanding is adopted
It is questionable, however, if organizational culture is typically a characteristic of the organization as a whole, or if it is particularly of groups or subcultures inside of it (Deshpande & Webster, 1989). Organizations are marked by social practices which can be considered cultural, but these practices may be confined to specific groups, or subcultures (Van Maane & Barley, 1985), in other words, the perspective of differentiation. An organization can include culturally diverse departments and work groups (Hofstede, 2001).
In the perspective of fragmentation, the relationships among the cultural expressions are neither clearly consistent nor clearly inconsistent. They are complex and have many contradictory and troublemaking elements. Consensus would not encompass the entire organization, neither would it be specific to certain organizational subgroup. It would be transitory and specific to a determined issue, leading to short term affinities among individuals and being replaced by different models, as other questions draw attention. An organizational culture is not a solid and well-shaped whole or a stable set of subcultures, which is easy to comprehend. However, it refers to mixtures of cultural manifestations from different kinds and levels (Alvesson, 2013).
Finally, Martin et al. (2006) present a three-perspective framework, in which some values, interpretations and practices generate consensus in all the organization, others cause conflict and some have not been well defined yet. In organizations, according to them, there would be a simultaneous existence of elements of integration, conflict, power and uncertainty.
On the other hand, the development of a culture is a learning process, since the organization's founders (Dauber, Fink, & Yolles, 2012; Gagliardi, 1986) consider a set of beliefs, even in an unclear way. As certain groups learn how to deal with their problems of adaptation and integration, organizational culture develops, which is taught to new members provided it is considered and felt to be correct (Schein, 1991). Responses to an organization by its members are formulated to solve a problem and also to decrease the anxiety related to it (Gagliardi, 1986). Nonetheless, more powerful individuals and groups can influence others' interpretation about events (Lucas & Kline, 2008).
Changes in culture, besides material aspects, also include a redefinition
of meanings, but not necessarily of values and key-meanings (Alvesson, 2013; Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008). On the other hand, some aspects which are more rooted in culture are difficult to change, as well as the culture may change to remain what it has always been: changes in behavior do not necessarily mean changes in beliefs and values (Alvesson & Sveningsson, 2008; Gagliardi, 1986; Ogbonna &...
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃOCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
