Printer Friendly

The effect of marketing tactical capabilities on the financial performance of the firms: Meta-analysis approach.

Abstract

Studying the effect of marketing tactical capabilities on the financial performance of the firms is now proposed as one of the most important priorities of marketing researches. However, the results of the studies in many academic fields that are conducted about a specific issue are usually contrasting. Meta-analysis is a research approach that helps the researcher to achieve a suitable combination of quantitative results of consistent and inconsistent studies in the past. Although various researches have been conducted, such contrast is also observed in the relation between marketing tactical capabilities and financial performance. Therefore, the purpose of this article was to propose and test a comprehensive model of the relation between marketing tactical capabilities and financial performance by critical reviewing of research literature on the basis of meta-analysis approach. The results show that marketing cross-functional capabilities and marketing dynamic capabilities are effective on organizational performance; however, no relation is observed between marketing specialized capabilities and organizational performance. Also, customer performance and market performance will have a positive effect on financial performance of the firm.

Keywords

Financial performance, Marketing, Marketing tactical capabilities, Meta-analysis approach.

Introduction

Nowadays, the importance of marketing tactical capabilities in implementing the desirable decisions by managers has been increased more than ever (Kornelis et al., 2008; Leeflang, 2009). Therefore, studying the effect of marketing tactical capabilities on the financial performance of the firms is now proposed as one of the most important priorities of the marketing researches due to the importance of marketing as well as desirable performance and its value for organizations (Seggie et al., 2007). Many marketing researchers such as Morgan (2012), Gama (2011), and Snoj et al. (2007) have used one of the structure-conduct-performance theories on the basis of the dynamic resources and capabilities to propose a model which investigates the relation between marketing tactical capabilities and organizational performance. The Structure-conduct-performance theory considers the difference of the performance among the firms in terms of the ability of the firm in finding or creating and utilizing market deficiencies to decrease intensity of competition and possibility of facing with price war. According to the resource-based view, foundation of competitive advantage and performance of the firm is based on the special resources of the firm instead of the market characteristics. The dynamic capabilities theory also states that the ability to adopt methods suitable with the market environment of the firm will lead to obtain and utilize the organizational resources in order to achieve sustainable competitive advantage.

On the other hand, the results of the studies conducted about a specific academic issue are usually confusing and contrasting (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). In various researches like Menguc et al., Roach (2011), and Zahay and Griffin (2004) that have been done on the relation between marketing tactical capabilities and firms' performance, such contrast is observed. Moreover, reviewing the literature regarding marketing tactical capabilities and firms' performance reveal that many studies such as Akroush and Al-Mohammad (2010), Parnell (2011), Varadarajan (2011), and Griffith et al., (2010) have mainly been performed based on a non-comprehensive approach. In addition, no considerable research has been conducted to combine these theories to design a comprehensive framework in order to test the relations among marketing tactical capabilities and financial performance.

Therefore, the purpose of this article was to propose and test a comprehensive model of the relation between marketing tactical capabilities and financial performance by critical reviewing of the research literature on the basis of the meta-analysis approach.

Hereinafter, the theoretical foundations of the research will be discussed. In this part, the concepts related to marketing tactical capabilities, and organizational performance is presented, and then through reviewing the empirical evidences the research model will be discussed. In the next section, the steps of the meta-analysis method, as the basic method of the present article, will be evaluated, according to which hypotheses of the article will be introduced. Then, the research data will be analyzed and discussed. Finally, the last section is devoted to describe the obtained results, and also the research's practical recommendations and limitations of the article will be offered.

Literature Review

Marketing Tactical Actions

Managers deal with implementing marketing initiatives at the tactical capabilities level to increase short-term profitability. Three major kinds of knowledge-based tactical capabilities have been recognized in marketing literature at business units and the firm level: the specialized marketing capabilities, the marketing cross-functional capabilities, and the marketing dynamic capabilities (Morgan, 2012, p. 104; Gama, 2011, p. 650; Varadajan, 2011, p. 35). Marketing specialized capabilities are about specific operational processes that are used inside the firm to combine and convert the required resources (Vorhies & Morgan, 2003). Marketing literature suggests that the marketing specialized capabilities of marketing are based on traditional capabilities of "the marketing mix" that is in relation with the product, pricing, communications, and distribution (Vorhies et al., 2009). Marketing cross-functional capabilities are at a higher and more complex level than the specialized marketing capabilities, because they include combining a number of different specialized capabilities (Aaker, 2008). Three most important cases of the marketing cross-functional capabilities in marketing literature include brand management, customer relationship management, and new product development (Morgan et al., 2005; Boulding et al., 2005; Sethi et al., 2001). Marketing dynamic capabilities are the firm's ability to take part in market-based learning and applying the concluded viewpoint to recognize the resources of the firm and enhance its capabilities in a way that reflects the dynamic environment of the market (McGrath et al., 1995). Combining the marketing dynamic capabilities with the current viewpoints in the strategic marketing literature illustrates that the marketing dynamic capabilities might be composed of three main elements: market learning, resource reconfiguration, and capability enhancement (Morgan, 2012, p. 109).

Organizational Performance

Morgan (2012) and Day (1994) show that organizational performance is a multi-dimensional concept, and it can be regarded at three levels of customer performance, market performance, and financial performance in a comprehensive classification (Rego et al., 2009; Narver and Slater, 1990). Achieving marketing assets show the viewpoint of the target customers about the offered value by the firm and the payment to obtain this status has a direct effect on the firm's performance. Morgan et al. (2005) believe that market performance is another major dimension of the firm's performance. The effect on customer and the resulted improvement in marketing assets such as brand equity will affect market shares and firm's sale and through this it will be effective on competitive status of the market (Ambler et al., 2002). At the same time, although superior financial performance is not always regarded as the final purpose of all activities of the managers and investors in firms, such purpose is obviously the most important aspect of the performance of any business. Financial benefits of a special marketing action can be evaluated in several ways among which return on marketing, internal rate of return, net present value or economic value-added can be mentioned (Ehrbar, 1998). Financial effect causes to change the financial status of the firm that is measured through profit, cash flow, and other standards in order to evaluate the financial status.

Given the above-mentioned points, the conceptual framework of the effect of the marketing capabilities on the financial performance is presented in Figure 1.

Research Background

Remli et al. (2013) aimed to propose a conceptual framework to study the relationship between market orientation and organizational performance from Takaful Business's standpoint in Malaysia. Innovation was added in this research to represent the mediating factor. Apparently, the framework suggests that market orientation positively effects performance of the organization. The findings of this research show that market orientation has a positive relationship with organizational performance. Moreover, innovation has a mediation role in the relationship between market orientation and organizational performance. Rubera and Kirca (2012) employ meta-analytic techniques to integrate the fragmented literature on firm innovativeness using data obtained from 159 independent samples reported in 153 studies. The findings of the study indicate that innovativeness indirectly affects firm value through its effects on market position and financial position, consistent with the chain-of-effects model. In addition, the study also demonstrates that innovativeness has direct positive effects on financial position and firm value. Moreover, the findings of the meta-analysis suggest that prior level of performance influences subsequent levels of innovativeness, but in a positive rather than a negative way. In the research of Cano et al. (2004), a meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the impact of market orientation on business performance. The findings suggest that the relationship between market orientation and business performance is positive and consistent worldwide. One of the unique contributions of this research is a sample that includes studies conducted in 23 countries spanning five continents.

Meta-analysis Approach

As it was mentioned earlier, the purpose of this article was to investigate the effect of marketing tactical capabilities on the financial performance of the firms by means of meta-analysis approach. Meta-analysis is a research approach that helps the researcher to achieve a suitable combination of the results of consistent and inconsistent studies in the past, explain the contrasts, and identify the structural moderating variables in the results of previous studies (Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). Meta-analysis approach in this research was implemented in seven phases (Ortega, 2011; Bronestein et al., 2009; Ghazi Tabatabaee & Dadhir, 2011; Houman, 2009). Here, the seven steps of the meta-analysis approach in the present article will be explained.

Step One: Definition of Research Variables

In the first phase, independent and dependent variables were determined (Ortega, 2011; Bronestein et al., 2009; Ghazi Tabatabaee & Dadhir, 2011; Houman, 2009). The independent variable in the accomplished meta-analysis was the marketing tactical capabilities in the firms. The dependent variable was the firms' performance (Harmancioglu, 2010; Snoj et al. 2009; Green et al., 2008; Hughes and Morgan, 2007; Zahay and Griffin, 2004; Baker and Sinkula, 1999). Different dimensions and indexes of the marketing tactical capabilities and organizational performance are shown briefly in Table 1.

Step Two: Collecting Previous Researches

A report of previous studies was collected in the second phase (Ghazi Tabatabaee & Dadhir, 2011; Houman, 2009). The numbers of the articles collected are given respectively in Tables 2 and 3.

StepThree: Selecting Available Researches

The suitable studies in the statistical population were selected in the third phase (Ghazi Tabatabaee & Dadhir, 2011; Houman, 2009). Considering the standards of meta-analysis approach, some of these studies are not suitable. The characteristics caused the exclusion of identified researches from the meta-analysis process, and the numbers of the researches that have been excluded in terms of these characteristics are given in Table 4.

Therefore, the remaining numbers of the researches having the features to be included in meta-analysis were obtained as 220 articles.

Given that the number of the suitable studies was high and at the same time it was not possible for the researcher to study all of them in terms of time, the stratified random sampling was used to select the sample. Finally, one hundred forty two articles were selected as the sample size. Number of the collected studies from each resource is shown separately in Table 5.

The point that should be noted is that the presented articles have usually reported more than one effect size. The articles used in Meta-analysis process have included 1033 effect sizes.

Step Four: Collecting the required data from the selected articles

In the fourth phase, the required information was collected from each study. List of the information that must be collected from the reports is divided into two classes (Ghazi Tabatabaee & Dadhir, 2011; Houman, 2009): 1- the general information about the articles, and 2-the required information to calculate the effect size. List of the required information is presented in Table 6.

Step Five: Calculating the Effect Size

The effect size calculate in the phase five (Ortega, 2011; Bronestein et al., 2009; Ghazi Tabatabaee & Dadhir, 2011; Houman, 2009). The calculated effect size in this research will be the effect size r. The formulas to convert the statistic into effect size r are based on Table 7.

Step Six: Evaluating Homogeneity or Heterogeneity of the Effect Sizes

The existing homogeneity and heterogeneity in effect sizes were evaluated in phase six (Ortega, 2011; Ghazi Tabatabaee & Dadhir, 2011; Houman, 2009). According to the explanations above, results of the studies related to the effect of the marketing tactical capabilities on the organizational performance are not consistent. Hence, according to this theory, the calculated effect sizes in different studies must be different and divergent from each other. The statistic [Q.sub.t], variance, chi-square test, and visual observation of the effect sizes are usually used to determine the homogeneity or heterogeneity of the effect size (Ortega, 2011).

Step Seven: Calculating the Combined Effect Size

Finally, the last phase shows the strength of the relation among indexes of the marketing tactical capabilities and the financial performance. Statistical estimation z using the formula below has been suggested for testing the hypothesis above (Littell et al., 2008; Ghazi Tabatabaee & Dadhir, 2011):

[Z.sub.r] [+ or -][t.sub.(0.05)] S/[square root of K]

[Z.sub.r]: non-weighted average of z fishers converted from r

[T.sub.(0.05)]: the requited amount of t for two-way P-value (0.05) for k-1

K: number of the studies from which [Z.sub.r] has been calculated

S: standard deviation of the calculated [Z.sub.r]

If the calculated confidence interval includes zero, it can be claimed that the effect size, which shows the relation between two variables, is not significant. If mean of the calculated effect size is positive, the relation between the two variables is positive and if it is negative, the relation is negative too (Schunk & Schrader, 1993). Correlation coefficients less than 0.1 (>-0.1) are considered as small coefficients, correlation coefficients between 0.1 and 0.3 (between - 0.1 and 0.3) are considered as moderate correlation coefficients, and those higher than 0.3 (<-0.3) are considered as large correlation coefficients (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004, p. 161). Thus, it can be stated that if the mean of the effect size is at the middle and large level, the relation is confirmed and if it is at the small level, the relation is not conformed (Ortega, 2011; Ghazi Tabatabaee & Dadhir, 2011; Houman, 2009).

Research Hypotheses

Marketing tactical capabilities aim to fulfill the market-related needs of the business, allowing the firms to provide superior added value and to adapt better to changing market conditions (Tsai & Shih, 2004; Weerawardena, 2003). A growing number of the studies have emphasized the role of the marketing tactical capabilities in achieving and sustaining the competitive advantage (e.g., Song et al., 2008). In addition, as noted previously, Hunt and Morgan (1995) argue, "a comparative advantage in the marketing tactical capabilities, then, can translate into a competitive advantage in the marketplace and the superior financial performance". Therefore, the primary hypothesis of this research is as follows:

* There is a relationship between marketing tactical capabilities and organizational performance.

The literature suggests that specialized marketing capabilities are based around the classical "marketing mix" of activities concerned with product, pricing, communications, and distribution (Vorhies et al., 2009). Superior product management capabilities should positively affect firm performance (Roach, 2011). Price management capability is a significant predictor of the firm's performance (Tooksoon and Mohamad, 2010). The capability in managing promotion is the factor that contributes to the higher in organization performance. The positive relationship shows that firms that build its competitiveness based on its combined promotional efforts with its channel partners will register higher performance (Shamsuddoha & Ali, 2006). Therefore, the sub-hypotheses one to three are as below:

1. There is a relationship between marketing specialized capabilities and customer performance.

2. There is a relationship between marketing specialized capabilities and market performance.

3. There is a relationship between marketing specialized capabilities and financial performance.

Three of the most important cross-functional marketing capabilities identified in the extant literature are: brand management, customer relationship management, and new product development (Morgan, 2012). Firms with strong brand management capabilities are likely to enjoy higher revenue growth rates through the attraction of new customers (Morgan et al., 2009). Moreover, the innovation literature has indicated that a formidable relationship exists between new product development and organization performance. As such, the more value the new product provides, the more satisfied and loyal a firm's customers. The higher the value its customers perceive, the more likely the firm's customers will perceive the new product as being of higher quality, which in turn leads to increased performance (Cheng and Krumwiede, 2010). Firms with strong customer relationship management capabilities should focus their resources on those customers who are the most profitable and those who represent a high potential for future profits. As a result, such firms should be able to increase their performance at a higher rate by continually lowering the average cost of serving customers (Bolton et al., 2004). Therefore, the sub-hypotheses four to six are as follows:

4. There is a relationship between marketing cross-functional capabilities and customer performance.

5. There is a relationship between marketing cross-functional capabilities and market performance.

6. There is a relationship between marketing cross-functional capabilities and financial performance.

The literature suggests numerous reasons to expect that market-sensing capabilities may be linked with firms' performance. Superior market-sensing capabilities allow a firm to identify underserved segments and those where its rivals' offerings may not be fulfilling customer and channel requirements (Slater & Narver, 2000). These underserved and/or unsatisfied segments provide good targets for the firm's efforts to increase performance by attracting new customers (Hult, 2005). Superior market sensing allows a firm to learn more and learn faster about customer and competitor reactions to its performance enhancement efforts, providing insights that are necessary to allow the firm to increase the rate at which such growth outcomes are achieved (Slater and Narver, 2000). Therefore, the sub-hypotheses seven to nine are as follows:

7. There is a relationship between marketing dynamic capabilities and customer performance.

8. There is a relationship between marketing dynamic capabilities and market performance.

9. There is a relationship between marketing dynamic capabilities and financial performance.

Meanwhile, firm's improved customer and market performance will positively affect their financial performance. This is because higher levels of customer satisfaction increase customer loyalty. As such, because loyal customers are less sensitive to price changes, firms can offer premium prices, leading to a higher profit or market share. In addition, the positive reputation that results from higher levels of market performance enables the firm to attract new customers and, as a result, increase a firm's profit (Prince and Simon 2009). Therefore, the sub-hypotheses ten to twelve are as follows:

10. There is a relationship between customer performance and market performance.

11. There is a relationship between customer performance and financial performance.

12. There is a relationship between market performance and financial performance.

Data Analysis

Confidence interval and weighted mean of the effect size related to the sub-hypotheses one to three are presented in Table 8.

Confidence interval and the effect size of the marketing specialized capabilities on the customer performance are in the positive range (0.083, 0.312) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weight mean of the effect size is equal to 0.113. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the moderate effect sizes (between 0.1 and 0.3). Thus the sub-hypothesis one cannot be rejected. It means that there is a relationship between the marketing specialized capabilities and the customer performance. Confidence interval and the effect size of the marketing specialized capabilities on the market performance are in the positive range (0.158, 0.321) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weight mean of the effect size is equal to 0.064. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the small effect sizes (smaller than 0.1). Thus, the sub-hypothesis two is not accepted. It means that there is not a relationship between the marketing specialized capabilities and the market performance. Confidence interval and the effect size of the marketing specialized capabilities on the financial performance are in the positive range (0.1, 0.207) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.046. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the small effect sizes (smaller than 0.1). Thus, the sub-hypothesis three is not accepted. It means that there is not a relationship between the marketing specialized capabilities and the financial performance.

Confidence interval and weighted mean of the effect size related to the sub-hypotheses four to six are shown in Table 9.

Confidence interval and the effect size of the marketing cross-functional capabilities on the customer performance are in the positive range (0.174, 0.256) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.215. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the moderate effect sizes (between 0.1 and 0.3). Thus, the sub-hypothesis four cannot be rejected. It means that there is a relationship between the marketing cross-functional capabilities and the customer performance. Confidence interval and the effect size of the marketing cross-functional capabilities on the market performance are in the positive range (0.098, 0.562) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.293. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the moderate effect sizes (between 0.1 and 0.3). Thus, the sub-hypothesis five cannot be rejected. It means that there is a relationship between the marketing cross-functional capabilities and the market performance. Confidence interval and the effect size of the marketing cross-functional capabilities on the financial performance are in the positive range (0.101, 0.284) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.166. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the moderate effect sizes (between 0.1 and 0.3). Thus the sub-hypothesis six cannot be rejected. It means that there is a relationship between the marketing cross-functional capabilities and the financial performance.

Confidence interval and the weighted mean of the effect size related to the sub-hypotheses seven to nine are presented in Table 10.

Confidence interval and the effect size of the marketing dynamic capabilities on the customer performance are in the positive range (0.085, 0.259) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.144. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the moderate effect sizes (between 0.1 and 0.3). Thus the sub-hypothesis seven cannot be rejected. It means that there is a relationship between the marketing dynamic capabilities and the customer performance. Confidence interval and the effect size of the cross marketing dynamic capabilities on the market performance are in the positive range (0.146, 0.372) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.233. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the moderate effect sizes

(between 0.1 and 0.3). Thus, the sub-hypothesis eight cannot be rejected. It means that there is a relationship between the marketing dynamic capabilities and the market performance. Confidence interval and the effect size of the marketing dynamic capabilities on the financial performance are in the positive range (0.015, 0.163) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.081. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the small effect sizes (smaller than 0.1). Thus, the sub-hypothesis nine is not accepted. It means that there is not a relationship between the marketing dynamic capabilities and the financial performance.

Confidence interval and the weighted mean of the effect size related to the sub-hypotheses ten to twelve are shown in Table 11.

Confidence interval and the effect size of the customer performance on the market performance are in the positive range (0.133, 0.235) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.207. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the moderate effect sizes (between 0.1 and 0.3). Thus, the sub-hypothesis ten cannot be rejected. It means that there is a relationship between the customer performance and the market performance. Confidence interval and the effect size of the customer performance on the financial performance are in the positive range (0.154, 0.242) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.199. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the moderate effect sizes (between 0.1 and 0.3). Thus, the sub-hypothesis eleven cannot be rejected. It means that there is a relationship between the customer performance and the financial performance. Confidence interval and the effect size of the market performance on the financial performance are in the positive range (0.015, 0.163) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.29. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the moderate effect sizes (between 0.1 and 0.3). Thus, the sub-hypothesis twelve cannot be rejected. It means that there is a relationship between the market performance and the financial performance.

Finally, confidence interval and the weighted mean of the effect size related to the main hypothesis are presented in Table 12.

Confidence interval and the effect size of the marketing tactical capabilities on the organizational performance are in the positive range (0.191, 0.231) and do not contain zero. Similarly, the weighted mean of the effect size is equal to 0.14. The obtained combined effect size is at the level of the moderate effect sizes (between 0.1 and 0.3). Thus, the main hypothesis of the research cannot be rejected. It means that there is a relationship between the marketing tactical capabilities and the organizational performance.

Discussion

Marketing tactical capabilities are complex processes that involve combining the market knowledge and organizational resources to generate added value. Hunt and Morgan (1995) argue, "a comparative advantage in the marketing tactical capabilities, then, can translate into a competitive advantage in the marketplace and superior financial performance". This research also focused on the relationship between the marketing tactical capabilities and the financial performance by using the meta-analysis approach (Morgan et al., 2012; Varadajan, 2011; Rust et al., 2004; Bolton, 2004).

The results demonstrate that the marketing specialized capabilities have a positive effect on the customer performance, while the relation between the marketing specialized capabilities and the market performance and financial performance is not confirmed. These results are consistent with Roach (2011) and Aaker (2008). A specialized marketing capability is one of the capabilities that have been identified to support a sustainable competitive advantage of the firm. Specialized marketing capabilities including the market segmentation, product quality, pricing strategy, dealer support, and advertising were found to be significantly associated with the organization performance (Leonidou et al., 2002).

Also, there is a positive relation among the marketing cross-functional capabilities and the three indexes of the customer performance, market performance, and financial performance. These results are consistent with Ramaswami et al. (2009) and Lai and Cheng (2003). Marketing cross-functional capabilities facilitates identification of the specific customer needs. Consequently, the marketing cross-functional capabilities are essential for optimal value creation that enhance the customer satisfaction and subsequently the market and financial performance of the firm (Matanda et al., 2009).

Marketing dynamic capabilities have a positive relation with the customer performance and market performance; however, no relation was observed between the marketing dynamic capabilities and the financial performance. These results are consistent with Akroush and Al-Mohammad (2010) and Baker and Sinkula (1991). Marketing dynamic capabilities allows the firm to learn more and faster about the customer and competitor reactions to its past revenue enhancement efforts (Morgan et al., 2009). From the performance perspective, superior marketing dynamic capabilities allow the firm to identify underserved segments. These underserved and/or unsatisfied segments also provide good targets for attracting new customers (Morgan et al. 2005).

Ultimately, based on the results of the present article, enhancement of the customer performance and the market performance can increase the financial performance. These results are consistent with Morgan (2012) and Varadarajan (2012). While the audits and market orientation look at activities, the marketing assets are the consequence of activities that help to build the customer franchise over time. Customer results are then the nearest outcome and also the link between the market and financial performance (Doyle, 2000).

Managerial Implications

Many marketing researchers (e.g., Morgan, 2012; Gama, 2011; and Snoj et al. 2007) have used one of the structure-conduct-performance theories on the basis of the dynamic resources and capabilities to propose a model that investigates the relation between the marketing tactical capabilities and the organizational performance. Thus, reviewing the research literature reveals that many intended studies have mainly been performed based on a non-comprehensive approach and no considerable research has already been conducted comprehensively to combine these theories to design a comprehensive framework in order to test the relations among the marketing tactical capabilities and the financial performance. In addition, the results of the various conducted studies such as Akroush and Al-Mohammad (2010), Varadarajan (2011), and Griffith et al. (2010) are not consistent: There is a high disagreement about the claim whether the marketing tactical capabilities can have a desirable effect on the firms' performance or not. Therefore, it was tried in this article to propose and test the comprehensive model of the relation between the marketing tactical capabilities and the financial performance. According to meta-analysis approach and the obtained results from previous studies, a final result was obtained with a high degree of confidence about existence or nonexistence of the relation among the indexes of marketing tactical capabilities and financial performance.

According to the obtained results, it is suggested to managers of the firms to take action to enhance the marketing cross-functional capabilities and marketing dynamic capabilities in order to improve the financial performance. Paying special attention to modern topics of marketing such as the customer relationship management, brand management, and new product development is one of the strategies suggested to develop the cross-functional marketing capabilities. Moreover, trying for optimized management of marketing information, establishment of the organizational learning culture, and improvement of the market knowledge of employees are among the most important strategies suggested to enhance the dynamic marketing capabilities.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations of this study are now put forward. First, the selection bias may be a limitation of the study. Although diligence was exercised to reduce the selection bias, this threat is inherent to the nature of meta-analysis. Second, other variables not directly tested in this study like the marketing strategic capabilities or the marketing resources have been theorized as affecting the firm performance. Third, although a positive relationship exists between the marketing tactical capabilities and the firm performance, an assessment of the causality is not addressed in this study. To address some of these limitations, the following research areas are proposed.

It is suggested that future researchers investigate the effect of other marketing capabilities like the marketing strategic capabilities and also various resources of marketing on the performance of the firms using the meta-analysis approach. Another suggestion is to use the meta-analysis approach to identify the most important moderating variables of the relation between the marketing capabilities and the performance like the characteristics of research topic.

References

Aaker, D. A. (2008). Spanning Silos: The New CMO Imperative. Cambridge: Harvard Business School.

Akroush, Mamoun N. & S. M. Al-Mohammad (2010). "The effect of marketing knowledge management on organizational performance: An empirical investigation of thetelecommunications organizations in Jordan". International Journal of EmergingMarkets, 5(1), 38-77.

Ambler, Tim,; C.B. Bhattacharya,; J. Edell,; K. L. Keller,; K. N. Lemon & V. Mittal (2002). "Relating brand and customer perspectives on marketing management". Journal of Service Research, 5, 13-25.

Baker, W. E. & J. M. Sinkula (1999). "The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance', Academy of Marketing Science". Journal, 27(4), 411-427.

Bolton, R. N. (2004). "Linking marketing to financial performance and firm value". Journal of Marketing, 68, 73-75.

Bornestein, M.; Hedges, L. V.; Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Jhon Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Boulding, W.; R. Staelin,; M. Ehret & W. J. Johnston (2005) "A customer relationship roadmap: What is known, potential pitfalls, and where to go". Journal of Marketing, 69(4), 155-166.

Cano, C. R.; F. A. Carrillat & F.Jaramillo (2004). "A meta-analysis of the relationship between market orientation and business performance: evidence from five continents". International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21(3), 179-200.

Cheng, Colin C. & D. Krumwiede, (2010), "The effects of market orientation and service innovation on service industry performance: An empirical study". Operation Management Research, 3, 161-171.

Day, G. S. (1994). "The capabilities of market-driven companies". Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37-51.

Doyle, P. (2000). "Valuing marketing's contribution". European Management Journal, 18(3), 46-233.

Gama, A. P. D. (2011). "An expanded model of marketing performance". Marketing Intelligence &Planning, 29(7), 643 - 661.

Ghazi Tabatabaee, M. & A. Dadhir (2011). Meta-analysis in Social and Behavioral Studies. Tehran: Sociologists publications, Social and Cultural Studies Department, Tehran Municipality.

Green, K. W.; D. Whitten & R. A. Inman (2008). "The impact of logistics performance on organizational performance in a supply chain context". Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 317-327.

Griffith, D. A.; G. Yalcinkaya & R. J. Calantone (2010), "Do marketing capabilities consistently mediate effects of firm intangible capital on performance across institutional environments?". Journal of World Business, 45, 217-227.

Harmancioglu, N.; A. Grinstein & A. Goldman (2010). "Innovation and performance outcomes of market information collection efforts: The role of top management team involvement". International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27, 33-43.

Houman, H.A. (2009). "Practical Guide of Meta-Analysis in Scientific Research, Tehran: SAMT Publications". Research and Development Center of Human Arts.

Hughes, M. & R. E. Morgan (2007). "Deconstructing the relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and business performance at the embryonic stage of firm growth". Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 651-661.

Hult, G. T.; D. J. Ketchen & S. F. Slater, (2005). "Market orientation and performance: An integration of disparate approaches", Strategic Management Journal, 26(12), 1173-1181.

Hunt, S. D. & R.M. Morgan (1995). "The comparative advantage theory of competition". Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1-15.

Hunter, J. & F. Schmidt, (2004). Methods of Meta-Analysis: Correcting Error and Bias in Research Findings. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.

Kornelis, M.; M. G. Dekimpe & P. S. H. Leeflang (2008). "Does competitive entry structurally change key marketing metrics". International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25(3), 173-182.

Lai, K. & T. C. E. Cheng (2003). "Supply chain performance in transport logistics: an assessment by service providers". International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applications, 6(3), 152-64.

Leeflang P, T.; Bijmolt, J.; Doorn, D.; Hanssens, V. P.; Van herder and J. & Wirenja (2009). "Creating Lift versus building the base: Current trends in marketing dynamics". International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26, 13-20.

Leonidou, L. C.; C. S. Katsikeas & S. Samiee (2002). "Marketing strategy determinants of export performance: A meta-analysis". Journal of Business Research, 55, 51-67.

Littell, G.H., J. Corcoran & V. Pillai, (2008). Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Matanda, M. J. & N. O. Ndubisi (2009). "Market orientation, supplier perceived value and business performance of SMEs in a Sub-Saharan African nation". Enterprise Information Management, 22(4), 384-407.

McGrath, R. G.; I. C. MacMillan & S. Venkatraman (1995). "Defining and developing competence: A strategic process paradigm". Strategic Management Journal, 16(2), 251-275.

Morgan, N. A. & R. J. Slotegraaf (2012). Marketing Capabilities for B2B Firms. In G. L. Lillien& R. Grewal (Eds.), The B2B marketing handbook. Northampton: Edward Elgar.

Morgan, N. A.; D. W. Vorhies & C. Mason (2009). "Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and firm performance". Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 909-920.

Morgan, N. A.; E. W. Anderson & V. Mittal (2005). "Understanding firms' customer satisfaction information usage". Journal of Marketing, 69(3), 131-151.

Narver, J. & S. Slater (1990). "The effect of market orientation on business profitability". Journal of Marketing, 54, 20-35.

Ortega, L. (2011). Doing Synthesis and Meta-Analysis in Applied Linguistics. Invited Workshop at TsingHua University, Taipei.

Parnell, J. A. (2011). "Strategic capabilities, competitive strategy, and performance among retailers in Argentina, Peru and the United States". Management Decision, 49(1), 130-155.

Prince, J. & D. Simon, (2009). "Multimarket contact and service quality: evidence from on-time performance in the U.S. airline industry". AcadManag, 52, 336-354.

Ramaswami, S. N.; R. K. Srivastava & M. Bhargava (2009), "Market-based capabilities and financial performance of firms: insights into marketing's contribution to firm value". Journal of the Academic Marketing Science, 37, 97-116.

Rego, L. L.; M. T. Billett & N. A. Morgan (2009). "Consumerbased brand equity and firm risk". Journal of Marketing, 73(6), 47-60.

Remli, N.; W. N. Wan Daud; F. A. Zainol & M. Hamizah (2013). "A proposed conceptual framework for market orientation and innovation towards Takaful performance in Malaysia". International Journal of Business and Management, 8(7), 100-105.

Roach, D. C. (2011), "The impact of product management on SME firm performance". Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship, 13(1), 85-104.

Rosenthal R. & M. R. DiMatteo (2001). "Meta analysis: Recent developments in quantitative methods for literature reviews". Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59-82.

Rubera, G. & A. H,.Kirca (2012). "Firm innovativeness and its performance outcomes: A meta-analytic review and theoretical integration". Journal of Marketing, 76(3), 130-147.

Rust R. T.; T. Ambler; S. Georgy; V. K. Carpenter & R. K. Srivastava (2004). "Measuring marketing productivity: Current knowledge and future directions". Journal of Marketing, 68, 76-89.

Seggie S. H.; E. Cavusgil & S. E. Phelan (2007). "Measurement of return on marketing investment: A conceptual framework and the future of marketing metrics". Industrial Marketing Management, 36, 834-841.

Sethi, R.; D. C. Smith & C. W. Park (2001). "Cross-functional product development teams, creativity and the innovativeness of new consumer products". Journal of Marketing Research, 38(1), 73-85.

Snoj, B.; B. Milfelner & V. Gabrijan (2007). "An examination of the relationships among market orientation, innovation resources, reputational resources, and company performance in the transitional economy of Slovenia". Canadian Journal of Administrative Science, 24(3), 151-164.

Song, M.; R. W. Nason & C. A. Di Benedetto (2008). "Distinctive marketing and information technology capabilities and strategic types: A crossnational investigation". Journal of International Marketing, 61(1), 4-38.

Tooksoon, P. & M. Osman, (2010). "Marketing capability and export Pperformance: The moderating effect of export dependence". The South East Asian Journal of Management, 5(1), 39-52.

Tsai, M. T. & C. M. Shih (2004). "The impact of marketing knowledge among managers on marketing capabilities and business performance". International Journal of Management, 21(4), 524-530.

Varadarajan, R. (2011). "Marketing strategy: discerning the relative influence of product and firm characteristics". AMS Rev, 1, 32-43.

Vorhies, D. W. & N. A. Morgan (2003). "A configuration theory assessment of marketing organization fit with strategic type and its relationship with marketing performance". Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 100-15.

Vorhies, D. W.; R. E. Morgan & C. W. Autry (2009). "Product-market strategy and the marketing capabilities of the firm: Impact on market effectiveness and cash flow performance". Strategic Management Journal, 30(12), 1310-1334.

Weerawardena, J. (2003). "The role of marketing capability in innovationbased competitive strategy". Journal of Strategic Marketing, 11(1), 15-36.

Zahay, D. & A. Griffin (2004). "Customer learning processes, strategy selection, and performance in business-to-business service firms". Decision Sciences, 35(2), 169-203.

Bagher Asgarnezhad Nouri (*), Ali Sanayei, Saeed Fathi, Ali Kazemi

Department of Management, School of Administrative Sciences and Economics, University of Isfahan, Iran

(*) Corresponding Author

E-mail: b.asgarnezhad@gmail.com

(Received: 27 August 2013; Revised: 15 December 2013; Accepted: 7 January2014)

Table 1. Index of research variables framework

Variables           Main Aspects

                    Marketing Specialized
                    Capabilities
Marketing Tactical  Marketing Cross-Functional
Capabilities        Capabilities

                    Marketing Dynamic
                    Capabilities

                    Customer Performance


Organizational      Market Performance
Performance

                    Financial Performance



Variables           Sub-Dimensions

                    Product, Price, Promotion,
                    Distribution, After Sale Service.
Marketing Tactical  New Product Development, Brand
Capabilities        Management, Customer Relationship
                    Management.
                    Market Information Management,
                    Market Learning, Resource
                    Reconfiguration.
                    Customer Retention, Customer
                    Satisfaction, New Customer
                    Acquisition, Customer Loyalty.
Organizational      Sales Income, Sales Volume, Market
Performance         Share.
                    Profitability, Profit Margin, Earning
                    before Interest and Tax (EBIT),
                    Return on Investment (ROI), Cost
                    Management.

Sorce: Morgan et al., 2012; Varadajan, 2011; Rust et al., 2004; Bolton,
2004.

Table 2. The number of the articles collected from different scientific
sources

Article Source                     Number of Articles

Searching in Electronic Databases  537
References of the Researches       128
Total                              665

Table 3. Electronic databases and the number of the articles collected
from them

Database        Number of the articles

ProQuest        206
Springer         48
Science Direct  118
Emerald          83
Google           50
Magiran          18
Total           523

Table 4. Reasons for exclusion of articles from the statistical
population

Reasons for Exclusion                        The Number of
                                             Unusable Articles

When information necessary for calculating
the effect size is not provided              175
When the article, for measuring marketing
activities and organizational performance,
has used inappropriate indicators             72
When the relationship between the dependent
and independent variables has been measured
qualitatively and non-statistically           56
Total                                        303

Table 5. Databases and the usable, unusable, and selected articles
(1993-2013)

Database        Unusable Articles  Usable Articles  Selected Articles

ProQuest        118                 88               63
Springer         19                 29               14
Science Direct   77                 41               26
Emerald          48                 35               22
Google           33                 17                8
Magiran           8                 10                9
Total           303                220              142

Table 6. List of the required information

General Information of Studies    Information Related to
                                  Effect Size Calculation

                                  Correlation Coefficient,
                                  Adjusted [R.dup.2], P-Value,
Research Title, Researcher Name,  t-Statistics, z-Statistics,
                                  Mean of Control Group, Mean
Journal Name.                     of Experimental Group,
                                  Pooled Variance of Groups,
                                  Pooled Standard
                                  deviation of Groups.

Sorce: Ghazi Tabatabaee & Dadhir, 2011; Houman, 2009

Table 7. Calculation of effect size for different methods of research
and data analysis

Research
Method              Analysis Approach     Analysis Tool

                                          Regression
Correlation         Regression            Equation
                    Correlation           Pearson
Correlation         Coefficient           Coefficient
Difference of       Difference of Mean    [M.sub.1]-[M.sub.2]<>0
Two Population
Difference of       Difference of Mean    [M.sub.1]-[M.sub.2]<>0
Two Population
Experts Opinion     Mean of Relationship  Average Test
                                          Regression
Correlation         Regression            Equation
Difference of
MultiplePopulation  Analysis of Variance  Variance

Research            Statistics
Method
                    t

Correlation         r

Correlation         t
Difference of
Two Population      z
Difference of
Two Population      t
Experts Opinion     [R.sup.2]

Correlation
Difference of       F
MultiplePopulation

Research            r Calculation
Method
                    [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]

Correlation         Effect Size equal to r

Correlation         [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
Difference of
Two Population
Difference of
Two Population      [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
Experts Opinion

Correlation
Difference of       [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
MultiplePopulation

Sorce: Ortega, 2011; Ghazi Tabatabaee&Dadhir, 2011; Houman, 2009)

Table 8. Confidence interval and weighted means of the effect size
related to the Sub-hypotheses one to three

Index of Marketing     Index of     Confidence Interval of
Tactical Capabilities  Performance  the Effect Size

Marketing Specialized  Customer     (0.083,0.312)
  Capabilities         Performance
Marketing Specialized  Market       (0.158,0.321)
  Capabilities         Performance
Marketing Specialized  Financial    (0.1,0.207)
  Capabilities         Performance

Index of Marketing     Weighted Mean of
Tactical Capabilities  the Effect Size

Marketing Specialized  0.113
  Capabilities
Marketing Specialized  0.064
  Capabilities
Marketing Specialized  0.046
  Capabilities

Table 9. Confidence interval and weighted mean of the effect size
related to the secondary hypotheses four to six

Index of Marketing          Index of     Confidence Interval
Tactical Capabilities       Performance  of the Effect Size

Marketing Cross-Functional  Customer     (0.174,0.256)
Capabilities                Performance
Marketing Cross-Functional  Market       (0.098,0.562)
Capabilities                Performance
Marketing Cross-Functional  Financial    (0.101,0.284)
Capabilities                Performance

Index of Marketing          Weighted Mean of
Tactical Capabilities       the Effect Size

Marketing Cross-Functional  0.215
Capabilities
Marketing Cross-Functional  0.293
Capabilities
Marketing Cross-Functional  0.166
Capabilities

Table 10. Confidence interval and weighted mean of the effect size
related to the sub-hypotheses seven to nine

Index of Marketing     Index of     Confidence Interval
Tactical Capabilities  Performance  of the Effect Size

Marketing Dynamic      Customer     (0.085,0.259)
Capabilities           Performance
Marketing Dynamic      Market       (0.146,0.372)
Capabilities           Performance
Marketing Dynamic      Financial    (0.015,0.163)
Capabilities           Performance

Index of Marketing     Weighted Mean of
Tactical Capabilities  the Effect Size

Marketing Dynamic      0.215
Capabilities
Marketing Dynamic      0.293
Capabilities
Marketing Dynamic      0.166
Capabilities

Table 11. Confidence interval and weighted mean of the effect size
related to the sub-hypotheses ten to twelve

Index of     Index of     Confidence Interval of  Weighted Mean of
Performance  Performance  the Effect Size         the Effect Size

Customer     Market       (0.133,0.235)           0.207
Performance  Performance
Customer     Financial    (0.154,0.242)           0.199
Performance  Performance
Market       Financial    (0.015,0.163)           0.29
Performance  Performance

Table 12. Confidence interval and weighted mean of the effect size
related to the main hypotheses

Index of Marketing  Index of        Confidence Interval
Actions             Performance     of the Effect Size

Marketing Tactical  Organizational  (0.191,0.231)
Capabilities        Performance

Index of Marketing  Weighted Mean of the
Actions             Effect Size

Marketing Tactical  0.14
Capabilities
COPYRIGHT 2015 University of Tehran, Farabi College
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2015 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Nouri, Bagher Asgarnezhad; Sanayei, Ali; Fathi, Saeed; Kazemi, Ali
Publication:Iranian Journal of Management Studies
Article Type:Report
Date:Jan 1, 2015
Words:7453
Previous Article:Islamic project financing in Pakistan: Current challenges and opportunities ahead.
Next Article:On the effects of organizational culture on organizational performance: An Iranian experience in state bank branches.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2018 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters