84420149.pdf

7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

1/25

DYNAMIC MARKETING STRATEGY, MARKETING COMPETITIVENESS, MARKETING SUCCESS,AND MARKETING PERFORMANCE: EVIDENCE FROM HOME DECORATION EXPORTING

BUSINESSES IN THAILAND

Rapheephan Phong-inwong, Mahasarakham Business School, Mahasarakham University, ThailandPhapruke Ussahawanitchakit, Mahasarakham Business School, Mahasarakham University, Thailand

Karun Pratoom, Mahasarakham Business School, Mahasarakham University, Thailand

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships among five dimensions of dynamic marketingstrategy, new product development efficiency, business marketing excellence, customer value creativity,marketing competitiveness, marketing success, marketing performance, executive aggressive vision,marketing resource readiness, marketing experience, changing customer preference, competitiveenvironment instability, via organization marketing culture and marketing leadership. Dynamic marketingstrategy consists of marketing learning focus, proactive customer orientation, product innovationawareness, intelligent technology utilization and stakeholder responsive willingness. Here, 314 homedecoration exporting businesses in Thailand were chosen as the sample of the study. The results of thisstudy indicate that five dimensions of dynamic marketing strategy has a significant positive association

with marketing outcomes (marketing competitiveness, marketing success and marketingperformance).Surprisingly, Potential discussion with the research results is effectively implemented in thestudy. Theoretical and managerial contributions are explicitly provided. Conclusion, suggestions anddirections of the future research are recommended..Keywords: Dynamic marketing strategy; marketing learning focus; proactive customer orientation;

product innovation awareness; intelligent technology utilization; stakeholder responsive willingness; newproduct development efficiency; business marketing excellence; customer value creativity; marketingcompetitiveness; marketing success; marketing performance; executive aggressiveness vision; marketingresource readiness; marketing experience; changing customer preference; competitive environmentinstability; organization marketing culture and marketing leadership

1. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays, the fast-moving business environments open to global competition so the firms must adaptand change in accordance with the situation changes (Dreyer and Gronhaug, 2004). Accordingly,organization prepared to bring strategic orientation (marketing orientation and innovation orientation) thatboth employee commitment and firm performance (Zhou, Gao, Yang and Zhou (2005). In addition, firmsmust focuses on dynamic capabilities as reconfiguration of resources within firms including generating anew application from those resources. So the consequences of dynamic capabilities lead to determinantof competitive advantage (Eisenhardt and Martin (2000). However, in previous literature review, mostscholars suggested that firms should concentrate on both the internal and external organizational factoras the strategic renewal useful in the highlight of the marketing performance success (Morgan et al.,2009; Prashantham, 2008; Dreyer and Gronhaug, 2004). Hence, in the era of globalization, organizationhas to integrate strategy and dynamic included searching for strategies to improve performance withoutsacrificing quality.

The previous research shows that firm leads to firm survival because executive of business encouragesproactive vision and long term vision (Brush, 2008; Gluck, 1981). Moreover, firm focused marketingexperience and searching know-how as firm have marketing readiness. Firms have intangible resourceand imperfectly imitable resources help firm excellence operation (Junarsin, 2010; Barney, 1991;Wernerfelt,1984). In addition, firm created relationship with customers and firm have true information ofcustomer which both are help the organization repaired the past operation planning more thancompetitors planning (Tajeddini and Trueman, 2008) Likewise, firm searched customer preference andfirm responded customer need on time, so this activities help customer commitment to business (Mu etal.,2009). On the other hand, uncertainty of external environment supported firm to adaptive production

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF BUSINESS STRATEGY, Volume 12, Number 4, 2012 83

7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

2/25

and repaired present operation planning. Thus, uncertainty of external environment encourages firmcreated know-how and leads firm to dynamic marketing strategy (Tynan and Mckechnie,2009;Yang,2009; Lieberman and Montgomery,1981).

In the area of marketing strategy, most scholars found that firm success in the era globalization. Firmmust focused on dynamic capabilities as reconfiguration of resources within firms including generating anew application from those resources. So the consequences of dynamic capabilities lead to determinantof competitive advantage ( Eisenhardt and Martin (2000). However, businesses encourages theemployees to learning marketing and supported the executive to applied policies of firm and productionby using technology and innovation (Jarratt and Fayed,2001; Jensen,2001). Likewise, firm supported theoperation process by using technology (i.e.network, internet, intranet and a set of computing).Nevertheless, firm aware the safety of customer as firm created green product and the firm launches theproduct quality to marketplace (Lamberti and Noci,2010; Weber,2008; Klein and Dawar,2004). Based onthis area discuss, marketing strategy which is dynamic capabilities leads firm have new productdevelopment, high level of product and service and customer commitment to firm. All of result, dynamicmarketing capabilities are positively related to marketing performance (Ching and Hsu, 2006;Kyrialkopoulos and Mooman,2004).

From the existing literature, there are a few empirical research on the dimensions of dynamic marketingstrategy and the relationships of dynamic marketing strategy (Spillan and Parnell,2006; Kyrialkopoulos

and Mooman,2004). Therefore, this research provides clarification of the new dimensions, measurementand conceptual model for dynamic marketing strategy. To clearly verify the aforementioned relationships,home decoration exporting businesses in Thailand are sample of the study because home decorationbusinesses have dynamic product and created know-how process of marketing. Moreover, homedecoration responded customer preference which changed fast life style such product made from naturaland variety of product. Hence, home decoration exporting business are characterized to firms whichdynamic marketing strategy.

Absolutely, this research aims at examining the effects of dynamic marketing strategy on marketingoutcomes of home decoration exporting business. To clearly verify the aforementioned relationships,home decoration exporting businesses in Thailand are the sample of the study. The key purpose of thisresearch is to examine the relationships among dynamic marketing strategy, marketing competitiveness,marketing success and marketing performance. In this study, the key research questions are: (1) how

does each dimension of dynamic marketing strategy have influence on NPD efficiency, businessmarketing excellence, customer value creativity, marketing competitiveness, marketing success andmarketing performance?, (2) how does NPD efficiency have an influence on business marketingexcellence, marketing competitiveness and marketing success?, (3) how does business marketingexcellence have an influence on marketing competitiveness and marketing success?, (4) how doescustomer value creativity have an influence on business marketing excellence, marketingcompetitiveness and marketing success?, (5) how does marketing competitiveness have an influence onmarketing success and marketing performance?, (6) how does marketing success have an influence onmarketing performance?, (7) how does the role of antecedents (executive aggressiveness vision,marketing resource readiness, marketing experience, changing customer preference and competitiveenvironment instability) influence each dimension of dynamic marketing strategy?, (8) how do themoderating effects of organization marketing culture on the antecedents (executive aggressivenessvision, marketing resource readiness, marketing experience, changing customer preference and

competitive environment instability) influence each dimension of dynamic marketing strategy?, (8) how dothe moderating effects of organization marketing culture on the antecedents(executive aggressivenessvision, marketing resource readiness, marketing experience, changing customer preference andcompetitive environment instability) have an influence on each dimension of dynamic marketingstrategy?.

This research is outlined as follows. The first section reviews existing significant literature in the area andstreams of five dimensions of dynamic marketing strategy, new product development efficiency, businessmarketing excellence, customer value creativity, marketing competitiveness, marketing success,marketing performance, links between the concepts of the aforementioned variables, and develops the


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

3/25

key research hypotheses of those relationships. The second obviously reports particulars themethodology, including data collection, measurements, and statistics. The third presents the analysis ofresults and corresponding discussions. The final summarizes the finding of the current study and ideasboth theoretical and managerial contributions, and offers suggestions for future research directionstogether with the conclusion.

2. RELEVANT LITERATURE REVIEWS AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT

This study explores the effect of five dimensions of dynamic marketing strategy that influence newproduct development efficiency, business marketing excellence, customer value creativity, marketingcompetitiveness and marketing success improvement on marketing performance. Dynamic marketingstrategy is the way management capability as a source of organizational capability in an increasingmarketing position advantage (Camision and Lopez, 2011; Ching and Hsu, 2006). Furthermore, this studyinvestigates organizational organization, marketing culture and marketing leadership that are themoderating variables in the context of home decoration exporting business in Thailand. Conceptual modeland linkage model presenting the relationships among these constructs is depicted as in Figure 1 below.For the relation of conceptual model, two theoretical are utilized. Dynamic capability theory refers to firmsthat operate the process of firm in the rapidly environmental change and firm managed resource andemployees agreeable with situation ( Eisenhardt and Martin, 2000). The article of Griffith et al., (2006)

suggested that dynamic capability approach is tool of entrepreneurial proclivity relative positive to marketresponsiveness. Likewise, Teece et al., (1997) find to dynamic capabilities helpful to organizational formthat has increasing rent as resource- based advantage. Most researchers use dynamic capability toexplain marketing research. For example, the article of Griffith et al.,2006) suggested that dynamiccapability approach is a tool of entrepreneurial proclivity relative positive to market responsiveness. Firmis dynamic operation marketing by internal and external environment change. Accordingly, Ching and Hsu(2006) shows that a firm uses dynamic capability and focuses on technology innovation which bothpositively influence on new product development performance. The work of Morgan et al.(2009)investigated marketing orientation, marketing interaction and marketing capabilities that influencepositively to firm performance. In this study, dynamic capability theory explains dynamic marketingstrategy ( marketing learning focus, proactive customer orientation, product innovation awareness,intelligent technology utilization and stakeholder responsive willingness), new product developmentefficiency (NPD efficiency), business marketing excellence, customer value creativity, marketing

competitiveness, marketing success and marketing performance.

Contingency theory offers that the firm effectiveness is based on firm capability to adapt to the internaland external environments (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967). In other words, the firm could adjust itsstrategies effectively to internal and external factors so that the firm is more likely to perform better. Priorresearch that adapts the contingency theory posits that the effectiveness of market orientation on firmsinnovation and performance may depend on matching organization characteristics to contingencies. Theydraw contingency in definition as any variable that moderates the effect of an organizational characteristicon organization performance (Morton and Hu, 2008). However, most scholars in marketing found that thecontingency theory increases marketing capability leading to marketing performance. Accordingly, thework of Meyer et al., 1993) suggested that contingency perspective explained firm dynamic as following.


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

4/25

FIGURE 1RELATIONSHIP MODEL OF DYNAMIC MARKETIN STRATEGY, MARKETING COMPETITIVENESS,

MARKETING SUCCESS AND MARKETING PERFORMANCE

2.1 Dynamic marketing strategyDynamic marketing strategy is a key of this research and it refers to the way of strategy which is the termdynamic capability emphasizes the role of dynamic paradigm as the business directions and objectivesthat the top management of a firm aims to achieve. Moreover, dynamic marketing strategy is the dynamicmarketing operation which leads firm to marketing performance (Gima and Wei, 2010; Ching and Hsu,2006). In this research, we propose five dimensions of dynamic marketing strategy based on dynamic

capability theory and contingency theory. The five dimensions comprise marketing learning focus,proactive customer orientation, product innovation awareness, intelligent technology utilization andstakeholder responsive willingness. The detailed discussion of these dimensions is mentioned as below.

Marketing learning focus. Marketing learning focus is defined as firms understanding marketingenvironment change. They have the operation planning for present and future (Wei and Wang,2011).Moreover, marketing learning focus as marketing sensing capability is defined as marketing capabilityconsistent with firm's ability to learn about customers, competitors, channel members and the broadermarket environment in which it operates continuously. In addition, firm observed competitor s operation(Wei and Wang,2011, Morgan et al., 2009). As aforementioned, marketing learning focus is the potentialpossibility to affect new product development efficiency (NPD efficiency), business marketing excellence,customer value creativity, marketing competitiveness, marketing success and marketing performance.Thus, building on the extant literature, it is hypothesized that:

Hypothesis 1: The marketing learning focus will have a positive influence on (a)new productdevelopment efficiency, (b) business marketing excellence, (c) customer value creativity, (d)marketing competitiveness (e) marketing success, and (f) marketing performance.

Proactive Customer Orientation.Proactive customer orientation refers firm can predict customer needs forfuture. Marketing capability is an ability to force products and services offering to customers. The resultsof these activities are responsive to customers to perceive product values and satisfaction to continue inthe marketplace . It is firms predicted customer needs for the future (Morgan, 2012; Blocker et al., 2011;Mu et al., 2009; Brush, 2008; Narver et al., 2004). As aforementioned, proactive customer orientation is


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

5/25

the potential possibility to enhance new product development efficiency (NPD efficiency), businessmarketing excellence, customer value creativity, marketing competitiveness, marketing success andmarketing performance. Thus, building on the extant literature, these ideas lead to posit the followinghypotheses:

Hypothesis 2: The proactive customer orientation will have a positive influence on (a)new productdevelopment efficiency, (b) business marketing excellence, (c) customer value creativity, (d)marketing competitiveness (e) marketing success (f) marketing performance.

Product innovation awareness. Product innovation awareness is defined as firm awareness developmentin new products that is a variety of goods offering to marketplace continuously and including firm thatfocuses on innovation and technological utilization to develop goods. Moreover, product innovationawareness is the firms perception of the importance of product innovation as valuable asset throughdevelopment new product, technology to modification raw to product quality, know-how and intellectualability that aligns with the organizations missions and strategic goals. In addition, firm supports budgetsto development new technology (Kok and Biemans, 2009; Vazquez and others, 2002; Hurley and Hult,1998). As aforementioned, product innovation awareness is the potential possibility to enhance newproduct development efficiency (NPD efficiency), business marketing excellence, customer valuecreativity, marketing competitiveness, marketing success and marketing performance. Hence, these ideaslead to posit the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3: The product innovation awareness will have a positive influence on (a)new productdevelopment efficiency, (b) business marketing excellence, (c) customer value creativity, (d)marketing competitiveness (e) marketing success (f) marketing performance.

Intelligent technology utilization. Intelligent technology utilization refers to the degree in which firm appliestechnology to operation marketing activities as a set of computing, network and information technologyare use with internal and external organization. Moreover, firm uses information technology to a set ofcomputing and communication technologies that are used for the exchange information cross-function,storage, processing, and dissemination. Firm applied new technology for marketing activities (Racela andThoumrungroje, 2010; Ching and Hsu, 2006; Chandy and Tellis,1998). As aforementioned, Intelligenttechnology utilization is the potential possibility to enhance new product development efficiency (NPDefficiency), business marketing excellence, customer value creativity, marketing competitiveness,

marketing success and marketing performance. Drawing from these reasons, the following hypothesesare posited:

Hypothesis 4: The intelligent technology utilization will have a positive influence on (a)newproduct development efficiency, (b) business marketing excellence, (c) customer value creativity,(d) marketing competitiveness (e) marketing success (f) marketing performance.

Stakeholder responsive willingness. Stakeholder responsive willingness refers to firm activities thatresponsive to stakeholder satisfaction such as firm offering product quality and green product tocustomers, motivation of work (i.e. salary and benefit), business awareness relationship with suppliers,organization show outcome operation (high profit for investor) (Weber, 2008; Du et al., 2007; Maignanand Ferrell, 2003). As aforementioned, stakeholder responsive willingness is the potential possibility toenhance new product development efficiency (NPD efficiency), business marketing excellence, customer

value creativity, marketing competitiveness, marketing success and marketing performance. The followinghypotheses are posited:

Hypothesis 5: The stakeholder responsive willingness will have a positive influence on (a)newproduct development efficiency, (b) business marketing excellence, (c) customer value creativity,(d) marketing competitiveness (e) marketing success (f) marketing performance.

2.2 New Product Development EfficiencyNew product development efficiency or NPD efficiency is defined as firm capability to create new productthat launched in the marketplace, new products that develop product quality, low cost and firm have new


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

6/25

product in the marketplace continuous. Moreover, new products of firm that are with quality at low cost ,consistent, timing, a degree of product quality , a system perceived to be new product as product quality,low cost and alternative to be the best of choice for customers (Racela and Thoumrungroje, 2010; Hult etal.,2004). At this point, New Product development efficiency is potential possibility to enhance businessmarketing excellence, marketing competitive and marketing success. Hence, the hypothesis is proposedas follows:

Hypothesis 6: The NPD efficiency will have a positive influence on business marketing excellence.

Hypothesis 7a: The NPD efficiency will have a positive influence on marketing competitive.

Hypothesis 7b: The NPD efficiency will have a positive influence on marketing success.

2.3 Customer Value CreativityCustomer value creativity refers to firm capability to demonstrate products and services offering to clientsas product quality when compared with competitiveness in the marketplace. Consequently, firmgenerates client to perceive value product and utilization, leading to marketing success (Eisenhardt andMartin, 2000; Luo, 2000). Thus, customer value creativity is positive to marketing competitiveness,marketing success and marketing performance. As mentioned above, the hypotheses are proposed asfollows:

Hypothesis 8: The customer value creativity will have a positive influence on business marketingexcellence.

Hypothesis 9a: The customer value creativity will have a positive influence on marketingcompetitiveness.

Hypothesis 9b: The customer value creativity will have a positive influence on marketing success.

2.4 Business Marketing ExcellenceBusiness marketing excellence refers to the degree of marketing practices more than competitors whichfirm gains competitive advantage. For example, firm have marketing activities is excellence whencompare with competitors, firm aims to achieve efficiency, cost reduction and product quality in marketing

operation. That is firm is highly competitive in cost structures (Reimann et al., 2010). Moreover, Firmability helped to adapt with environment change (i.e customer needs change, price change andtechnology change). As aforementioned, firm capability to integrate innovation, product quality andservice, affect positively to marketing competitive and marketing success. Thus, business marketingexcellence is positive to marketing competitiveness, marketing success and marketing performance.Hence, the hypotheses are proposed as follows:

Hypothesis 10a: The business marketing excellence will have a positive influence on marketingcompetitiveness.

Hypothesis 10b: The NPD efficiency will have a positive influence on business marketing success.

2.5 Marketing CompetitivenessMarketing competitiveness is defined as marketing activities such as firm offering new product tocustomers needs, customer perceive product quality, delivery on time. Firm that focuses on productquality and cost production when compared in the marketplace. Moreover, firm seeks information ofculture customer and prefers to deliver product customer in the marketplace on time. Therefore, theresult of all is customer royalty for business which has competitive advantage more than competitors inmarketplace (Oliver and Holzinger, 2008; Bharadwaj et at., 1993; Day and Wensley, 1988). The conceptof resource advantage theory explains that the role of marketing competitiveness as product quality,customer satisfaction and new product development influences positively to marketing performance.


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

7/25

Thus, marketing competitiveness is positively to marketing performance. Thus, marketingcompetitiveness leads to the hypothesis proposed as below:

Hypothesis 11: The marketing competitiveness will have a positive influence on marketingsuccess.

Hypothesis 12: The marketing competitiveness will have a positive influence on marketingperformance.

2.6 Marketing SuccessMarketing success is defined as the marketing activities of firm which business is responsive to customerneeds are continuously and the results of all activities lead to customer perceive product quality.Customer buy products of firm more than they did in the past, more new clients purchasing goods ofbusiness continuously, the outcomes of marketing increasing (Lages, Silva and Styles, 2009; Shergilland Nargundkar, 2005; Hurley and Hult, 1998). Thus, marketing success is positive to marketingperformance. Hence, the following hypothesis is formulated as follows:

Hypothesis 13: The marketing success will have a positive influence on marketing performance.

2.7 Marketing PerformanceMarketing performance refers to namely profit goal achievement, sales goal achievement, ROA and ROIachievement (Return on investment). Each outcome item is phrased so that respondents evaluate theseaspects of business performance relative to their business unit of primary competitors (Lin et al., 2011;Tajeddini, 2010; Amber and Roberts, 2008). Firms can achieve sustainable competitive advantage fromresources and capabilities as strategic planning and management skills (Barney, 1991; Conner andPrahalad, 1996). Hence, this study expects dynamic marketing strategy to be positively related tomarketing performance show that creating of dynamic marketing strategy as a source of competitiveadvantage that helps a company to generate greater returns in short and long terms (Vazquez et al.,2001; Hurley and Hult, 1988).

2.8 Executive Aggressiveness VisionExecutive aggressiveness vision is viewed as personality of CEO team which forward-lookingperspective involving introducing new products or services ahead of the competition, focus on innovation,

technology, newness and dynamic technology (Fanelli et al., 2009; Lumpkin and Dess, 2001; Larwoodand others, 1995; Gluck, 1981). Moreover, CEO team analyzed environment change and understandsthe factor of marketing. In addition, firm used utilization information to management marketing.Interestingly, firms show that executive proactive vision drives organization leading to competitiveadvantage. Thus, executive aggressiveness visions have a positive influence on marketing learningfocus, proactive customer orientation, product innovation awareness, intelligent technology utilization andstakeholder responsive willingness. As a result, this research proposes hypotheses as below:

Hypothesis 14 : The executive aggressiveness vision will have a positive influence on (a)marketing learning focus (b) proactive customer orientation (c)product innovation awareness(d)intelligent technology utilization (e) stakeholder responsive willingness.

2.9 Marketing Resource Readiness

Marketing resource readiness is defined as firm ability to operate in marketing with the components ofmarket intelligence (i.e. employee communication with suppliers and customer) and sharing of marketinginformation in the organization enhances market responsiveness. Moreover, firms are aware of the newtechnology to help marketing operation. Essentially, firms have marketing resource effective (Junarsin,2010; Tajeddini and Trueman, 2008). Thus, marketing resource readiness has a positive influence onmarketing learning focus, proactive customer orientation, product innovation awareness, intelligenttechnology utilization and stakeholder responsive willingness. According to the above reasoning, thehypotheses are formulated as below:


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

8/25

Hypothesis 15: The marketing resource readiness will have a positive influence on (a) marketinglearning focus (b) proactive customer orientation (c) product innovation awareness (d) intelligenttechnology utilization (e) stakeholder responsive willingness.

2.10 Marketing ExperienceMarketing experience refers to firm capability to understand the mistakes in the past and firms haveexperience with technique selling, customer service and marketing knowledge, operation planning forpresent and future. In addition, firms ability to applied information of customer and competitors in the past.Firm used information to operation marketing activities and development marketing policy for the presentand future. Moreover, firm perceive information marketing in the past and provided emergency planning(Tynan and Mckechnie, 2009; Yang, 2009 Jensen, 2001). Thus, marketing experience has a positiveinfluence on marketing learning focus, proactive customer orientation, product innovation awareness,intelligent technology utilization and stakeholder responsive willingness. This leads to the hypothesesposited as follows:

Hypothesis 16: The marketing experience will have a positive influence on (a)marketing learningfocus (b) proactive customer orientation (c) product innovation awareness (d) intelligenttechnology utilization (e) stakeholder responsive willingness.

2.11 Changing Customer Preference

Changing customer preference is defined as customer behavior that changed follow externalenvironment, firm awareness learning to discovery to needs of clients such as facilities of product,packaging and higher of product utilization. Moreover, firms are aware for awareness perceiving customercomment product and suggestions and develop database of information customer. So, firm perceivecustomer needs and responsiveness on time and firm responses to customer impression. However, theoutcomes of activities which firm implemented customer, will gain stakeholder satisfaction (Maklan andKnow, 2009; Zott, 2003). Thus, changing customer preference will have a positive effect on dynamicmarketing strategy (marketing learning focus, proactive customer orientation, product innovationawareness, intelligent technology utilization and stakeholder responsive willingness) and, thus, thehypotheses are posited as follows:

Hypothesis 17: The changing customer preference will have a positive influence on (a)marketinglearning focus (b) proactive customer orientation (c) product innovation awareness (d) intelligent

technology utilization (e) stakeholder responsive willingness.

2.12 Competitive Environment InstabilityCompetitive environment instability refers to the uncertainty of the external environment of anorganization that cannot be predicted, such as economic, policy and competitors. Firm who focuses onapplies know-how and understanding customers leading to dynamic marketing strategy. In addition, firmsearches a new method and firms developed the system and process marketing more than competitors.Moreover, firms discovers to protection uncertainty of competitive environment (Tan and Zeng, 2009;Javalgi, Whipple, Ghosh and Young, 2005; Johnson, Lee, Saini, and Grohmann, 2003). However,competitive environment instability is a factor contributing to develop employee competence and learning.Thus, competitive environment instability has a positive effect on dynamic marketing strategy ( marketinglearning focus, proactive customer orientation, product innovation awareness, intelligent technologyutilization and stakeholder responsive willingness). Hence, the hypotheses are posited as follows:

Hypothesis 18: The competitive environment instability will have a positive influence on(a)marketing learning focus (b) proactive customer orientation (c) product innovation awareness(d) intelligent technology utilization (e) stakeholder responsive willingness.

2.13 Organization Marketing CultureOrganization marketing culture refers the staff ability operated marketing activities and the marketersresponds customer needs. Moreover, marketing culture is the kinds of behaviors that are the value ofmarketing in organization such as promoting the practices of work (Norburn et at.,1990). In addition,marketing culture is defined as the market focuses on an external to stimulate new idea and


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

9/25

responsiveness to markets such as customer relationship, method problem solving face to face ofcustomers. In addition, all are leading to capacity to best practices and competitive advantage includingfirm performance (Hurley and Hult, 1998). Similarly, the work of Saffold (1988) shows that manysubcultures are in organization which leads to organizational culture, it is competitive advantage and firmperformance, for example, the ethics of our staff, our loyal customers. Thus, organization marketingculture will be positive between antecedents and dynamic marketing strategy.Thus, the hypotheses are posited as follows:

Hypothesis 19: The organization marketing culture will positively moderate the relationshipsbetween executive aggressiveness vision, (a) marketing learning focus (b) proactive customerorientation (c) product innovation awareness (d) intelligent technology utilization (e) stakeholderresponsive willingness.

Hypothesis 20 : The organization marketing culture will positively moderate the relationshipsbetween marketing resource readiness, (a) marketing learning focus (b) proactive customerorientation (c) product innovation awareness (d) intelligent technology utilization (e) stakeholderresponsive willingness.

Hypothesis 21 : The organization marketing culture will positively moderate the relationshipsbetween marketing experience, (a) marketing learning focus (b) proactive customer orientation (c)

product innovation awareness (d) intelligent technology utilization (e) stakeholder responsivewillingness.

Hypothesis 22 : The organization marketing culture will positively moderate the relationshipsbetween changing customer preference, (a) marketing learning focus (b) proactive customerorientation (c) product innovation awareness (d) intelligent technology utilization (e) stakeholderresponsive willingness.

Hypothesis 23 : The organization marketing culture will positively moderate the relationshipsbetween competitive environment instability , (a) marketing learning focus (b) proactive customerorientation (c) product innovation awareness (d) intelligent technology utilization (e) stakeholderresponsive willingness.

2.14 Marketing LeadershipThe previous research demonstrates that firm performances influences firm marketing leadership strategy( i.e brand equity, low price, product, and service quality). Moreover, the work of Reimann and others(2010) found that product leadership is a component of marketing leadership in which firms focus onconstant innovation and the development of the firm product portfolio. The offerings of product leaderstypically stand out in terms of design and brand. Accordingly, Kambil (1995) demonstrates that marketingleadership is firms new opportunities with the firm focusing on innovation, economies of scale andbrands, leading to competitive advantage, for example, firm offering product quality and perceive sensinglow cost when compared with competitors. This study, marketing leadership refers to the competitiveadvantage of firm which perceives comparing with intra-industry such as product quality, low cost,generating new ideas technology capability and customer satisfaction (Reimann and others, 2010; Amit,1986). Thus, marketing leadership will be positive between antecedents and dynamic marketing strategy.

As described above, the hypotheses are formulated as below.

Hypothesis 24 : The marketing leadership will positively moderate the relationships betweenexecutive aggressiveness vision, (a) marketing learning focus(b) proactive customer orientation(c) product innovation awareness (d) intelligent technology utilization (e) stakeholder responsivewillingness.

Hypothesis 25: The marketing leadership will positively moderate the relationships betweenmarketing resource readiness, (a) marketing learning focus(b) proactive customer orientation (c)



7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

10/25

Hypothesis 26 : The marketing leadership will positively moderate the relationships betweenmarketing experience, (a) marketing learning focus(b) proactive customer orientation (c) productinnovation awareness (d) intelligent technology utilization (e) stakeholder responsive willingness.

Hypothesis 27 : The marketing leadership will positively moderate the relationships betweenchanging customer preference, (a) marketing learning focus(b) proactive customer orientation (c)


Hypothesis 28 : The marketing leadership will positively moderate the relationships betweencompetitive environment instability, (a) marketing learning focus (b) proactive customerorientation (c) product innovation awareness (d) intelligent technology utilization (e) stakeholderresponsive willingness.

3. RESEARCH METHODS

3.1 Sample Selection and Data Collection ProcedureHome decoration exporting businesses are interesting to be investigated for several reasons. First,because home decoration sector is greatly important to the countrys economic development; it can

prominently help create international economy. Nowadays, Thailand increases domestic demands andchanges in the lifestyle of Thai consumers, particularly the growing middle class, and the homedecoration exporting businesses have grown significantly over the last decade. Domestic processedhome decoration has increasedgrowth as a higher proportion of processed home decoration in variety ofstyles as a result of the changing consumption patterns. Finally, Thailand has become one of the worldslargest and most advanced producers and exporters of processed home decoration. Its rich agriculturalroots and resources, combined with its investments in international quality standards, technology, and R& D for home decoration, have helped make Thailand the sole home decoration exporter in Asia. Inaddition, the government policy emphasizes on promoting exporting of Thailand continuously and focuseson potential home decoration exporting businesses. Under these situations, home decoration exportingbusinesses develop strategies of new product and excellence marketing to appeal consumers. Here,home decoration exporting businesses in Thailand are the sample of the study. 1550 home decorationexporting businesses were chosen from Thailands exporter directory at website of the Department of

Export Promotion, Ministry of Commerce of Thai government as of January,2012(http://www.depthai.go.th). A mail survey procedure via the questionnaire was used for data collection.The key participants in this study were marketing directors or marketing manager. With regard to thequestionnaire mailing, 91 questionnaires were undeliverable because some firms were no longer inbusiness of had moved to unknow locations. Deducting the undeliverable from the list of randomsampling data., the valid mailing was 1459 questionnaires, from which 322 responses were received.The questionnaires were completed and returned only 314 were usable. The effective response rate wasapproximately 21.52 %. According to Aaker, Kumar andDay(2001), the response rate for a mail survey,with an appropriate follow-up procedure, is greater than 20% is considered acceptable.

To ascertain possible problems with non-response bias, the decorating business specific t-test betweenearly and late respondents reveal statistically significant differences according to the test for non-responses bias (Armstrong and Overton, 1997). Using a t-test comparison of the means of all variables

for the random sample versus all other respondents, significant differences between late responders andearly responders indicate the presence of non-response bias. Thus, this study has no response biasproblems.

3.2 Variable MeasurementAll constructs in the model are measured with multiple-item scales. Each of these variable measured byfive point Likert scales, ranging from 1 ( strongly disagree) to 5 ( strongly agree). Additionally, all ofconstructs are developed for measuring from the definition of each construct. Therefore, the variablemeasurement of dependent, independent, mediating, moderating, antecedent and control variables aredescribed as follows:


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

11/25

3.2.1 Dependent VariableMarketing performance (MP) is the dependent of the study, and it is evaluated by subjective performanceas namely profit goal achievement, sales goal achievement, ROA (Return on assets) and ROIachievement (Return on investment). Each outcome item is phrased so that respondents evaluated theseaspects of business performance relative to their business (Lin, Hsu and Tsai, 2011; Tajeddini, 2010;

Amber and Roberts, 2008).

3.2.2 Independent VariableMarketing learning focus( MF) is measured by five-item scale relating firms have the operation planningfor present and future, including an ability to learn about customers, competitors, channel members andthe broader market environment in which it operates continuously.

Proactive customer orientation (PO) is measured by firms ability to understanding the needs ofcustomers that help business success in market continuously and forever. Firms focused on the analysisof the needs of customers continuously to help companies meet these need very well.

Product innovation awareness (PA) is measured by the ability of the information to improve the look andthe style of products and services to meet the need of customers most effectively.

Intelligent technology utilization (IU) is measured by the ability of firms that used technology in presenthelps the marketing activities more effectively and benefits. Firms focuses on the study, understand andapplication of new technology like the internet, computer, and IT network to maximize marketingeffectiveness and success.

Stakeholder responsive willingness (SW) is measured by four-item scale relating firms repose todemands and expectations of stakeholders that are recognized in the management process andmarketing. Their abilities that focused on the materials and factors of production that is socialenvironmental friendly or corporate social responsibility which leads to the confidence and trust fromstakeholder.

New product development efficiency (NE) is measured by the level of firms ability that launched newproduct and service in to the marketing continuously. Firms always expand the scope of product such as

increasing the production line, new product and new service.

Business marketing excellence (BE) is measured by four-item scale relating the ability of firms cratedmarketing activities which are varieties and unique different from competitor. A firm is the leader inbusiness strategy of marketing activities in an exceptional and superior competitors, applying method andtechnique of new marketing more efficient better than competitors.

Customer value creativity (CC) is measured by three-item scale relating the firm s capability offeredproduct and services to customers to increasing more operation performance. The customer perceivesquality products and the best service.

Marketing competitiveness (MC) is measured by three-item scale relating the firm s ability to providequality products and services to customer and differentiation between competitors. The customer

perceive the variety of product and service in the market place and firm can serve the needs andexpectations of customers in every aspect better than competitors.

Marketing success (MS) is measured by the marketing activities of firms which business is responsivecustomer needs continuous and the result of all activities leading to customer perceive product quality.Firm have number products of firm more than in the past, the new clients purchasing goods frombusiness continuously, the outcome of marketing as financial increasing (Chandler and Graham,2010)

Executive aggressiveness vision (EV) is viewed as personality of CEO team which forward-lookingperspective involving introducing new products or services ahead of the competition, focus on innovation,


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

12/25

technology, newness and dynamic technology. Moreover, it is CEO team analyzed environment changeand understands the factor of marketing. In addition, firm used utilization information to managementmarketing (Lumpkin and Dess, 2001; Larwood and others, 1995; Gluck, 1981).

Marketing resource readiness (MR) is evaluated by the degree of firms being able to operate marketingwith component market intelligence (i.e. employee communication with suppliers and customer) andsharing of marketing information in the organization to enhance market responsiveness. Firms are awarefor new technology to help marketing operation (Hurley and Hult, 1998).

Marketing experience (ME) is the firm capability to understand the mistakes in the past, and firm hasexperience with selling technique selling, customer service and marketing knowledge, operation planning forpresent and future which resulted from particular outcomes like learning or skill development or whether itrequires interaction or not. In addition, firm ability to applied information of customer and competitors in thepast for a database in developing market policy both in the present and future (Tynan and Mckechnie,2009; Yang, 2009).

Changing customer preference (CP) is the firm ability to understanding the expectations and needs ofcustomers in the present and the need of customers in the present and the future that able to respond tomarket the best. Firm supports the preparation of a concrete database system in order to analyze theneeds of customer in a timely manner.

Competitive environment instability (CI) is evaluated by the uncertainty of the external environment of anorganization that cannot be predicted in advance, such as economic, policy and competitors . Firmdiscovers to protection uncertainty of competitive environment (Cunningham and Green, 2007; Siguawand others ,2006).

Organization marketing culture (OC)is evaluated by the staff ability operated marketing activities and themarketers responds customer needs. Firm responded to changing market and unique more thancompetitors such as the introduction of modern technology to produce innovative product (Hurley and Hult,1998; Saffold, 1988).

Marketing leadership (ML) is measured by the degree of the competitive advantage of firm whichperceived by comparing with intra-industry such as product quality, low cost, generate new idea,

technology capability and customer satisfaction (i.e firm used new technology before competitors, firmcreated new product and it is the excellence product and worth price) (Reimann and others, 2010;Mclaughlin and Mott, 2009; Amit, 1986)

3.2.3 Control VariableThere are two variable are considered. Firm age (FA) may influence the firm's performance, and olderfirms benefit from accumulating experience. Therefore, firms performance is affected by their age. Firmage is measured by the years resulted from subtracting the years of firm establishment from the years ofcurrent study (Lahiri et al., 2009). In this study, firm age is represent by a dummy variable which 0 is firmthat has number of year since the firm established lower than or equal to 15 years, and 1 is firm that hasnumber of year since the firm established more than 15 years. Firm capital (FC) is measured as themoney or asset on investment operation in organization. According to Leiblein, Reuer and Dalsace(2002), large firms may also have greater market power or positional advantages compared to their

smaller rivals; and larger firms often have superior financial status. In this study, firm capital is representby a dummy variable which 0 is firm has capital registered lower than 1,000,000 baht and 1 is firm hascapital registered more than 1,000,000 baht


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

13/25

TABLE 1RESULTS OF MEASURE VALIDATION

Items Factor Loadings Cronbach Alpha

Marketing Learning Focus (MF) .696-.854 0.774

Proactive Customer Orientation(PO) .568-.868 0.765

Product Innovation Awareness (PA) .609-.793 0.703

Intelligent Technology Utilization (IU) .867-.901 0.916

Stakeholder Responsive Willingness(SW) .540-.839 0.712

NPD Efficiency (NE) .838-.910 0.903

Business Marketing Excellence (BE) .670-.878 0.825

Customer Value Creativity (CC) .772-.902 0.813

Marketing Competitiveness (MC) .844-.895 0.896

Marketing Success ( MS) .802-.856 0.831

Marketing performance (MP) .710-.937 0.916

Executive Aggressiveness Vision(EV) .645-.915 0.883

Marketing Resource Readiness (MR) .825-.879 0.879

Marketing Experience (ME) .818-.903 0.841

Changing Customer Preference (CP) .834-.938 0.914

Competitive Environment Instability (CI) .868-.938 0.918

Organization Marketing Culture (OC) .868-.938 0.872

Marketing Leadership (ML) .868-.941 0.879

3.3 Reliability and ValidityFactor analysis was firstly utilized to investigate the underlying relationships of a large number of itemsand to determine whether they can be reduced to a smaller set of factors. With respect to theconfirmatory factor analysis, this analysis for all factor loading are 0.540-0.946 as being greater than 0.40cut-offs and are statistically significant that the rule-of-thumb (Nunnally and Berstein, 1994). he reliability

of the measurement was evaluated by Cronbach alpha coefficients. The value of Cronbach alphacoefficients for all constructs is higher than the 0.7 cut-offs ( Nunnally and Bernstein,1994). The scales ofall measures appear to produce internally consistent results; thus, these measures are deemedappropriate for future analysis because they express an accepted validity and reliability in this study.Table 1 above presents the result for both factor loadings and Cronbach alpha for multiple-item scalesused in this study.

3.4 Statistical TechniquesBecause both dependent and independent variables in this study are neither nominal nor categoricaldata, then Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analysis is applied to examine all of hypothesesfollowing conceptual model. OLS is deemed appropriate to examine the relationships between dependentvariables and independent variables which all variables are categorical and interval data (Hair andother,2006). The hypotheses in this study are transformed to twenty seven equations. Each equation

consists of the main variables related to the hypothesis testing which described in previous section.Furthermore, two control variables: firm age and firm capital are in clouded in all of those equations forhypothesis testing. Therefore, the models of the aforementioned relationships are depicted as follows:

Equation 1: NE = 01+ 1MF +2PO + 3PA +4IU + 5SW + 6FA +7FC+ 1Equation 2: BE 02+ 8MF +9PO + 10PA +11IU + 12SW + 13FA + +

14FC+2Equation 3: BE = 03+ 15MF + 16PO + 17PA +18IU +19SW +20NE21FA +

22FC+3


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

14/25

Equation 4: BE 04+ 23MF + 24PO + 25PA +26IU +27SW +28CC+29FA +

30FC+4Equation 5: CC = 05+ 31MF + 32PO + 33PA +34IU +35SW + 36FA + 37FC + 5Equation 6: MC = 06+ 38MF + 39PO + 40PA +41IU +42SW + 43FA + 44FC

+ 6Equation 7: MC = 07+ 45NE + 46BE + 47CC + 48FA +49FC + 7

Equation 8: MS = 08+ 50MF + 51PO + 52PA +53IU +54SW + 55MC+ 56FA +57FC +8

Equation 9: MS = 09+ 58MF + 59PO + 60PA +61IU +62SW + 63FA +64FC + 9Equation 10: MS 010+ 65NE + 66BE +67CC +68FA+69FC + 10

Equation 11: MP = 011+ 70MF +71PO +72PA +73IU + 74SW + 75FA +76FC +

11Equation 12: MP = 012+ 77MC + 78MS + 79FA +80FC + 12Equation 13: MF = 013+ 81EV +82MR + 83ME + 84CP + 85CI + 86FA +87FC +

13Equation 14: MF = 014 + 88EV + 89MR +90ME +91CP + 92CI +93OC

94(EV*OC) + 95(MR*OC) + 96(ME*OC) + 97(CP*OC) +

98(CI*OC) + 99FA +100FC + 14Equation 15: MF =

015+ 101EV + 102MR +103ME + 104CP+ 105CI+ 106ML107(EV*ML) + 108(MR*ML) + 109(ME*ML) + 110(CP*ML) +

111(CI*ML) + 112FA +113FC + 15Equation 16: PO = 016+ 114EV +115MR+116ME +117CP+ 118CI+ 119 FA +

120FC + 16Equation 17: PO = 017+ 121EV +122MR+123ME + 124CP+ 125CI+126OC


131(CI*OC) + 132FA +133FC + 17Equation 18 : PO = 018+ 134EV +135MR + 136ME + 137CP + 138CI + +139OC

+ 140(EV*ML) + 141(MR*ML) + 142(ME*ML)

+143(CP*ML) +144(CI*ML)+ + 145FA +146FC + 18Equation 19 : PA = 019+ 147EV +148MR +149ME + 150CP + 151CI+ 152FA+ 153

FC + 19

Equation 20 : PA = 020+ 154 EV + 155MR + 156ME +157CP +158CI+159OC160(EV*OC) + 161(MR*OC) + 162(ME*OC) + 163(CP*OC) +

164(CI*OC) + 165FA +166FC + 20Equation 21: PA = 021+ 167EV +168MR + 169ME + 170CP + 170CI+

171OC+172(EV*ML) + 173(MR*ML) + 174(ME*ML) +175(CP*ML)

+176(CI*ML)+ 177FA +178FC + 21Equation 22: IU = 022+ 179EV +180MR + 181ME + 182CP + 183CI + 184FA +

185FC + 22Equation 23: IU = 023+ 186EV +187MR + 188ME + 189CP + 190CI +191OC+


196(CI*OC) + 197FA +198FC + 23Equation 24: IU = 024+ 199EV +200MR + 201ME + 202CCP + 203CI +204OC+

205(EV*ML) + 206(MR*ML) + 207(ME*ML) +208(CP*ML)+209(CI*ML)+ 210FA +211FC + 24Equation 25: SW = 025+ 212EV +213MR + 214ME + 215CP + 216CI + 217FA

+ 218FC + 25Equation 26: SW = 026+219EV +220MR + 221ME +222CP +223CI +224OC+225

(EV*OC) + 226(MR*OC) + 227(ME*OC) + 228(CP*OC) +

229(CI*OC) + 230FA +231FC + 26Equation 27: SW = 027+ 232EV +233MR + 234ME + 235CP + 236CI +237OC+

238(EV*ML) + 239(MR*ML) + 240(ME*ML) +241(CP*ML)


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

15/25

+242(CI*ML)+ 243FA +244FC + 274. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Before expounding the results of the regression analysis, this study examined possible multicolinearityproblems by studying correlations between the variables included in the regression analysis. In this way,

by means of pearsons correlation coefficient, we can measure the degree of linear association betweenevery pair of variables. In Table 2, the descriptive statistics and correlation matrix for all variables arepresented. The verified muliticollinearity problems by intercorrelations among independent variables arenot higher than the 0.8 cut-offs ( Stevens,1992). The VIFs range from 1.147-3.871, well below the cut-offvalue of 10 as recommended by Neter, Wasserman and Kutner (1985), meaning the independentvariables and not correlated with each other. Therefore, there are no substantial multicollinearityproblems encountered in this study.

Table 3 presents the results of OLS regression of the relationships among five dimensions of dynamicmarketing strategy, NPD efficiency, business marketing excellence, customer value creativity, marketingcompetitiveness, marketing success and marketing performance which are Hypotheses 1-28. Dynamicmarketing strategy includes marketing learning focus, proactive customer orientation, product innovationawareness, intelligent technology utilization and stakeholder responsive willingness. Firstly, therelationship of marketing learning focus has a significant positive influence on customer value

creativity(H1c: b31=.0.169, p 0.05), Therefore, Hypotheses H1c is supported. Interestingly, marketinglearning focus is the dimensions of dynamic marketing strategy will have positive influence on marketingsuccess and marketing performance must through customer value creativity (Luo,2000). Consistent withthe study of Calantone et at. (2002) found to the staff have commitment to learning customer information,the employees have to open mindedness and firm aware to learning marketing operation continuously.The outcome of activities have effect positive to firm understand customer needs and this activities havepositive to firm performance.

Secondly, the relationship of proactive customer orientation has positively influence on business

marketing excellence (H2b: b9=-.122, p 0.01, H2b: b16 =-.153) and marketing success(H2e: b30=.135, p

0.01). Hence, Hypotheses H2b andH2e are supported. Thirdly, the relationship of product innovation

awareness has positively influence on new product development (H3a: b3 = .135, p .01), business

marketing excellence (H3b: b10 = .210, p 0.01, H3a: b17 =.131, p 0.01, H3a; b25 =.184, p 0.05), and

marketing competitiveness (H3d: b40 = .134, p 0.10). Hence, Hypotheses H3a,H3b and H3d aresupported.Accordingly,the study ofVazquez et at (2001) found to firms ability which developed productinnovation continuously and firm have to checking innovation rate so firm related to marketingperformance. Likewise, firm aware development new product as product quality and there are manyproduct line. Therefore, firm can be marketing excellence. Moreover, proactive customer orientation andproduct innovation awareness are component a technology in the operation so proactive customerorientation is significant marketing competitiveness and marketing performance (Menguc and Auh,2010).Fourthly, intelligent technology utilization has positively influence on new product development (H4a: b4

=.179, p 0.01), business marketing excellence(H4b: b11 =.393, p 0.01, H4b: b18 =.269, p 0.01, H4b:

b26 = .294, p 0.01), customer value creativity(H4c; b34 =.144, p 0.10,marketing competitiveness (H4d:

b41 =.201, marketing success (H4e: b61 =.241, p 0.01 and marketing performance (H4f: b37 =.343, p 0.01). Therefore,Hypotheses H4a-H4f are supported. However, proactive customer orientation relateto marketing excellence and firm aware technology and product quality. Firm used technology as tool

operated marketing activities and serviced customer as internet, computer, network and intranet (OCassand Ngo, 2011; Racela and Thoumrungroje, 2010;). Finally, stakeholder responsive willingness has

positively on new product efficiency(H5a: b5 =.354, p 0.01), business marketing excellence (H5b: b12=.354, p 0.01,H5b: b19 = -.111, p 0.10, H5b: b27 = .139, p 0.10), customer value creativity (H5c: b27 =

.139, p 0.10),marketing competitiveness (H5d: b42 = .156, p 0.05, marketing success (H5e: b62 = .160,

p 0.05), and marketing performance (H5f: b74 = .193, p 0.01). Hence, Hypotheses H5a-H5f aresupported. Accordingly, the study of Weber (2008) shows that firm s activities that responsive tostakeholder satisfaction as green product and product quality. Moreover, the marketing activities whichresponsive to stakeholder needs as the motivation of work and the firm s policy both leads to marketing


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

16/25

outcome (Maignan and Ferrell,2003). However, five dimension of dynamic marketing strategy hassignificant to marketing outcome. Thus,Hypotheses H1a,H1b,H1d-H1f, H2a,H2c,H2d,H2f,H3c,H3e andH3f are not supported.

TABLE 2DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS AND CORRELATION MATRIX

*p0.1, **p0.05, p0.01; FA Firm age; FS Firm size

Next, new product development efficiency has a significant positive impact on business marketing

excellence (H6: b20 = .614, p 0.01) and marketing competitiveness (H7a: b45 = .242, p 0.01). Hence,Hypotheses H6 and H7a are supported. Accordingly, the study of Zhang et at.,2009) find to firmencourage new product development and firm have variety of line product has positive to volume ofmarketing excellence. Moreover, firm have knowledge utilization to development new productcontinuously. Customer value creativity has a positive influence on business marketing excellence (H8:

b28 = .424, p 0.01), marketing competitiveness (H9a: b47 = .242, p 0.01), and marketing success (H9b:

b67 = .099, p 0.01). Thus, Hypotheses H8, H9a and H9b are supported. Business marketing

excellence has a significant positive impact on marketing competitiveness(H10a: b46 = .297, p

0.01) andmarketing success (H10b: b67 = .338, p 0.01). Hence, Hypotheses H10a and, H10bare supported.The study of Reimann and other (2010) show that the product high quality and excellence service morethan competitors has positive to marketing outcome. Marketing competitiveness has a significant positive

impact on marketing success (H11: b67 = .382, p 0.01) and marketing performance(H13: b77 = .279, p 0.01). Thus,Hypotheses H11 and H12are supported. Marketing success has a positive influence on

marketing performance (H13: b55 = .559, p 0.01). Hence, Hypothesis 13 is supported.

Table 4 presents the results of OLS regression analysis of antecedent variable, namely, executiveaggressiveness vision, marketing resource readiness, marketing experience, changing customer


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

17/25

preference and competitive environment instability and the five dimensions of dynamic marketing strategyvia moderating effect on organization marketing culture which is the summary of the result of Hypotheses14-23. Executive aggressiveness vision has a significant positive impact on product innovation

awareness (H14c:b81 = .185, p 0.1, H14c; b88 = .190, p 0.1)), intelligent technology utilization (H14d:

b179 = .251, p 0.01, H14d: b186 = .179, p 0.01)) and stakeholder responsive willingness(H14e: b212 =

.253, p 0.01, H14e: b219 = .240, p 0.01). Thus, Hypotheses H14c, H14d and H14e are supported..

Accordingly to Lumpkin and Dess (2001) found to CEO team analyzed environment change andunderstands the factor of marketing. The executive use present planning and the future plan to driveorganization leading to marketing strategy as product innovation continuously and firm have thetechnology consistent organization operation. Marketing Resource Readiness has a significant positive

impact on product innovation awareness(H15c: b148 = .200, p 0.05, H15c: b155 = .048, p 0.05)

,intelligent technology utilization(H15d: b180 = .251, p 0.01,H15d: b187 = .179, p 0.05) and stakeholder

responsive willingness (H15e: b213 = .253, p 0.01, H15e: b220 = .240, p 0.01). Thus, HypothesesH15c, H15d and H15e are supported.

TABLE 3RESULTS OF OLS REGRESSION ANALYSIS

a

IndependentVariables

Dependent Variables

NE BE BE BE CC MC MC MS MS MP MP

MF .561(.038)

.189(.089)

.274(.060)

.758(.018)

.022**(.169)

.103(.115)

.979(.002)

.511(0.47)

PO .170(.093)

.090*(-.122)

.009***(-.153)

.078(-.110)

.261(.088)

.120(.115)

.074*(.135)

.970(.003)

PA .058*(.135)

.005***(.210)

.031**(.131)

.005***(.184)

.428(.064)

.084*(.134)

.119(.124)

.260(.089)

IU .010***(.179)

.000***(.393)

.000***(.269)

.000***(.294)

.063*(.144)

.008***(.201)

.002***(.241)

.000***(.343)

SW .000***(.354)

.155(.097)

.054*(-.111)

.375(.053)

.060*(.139)

.028**(.156)

.028**(.160)

.008***(.193)

NE .000***(.614)

.000***(.242)

.180(.072)

BE .000***(.297)

.000***(.338)

CC .000***(.424)

.000***(.409)

.048*(.099)

MC .000***(.382) .000***(.279)

MS .000***(.559)

FA .848(-.190)

.200(-.154)

.060*(-1.75)

.143(-.133)

.146(-.181)

.174(-.145)

.676(.032)

.042**(-.223)

.666(-.038)

.620(-.054)

.475(-066)

FC .366(.080)

.293(-.121)

.695(-.038)

.002***(.250)

.112(-.207)

.042**(.197)

.172(.094)

.220(.121)

.618(-.044)

.078*(.174)

.431(.071)

Adjusted R2 .476 .434 .629 .562 .333 .381 .678 .351 .661 .353 .628

*p.10, **p

7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

18/25

Also, the moderating role of organization marketing culture on the relationships among executive

aggressiveness vision and marketing learning focus (H19a: b94 = .174, p 0.1) and product innovation

awareness is significant (H19c: b160 = .257, p 0.01). Thus,Hypothesis H19a and H19c are supported.In addition, the moderating role of organization marketing culture on the relationship among marketing

resource readiness and product innovation awareness is significant (H20c: b161 = -.149, p 0.05). Hence,Hypothesis H20c is supported. Moreover, the moderating role of organization marketing culture on the

relationship among competitive environment instability and marketing learning focus and productinnovation awareness is significant (H23a: b98 = -.256, p 0.01, H23c: b164 = .156, p 0.05). Hence,Hypothesis H19a, H19c,H23a and H23c are supported, buthypotheses H19b,H19d,H19e, H20a-b,H20d-e, H21a-e, H22a-e, H23b,H23d and H23e are not.


a


Dependent Variables

MF MF PO PO PA PA IU IU SW SW

EV.052

(.185).053

(.190).385

(.080).581

( .053).017*(.200)

.048**(.168)

.002***(.251)

.033**(.179)

.005**(.253)

.008***(.240)

MR .763(.028)

.881(.014)

.107(.147)

.341(.089)

.006***(.229)

.028**(.183)

.062*(.150)

.296(.085)

.253(.100)

.300(.091)

ME .540(.052)

.620(.046)

.413(.067)

.727(.032)

.554(.044)

.975(.003)

.020**(.168)

.163(.110)

.491(.055)

.356(-.078)

CP .037**(.209)

.039**(.212)

.061*(.179)

.164(.100)

.166(.122)

.169(.122)

.160(.120)

.208(.110)

.497(.063)

.579(.052)

CI .524*(.054)

.411(-.074)

.119(.127)

.550(.052)

.259(.044)

.861(-.014)

.433(.056)

.924(.007)

.119(.123)

.964(-.004)

OC .125(.139)

.036(.187)

.001***(.254)

.000***(.289)

.000***(.301)

EVOC .081*(.174)

.970(-.004)

.003***(.257)

.652(-.038)

.005(.258)

MROC .350(-.078)

.819(-.019)

.039**(-.149)

.707(.027)

.895(-.010)

MEOC .115(.125)

.478(.055)

.187(.090

.232(.081)

.332(-.070)

CP OC .910(.012)

.347(.095)

.614(.045)

.749(.028)

.829(.020)

CIOC

.001***(-.256)

.263(-.083)

.018**(.156)

.505(-.043)

.003(-.204)

FA .533(-.079)

.405(-.106)

.256(.127)

.016*(.299)

.946(-.008)

.678(-.046)

.197(-.140)

.192(-.142) .954

(-.007)

.729(-.040)

FC .134(-.197)

.096(-.218)

.000***(-.457)

000***(-.637)

.029**(-.253)

.010*(-.291)

.991(-.001)

.837(-.023)

.004***(-.356)

.005(-.340)

Adjusted R2

.273 .298 .322 .328 .435 .477 .472 .488 .365 .411

*p.10, **p

7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

19/25


a


Dependent Variables

MF MF PO PO PA PA IU IU SW SW

EV.052*(.185)

.114(.165)

.385(.080)

.725(.035)

.017*(.200)

.033**(.193)

.002***(.251)

.013*(.220)

.005**(.253)

.072(.170)

MR .763(.028)

.799(.025)

.107(.147)

.052*(.186)

.006***

(.229)

.008***

(.227)

.062*(.150)

.102*(.138)

.253(.100)

.087(.153)

ME .540(.052)

.947(.006)

.413(.067)

.952(.005)

.554(.044)

.966(.003)

.020**(.168)

.135(.117)

.491(.055)

.344(-.079)

CP .037**(.209)

.052(.220)

.061*(.179)

.183(.145)

.166(.122)

.132(.148)

.160(.120)

.302(.099)

.497(.063)

.622(.050)

CI .524*(.054)

.870(-.150)

.119(.127)

.336(.085)

.259(.044)

.426(.063)

.433(.056)

.874(.012)

.119(.123)

.181(.111)

ML .063(.165)

.175(.116)

.154(.110)

.008(.201)

.001***(.263)

EVML .588(.045)

.591(.043)

.075(.128)

.455(.052)

.768(.022)

MRML .315(.090)

.020**

(.201)

.703

(.029)

.336

(.073)

.002***

(.252)MEML .741

(-.028).356

(-.076).720

(-.026).752

(.023).012*

(-.194)

CP ML .540(.062)

.801(.025)

.744(.029)

.859(-.015)

.982(.002)

CI ML .223(-.107)

.790(-.022)

.534(.047)

.616(-.037)

.468(.058)

FA .533(-.079)

.452(-.097)

.256(.127)

.017(.297)

.946(-.008)

.965(.005)

.197(-.140)

.158(-.154) .954

(-.007)

.974(-.004)

FC .134(-.197)

.232(-.160)

.000***

(-.457)

.000(-.573)

.029**(-.253)

.024(-.263)

.991(-.001)

.807(.028)

.004***

(-.356)

.017(-.291)

Adjusted R2

.273 .332 .322 .322 .435 .457 .472 .480 .365 .409

*p.10, **p

7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

20/25

5.2 Managerial ContributionThis study also provides important implications to chief executives, and marketing manager who areresponsible for strategic planning. It helps them justify key support of the five dimensions of dynamicmarketing strategy that may be more critical on NPD efficiency, business marketing excellence, customervalue creativity, marketing competitiveness, marketing success and marketing performance. However,dynamic marketing strategy is the one of choice strategic of marketing performance. Managers shouldthoroughly understand, manage, and organizational members to provide marketing learning focus,intelligent technology utilization and stakeholder responsive willingness through marketing outcome.

5.3. CONCLUSION

This study investigates the impact of dynamic marketing strategy and its antecedents and consequenceconstructs by the home decoration exporting business in Thailand. This study examines each dimensionof dynamic marketing strategy, namely, marketing learning focus, proactive customer orientation, productinnovation awareness, intelligent technology utilization and stakeholder responsive willingness whichinfluence NPD efficiency, business marketing excellence, customer value creativity, marketingcompetitiveness, marketing success and marketing performance. These associations are positivelysignificant and partially supported. Moreover, NPD efficiency, business marketing excellence, customervalue creativity, marketing competitiveness, and marketing success have a potential positive impact onmarketing performance. Surprisingly, there are a few relationships between moderating variables and

dimension of dynamic marketing strategy. Future study may consider including attractive theory to explainphenomenon with dynamic marketing strategy for R-A theory and RBV theory.

REFERENCES:

Aaker, David A., Kumar, V. and Day, George S. 2001. Marketing Research. New York: John Wiley andSons.

Armstrong, J. Scott. and Overton, Terry S. 1977. Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. Journalof Marketing Research.14: 396-402.

Ambler, T. and H. Roberts. 2008. Assessing marketing performance dont settle for a silver metric,Journal of Marketing Management. 24(7-8): 733-750.

Barney, Jay B. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage, Journal of Management.17(1): 99-120.

Bharadwaj, S.G, P. R. Varadarajan and J. Fahy. 1993.Subtainable competitive advantage in serviceindustries: A conceptual model and research propositions. Journal of Marketing, 57(4):83-99.

Blocker, Christopher P., Flint, Daniel J., Myers, Matthew B. and Slater, Stanley F. 2011. Proactivecustomer orientation and its role for creating customer value in global markets. Journal of the Academy ofMarketing Science. 39:216-233.

Brush, Barbara l. 2008. Global Nurse Migration Today. Journal or Nursing Scholarship. 40(1): 20-25.

Calantone, Roger J, Cavusgil, S. Tamer, Zhou, Yushan. 2002. Learning orientation, firm innovationcapability, and firm performance. Industrial marketing management. 31:515-524.

Chandy, Rajesh K., Tellis, Gerard J. 1998. Organization for Radical Product Innovation: The OverlookedRole of Willingness to Cannibalize. Journal of Marketing Research. 474-487.

Ching, H.Y and T.T Hsu. 2006. The Impact of Dynamic Capabilities With Market Orientation and


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

21/25

Resource-Based Approaches on NPD Project Performance. The journal of American Academyof Business. 8(1) : 215-229.

Day, G.S and R. Wensley. 1988. Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing CompetitiveSuperiority. Journal of Marketing. 52: 1-20.

Doty, Harold, Glick, William and Huber. 1993. Fit, Equifinality, and Organizational Effectiveness: A Testof Two Configurational Theories.Academy of Management Journal. 36(6): 1196-1250.

Dreyer, Bent. and Gronhaug, Kjell. 2004. Uncertainty, flexibility, and sustained competitive advantage.Journal of Business Research. 57: 484-494.

Du,S., C.B. Bhattacharya and S. Sen. 2007. Reaping relational rewards from corporate socialresponsibility: The role of competitive positioning. International Journal of Research in Marketing. 24:224-241.

Gluck, F.W. 1981. Vision and leadership in corporate strategy, The MeKINSEY QUARERLY. 13-27.

Eisenhardt, Kathleen M. and J. A. Martin. 2000. Dynamic capabilities: What are they? , StrategyManagement Journal. 21:1105-1121

Eisenhardt and Jeffrey M.. 2000. Dynamic Capabilities: What are they?, Strategic Management Journal.21: 1105-1121.

Fanelli, A., V.F Misangyi and H.L. Tosi. 2009. In Charisma We Trust: The Effects of CEO CharismaticVisions on Securities Analysts. Organization Science. 20(6): 1011-1033.

Griffith, D.A., S. M. Noble and Q. Chen. 2006. Performance implication of entrepreneurial proclivity:Dynamic capabilities approach. Journal of Retailing. 82:51-62.

Gima, K.A. and Y. Wei. 2010. The Vital Role of Problem-Solving Competence in New ProductSuccess. Journal Product Innovation Management. 28:81-98.

Kok, Robert A.W., Biemans Wim G. 2009. Creating a market-oriented product innovation process: Acontingency approach. Technovation. 29:517-526.

Hair, Joseph F., Black, William C., Babin, Barry J., Anderson, Roth E. and Taltham, Ronald L. 2006.Multivariate Data Analysis. 6

thed. New Jersey: Pearson Education.

Jarratt, D., and R. Fayed. 2001. The impact of market and organizational challenges on marketingstrategy decision-making: a qualitative investigation of the business-to-business sector, Journal ofBusiness Research. 51 : 61-72.

Junarsin, E. 2010. Issues in the Innovation Service Product Process: A Managerial Perspective.International Journal of Management. 27(3) : 616-627.

Jensen, H. 2001. Antecedent and consequences of consumer value assessments: implicationsfor marketing strategy and future research. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services. 8:299-310.

Junarsin, E. 2010. Issues in the Innovation Service Product Process: A ManagerialPerspective.International Journal of Management. 27(3): 616-627.

Javalgi,R.G., T.W. Whipple, A. K. Ghosh and R.B. Young. 2005. Market orientation, strategy flexibility,and performance: implications for services providers. The Journal of Service Marketing, 19: 213-221.


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

22/25

Kosfeld, M. and F.V. Siemens. 2007. Competition, Cooperation and Corporate culture,Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor, 1-37.

Kyriakopoulos, K. and C. Moorman. 2004. Tradeoffs in marketing exploitation and explorationstrategies: The overlooked role of market orientation, International Journal of Research in Marketing. 21:219-240.

Lawrence, P. R. and J. Lorsch. 1967. Differentiation and Integration in Complex Organizations,Administrative Science Quarterly. 12(1):1-47.

Lamberti, L.and G. Noci. 2010. Marketing strategy and marketing performance measurement system:Exploring the relationship, European Management Journal. 28:139-152.

Lumpkin, G.T and G.G. Dess. 2001. Linking two dimensions of entrepreneurial orientation to firmperformance: The moderating role of environment and industry life cycle, Journal of Business Venturing.16 : 429-451.

Larwood, L., C.M. Falbe, M.P. Kriger and P. Miesing. 1995. Structure and Meaning of OrganizationalVision, Academy of Management Journal. 38(3) : 740-769.

Lichtenstein, S. and P. Dade. The shareholder value chain: values, vision and shareholder valuecreation, Journal of General Management. 33(1) : 15-31., 2007.

Menguc, Bulent, Auh, Seigyoung. 2010. Development and return on execution of product innovationcapabilities: The role of organizational structure. Industrial Marketing Management. 39:820-831.

Morgan,N., D. W. Vorhies, and C. H. Mason. 2009. Market Orientation, Marketing capacities, and firmperformance, Strategic Management Journal. 30 : 909-920.

Mu, J., G. Peng and D. L. MacLachlan. 2009. Effect of risk management strategy on NPD performance,Technovation, 29, 170-180.

Narver, John C., Slater, Stanley F and Maclachland Douglas L. 2004. Responsive and Proactive

Marketing Orientation and New-Product Success. The Journal of Product Innovation Management.21:334-347.

Neuman, William L.2006. Social research methods qualitative and quantitative approaches. Six edition.USA, Pearson Education, Inc.

Norburn, David, Birley, Sue, Dunn, Mark, Payne, Adrian. 1990. A four nation study of the relationshipbetween marketing effectiveness, corporate couture, corporate values, and market orientation. Journal ofInternational Business Studies. 21(3):451-468

Nunnally, Jum C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. USA, McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Klein, J., and N. Dawar. 2004. Coporate social responsibility and consumers attributions and

Brand evaluations in a product-harm crisis, International Journal of Research in Marketing, 21,203-217.

Kosfeld, M. and F.V. Siemens. 2007. Competition, Cooperation and Corporate culture,Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der arbeit Institute for the Study of Labor, 1-37.

Kambil, A. 1995. Business strategy in the wired world: competing for market leadership and mindshare. Center for Digital Economy Research Stern School of Business. : 1-31.


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

23/25

Lieberman, M.B. and D.B. Montgomery. 1988. First-Mover Advantages. Strategic ManagementJournal. 9 : 41-58.

Luo, Y. 2000. Dynamic Capabilities In International Expansion. Journal of World Business. 35(4): 355-377.

Lin,J., C.L.Hsu and T.H. Tsai. 2011. The influences of national images on marketing performance: amediated model link, European Management Journal. 20(4), 414-422.,

Schein, E.H. 1996. Culture: The Missing Concept in Organization Studies. Administrative ScienceQuarterly.41(2) : 229-240.

Morgan,N., D. W. Vorhies, and C. H. Mason. 2009. Market Orientation, Marketing capacities,and firm performance, Strategic Management Journal. 30 : 909-920.

Morgan, N. 2012. Marketing and business performance, Journal of Academy Marketing. 40 :102-119.

Maklan, S. and S. Knox. 2009. Dynamic capabilities: the missing link in CRM investments, European

Journal of Marketing. 43(11-12):1392-1410.

Maignan, I. and O.C. Ferrell. 2003. Nature of corporate responsibilities Perspectives from American,French, and German consumers, Journal of Business Research. 56:55-67.

OCass, Aron, Ngo, Liem Viet. 2011. Winning through innovation and marketing: Lessons from Australiaand Vietnam. Industrial Marketing Management. 40:1319-1329.

Racela, Olimpia and Thoumrungroje, Amonrat. 2010. A comparative study of new product developmentsuccess of Thai and U.S. firms. International Journal of Business Strategy. 10(3).

Reimann,M., O. Schilke and J.S.Thomas. 2010. Toward an understanding of industry commonditization:Its nature and role in evolving marketing competition. Intenational Journal of Research in Marketing ,27:188-197.

Smircich, L. ., 1983 Concepts of Culture and Organizational Analysis,Administrative Science Quarterly.28: 339-358.

Spillan, J. and J. Parnell. 2006. Marketing Resources and Firm Performance Among SMEs, EuropeanManagement Journal.24(2-3) : 236-245.

Oliver, C. and I. Holzinger. 2008. The effectiveness of strategic political management: a dynamiccapability framework,Academy of Management Review. 33(2):496-520.

Tynan, C. and S. McKechnie. 2009. Experience marketing: a review and reassessment , Journal ofMarketing Management. 25(5-6): 501-517.

Tan, J. and Y. Zeng2009.. A stage-dependent model of resource utilization, strategic flexibility, andimplications for performance over time : Empirical evidence from a transitional environment ,Asia PacificJournal of Management. 25(5-6): 501-517.

Tajeddini, K. and Truenan, M. 2008. Potential for Innovativeness: a tale of the Swiss watch industryJournal of Marketing Management. 24(1-2):169-184.

Teece, David J., Pisano, Gary and Shuen, Amy. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.Strategic management journal. 18(7) : 509-533.


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

24/25

Teece, David J.,. 2007. Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of(sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal. 28: 1319-1350.

Wanerfelt, B. 1984. A Resource- Based View of the Firm, Strategic ManagementJournal. 5(2):171-180.

Weber, M. 2008. The business case for corporate social responsibility: A company-level measurementapproach for CSR. European Management Journal. 26:247-261.

Wei, Y. and Q. Wang. 2011. Making sense of a market information system for superior performance:The roles of organization responsiveness and innovation strategy. Industrial Marketing Management. 40:267-277.

Vazquez, R., M. L.Santos and L. I. Alvarez. 2001. Market Orientation, Innovativeness and competitivestrategies in industrial firms, Journal of Strategic Market. 9: 69-90.

Yang. C.Y2009. The study of repurchase intentions in experiential marketing an empirical study of thefranchise restaurant , The International Journal of Organizational Innovation. 2(2):245-261.

Zhou, Kevin Zheng, Gerald Yong Gao, Zhilin Yang and Nan Zhou. 2005. Developing Strategic

Orientation in China: Antecedent and Consequences of Market and Innovation Orientations. Journal ofBusiness Research. 58(8): 1049-1058.

Zott, C. 2003. Dynamic capabilities and the emergence of intraindustry differential firm performance:insights from a simulation study. Strategic Management Journal. 24: 97-125.

Zhang, Junfeng, Benedetto, C. Anthony Di, Hoenig, Scott. 2009. Product Development Strategy, ProductInnovation Performance, and the Mediating Role of Knowledge Utilization: Evidence from Subsidiaries inChina. Journal of International Marketing. 17(2): 42-58.

AUTHOR PROFILES:

Rapheephan Phong-inwong earned her M.B.A. from Khon Kean University, Thailand in 2001. Currently,she is a Ph.D. (Candidate) in Management at Mahasarakham Business School, MahasarakhamUniversity, Thailand.

Dr. Phapruke Ussahawanitchakit earned his Ph.D. from Washington State University, USA in 2002.Currently, he is an associate professor of accounting and Dean of Mahasarakham Business School,Mahasarakham University, Thailand.

Dr. Karun Pratoom earned his Ph.D. fromSrinakharinwirot University, Thailand in 2004. Currently, he isan assistant professor of management and Associate Dean of Mahasarakham Business School,Mahasarakham University, Thailand.


7/30/2019 84420149.pdf

25/25

Copyright of International Journal of Business Strategy is the property of International Academy of Business &

Economics (IABE) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without

the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.

Documents

84420149.pdf