市场营销外国文献

Leadership behaviors,organizational culture and knowledge management practices An empirical investigation Hai Nam Nguyen and Sherif Mohamed School of Engineering,Grif?th University,Gold Coast,Australia

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this study is to investigate the relationship between leadership behaviors and knowledge management (KM)practices.More speci?cally,it aims to examine the in?uence of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors on KM,and the moderating effect of organizational culture on this relationship,in the context of small-to-medium sized enterprises (SMEs)operating in Australia.

Design/methodology/approach –A total of four hypotheses were proposed for testing.It also provides is a succinct review of KM basics relevant to the study,the relationship between leadership and KM,and leadership and organizational culture.

Findings –The results suggest that both transformational and transactional leadership are positively related to KM practices.They also reveal that charismatic leadership and contingent reward leadership behaviors have greater in?uence on all the dimensions of KM practices.

Research limitations/implications –A key limitation of this study is its cross-sectional nature.It is possible that at least certain aspects of leadership and organizational culture,and its impact on KM practices emerge with some kind of time lag.A longitudinal treatment of data might yield additional insights into the impact of leadership behaviors and organizational culture.This study was also unable to actually observe managers interacting with followers.

Practical implications –The results of the study are generally consistent with theoretical predictions based on extant research.

Originality/value –The results of this study provide compelling evidence in support of the moderating role of organizational culture on the relationship between transactional leadership and KM and will be of interest to those in the ?eld.

Keywords Organizational culture,Knowledge management,Behaviour,Leadership,

Competitive advantage,Australia

Paper type Research paper

Introduction An increasing number of organizations are turning to knowledge management (KM)as a key to leverage their distinctive core competencies in their pursuit of competitive advantage (Bhatt,2001).Organizations are interested in KM to boost the ef?ciency of their processes,increase their productivity and quality of their services,and to achieve innovative solutions and products for,their customers.Consequently,the contributions of KM to the overall success of an organization have been widely acknowledged (Lang,2001).Prior research studies have demonstrated that both organizational culture and leadership behaviors are widely held to be major barriers to creating and leveraging knowledge (Politis,2004).

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/481284930.html,/0262-1711.htm

JMD

30,2

206

Received 26November 2009

Accepted 21June 2010Journal of Management Development

Vol.30No.2,2011

pp.206-221

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0262-1711

DOI 10.1108/02621711111105786

Carrillo et al.(2004)posited that effective KM depends not merely on IT platforms, but more broadly on the social ecology of an organization,and that IT is simply a facilitator.Effective KM,therefore,requires that attention be paid to the human and cultural aspects of business,particularly the experiences and tacit knowledge of employees(Nonaka and Konno,1998).Accordingly,De Long and Fahey(2000)argued that to effectively implement KM systems,managers need to diagnose the?t between their organization and KM objectives.Therefore,it is essential to articulate how organizational culture and leadership styles affect an organization’s ability to create and apply knowledge.It is only then,that appropriate strategies can be designed to either adapt the organizational culture,or to try reshaping it in order to support KM objectives.

The examination of the literature in the?elds of organizational culture and leadership reveals that these two concepts have been independently linked to KM. Researchers have examined the links between leadership styles and KM(Sarin and Mcdermott,2003),and also between organizational culture and KM(De Long and Fahey,2000).The literature also alludes to the role of leaders in“creating”and “maintaining”particular types of organizational culture(Kavanagh and Ashkanasy, 2006,Schein,2004).Equally,the literature on leadership suggests that the ability to understand and work within a certain culture is a prerequisite to leadership effectiveness(Bass and Avolio,1993).

This study,hence,empirically investigates the relationship between leadership behaviors and KM practices.More speci?cally,it examines the in?uence of transformational and transactional leadership behaviors on KM,and the moderating effect of organizational culture on this relationship,in the context of small-to-medium sized enterprises(SMEs)operating in Australia.For this purpose,four hypotheses were proposed for testing as described in the following three sections,which also provide a succinct review of KM basics relevant to the study,the relationship between leadership and KM,and leadership and organizational culture.

KM basics

As a preliminary consideration,it seems important to de?ne the term knowledge. While prima facie it is obvious,the reality is that knowledge is quite complex(Clarke and Rollo,2001).Of central importance is the type of knowledge that organizations need to manage.Nonaka and Takeuchi(1995)make the distinction between two types of knowledge:explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge.Discussions of this concept are abundant in the KM literature(Bollinger and Smith,2001).Explicit knowledge is de?ned as structured and codi?ed knowledge.It is formal and systematic and is easily expressed in the production speci?cations,scienti?c formulae or computer programs (Nonaka and Konno,1998),thus it can be easily communicated and shared.Tacit knowledge,in contrast,is unconsciously understood and applied,dif?cult to articulate, and developed directly from experience,and action(Zack,1999).Tacit knowledge is highly personal,hard to formalize,dif?cult to communicate or share with others.

KM is jointly a goal and a process.As an outcome or goal,KM is entirely focused on sharing knowledge for the bene?ts of the organization,as Bollinger and Smith(2001) concluded that the KM process is not much about control as it is about sharing, collaborating,and making best possible of a strategic resource”.KM,therefore,is Leadership behaviors

207

primarily about making tacit knowledge more accessible since it account for the

majority of an organization’s collective knowledge (Clarke and Rollo,2001).Leadership and KM

Due to the role leaders play,they have an enormous impact on KM practices within their organizations.Leaders create the conditions that allow (or otherwise)participants to exercise and cultivate their knowledge manipulation skills,to contribute their own individual knowledge resources to the organization’s pool of knowledge,and to have easy access to relevant knowledge (Crawford,2005;Politis,2002).It is inferred that leaders must attach a high value of knowledge,encourage questioning and experimentation through staff empowerment,building trust,and facilitating experiential learning on knowledge (Castiglione,2006).

Importantly,Politis (2002)suggests that the role of leadership is increasingly changing from information and knowledge gate-keeping to knowledge creation and knowledge sharing for all employees.The challenge for most leaders is to develop capacity in others by creating a climate in which acquiring and sharing knowledge is encouraged or even demanded.Bukowitz and Williams (1999)echoed the same sentiment when suggesting that,in a knowledge organization,leaders are no longer the source of knowledge and are no longer perched at the top of organization,but rather in the center.Consequently,KM processes cannot be managed in the traditional sense of management which centers on controlling the ?ow of information (Nonaka et al.,2000).In the light of these arguments,the two components of the “leadership”approach (transactional and transformational leadership)have been adopted in this study.The transactional leadership process builds upon exchange:the leader offers rewards (or threatens punishments)for the performance of desired behaviors and the completion of certain tasks (Bass and Avolio,1997).This type of leadership may result in followers’compliance,but is unlikely to generate enthusiasm for and a commitment to task objectives.Transformational leadership lies in the leader’s ability to inspire trust,loyalty,and admiration in followers,who then subordinate their individual interests to the interests of the group (Bass,2000).Unlike transactional leadership,transformational leadership focuses on intangible qualities such as vision,shared values,and ideas in order to build relationships,give larger meaning to separate activities,and provide common grounds in order to enlist followers in the change process.

Lam’s (2002)research found that transformational leadership can actually affect the process and achievement of an organization’s learning.Indeed,transformational leadership has positive effect on encouraging and emphasizing teamwork spirit and involvement.By motivating followers to question assumptions,be inquisitive,take intelligent risks and come up with creative observations,transformational leaders encourage individuals to break through learning boundaries and to share their learning experiences both within and across departments (Vera and Crossan,2004).Transactional leadership,on the other hand,can improve the ef?ciency of learning organization by emphasizing existing values and routines and focusing on increasing ef?ciency in current practices,which enable transactional leaders to foster rule-based ways of doing things (Bass,1995).Transactional leaders also provide organizational members with formal systems and training programs that disseminate existing learning to guide future actions and decisions (Vera and Crossan,2004).These arguments lead to the following two research hypotheses:JMD 30,2208

Within an organization:

H1.Transformational leadership behaviors are positively correlated with the type and frequency of KM practices.

H2.Transactional leadership behaviors are positively correlated with the type and frequency of KM practices.

Leadership and organizational culture

The literature review highlights that both transformational and transactional leaderships have a statistically signi?cant effect on KM implementation.The major gap in the literature,however,is the lack of attention given to the impact of organizational culture on the relationship between leadership and KM(Block,2003;Chang and Lee,2007).

Schein(2004)reveals that organizational culture consists of two layers of concepts, namely,visible and invisible characteristics.The visible layer means external buildings,clothing,behavior modes,regulations,stories,myths,languages and rites. The invisible layer means common values,norms,faith and assumptions of business organization https://www.wendangku.net/doc/481284930.html,anizational culture,in addition to the capability to integrate daily activities of employees to reach the planned goals,can also help organizations adapt well to the external environment for rapid and appropriate responses.

After examining the concepts of organizational culture and leadership closely, Schein(2004)concludes that organizational culture and leadership are two sides of the same coin;neither can be really understood by itself.During the process of organization formation,the founder of a company creates an organization,which re?ects their values and beliefs.In this sense,the founder creates and shapes the cultural traits of their organizations.In contrast,the cultural context conditions our actions,beliefs,and widely held values.Just as the leadership process is not divorced from the broader situational context in which the leadership takes place(Northouse,2001),unless the culture is supportive of leaders,leadership based on common values is impossible. Thus,culture determines a large part of what leaders do and how they do it.

Furthermore,according to Bass(1985),transactional leaders work within their organizational cultures and maintain consistent rules,procedures,and norms.On the other hand,Bass(1985)noted that transformational leaders frequently change their organizational culture with a new vision and revision of its shared assumptions,values and norms.In a transformational culture,there is generally a sense of purpose and a feeling of family.Assumptions,values and norms do not preclude individuals from pursuing their own goals and rewards.Superiors feel a personal obligation to help new members assimilate into the culture.Leaders and followers share mutual interests and a sense of shared fates and interdependence(Bass and Avolio,1993).

This review of literature provides ample support for the notion that the relationships between transformational/transactional leadership on KM are contingent upon various types of organizational culture.This study,hence,proposes the following additional hypotheses:

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/481284930.html,anizational culture moderates the relationship between transformational leadership and KM practices.

https://www.wendangku.net/doc/481284930.html,anizational culture moderates the relationship between transactional leadership and KM practices.Leadership behaviors

209

Methodology Research design A conceptual model comprising four constructs was developed (as shown in Figure 1):(1)transformational leadership;(2)transactional leadership;(3)organizational culture;and

(4)KM practices.

The model and its related four hypotheses were empirically examined using a questionnaire-based survey targeting SMEs operating in Australia.The rationale for selecting SMEs was two-fold.First,one of the main characteristics of SMEs is that management structures are often minimal,and decision-making is centralized at the owner/manager level.Hence,the leader’s personality and behaviors would be expected to have a signi?cant in?uence on supporting organizational KM practices.Second,individual SMEs are more likely to have a single organizational culture.Thus,culture and cultural ?t are more profound in SMEs than in large organizations where several cultures may be present.

Research instruments

Using pre-tested constructs and measures allow for the validity and reliability of the data collected.For the construct of KM practices,a 17-items assessment questionnaire developed by Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal (2001)was used to allow participants to indicate how frequently each of the identi?ed KM processes and tools is used within their respective organization.

For the measurement of leadership styles,the study uses the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X)developed by Bass and Avolio (1997).It represents one of the few measures available that attempts to assess the full range of leadership behaviors using a multifactor model (Antonakis et al.,2003).The survey contains 36items identifying transformational and transactional leadership behaviors.

Finally,Denison’s Organizational Cultural Survey (DOCS),adapted from Fey and Denison (2003),is selected to measure the organizational culture.This 36-item questionnaire asked employees to describe main aspects of their organization using a ?ve-point Likert rating system scale ranging from “strongly disagree”valued as “1”to “strongly agree”valued as “5”.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model and

hypotheses

JMD 30,2210

Data collection

Using of key informants in organization has been a popular method for data collection in many business research contexts(Huber,1991).Usually,these respondents are the senior ranks of organizations,residing at middle and executive levels.Those informants have good knowledge of organizational members and a holistic view of the organization as a whole(Gilley and Maycunich,2000).Surveys were mailed to1,000 middle managers of Australians SMEs.Within one month,157completed and usable questionnaires were returned,accounting for a response rate of15.7percent.Data were obtained from different managerial levels within a wide range of SMEs(in terms of size and industry).In addition,obtained data re?ected various organizational units of different sizes and functional backgrounds.In this way,the in?uence of confounding and background variables was randomized and cancelled out,thus increasing the validity of the empirical?ndings(Harkness et al.,2003).

Data analysis

Characteristic of the sample

Number of the employees in respondents’companies as follow:30(19.1percent)less than25employees,25(15.9percent)between25-50employees,34(21.7percent) between51-100employees,16(10.2percent)between101-200employees,and52(33.1 percent)between201-500employees.Regarding the number of years respondents have been working with their current organization;73(46.5percent)reported between1-5 years,31(19.7percent)between6-10years,40(25.5percent)between11-20years,and 13(8.3percent)over21years.Whilst,the majority of respondents for this study were at senior and middle management level,accounting for32.5percent and44.9percent respectively;21.7percent of respondents were at line management level.The demographic summary also reported69.4percent of the respondents mainly working as team leader and30.6percent working as team member.

Assessing measurement scale

Although all measured variables scales were derived from previous published research,assessments of reliability and validity were deemed necessary since these variables had not been extensively operationalized within the Australian context. Given that each of the model constructs were measured by an independent scale,the reliability of each scale was assessed using internal consistency and inter-total correlations.

Exploratory factor analysis(EFA)was then conducted to re?ne and uncover the appropriate factor structures to establish the best possible dimensionality,reliability and validity of measurement scales,based on the data collected.The VARIMAX method for orthogonal rotation under the components factor model was chosen to give a clear separation of the factors.The157cases met the acceptable sample size for undertaking EFA(Hair et al.,2006).

Strength of the inter-correlations among variables within each construct was supported by the inspection of the correlation matrix,with evidence of coef?cients greater than0.30.As Table I presents,values of the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy were greater than0.50.Bartlett’s tests of sphericity were large and signi?cant at the0.005level.The factorability was hence upheld for all factor analysis scenarios(Hair et al.,2006).With the sample of157,a factor loading of Leadership behaviors

211

0.50and above was considered signi?cant at the 0.05level to obtain power level of 80percent (Hair et al.,2006),thus variables having a factor loading of less than 0.50were eliminated.The cumulative percentages of total variance extracted by the successive factors were all greater than 50percent,hence considered a satisfactory solution (Tabachnick and Fidell,2007).The reliability coef?cients of all scales were above the minimum reliability level of 0.70,indicating satisfactory internal consistency.The foregoing con?rms that the results of CFA as presented in Table I comprise reliable and valid items for operationally de?ning the research constructs.

Relationship identi?cation

Multiple regression analysis is a multivariate statistical technique that allows prediction of a single dependent variable from more than one independent variable,and also the determination of in?uential independent variables (Hair et al.,2006).Multiple regression analysis was,hence,performed to test the ?rst two hypotheses;where the dependent variable KM was considered to be a single variable and transformational (TF)and transactional leadership behaviors (TA)were independent variables.Table II summarizes the regression results for testing H1and H2,which indicate that both TF and TA are positively related to KM,R 2values are 0.165and 0.087respectively.The more detailed picture on these relationships between leadership and KM was revealed by the ?ndings of the regression analyses at the factor level,and the results are presented in Table III and Table IV.The results indicate that,within

Construct

KMO Reliability Cumulative variance (%)Transformational leadership behaviors (TF)

0.9080.91750TF1:Attributed charisma

TF2:Individualized consideration

Transactional leadership behaviors (TA)

0.8130.79968TA1:Contingent reward

TA2:Management-by-exception (Active)

TA3:Management-by-exception (Passive)

TA4:Laissez-faire

Organizational culture (OC)

0.9350.96855OC1:Adaptability

OC2:Mission

OC3:Hierarchy

Knowledge management practices (KM)

0.8590.86253KM1:Knowledge exchange

KM2:Knowledge socialization

KM3:Knowledge internalization Note:KMO:Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy

Table I.

Factor analyses results ANOVA Coef?cients Independent variables R R 2F Sig.B Beta t Sig.Transformational leadership (TF)0.4060.16530.1930.0000.3460.404 5.4950.000Transactional leadership (TA)0.2940.087

14.7140.0000.3200.294 3.3860.000Table II.

Regression analysis of

KM practices on

transformational and

transactional leadership

behaviors JMD 30,2212

leadership behaviors,charisma and contingent reward are signi?cant contributors to KM,especially with knowledge socialization(SO)and knowledge exchange(EX).

To test the third hypothesis,and to determine whether organizational culture(OC) moderates the relationship between TF and KM,a moderated regression analysis was utilized.According to Arnold(1982),moderated regression analysis provides the most straightforward method for testing hypotheses in which an interaction term is applied. Accordingly,a hierarchical regression analysis with KM practices as the dependent variable was performed.The main effects of TF and TA were entered?rst,followed by the interaction terms of OC.The procedure eliminated the main effect of leadership prior to examining the interaction effect(Stone and Hollenbeck,1989).Additionally,in order to minimize multicollinearity,the independent variables(IVs)were centered,and the interaction terms were formed by multiplying together two centered terms(Hair et al.,2006;Cronbach,1987).The evidence of moderation is present when the interaction terms account for signi?cant residual variance in the dependent variable (Becerra-Fernandez and Sabherwal,2001).Hence,the change in R2and the F-statistic are examined for each step.Throughout the analyses,attention was also paid to the standardized coef?cient to see if the F-statistic for that hierarchical step was signi?cant.

As presented in Table V,when the interaction terms(TF￡HI,TF￡AD,and TF￡MI)were introduced in Step2,no signi?cant increases in R2were found,thus indicating that none of these dimensions of OC appears to moderate the effect of TF on KM practices within an organization.Therefore,H3was not supported.Nonetheless, H4was partially supported.As shown in Table VI,in the moderated regression of TA on KM,the interaction terms of hierarchy(HI)and mission(MI)culture were signi?cant.The results were indicated by the statistically signi?cant increase in the R2 values when the interaction terms were introduced.However,AD(adaptability)did not moderate the relationship between TA and KM.

To interpret the effect of the interaction term,and according to Aiken and West’s (1991)recommendation,the value of interaction variable was chosen to be one standard deviation below the mean,at the mean,and one standard deviation above the mean. Simple regression lines were then generated,by substituting these values into the moderated regression with the interaction terms.As result of this computation,three simple regression equations were produced(Figures2and3),where the in?uence of HI and MI on the relationship between TA and KM was revealed.The statistical signi?cance of the slopes of these simple regression equations were also analyzed and established(Aiken and West,1991).The simple regression equations detailed in

Criterion

Predictor

Unstandardized coef?cient/standardized

coef?cient b(t statistic)

CH IC R R2Adj.R2F

IN0.048/0.062(0.600)0.135/0.183(1.756)0.2290.0520.040 4.259

SO0.278/0.305(3.185)*0.155/0.179(1.864)0.4440.1970.18718.897 EX0.315/0.291(2.864)*0.037/0.036(0.351)0.3150.0990.0888.506 Notes:*Signi?cant at the0.005level;CH:Attributed charisma;IC:Individual consideration; IN:Internalization;SO:Socialization;EX:Exchange

Table III. Regression model of the relationships between TF

and KM factors

Leadership

behaviors

213

C r i t e r i o n P r e d i c t o r s U n s t a n d a r d i z e d c o e f ?c i e n t B /s t a n d a r d i z e d c o e f ?c i e n t b (t s t a t i s t i c )C R M B E A M B E P L F R R 2A d j .R 2F I N 0.156/0.217(2.521)*20.109/-0.162(22.026)20.03/-0.042(20.414)0.076/0.1010.9890.2970.0880.0643.667S O 0.387/0.457(5.811)**20.020/-0.025(20.348)0.025/0.031(0.328)0.032/0.0360.3870.4860.2370.21611.773E X

0.384/0.38(4.626)**20.053/-0.057(20.741)20.053/-0.053(20.544)0.102/0.0960.9880.4080.1660.1447.568N o t e s :*S i g n i ?c a n t a t t h e 0.05l e v e l ;**S i g n i ?c a n t a t t h e 0.005l e v e l C R :

C o n t i n g e n t r e w a r d ;M B E A :M a n a g e m e n t -b y -e x c e p t i o n a c t i v e ;M B E P :M a n a g e m e n t -b y -e x c e p t i o n p a s s i v e ;L F :L a i s s e z f a i r e ;I N :I n t e r n a l i z a t i o n ;S O :S

o c

i a

l

i

z

a t i o n ;E X :E x c h a n g e Table IV.

Regression model of the

relationships between TA

and KM factors JMD 30,2214

Figures 1and 2both indicated a signi?cant (p ,0.05)positive regression of KM on TA at all levels of HI and MI.The equations indicate that the lower the HI or MI level,the steeper the slope.This suggests that HI and MI have negative moderating effects on TA’s contribution to KM,thus suggesting that the stronger hierarchical,goal-oriented and competitive the culture,the weaker the positive relationship between transactional leadership behaviors and KM practices.

Discussion

The results of this study suggest that both transformational and transactional leadership are positively related to KM practices.These results received support from Politis’s (2001)and Crawford’s (2005)recent contentions that the aforesaid leadership behaviors are positively related to knowledge acquisition attributes and KM inventory.The obtained results of this study,however,further reveal that charismatic leadership Independent

Step 1

Step 2TF

TF ￡HI TF ￡AD TF ￡MI Beta t Beta t Beta t Beta t TF

0.404 5.495**0.416 5.403**0.398 5.283**0.411 5.347**Interaction effect

TF ￡HI

0.0410.532TF ￡AD

20.5320.721TF ￡MI

0.0250.328Equation

D R 2

0.0020.0030.001R 2

0.1630.1650.1660.164D F

0.2830.5200.107F 30.193**15.168**15.310**15.063**Notes:*Signi?cant at 0.05level;**signi?cant at 0.01level;TF:Transformational leadership behaviors;HI:Hierarchy;AD:Adaptability;MI:Mission

Table V.Result of multiple regression analysis of transformational leadership and KM

practices with the

moderating effect of

organizational culture Independent Step 1

Step 2TA

TA ￡HI TA ￡AD TA ￡MI Beta T Beta t Beta t Beta t TA 0.294 3.836**0.269 3.487**0.271 3.487**0.261 3.378**Interaction effect

TA ￡HI 20.14721.904*

TA ￡AD 20.12621.62420.17122.211*TA ￡MI

Equation

D R 20.0210.0150.028R 20.0870.1080.1020.115

D F 3.624* 2.639 4.888*F 14.714**9.293**8.754**9.985**

Notes:*Signi?cant at 0.05level;**signi?cant at 0.01level;TA:Transactional leadership behaviors;HI:Hierarchy;AD:Adaptability;MI:Mission Table VI.Result of multiple regression analysis of transactional leadership and KM practices with the moderating effect of organizational culture Leadership behaviors 215

and contingent reward leadership behaviors have greater in?uence on all the dimensions of KM practices.These ?ndings are certainly parallel with prior research in the ?eld of KM and organizational innovation (Chang and Lee,2007;Lam,2002).These studies generally suggest that charismatic leadership and contingent reward behaviors contribute to the creation of organizational knowledge and a managerial mindset that promote the ?ow of knowledge through organization.

Interestingly,the contribution of contingent reward leadership,on all dimensions of KM practices,seems to be slightly stronger than the effect of charisma attributed behaviors (as presented in Tables V and VI).These ?ndings was somewhat unexpected because the classical theoretical arguments presented in the literature clearly indicate that charismatic leadership is a much more effective type of leadership in various settings and with different leadership outcomes (Lam,2002;Bryant,2003).Few explanations may be offered herein to explain this difference.First,as knowledge has often been perceived as a source of power,people tend to have feelings of “ownership”and often hoard knowledge (Andreas,2005).This adds to competition

Figure 2.

Regression of KM on TA

on different levels of

HI

Figure 3.

Regression of KM on TA

on different levels of

MI

JMD 30,2216

among people interested in reward and recognition.With contingent reward leadership behaviors,employees are motivated and directed to achieve expected standard of performance in exchange for the promised reward which may include satisfactory performance,pay increases,praise and recognitions,better work assignment and the like(Yukl,2006),thus improving the ef?ciency of organizational learning or knowledge creation.

Second,it is also possible that the nature of organizational context in this study requires more contingent reward leadership than in other previous studies.The effectiveness of leadership may vary across different context(Bass,1985).Vera and Crossan(2004)contend that while transformational leaders foster individual and group learning in a context of change,transactional leaders do so within a context of stability. Given that the surveyed organizations might emphasize more on ef?ciency,safety and continuity rather than experimentation,risk taking and punctuated change,hence the kind of conventional behaviors speci?ed by contingent reward leadership might be relatively more effective.

Although,the literature highlights impact of organizational culture on the effectiveness of leadership(Block,2003;Bass and Avolio,1993),the results of the present study did not?nd that is the case with transformational leadership and KM practices.Several factors may help to explain this?nding.It is possible that transformational leaders can create or change the culture to support KM,instead of having direct in?uence on KM practices.This explanation is in agreement with Jung et al.’s(2003)contention that transformational leadership can directly and indirectly enhance organizational innovation by creating a supportive organizational culture. Consistent with this viewpoint,Lim(1995)proposed that culture might be the?lter through which leadership in?uence organizational performance.

At the same time,secondary cultural embedding mechanisms such as organizational structure,existing systems and procedures,and the physical arrangement of works space were not considered in this study.It is noted in the reviewed literature that KM may be hindered by organizational culture that is highly formalized and heavily dependent on standard operating procedures,rules,and regulation(De Long and Fahey,2000;Schein,2004).Additionally,Lam’s(2002)study found that transformational leadership effectiveness is highly dependent on the contextual factors such as organizational structure,formal arrangement of works and the degree of power sharing.Hence,it is plausible that the insigni?cant moderating role of organizational culture on the effectiveness of transformational leadership behaviors for KM could be explained as due to the overlook of these secondary cultural in?uences.

Results of this study,however,demonstrated that the relationship between transactional leadership and KM practices was moderated by hierarchy and mission organizational culture.The moderating effect is less clear with the adaptability culture; it did not make any signi?cant change in the variance.Moreover,the negative beta values indicate that the higher scores in organizational culture were associated with lower contributions of transactional leadership to KM practices,with the exception of adaptability culture.These results provide compelling evidence in support of the moderating role of organizational culture on the relationship between transactional leadership and KM.Leadership behaviors

217

The above results extend the ?ndings of Bass’s (1985)and Howell and Avolio’s (1993)studies by revealing the negative impact of hierarchy and mission culture on leadership.These ?ndings,however,are contrary with Burns and Stalker’s (1961)proposition that highly centralized,formalized,and standardized organizational culture are favored by transactional leadership.Nevertheless,a study by Bass and Avolio (1993)found that a strong organizational culture,with values and internal

guides for more autonomy at lower level,can prevent the leader from increasing his/her personal in?uence on followers.Consistent with this viewpoint,Kwantes and Boglarsky (2007)posited that aspects of organizational culture,that encourage controlling and competitive behaviors,could negatively affect transactional leadership effectiveness.

Implications for managerial practices

There are several important implications from this research for SMEs.The study ?ndings suggest that both transformational and transactional leadership behaviors are essential to KM practices.The creation of a successful KM system,however,depends on how well leaders can balance transactional and transformational behaviors,authoritarian and participative systems,and task and relationship orientation.Leaders who choose transactional behaviors will work within current culture and follow existing norms,values,and procedures.In this sense,transactional leadership behaviors reinforce current KM practices.Transformational leadership behaviors,in contrast,allow top executives to adapt the organizational culture and realign it with the new vision,when needed.

Furthermore,the ?ndings indicated that charisma and contingent reward are the most effective leadership behaviors for KM practices.Leaders should,therefore,focus on developing these leadership behaviors,depending upon the situation.They should build respect and trust based on working with individuals,on setting up and determining agreements in order to achieve speci?c goals,on clarifying expectations,and on providing rewards for the successful completion of tasks.Importantly,Bass (1985)established that transformational and transactional leadership behaviors can be learned through training programs.This holds an important message for management.Individuals can develop transformational and transactional leadership behaviors,and as it is argued here,these behaviors can have positive impact on KM.

This study also highlighted the moderating role of organizational culture.The results indicated that the effectiveness of leadership behaviors were contingent upon the type of organizational culture.Hence,these ?ndings suggest that leaders should use this mechanism effectively in order to establish the forms of thinking and the levels of motivation and behaviors that are important for the organization.When KM is in focus,leaders must devote time and attention to knowledge activities and issues,and they can do so through every-day behaviors that send a clear message,something that particularly important.

Limitations and directions for future research

One of the key limitations is the cross-sectional nature of the study.It is possible that at least certain aspects of leadership and organizational culture,and its impact on KM practices emerge with some kind of time lag.A longitudinal treatment of data might yield additional insights into the impact of leadership behaviors and organizational

JMD 30,2218

culture.This study was also unable to actually observe managers interacting with followers.Critics recommend using observational data to supplement survey measures of transformational and transactional leadership(Howell and Avolio,1993).It was agreed that such strategies serve to enhance understanding of complex forms of leadership in several different context(Bass and Avolio,1990).Nevertheless,it is important to note that the results of the study are generally consistent with theoretical predictions based on extant research.

References

Aiken,L.S.and West,S.G.(1991),Multiple Regression:Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage Publications,Newbury Park,CA.

Andreas,R.(2005),“Three-dozen knowledge-sharing barriers managers must consider”,Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol.9,p.18.

Antonakis,J.,Avolio,B.J.and Sivasubramaniam,N.(2003),“Context and leadership:an examination of the nine-factor full-range leadership theory using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire”,The Leadership Quarterly,Vol.14,pp.261-95.

Arnold,H.J.(1982),“Moderator variables:a clari?cation of conceptual,analytic,and psychometric issues”,Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,Vol.29, pp.143-74.

Bass,B.M.(1985),Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations,Free Press,New York,NY. Bass,B.M.(1995),“Theory of transformational leadership redux”,The Leadership Quarterly, Vol.6,pp.463-78.

Bass,B.M.(2000),“The future of leadership in learning organizations”,Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies,Vol.7,pp.18-40.

Bass,B.M.and Avolio,B.J.(1990),“Developing transformational leadership:1992and beyond”, Journal of European Industrial Training,Vol.14,pp.21-7.

Bass,B.M.and Avolio,B.J.(1993),“Transformational leadership and organizational culture”, Public Administration Quarterly,Vol.17,pp.112-21.

Bass, B.M.and Avolio, B.J.(1997),Full Range Leadership Development:Manual for the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire,Mind Garden,Palo Alto,CA.

Becerra-Fernandez,I.and Sabherwal,R.(2001),“Organizational knowledge management:

a contingency perspective”,Journal of Management Information Systems,Vol.18,

pp.23-55.

Bhatt,G.D.(2001),“Knowledge management in organizations:examining the interaction between technologies,techniques,and people”,Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol.5, pp.68-75.

Block,L.(2003),“The leadership-culture connection:an exploratory investigation”,Leadership& Organization Development Journal,Vol.24,pp.318-34.

Bollinger,A.S.and Smith,R.D.(2001),“Managing organizational knowledge as a strategic asset”, Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol.5,pp.8-18.

Bryant,S.E.(2003),“The role of transformational and transactional leadership in creating, sharing and exploiting organizational knowledge”,Journal of Leadership&Organizational Studies,Vol.9,p.32.

Bukowitz,W.R.and Williams,R.L.(1999),“Looking through the knowledge glass”,CIO,Vol.13, pp.76-80.Leadership behaviors

219

Burns,T.and Stalker,G.M.(1961),The Management of Innovation ,Tavistock Publications,London.Carrillo,P.,Robinson,H.,Ahmed,A.-G.and Anumba,C.(2004),“Knowledge management in UK construction:strategies,resources and barriers”,Project Management Journal ,Vol.35,pp.46-56.Castiglione,J.(2006),“Organizational learning and transformational leadership in the library

environment”,Library Management ,Vol.27,pp.289-99.

Chang,S.-C.and Lee,M.-S.(2007),“A study on relationship among leadership,organizational

culture,the operation of learning organization and employees’job satisfaction”,The Learning Organization ,Vol.14,pp.155-85.

Clarke,T.and Rollo,C.(2001),“Corporate initiatives in knowledge management”,Education

tTraining ,Vol.43,pp.206-14.

Crawford,C.B.(2005),“Effects of transformational leadership and organizational position on

knowledge management”,Journal of Knowledge Management ,Vol.9,pp.6-16.

Cronbach,L.J.(1987),“Statistical tests for moderator variables:?aws in analyses recently

proposed”,Psychological Bulletin ,Vol.102,pp.414-7.

De Long,D.W.and Fahey,L.(2000),“Diagnosing cultural barriers to knowledge management”,

Academy of Management Executive ,Vol.14,pp.113-27.

Fey,C.F.and Denison,D.R.(2003),“Organizational culture and effectiveness:can American

theory be applied in Russia?”,Organization Science ,Vol.14,pp.686-706.

Gilley,J.W.and Maycunich,A.(2000),Organizational Learning,Performance and Change:

An Introduction to Strategic Human Resource Development ,Perseus,Cambridge,MA.Hair,J.F.,Black,W.C.,Babin,B.J.,Anderson,R.E.and Tatham,R.L.(2006),Multivariate Data

Analysis ,Pearson Prentice-Hall,Upper Saddle River,NJ.

Harkness,J.A.,Vijver,F.J.R.V.D.and Mohler,P.P.(2003),Cross-cultural Survey Methods ,J.Wiley,

Hoboken,NJ.

Howell,J.M.and Avolio,B.J.(1993),“Transformational leadership,transactional leadership,locus

of control,and support for innovation:key predictors of consolidated-business-unit performance”,Journal of Applied Psychology ,Vol.78,pp.891-902.

Huber,G.P.(1991),“Organizational learning:the contributing processes and the literatures”,

Organization Science ,Vol.2,pp.88-115.

Jung,D.I.,Chow,C.and Wu,A.(2003),“The role of transformational leadership in enhancing

organizational innovation:hypotheses and some preliminary ?ndings”,The Leadership Quarterly ,Vol.14,pp.525-44.

Kavanagh,M.H.and Ashkanasy,N.M.(2006),“The impact of leadership and change

management strategy on organizational culture and individual acceptance of change during a merger”,British Journal of Management ,Vol.17,pp.S81-S103.

Kwantes,C.T.and Boglarsky,C.A.(2007),“Perceptions of organizational culture,leadership

effectiveness and personal effectiveness across six countries”,Journal of International Management ,Vol.13,pp.204-30.

Lam,Y.L.J.(2002),“De?ning the effects of transformational leadership on organisational

learning:a cross-cultural comparison”,School Leadership &Management ,Vol.22,pp.439-52.

Lang,J.C.(2001),“Managerial concerns in knowledge management”,Journal of Knowledge

Management ,Vol.5,pp.43-57.

JMD 30,2220

Lim,B.(1995),“Examining the organizational culture and organizational performance link”, Leadership&Organization Development Journal,Vol.16,pp.16-21.

Nonaka,I.and Konno,N.(1998),“The concept of‘Ba’:building a foundation for knowledge creation”,California Management Review,Vol.40,pp.40-54.

Nonaka,I.and Takeuchi,H.(1995),The Knowledge-creating Company:How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation,Oxford University Press,New York,NY. Nonaka,I.,Toyama,R.and Konno,N.(2000),“SECI,Ba and leadership:a uni?ed model of dynamic knowledge creation”,Long Range Planning,Vol.33,pp.5-34.

Northouse,P.G.(2001),Leadership:Theory and Practice,Sage Publications,Thousand Oaks,CA. Politis,J.D.(2001),“The relationship of various leadership styles to knowledge management”, Leadership&Organization Development Journal,Vol.22,pp.354-64.

Politis,J.D.(2002),“Transformational and transactional leadership enabling(disabling), knowledge acquisition of self-managed teams:the consequences for performance”, Leadership&Organization Development Journal,Vol.23,pp.186-97.

Politis,J.D.(2004),“Transformational and transactional leadership predictors of the‘stimulant’determinants to creativity in organisational work environments”,Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management,Vol.2,pp.23-34.

Sarin,S.and Mcdermott,C.(2003),“The effect of team leader characteristics on learning, knowledge application,and performance of cross-functional new product development teams”,Decision Sciences,Vol.34,pp.707-39.

Schein,E.H.(2004),Organizational Culture and Leadership,Jossey-Bass,San Francisco,CA. Stone,E.F.and Hollenbeck,J.R.(1989),“Clarifying some controversial issues surrounding statistical procedures for detecting moderator”,Journal of Applied Psychology,Vol.74,p.3. Tabachnick,B.G.and Fidell,L.S.(2007),Using Multivariate Statistics,Pearson/Allyn&Bacon, Boston,MA.

Vera,D.and Crossan,M.(2004),“Strategic leadership and organizational learning”,Academy of Management Review,Vol.29,pp.222-40.

Yukl,G.(2006),Leadership in Organizations,Pearson,Upper Saddle River,NJ.

Zack,M.H.(1999),“Managing codi?ed knowledge(cover story)”,MIT Sloan Management Review,Vol.40,pp.45-58.

Corresponding author

Sherif Mohamed can be contacted at:s.mohamed@grif?https://www.wendangku.net/doc/481284930.html,.au Leadership behaviors

221

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail:reprints@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/481284930.html, Or visit our web site for further details:https://www.wendangku.net/doc/481284930.html,/reprints

完整word版精选国际市场营销案例分析

参考案例： （一）华为技术有限公司是成立于1988年初的高科技民营企业。从事通信网络技术与产品的研究、开发、生产与销售，专门为电信运营商提供光网络、固定网、移动网和增值业务领域的网络解决方案，是中国电信市场的主要供应商之一，并已成功进入全球电信市场。华为在全球设立了包括印度、美国、瑞典、俄罗斯等多个研究所，已连续数年成为中国申请专利最多的单位。 2008年,华为全球销售收入达到183.3亿美元,同比增长42.7%。2007年的实际销售收入为125.6亿美元,同比增长48%。华为的收入中75%来自国际市场,终端业务的销售收入也达到40亿美元,同比增长超过80%。终端业务80%以上的收入也来自国际市场。在华为海外市场中,包括欧洲以及中东、非洲在内的新兴市场,仍然是华为的主要海外收入来源。 华为自１９９６年起开始拓展国际市场，四年颗粒无收。为了争取客户，一方面，华为大力邀请客户来考察中国、考察华为。华为推出一条“新丝绸之路”，是从北京入境，再之后到上海、深圳，然后从香港出境。此外，华为还印了很多画册，取名《华为在中国》，把中国的一些好风景、好建筑拍成照片，同时附上华为产品的应用的情况，这也可以帮助客户了解。另一方面，各种展览会和论坛也是华为扩大影响的重要举措之一。无论是北京的中国国际通信展，还是香港３Ｇ大会、俄罗斯电信展、美国电信展等，华为都不放弃机会来宣传自己。利用每个展会，华为都邀请世界各地的客户来了解自己、加深沟通，大大增强了华为的品牌和在客户中的印象。２０００年，华为获得乌拉尔电信交换机和莫斯科ＭＴＳ移动网络两大项目，拉开了俄罗斯市场规模销售的步伐。２００２年底，华为又取得了３７９７公里的超长距离的从莫斯科到新西伯利亚国家光传输干线的订单。经过十一年的不懈努力和持续投入，华为已成为俄罗斯电信市场的领导者之一，与俄罗斯所有顶级运营商建立了紧密的合作关系，并积极参与俄罗斯电子政务网络建设。 ＫＤＤＩ是日本第二大、全球排名１２的电信运营商。２００８年７月，ＫＤＤＩ对华为生产现场进行了第一次审核。当时华为公司认为审核应该很容易过，因为他们认为证书拿了一大把，不会有问题。第一次审核完毕，ＫＤＤＩ审核的主审员福田非常生气地丢下９３个不合格项回了日本。并且传回来话说：“华为质量水平不行，而且华为工程师太骄傲，不够谦逊”。接下来的４个月时间，华为抛开分歧和异议，以ＫＤＤＩ的要求为标准，以客户的眼光来改进现场，投入很大资源对设备、现场进行了优化改造，准备迎接第二次审核。２００９年１０月，ＫＤＤＩ给了华为第一份合同，但它对华为并未完全信任。在２００９年１１月，ＫＤＤＩ第三次来到华为，派出８名专家在华为现场蹲点，在生产线上全过程看华为是怎么做产品的，产品从原材料分料到成品最后装箱，都要亲眼看到、检查过才放心。 2011年，华为、GENBAND、阿朗、Acme Packet等供应商在VoIP和IMS市场取得了显著增长。华为领跑了2011年运营商VoIP和IMS市场，其次是GENBAND。华为终端2011年在非洲、俄罗斯、印度等国家先后推出自主品牌的智能手机和平板电脑，全球销售收入突破67亿美元，同比增长50%，发货量突破1.5亿台，同比增长30%。数据卡方面，华为也继续保持全球领先的地位。

零售企业营销策略中英文对照外文翻译文献

零售企业营销策略中英文对照外文翻译文献(文档含英文原文和中文翻译)

译文： 零售企业的营销策略 Philip Kotlor 今天的零售商为了招徕和挽留顾客，急欲寻找新的营销策略。过去，他们挽留顾客的方法是销售特别的或独特的花色品种，提供比竞争对手更多更好的服务提供商店信用卡是顾客能赊购商品。可是，现在这一切都已变得面目全非了。现在，诸如卡尔文·克连，依佐和李维等全国性品牌，不仅在大多数百货公司及其专营店可以看到，并且也可以在大型综合商场和折扣商店可以买到。全国性品牌的生产商为全力扩大销售量，它们将贴有品牌的商品到处销售。结果是零售商店的面貌越来越相似。 在服务项目上的分工差异在逐渐缩小。许多百货公司削减了服务项目，而许多折扣商店却增加了服务项目。顾客变成了精明的采购员，对价格更加敏感。他们看不出有什么道理要为相同的品牌付出更多的钱，特别是当服务的差别不大或微不足道时。由于银行信用卡越来越被所有的商家接受，他们觉得不必从每个商店赊购商品。 百货商店面对着日益增加的价格的折扣店和专业商店的竞争，准备东山再起。历史上居于市中心的许多商店在郊区购物中心开设分店，那里有宽敞的停车场，购买者来自人口增长较快并且有较高收入的地区。其他一些则对其商店形式进行改变，有些则试用邮购盒电话订货的方法。超级市场面对的是超级商店的竞争，它们开始扩大店面，经营大量的品种繁多的商品和提高设备等级，超级市场还增加了它们的促销预算，大量转向私人品牌，从而增加盈利。 现在，我们讨论零售商在目标市场、产品品种和采办、服务以及商店气氛、定价、促销和销售地点等方面的营销策略。 一、目标市场 零售商最重要的决策时确定目标市场。当确定目标市场并且勾勒出轮廓时，零售商才能对产品分配、商店装饰、广告词和广告媒体、价格水平等作出一致的决定。如沃尔玛的目标市场相当明确：

英文文献小米手机的发展看市场营销

The marketing of millet phone Chapter I The background of millet Technology Company The millet Company was formally established in April 2010, is an independent research and development to focus on high-end smart phone mobile Internet company. Millet phone, MIUI, m chat millet company's three core businesses. Fever born millet product concept. Millet company pioneered the development of mobile phone operating system with the Internet model, 600,000 enthusiasts to participate in the development and improvement mode. Millet Technology (full name is millet technology limited liability company) set up by the former companies such as Google, Microsoft, Jinshan top players, is a focus on iphone, android, and a new generation of smart phone software development company hot mobile Internet business operations. Officially launched in April 2010, has to obtain the renowned Ambassador investors and venture capital Morningside, the Qiming huge investment. The end of 2010, mobile phone real name Community meters chat launched within six months, registered users exceeded 300 million. In addition, millet company also introduced the CM-based custom mobile operating system MIUI Android dual-core mobile phone millet phone. M chat, miui, millet phone is the the millet technology of three core products. The millet logo is the shape of "MI", is short for Mobile Internet, on behalf of millet is a mobile Internet company. Millet LOGO upside down is a heart word, the means of millet is to let millet user save heart. Millet Pinyin is mi, First Mobile Internet, the millet to do mobile Internet company; Second Mission Impossible, the millet to complete the task can not be completed; course, Lei Jun millet and rifles to conquer the world with his millet team. Chapter II millet phone marketing strategy 2.1 millet mobile phone marketing objectives August 16, 2011, when the millet Technology CEO Lei Jun appeared on the stage of the 798 Art District, Beijing Clubhouse, the presence of rice shouted "Lei Busi" name, this is no doubt that, in the minds of rice flour and look forward to forward Leijun Cheng as the next Steve Jobs, millet hope Apple phone. TechCrunch Disrupt conference held in Beijing on November 1, 2011, the millet Technology CEO Lei Jun said, the the millet technology goal is to become a "world-class" mobile Internet company and successfully broke into the top 500 list of "the rich" Apple iPhone redefined the smart phone and other smart phone products in the past five years, could not keep up with the iPhone for the same reason I launched millet phone. " 2.2 millet mobile product strategy Product strategy companies develop business strategies, we must first clear what products and services to meet the demands of consumers, that is to solve the problem of product strategy. Product strategy is a combination of the core of the marketing 4P, pricing strategy, distribution strategy and promotional strategy based. From the point of view of the socio-economic development, the exchange of products is a necessary prerequisite for the social division of labor, corporate production and social needs of the reunification is achieved through the product, the relationship between the enterprise and the market mainly through the product or service to contact from internal purposes, is the center of the production activities. Therefore, the product strategy is the

国际市场营销华为案例分析

华为案例分析 国际市场营销华为案例分析 一、华为国际营销战略分析 （一）华为公司简介 华为技术有限公司是一家总部位于中国广东深圳市的生产销售电信设备的员工持股的民营科技公司，于1988 年成立于中国深圳。是电信网络解决方案供应商。华为的主要营业范围是交换，传输，无线和数据通信类电信产品，在 电信领域为世界各地的客户提供网络设备、服务和解决方案。 目前，华为的产品和解决方案已应用于全球140 多个国家，服务全球运营商50 强中的 45 家及全球1/3 的人口。 （二）华为公司国际市场营销环境分析 从华为的产品性质来看，在国际市场上影响最大的应该是政治环境和文化环境。 1、政治环境分析 作为一种跨国界的经济与贸易行为，国际营销脱离不了各国的政治法律环境的制约。世界各国由于不同的政治制度， 不同的政治局势，具有不同法律效力的条约，公约及协定等，使得企业在不同的国家开展营销时，面临不同的情况，也使得企业在进行经营决策是缩影考虑的因素差异较大。鉴于此，华为在从事国际营销时，在全面了解各国的政治 和法律环境后，采取了以下措施： （1）寻求当地的合作者，利用当地合作者在东道国的关系和影响，增进企业对东道国社会各方面的了解， 从而减少政治风险。 （2）政府搭台—跟着外交路线走 （3）借助融资伙伴的力量 2、文化环境分析文化在国际市场营销中具有重要的地位，文化已渗透于营销活动的各个方面，文化环境正 逐渐成为影响国际市场营销的核心因素。华为主要通过以下几个方面进行跨文化管理： （1）实施本土化策略 （2）文化规避策略 （3）借助第三方文化策略 （三）华为国际化战略的路径选择 华为国际化采取的是务实的“先易后难”的战略。华为的任正非是“学毛标兵”，他的国际化战略是农村 包围城市的“海外”翻版。华为的国内市场也是通过先做县城再做城市的农村包围城市的战略创建起来的。 华为“先易后难”的发展道路具有两层含义：在国内，华为通过先做县城再做城市的农村包围城市的发展 道路创建了企业的国内市场；在国外，华为避免与欧美跨国公司争夺欧美市场，迂回侧翼地把非洲和亚洲 的一些第三世界国家作为企业国际化的起点。 1996 年华为启动了拓展国际市场的漫长之旅，起点就是非洲、中东、亚太、独联体以及拉美等第三世界国 家。在经过长达 10 年的发展中国家市场的磨砺和考验后，华为的产品、技术、团队、服务等已日趋成熟， 完全具备了与世界上最发达国家竞争的强大实力。华为才陆续登陆欧洲、日本、美国市场。农村包围城市的 “先易后难”的战略取得了阶段性的胜利。 （四）华为国际市场营销策略 1、市场细分 华为在进入国际市场时，根据地理状况和经济发展状况，将目标市场分为俄罗斯市场、拉美市场、非洲市 场、欧美市场。 2、选择目标市场和市场定位 根据华为对市场的细分，在综合考虑了企业的资源条件、产品市场的性质，选择首先将俄罗斯和拉美作为目标市 场，制定一套营销方案，集中力量争取在这些目标市场上占有较高份额。同时，华为的市场定位是“业界最佳设备供 应

外文文献(市场营销策略)

Marketing Strategy Market Segmentation and Target Strategy A market consists of people or organizations with wants,money to spend,and the willingness to spend it.However,within most markets the buyer' needs are not identical.Therefore,a single marketing program starts with identifying the differences that exist within a market,a process called market segmentation, and deciding which segments will be pursued ads target markets. Marketing segmentation enables a company to make more efficient use of its marketing resources.Also,it allows a small company to compete effectively by concentrating on one or two segments.The apparent drawback of market segmentation is that it will result in higher production and marketing costs than a one-product,mass-market strategy.However, if the market is correctly segmented,the better fit with customers' needs will actually result in greater efficiency. The three alternative strategies for selecting a target market are market aggregation,single segment,and multiple segment.Market-aggregation strategy involves using one marketing mix to reach a mass,undifferentiated market.With a single-segment strategy, a company still uses only one marketing mix,but it is directed at only one segment of the total market.A multiple-segment strategy entails selecting two or more segments and developing a separate marketing mix to reach segment. Positioning the Product Management's ability to bring attention to a product and to differentiate it in a favorable way from similar products goes a long way toward determining that product's revenues.Thus management needs to engage in positioning,which means developing the image that a product projects in relation to competitive products and to the firm's other products. Marketing executives can choose from a variety of positioning strategies.Sometimes they decide to use more than one for a particular product.Here are several major positioning strategies:

市场营销策略外文文献及翻译

市场营销策略外文文献及翻译 Marketing Strategy Market Segmentation and Target Strategy A market consists of people or organizations with wants,money to spend,and the willingness to spend it.However,within most markets the buyer' needs are not identical.Therefore,a single marketing program starts with identifying the differences that exist within a market,a process called market segmentation, and deciding which segments will be pursued ads target markets. Marketing segmentation enables a company to make more efficient use of its marketing resources.Also,it allows a small company to compete effectively by concentrating on one or two segments.The apparent drawback of market segmentation is that it will result in higher production and marketing costs than a one-product,mass-market strategy.However, if the market is correctly segmented,the better fit with customers' needs will actually result in greater efficiency. The three alternative strategies for selecting a target market are market aggregation,single segment,and multiple segment.Market-aggregation strategy involves using one marketing mix to reach a mass,undifferentiated market.With a single-segment strategy, a company still uses only one marketing mix,but it is directed at only one segment of the total market.A multiple-segment strategy entails

市场营销战略论文中英文外文翻译文献

中英文外文翻译文献 消费者行为与市场营销战略 消费者行为学是研究个体,群体和组织为满足其需要而如何选择,获取,使用,处置产品,服务,体验和想法以及由此对消费者和社会产生的影响.传统上,消费者行为研究侧重于购买前和购买后的有关活动.关于消费者行为学的界定较之传统观点更广泛,它将有助于引导我们从更宽广的视角审视消费者决策的间接影响以及对买卖双方的各种后果.为了在竞争激烈的环境中求得生存,企业必须比竞争者更多地为目标客户提供价值.顾客价值是顾客从整体产品中获得的各项利益扣除各种获取费用后的余额. 1.市场营销战略 对每一选取的目标市场,都应分别制定营销战略.选择目标市场的关键性标准或依据是企业是否有能力提供较竞争品高的消费者价值.消费者价值很大程度上是由营销战略决定,所以公司在评估潜在目标市场时,应当发展一般的营销战略.

1.1 产品 产品是消费者获得和用于满足其需要的任何东西.消费者所购买的或追求的是需要的满足,而不是具体形态的物质特性. 1.2 传播 营销传播包括广告,人员分销,公共关系,包装以及企业提供的关于它自身及其产品的其他信号. 1.3 定价 价格是消费者为获得拥有,使用产品的权利而必须支付的金钱数量.消 费者可以拥有一件产品,也可以仅仅拥有产品的使用权. 1.4 分销 分销实际上是让顾客在需要的时候能买到产品,它对企业的经营成败至关重要.绝大多数情况下,消费者不愿为获得某一特定品牌而伤身费力.很明显,有效地渠道决策应即建立在掌握消费者在何处购买的知识的基础上. 2.市场分析 市场分析要求全面深入地了解企业自身能力,现在和潜在竞争者的实力,潜在消费者的消费过程以及经济的,物质的和技术的环境. 2.1 消费者 不了解消费者,就无法预测其需要与欲望,也无法对其需要做出恰当的 反映.发现消费者现在需要什么是一个复杂的过程,但一般来说,可以通过直接的营销调研予以实现 2.2 公司 每一个公司都必须透彻了解其满足消费者需要的能力.为此,需要评价 公司的各个方面,如财务状况,一般管理技巧,研究和开发能力,技术装

网络营销策略外文文献翻译

文献出处：Guzzo T, D’Andrea A, Ferri F, et al. Evolution of Marketing Strategies: From Internet Marketing to M-Marketing[C]//On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems: OTM 2012 Workshops. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012: 627-636. 原文 Evolution of Marketing Strategies:From Internet Marketing to M-Marketing Tiziana Guzzo, Alessia D’Andrea, Fernando Ferri, and Patrizia Grifoni 1 Introduction Marketing is “the process which creates, communicates, delivers the value to the consumers, and maintains the relationship with consumers. It generates the strategy that underlies sales techniques, business communication, and business developments. It is “an integrated process through which companies build strong consumers relationships and create value for their consumers and for themselves” Marketing strategies have a long history and mainly interested economists and sociologists. The wide use of Internet, pervasiveness of social networks and the evolution of mobile devise are implying a wider involvement of interdisciplinary competences enlarging the interest toward ICT competences. This paper is to describe the evolution of marketing strategies from the advent of the Web (Internet Marketing) - through the advent of Social Networks (Marketing 2.0) - to the evolution of Mobile Social Networks (M-marketing). In particular, the paper analyses the use that Italian people make of mobile devices and the user perception and acceptance of M-marketing.

营销策略外文翻译文献

营销策略外文翻译文献 (文档含中英文对照即英文原文和中文翻译)

译文: 营销策略 内容提要：为了组织的销售能是成功的，它需要根据一个营销策略计划来帮助保证其努力的目标和宗旨与市场的需要想吻合。营销策略审查市场以确定潜在顾客的需要，竞争者的战略和市场地位，并且尝试制定出一套能使组织在市场上获取或维护竞争优势的相关战略。有一些因素会对营销策略计划的发展造成冲击性的影响，它包括内部因素例如组织的财产、技能和组织文化，外在因素例如各种各样的市场驱动者、市场或产业运作方式、战略窗口和竞争的本质。一个优选的营销策略计划也需具备一套意外情况防备策略以应对市场治理及组织生产能力的不确定性。 关键词：竞争优势竞争策略市场地位市场份额营销销售计划组织文化营销策略 营销策略简述 无论组织的产品或服务多么好，除非它们的价值能被传达给潜在的顾客，否则组织依然无法实现它的使命。这种传达和交流是组织内市场营销功能的职责。根据美国市场协会，营销是“一个组织效能和一套创造过程、交流和传达产品价值给顾客、处理与顾客关系的有益于组织和它的利益共享者的方式”。营销作用包括相辅相成的两方面。营销策略在市场上审查市场来确定潜在顾客和竞争者本质的需要，并且试图开发

出在市场上将使组织获取或维护竞争优势的战略。操作的营销被建立在营销策略作用和贯彻各种各样的计划和策略(包括适当的混合营销的发展)吸引顾客和促进顾客忠实的基础之上的。 产品和服务营销的方法 有很多的方式能用来销售你的产品或服务包括做广告，直接响应、推销活动和宣传。然而，除非你能了解顾客、市场和产业的需要并且竞争的优势和劣势，否则这些方法是不太可能成功的。营销策略帮助一个组织尖化它的焦点和在市场顺利地竞争。营销策略与二个组分有关：目标市场和用最佳的方式传达你的产品价值或服务到那个市场。一个可实行的销售方针的发展取决于几个关键维度。首先，与组织之内的所有全球性战略一样，一个成功的销售方针需要由在组织之内的最高管理层签名。销售方针本质上也具有政治性的色彩：在组织之内的强有力的单位在最佳的销售方针也许不同意，并且协议也许需要谈判达成。销售方针也许受组织文化的也影响，并且那得假定这发生。例如，如果组织总是销售它的装饰物给商业主管，它也许就看不到组织之内的低层人员甚至是成人或少年的个人消费潜力。 实施战略销售计划发展的因素 存在一些能冲击战略销售计划发展的因素，这些因素首先包括组织已经拥有或它可能欣然获取的财产和技能。例如，如果组织拥有一个重大编程的部门，就为它能做和销售应用软件提供了可行性的条件。然而，如果这些人员已经在其他工作介入并且不能自由研究一个新的软件项目，并且组织没能力聘用另外的程序员，起始一条新的软件线是不妥当

国际市场营销案例分析

国际市场营销案例分析 清扬洗发水的市场细分与定位 一、“清扬”品牌介绍 2007年4月27日，国际快速消费品业巨头联合利华公司在北京召开新闻发布会，高调宣布——该公司进入中国市场十年以来推出的第一款新产品、全国首款“男女区分”去屑洗发水“清扬”正式上市。期间，联合利华高层更指出，从 2007年开始将凭借“清扬”在全球去屑洗发水领域的专业优势抢占去屑洗发水市场。“如果有人一次又一次对你撒谎，你要做的就是立刻甩了他”——这是清扬广告片中的广告语，置身当前竞争复杂的市场环境中，清扬离奇、自信的画外之音显得意味深长。一时间，台湾知名艺人小S (徐熙娣)所代言的清扬洗发水广告频频出现在各种高端杂志上，占据了全国各大城市户外广告的核心位置，打开电视机——无论央视、卫视及地方电视台，点击进入国内各大门户网站，清扬广告无处不在。 长期以来，在宝洁与联合利华的洗发水大战中，宝洁无论是在品牌影响力、市场规模还是在市场占有率方面，都处于绝对优势。特别是在去屑洗发水市场领域，联合利华一直都没有一个优势品牌足以同宝洁的海飞丝相抗衡。作为联合利华十年来首次推出的新品牌，清扬旨在弥补、提升其在去屑洗发水市场竞争中的不足和短板。 二、“清扬”洗发水的：功能定位：去屑 1.“清扬”洗发水面市的市场背景 在联合利华等外国日化公司进入中国市场以前，消费者对洗发水的要求无非是干净、清爽，并无去屑、柔／顷、营养等多重要求。经过近20年的发展，中国消费者对洗发水的品牌意识已经被各大公司培养出来，同时消费者对头发的关注日益增加，为新的洗发水概念进入市场提供了广泛的顾客基础。各洗发水晶牌纷纷打出富有新意的定位以获取自己的一席之地，极大地刺激了中国洗发水晶牌的繁荣。赛迪顾问公司的研究结果表明：2006年中国洗护发产品市场销售额达220亿元左右，市场上的洗发水晶牌超过3 000个，其中宝洁(中国)有限公司的洗发水市场就占到60％多。中国洗发水市场已经高度集中和垄断。宝洁、联合利华、丝宝集团、拉芳集团占去了80％左右的市场份额；好迪、采乐、蒂花之秀、飘影等二线品牌又抢占了13％；剩下7％左右的市场，则被上千个三线、四线品牌瓜分。更为严峻的是，自2006年开始中国洗发水市场增长减慢，2007年各洗发水晶牌的竞争更是激烈异常。市场的压力和巨大的利润蛋糕使各品牌在定位上各创新招，期望找到刺激消费者购买的新亮点。 2．去屑洗发水市场现状 就洗发水的功能定位而言，去屑洗发水是洗发水目前最大的细分市场，大约占洗发水市场一半的比例。作为一个有着100多亿元的市场，巨大的蛋糕吸引几乎所有的洗发护发品牌里都建立了去屑的品种。经过十余年的市场培育和发展演变，海飞丝的“头屑去无踪，秀发更出众”早已深入人心。人们只要一想到去屑，第一个想到的就是海飞丝。另外，随着风影的“去屑不伤发”的承诺，使之在这个细分市场也拥有了一席之地。专业市场调查资料显示，去屑市场80％的市场份额一直以来都被宝洁系列的海飞丝品牌所占据，而众多本土品牌则蚕食着剩余的20％的市场存量，相比之下，呈现的两极分化现象十分严重。 去屑概念一直是洗发水市场一个重要诉求点，市场竞争激烈。但消费者调查表明，人们对现有产品的去屑效果并不满意。2007年4月2日，中华医学会科学普及部公布最近对 5 351人进行的网络调查显示，对于“去头屑”这个日常问题，60％的人对去屑效果不满意。由此可见，消费者对去屑品牌认同的程度并不太理想，市场潜力仍然巨大。 尽管进入中国市场早于宝洁并拥有力士、夏士莲等知名品牌，相对于宝洁巨大的洗发水晶牌家族所取得的成绩而言，联合利华的表现差强人意。特别是在去屑市场上，联合利华没有一个像“海飞丝”那样专门的去屑品牌，使其洗发水晶牌族在市场覆盖面上产生很大的缺

市场营销中英文对照外文翻译文献

中英文翻译 中文翻译： 顾客满意策略与顾客满意营销 自20世纪八十年代末以来,顾客满意战略已日益成为各国企业占有更多的顾客份额,获得竞争优势的整体经营手段。 一、顾客满意策略是现代企业获得顾客“货币选票”的法宝 随着时代的变迁,社会物质财富的极大充裕,顾客中的主体———消费者的需求也先后跨越了物质缺乏的时代、追求数量的时代、追求品质的时代,到了20世纪八十年代末进入了情感消费时代。在我国,随着经济的高速发展,我们也已迅速跨越了物质缺乏时代、追求数量的时代乃至追求品质的时

代,到今天也逐步迈进情感消费时代。在情感消费时代,各企业的同类产品早已达到同时、同质、同能、同价,消费者追求的已不再是质量、功能和价格,而是舒适、便利、安全、安心、速度、跃动、环保、清洁、愉快、有趣等,消费者日益关注的是产品能否为自己的生活带来活力、充实、舒适、美感和精神文化品位,以及超越消费者期望值的售前、售中、售后服务和咨询。也就是说,今天人们所追求的是具有“心的满足感和充实感”的商品,是高附加值的商品和服务,追求价值观和意识多元化、个性化和无形的满足感的时代已经来临。 与消费者价值追求变化相适应的企业间的竞争,也由产品竞争、价格竞争、技术竞争、广告竞争、品牌竞争发展到现今的形象竞争、信誉竞争、文化竞争和服务竞争,即顾客满意竞争。这种竞争是企业在广角度、宽领域的时空范围内展开的高层次、体现综合实力的竞争。它包括组织创新力、技术创新力、管理创新力、产业预见力、产品研发力、员工向心力、服务顾客力、顾客亲和力、同行认同力、社会贡献力、公关传播沟通力、企业文化推动力、环境适应力等等。这些综合形象力和如何合成综合持久的竞争力,这就是CS策略所要解决的问题。CS时代,企业不再以“自己为中心”,而是以“顾客为中心”；“顾客为尊”、“顾客满意”不再是流于形式的口号,而是以实实在在的行动为基础的企业经营的一门新哲学。企业不再以质量达标,自己满意为经营理念,而是以顾客满意,赢得顾客高忠诚度为经营理念。企业经营策略的焦点不再以争取或保持市场占有率为主,而是以争取顾客满意为经营理念。因此,营销策略的重心不再放在竞争对手身上而是放在顾客身上,放在顾客现实的、潜在的需求上。当企业提供的产品和服务达

国际市场营销营销沟通案例

国际市场营销沟通战略案例： 国际拉利运动公司：促进日本壁球运动 墙网球(壁球) 已从一种只在美国少数城市玩的不起眼的运动发展为全美参加人数增长最快的体育活动。1 9 7 5年，全国的私人墙网球俱乐部还不到3 0个。到1 9 8 5年，每个大城市都有一定数目专门的墙网球俱乐部。 国际拉利运动公司于1 9 7 5年由达纳·爱德华兹(Dana Edwards)创建，目的是想利用这一运动提供的商机，他明确表示要把国际拉利运动公司变成“墙网球界的麦当劳”。为此，拉利运动公司制定了数套计划，一套市场与促销计划，一套全面管理及管理控制体系，并且设立了专门从事球场建设和监督管理的附属公司。该公司计划分三个阶段扩展公司：第一阶段占领全美国的主要市场；第二阶段占领美国的次要但广泛的市场；第三阶段进入美国以外的发达国家。 三个五年计划已经制定出来： 1 9 8 5 ~ 1 9 9 0，实现第一阶段目标； 1 9 9 0 ~ 1 9 9 5，第二阶段； 1 9 9 5 ~ 2 0 0 0，第三阶段（国际性）。可是，在第二个五年计划中，爱德华兹观察到美国国内竞争发展极为迅速，公司将来不及在国内市场占据首要地位，因而决定在国内市场饱和之前提前进入国际市场。 托比·刘易斯该公司的开发经理，负责决定是首先进入日本市场还是德国市场。经过调查研究，他得出结论，这项运动非常适合日本人，他说：“日本人富有竞争性，速度快，有运动天赋，适合美国运动。”他还指出日本地价昂贵，城市土地相对缺乏，合乎日本墙网球事业发展的理想，因为它所占空间极小，有人认为一些日本的软式墙网球场具有排外性。这是因为它们是完全封闭的厚重的建筑，在日本又贵又不常见。 I . A .萨文特公司受雇研究日本市场，就进入日本市场提出建议。该公司发现约4 500万住家大约共有1 25 0 0万日本人，其中9 0%都把自己归为中产阶级。有6 0%的人口住在三大主要城市—东京、名古屋、大阪附近。这些城市基本构成了一个主要的大都会。萨文特的结论是仅大都会地区市场就可至少设立2 7家墙网球俱乐部，平均每家俱乐部有1 0个墙网球场。那就是说每1 0 0万住家中，只有一个俱乐部。 该报告指出1 9 9 8年日本的人均收入高于美国，有32 000多美元，其中2 / 3来自于家庭中男性家长的正常月收入， 2 0%来自半年度奖金， 6%来自妻子的收入， 3%来自家庭其他成员，还有3%来自其他渠道。萨文特指出日本人喜欢新事物，尤其对美国的产品和活动很痴迷（尽管近几年这种吸引力已有所减退），而且他们在有意义且节省其他开支的产品上表现出持续的购买力。 近乎2 0%的人口处在2 0 ~ 3 5岁这个年龄层次，他们被认为是美国墙网球的主要市场。萨文特顾问看不出有什么理由来怀疑日本对墙网球的接受。 排球在家庭主妇中最受欢迎，她们还组织了许多大的团队。 托比·刘易斯制定了一套全线进军日本的计划书。他首先建议至少成立四个俱乐部，原因如下：（1）该国市场是分片的，应当进行全面测试。所以一个俱乐部要建在纯商业地段，一个建在商业区和居民区结合的地段，两个建在居民区—一个在居民区中间，另一个在外围一些；（ 2）广告费用必须十分丰厚，足以一开始就造成强烈的冲击力—在这种高消费市场，一个俱乐部负担不起费用；（ 3）拉利运动公司的合资伙伴准备资助四个俱乐部；（ 4）成立四个俱乐部确立市场地位，使其他公司很难进入市场；（ 5）由于潜在需求极为巨大，这四个俱乐部每个都应当立即赢利。 萨文特也确实预见到了一些问题。一个是，许多工业公司为其雇员开设了丰富的娱乐节目，这些雇员也许不会进入私人娱乐业市场。第二个问题是，为了赚钱，这些俱乐部每天需

营销策略外文翻译

附件1：外文资料翻译译文 营销策略 内容提要：为了组织的销售能是成功的，它需要根据一个营销策略计划来帮助保证其努力的目标和宗旨与市场的需要想吻合。营销策略审查市场以确定潜在顾客的需要，竞争者的战略和市场地位，并且尝试制定出一套能使组织在市场上获取或维护竞争优势的相关战略。有一些因素会对营销策略计划的发展造成冲击性的影响，它包括内部因素例如组织的财产、技能和组织文化，外在因素例如各种各样的市场驱动者、市场或产业运作方式、战略窗口和竞争的本质。一个优选的营销策略计划也需具备一套意外情况防备策略以应对市场治理及组织生产能力的不确定性。 关键词：竞争优势竞争策略市场地位市场份额营销销售计划组织文化营销策略 营销策略简述 无论组织的产品或服务多么好，除非它们的价值能被传达给潜在的顾客，否则组织依然无法实现它的使命。这种传达和交流是组织内市场营销功能的职责。根据美国市场协会，营销是“一个组织效能和一套创造过程、交流和传达产品价值给顾客、处理与顾客关系的有益于组织和它的利益共享者的方式”。营销作用包括相辅相成的两方面。营销策略在市场上审查市场来确定潜在顾客和竞争者本质的需要，并且试图开发出在市场上将使组织获取或维护竞争优势的战略。操作的营销被建立在营销策略作用和贯彻各种各样的计划和策略(包括适当的混合营销的发展)吸引顾客和促进顾客忠实的基础之上的。 产品和服务营销的方法 有很多的方式能用来销售你的产品或服务包括做广告，直接响应、推销活动和宣传。然而，除非你能了解顾客、市场和产业的需要并且竞争的优势和劣势，否则这些方法是不太可能成功的。营销策略帮助一个组织尖化它的焦点和在市场顺利地竞争。营销策略与二个组分有关：目标市场和用最佳的方式传达你的产品价值或服务到那个市场。一个可实行的销售方针的发展取决于几个关键维度。首先，与组织之内的所有全球性战略一样，一个成功的销售方针需要由在组织之内的最高管理层