مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد یک ویژگی سیستماتیک بازاریابی سازمانی – الزویر 2018

The great diversity of marketing definitions and characterizations is not favorable to the theory and practice of the 21st century management, being, generally, the consequence of a non-systemic approach and analysis of organization/ company functions. The present work aims to contribute to the increase of management and marketing rigor in order to achieve lasting/ sustainable progress in all areas. The methodology of systemic approach and analysis is applied at the level of organization/ company functions, while deepening the “marketing” mixed complex function. Starting from an original model “7 Environments – 7 Resources/ Products”, a systemic model with 11 functions of the organization/ company is being developed, the holistic (systemic) marketing and the related 9P marketing mix are being defined and characterized in a systemic manner, the stages of the lasting/ sustainable competitiveness cycle of holistic marketing is being described. The in-depth study of the content of selfcontained cycles for the lasting/ sustainable competitiveness of organizations/ enterprises is the topics of future research. Applying the results in practice facilitates the organization’s orientation towards lasting/ sustainable progress.

Introduction

Composed of jobs/ workplaces, organizations/ companies are complex and very complex systems that aim at achieving temporary/ lasting/ sustainable competitiveness in their external environments. Their scientific knowledge (aim and mission, resources, functions, programs, structures, processes, products, performances etc.) has gradually progressed after 1900 (Drucker, 1973, 2008; DuBrin, 2010; Certo & Certo, 2012; Griffin, 2016; Pater & Cristea, 2017), and after 1950, the systemic approach of organizations/ companies and their components has been evident, through concision and precision. Within this framework, in the literature after 1900, two categories of approaches and definitions of marketing concept have developed: (1) many functional definitions, correlated with the views of the authors during the period of their definition (Clark, 1922; Hotchkiss, 1938; Maynard & Beckman, 1939; Bartels, 1962, 1976; Baker, 2003; Blythe, 2005; Kotler & Keller, 2006; Kotler & Caslione, 2009; Dann, 2010; Cohen, 2011; Gamble, 2011; Keelson, 2012; AMA, 2017) and periodically improved (Murphy et al, 2005; Izvercian, 2006; Keller & Kotler, 2006; Grundey & Zaharia, 2008; Kotler, Kartajaya & Setiavan, 2009; Kotler, Kartajaya & Setiavan, 2010; Mitchell, Wooliscroft & Higham, 2010; Gordon, Carrigan & Hastings, 2011; Arseculeratne & Yazdanifard, 2014; Rakic & Rakic, 2015; Sheth & Sisodia, 2015; Garg & Sharma, 2017), (2) some definitions oriented towards the systemic approach (Lazer & Kelley, 1962; Ottman, 1993; Bannon, 2002; Grant, 2007; Polese, 2011), with different points of view, but without being based on a system of concepts about systems (Wilson, 1990; Popa, 2003; Pater & Cristea, 2017).