Strategists' reactions and resistance towards forces of inclusion: soothing the anxiety of marketing (non-) influence

Abstract

The firm is becoming more and more inclusive in its conception. And yet, marketing studies point to the same overwhelming conclusion that marketing, marketing departments and marketers are being increasingly ‘pushed out’ – excluded. We argue that where and when inclusion–exclusion intersect in the practice of strategic marketing is important, not least because their powerful boundary-setting and spanning roles have a determinant effect on the places and spaces, within which marketing strategists are (counter-) mobilized. This paper provides new insights relating to the contradictory forces existing around inclusion–exclusion in corporate strategizing. A further aim is to present the position of marketing (non-) influence within this context. The paper provides a unique theoretical contribution by illustrating some of the contradictions, struggles and activities that make the theoretical shift towards strategic inclusivity unstable, partial and by no means inevitable. A further contribution is a linking of this broader strategic debate, with anxieties over the influence of marketing in corporate strategizing. This leads to a discussion of the various ways that marketing research can sooth the anxiety of influence on multiple fronts via: understanding agency and strategic action; shaping marketing curriculum development; and, reconsidering the spatial dimensions of marketing influence.

Keywords:

• marketing influence
• inclusion
• exclusion
• resistance
• strategists
• strategizing

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the constructive feedback of Professor Paula Jarzabkowski on an early draft of this paper. The authors also acknowledge the assistance of a British Academy Grant (SG-52497) on corporate resistance and contestedness.

Notes

1. Away from these theoretical developments, inclusion has never been more newsworthy – government manifestos, policy documents, social exclusion units, financial inclusion taskforces, social inclusion indexes and directories – and organizations more vulnerable to exclusion claims regarding religion, gender, disability and so on. Inclusion, it seems, is the ‘thing to do’ in the contemporary firm. Exclusion is the ‘thing not to do’. The thrust of the main argument is that the firm is all-inclusive; everybody is included, everybody has a seat or a plate at the corporate table.

2. A contemporary illustration of this is the publication of ‘The 50th Law’ which reflects upon the business strategies of hip-hop singer 50 Cent (Greene, 2009).

3. In 1976 Peter Drucker published a visionary book, The unseen revolution: How pension fund socialism came to America, which alerted managers to the changing ownership composition of American firms.

4. Calton and Payne (2003, p. 8) define a paradox as ‘a cognitive construct that juxtaposes apparent opposites while suggesting that seemingly dichotomous terms are related in meaningful ways’. The concept of dialects carries many similarities to paradoxes, yet it stands apart in conceptually different ways, most notably allowing for the simultaneous presence of conflicting forces (see Baxter, 1988).

5. In the years since, research studies have continued to offer a range of postures from helpless surrender, righteous indignation, implicit superiority and arrogant entitlement (Holbrook, 1995; Mattsson et al., 2006; Saunders & Lee, 2005).