The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive

ve of this journal is available at

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm

COMMENTARY Achieving a
customer
Achieving a customer orientation

orientation using 1301

“people-power,” the “5th P” Received May 2002
Vaughan C. Judd Revised July 2002
Marketing Department, Auburn University Montgomery, Montgomery,
Alabama, USA

Keywords Customer satisfaction, Customer requirements, Employees, Internal marketing,

Competitive advantage
Abstract There have been scant references in the marketing literature to conceptualizing an
organization’s employees as an element of the organization’s marketing mix. Extending previous
conceptualizations of employees in a business marketing and a nonprofit marketing context, it is
proposed that all organizations have the ability to move beyond their traditional view of employees
in order to capitalize on “people-power” as a distinctive element of their marketing mixes; an
element that can help them become customer-oriented to gain a competitive advantage through
differentiation and to deliver customer value. To do so presents a real managerial challenge for any
organization. It is a challenge worth undertaking, however, because successful implementation will
help an organization achieve a customer-orientation and more effectively meet the needs of its
customers.

Introduction
It has been suggested that all organizations have two broad marketing goals:
(1) to satisfy customer needs; and
(2) to provide an offering superior to those of their competitors (Bagozzi
et al., 1998).
This article is based on two premises associated with these goals. One premise
is that organizations will want to develop a customer-orientation in order to
achieve the two broad goals. A customer-orientation philosophy proffers that
“success will come to that organization which best determines the perceptions,
needs, and wants of target markets and satisfies them through the design,
communication, pricing and delivery of appropriate and competitively viable
offerings” (Kotler and Andreasen, 1996, p. 41). In this definition of customer
orientation; the design, communication, pricing, and delivery of the
organization’s offering can be recognized as elements of the traditional European Journal of Marketing
“marketing mix.” The definition also implies a need for a differentiated offering Vol. 37 No. 10, 2003
pp. 1301-1313
in order to be successful in an increasingly competitive environment; that is, to q MCB UP Limited
0309-0566
gain a competitive advantage. As Levitt (1986, p. 128) summarized: DOI 10.1108/03090560310487112
EJM If marketing is seminally about anything, it is about achieving customer-getting distinction
by differentiating what you do and how you operate. All else is derivative of that and only
37,10 that.
The result of becoming customer-oriented and achieving the two goals is that
customers will perceive value in the organization’s offering.
The second premise is that the employees of any organization can be a
1302 powerful element in helping the organization differentiate itself in significant
ways in order gain a competitive advantage and deliver value to customers.
Obviously, the people in an organization are part of, or are responsible for,
everything that is visible to those outside the organization. Some employees are
on the front line creating the service, selling the product or promoting the
offering; others are behind the scene working to create value for customers.
Porter’s (1985) model of the value chain depicts nine activities of a firm which
together create value for customers. In this content, all employees of a firm are
responsible for creating value whether they are engaged in primary or support
activities. Suggesting that employees are key to success is not a novel idea as
discussed in the following subsection.

Views of employees
Although employees generally have not been acknowledged as a distinctive
element of the marketing mix, they have been mentioned by Kotler (2000) as
one of several differentiation variables together with product, services, channel
and image. Kotler (2000) views employees as a means to differentiate the
organization by having a staff of people who are competent courteous, credible,
reliable, responsive and able to communicate well.
Other views of employees are rather vague. “Our employees are our most
important asset” is the generalized form of a statement often found in company
presidents’ letters to shareholders. Similarly, business books and articles
typically refer to “human resources” as an organization’s most important asset
(e.g. Freeman, 1993; Shoniwa and Gilmore, 1996; Peak, 1997). Furthermore, in
an editorial discussing the corporation in the twenty-first century, it was stated
that “human capital is the only asset” (Business Week, 2000), and that “the
value of human capital has become greater the value of fixed assets” (Stershic,
2001). Such references regarding the importance of employees, however, have
the potential for simply becoming platitudes. In fact, Sikula (2001) cited the
statement, “human resources are our most important assets” as one of five
biggest myths perpetuated by human resource professionals; not because it is a
lie, per se, but because its implementation has generally been a falsehood.
Achievement of a customer orientation is impossible if the employees of an
organization do not perceive themselves as being there to serve customers, or
recognize, in fact, that the only reason for their being employed is to help the
organization create value for customers. Therefore, total organizational
involvement in serving the customer must exist before a true customer orientation
can be achieved. Such a prescription for customer orientation for all members Achieving a
of the organization, however, also has the potential for becoming just a customer
platitude. orientation
Hence, it is being proposed that the employees of an organization be
formally considered an element of the marketing mix, denoted as
“people-power.” Accordingly, it is proposed that the traditional 4-Ps model of
marketing be expanded to include a fifth P, people-power, in recognition of the
1303
employees’ role in helping an organization differentiate itself in order to gain a
competitive advantage. Since this not the first time a writer has espoused
expanding the marketing mix, a brief overview of differentiation and the
marketing mix follows.

Differentiation and the marketing mix

As mentioned in the introduction, both Bagozzi et al. (1998) and Levitt (1986)
discussed the significance of differentiation. Chamberlin (1965) stated that an
organization could distinguish its goods and services from those of a
competitive organization by real or fancied product differentiation along any
dimension which is important to the buyer, and which leads to a preference for
that organization’s offering. He noted that differentiation can be based on:
product; style, design or features; trademarks or trade names; packaging; retail
store location and design; a reputation for fair dealing; courtesy; or personal
links to the customer. Dickson and Ginter (1987) support this view with their
definition of product differentiation as a perception of a difference in both
product characteristics and price, as well as advertising, personal selling, etc.
They conclude that a strategy of market segmentation is feasible only when
product differentiation already exists or is a companion strategy.
The term “marketing mix” represents the controllable elements of marketing
which collectively form the basis for customers’ perceptions of an organization.
Differentiation of an organization and its offering can be achieved by
differentiating the manner in which any one or more of the elements of the
marketing mix are perceived in the marketplace. Agreement on what
constitutes the elements of the “marketing mix” has varied since Borden (1964)
coined the term in the late 1940s to represent 13 variables which constitute a
marketing program. In subsequent years, different versions of the marketing
mix have been suggested. A widely accepted definition of the marketing mix is
the simplified four Ps of marketing – product, price, place and promotion –
proposed by McCarthy (1960). Although the four Ps seem succinctly to capture
the marketing elements suggested by others (e.g. Borden, 1964); Swartz (1973)
observed that some experts believe that packaging and public relations should
be recognized as distinctive marketing mix variables rather than sub-functions
of the four Ps. Expanding the marketing mix to include public relations has
been suggested by Mindak and Fine (1981) and Kotler (1986). Kotler (1986) also
suggest that political power be included as an element of the marketing mix.
EJM Wind (1986) proposed that there are 11 Ps of marketing which in addition to the
37,10 traditional four Ps include positioning, politically-based marketing tools, public
relations and public affairs, portfolios of markets and products at three levels of
analysis, and a program which cohesively integrates the entire marketing mix.
It should be noted that several authors recently have taken issue with the basic
viability of the four Ps for today’s marketers. Grönroos (1994), for example, argues
1304 that the four Ps model is obsolete. One can counter-argue, however, that the
traditional four Ps continue to be the key elements which can be manipulated by
marketers to satisfy customer needs and gain a competitive advantage. Grönroos
(1994) suggested an emerging paradigm shift toward relationship marketing,
relationships being an anchor point on a continuum of commitment, with the
other anchor point being transactional marketing. The traditional four Ps are still
relevant tools at any point on the continuum. Furthermore, an organization’s
employees constitute an additional resource which management can use to shift
toward relationship marketing and/or to gain a competitive advantage.
Incorporating employees into an organization’s marketing mix, as the
people-power element, was originally proposed and modeled for manufacturing
firms engaged in business-to-business marketing in a field sales setting (Judd,
1987). That model, in an industrial setting, was recognized and referenced by
Gross et al. (1993). Parkinson (1988) attempted to apply the model in the
small-business sector, while others have referenced the model in a generalized
marketing context (Christopher et al., 1993; Walls and Self, 1995; Harris, 1999).
Judd (2001) expanded the original people-power concept to nonprofit
organizations and the inclusion of volunteers and board members as the
organization’s “people.” It is now being proposed that the people-power concept
is generic and is appropriate for any organization.

The people-power factor

Levitt (1986, p. 117) observed that people, except for those working in sales or
marketing, seldom see beyond the walls of their organization, and that the
“outside” is a place where things cannot be changed and a place which has
nothing to do with them. In actuality, the roles to which employees of an
organization have traditionally been assigned dictate their exposure to the
outside world, and more importantly, their contact with customers. Also, some
people in an organization may not be aware of their organizations’s strategies
and plans, and consequently are not able to understand clearly their role in the
organization. The remainder of this section will model the people-power concept
using two hypothetical examples for two distinctly different product-markets.

Employee roles and customer contact: an industrial products manufacturer

example
Some people within an organization are involved with the creation or
implementation of the marketing mix; that is, involved with designing,
producing, pricing, financing, distributing, installing or servicing the product. Achieving a
Some of these individuals have responsibility for customer contact while others customer
do not. Each employee involved with the marketing mix has the opportunity to orientation
reinforce favorably or change the beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behaviors of
target market members relative to the mix and/or the organization.
On the other hand, there are employees who are not directly involved with
creating or implementing the market mix but who, nevertheless, have the
1305
opportunity for customer contact and for influencing members of the target
market. Finally, there are employees who are neither involved with the
marketing mix nor with customers. A matrix representing this categorization
of employees has been developed for a hypothetical industrial products
manufacturing firm. This matrix (Figure 1), classifies employees relative to
their involvement with the traditional marketing mix and their opportunity for
customer contact.

Employee roles and customer contact: a nonprofit organization example

Obviously, the job functions for the nonprofit organization and matrix, shown
in Figure 2, will be significantly different from those shown for the
manufacturing firm in Figure 1. First, as in any service organization, the
nonprofit’s employees who are the service creators/deliverers are, in fact, part
of the marketing mix since the service offering is one of the variables in the
marketing mix. In nonprofit organizations the service is created and delivered

Figure 1.
Employee influence on
customers: a
hypothetical industrial
products manufacturer
example
EJM
37,10

1306

Figure 2.
People’s (employees,
volunteers and board
members) influence on
customers: a
hypothetical nonprofit
example

by paid professional staff members, and in some organizations, by volunteer

workers. Consequently, volunteers are a key resource in many nonprofit
organizations and are included “people” even though they are not employees.
Also in the context of a nonprofit organization’s “people,” the organization’s
board of directors is included because of the large role they often play in the
operation of the organization.

Managing people power

In discussing relationships with customers, Levitt (1986, pp. 125-6) noted that
relationship management should not only be institutionalized, but it should
also be humanized for those designated as customer contact personnel. Using
the categories of people shown in Figures 1 and 2, Levitt’s notion is taken a step
further in an effort to institutionalize and humanize customer relationships and
promote concern for the customer among all the people in an organization. The
recognition of “people power” as a distinctive element of the marketing mix
forces management to think and plan strategies for using people to differentiate
the organization, just as they would think and plan strategically with regard to
product, price, place, and promotion. As with the traditional marketing mix
elements, people can be managed to achieve the desired impact on customers.
Since it is personal interrelationships and perceptions that are to be managed, a
number of opportunities present themselves. Some of these opportunities are
associated with specific cells in the matrix.
Following is a managerial proposal of how the people-power element of the
marketing mix might be managed by an organization across the four categories
of people, and for all of the people in the organization. The proposal is framed
within the context of internal marketing as the method designed to achieve the Achieving a
goal of developing a greater level of customer-orientation and gaining a customer
competitive advantage. orientation
Internal marketing
For over two decades, internal marketing has been discussed as means of
helping an organization achieve a customer orientation, although the concept is 1307
not clearly defined. Over the years, the concept has evolved and permutations
have been espoused. In a summary article on internal marketing, Rafiq and
Ahmed (2000) attempt to trace the evolution of the concept from its early
application in the service sector as a means to deliver consistently high service,
to their expanded view where it is a concept applicable to any type of
organization. The three-phase internal marketing conceptualization of Rafiq
and Ahmed (2000) is outlined below:
(1) Phase 1: employee motivation and satisfaction:
.
Focus on employee satisfaction by treating them as customers.
.
Employee satisfaction is defined as “jobs” that meet employees’
needs.
(2) Phase 2: customer orientation:
.
Focus on creating customer-orientation in employees by influence
rather than by primarily satisfying and motivating them.
.
Incorporate marketing-like techniques.
(3) Phase 3: strategy implementation and change management:
.
Focus on creating the awareness of organizational objectives and the
employees’ role in the strategies for achieving them.
.
Focus on overcoming resistance to change and interdepartmental and
functional conflict.
It is a combination of Phases 2 and 3 which are the basis for the author’s
approach to managing people-power. Additionally, there is an important “top
management” viewpoint which is captured in the approach to managing
people-power. Employees of an organization develop their sense of what is
important to the organization, in part, from the words and deeds of the top
management. Levitt (1969, p. 244) asserted that the implementation of a
marketing concept is facilitated by the chief executive officer (CEO) sending
“the right signals to the entire corporation regarding its continuing
commitment to the marketing concept.” Webster (1988, p. 37) also suggested
the need for CEOs to “give clear signals and establish clear values and beliefs
about serving the customer.”
Clearly, the approach to managing people-power recognizes that people in an
organization provide services or products to one another and are dependent on
one another to perform their jobs effectively. As a result, the ability of a
EJM organization to meet its external customers’ needs is a function of how clearly
37,10 all the people are focused as they perform their respective jobs.

The management process

Contactors generally have frequent or periodic opportunity for customer
1308 contact based on the requirements of their jobs. They are involved in planning
and/or executing marketing strategy and in creating the service offering.
Contactors should be well versed in the marketing strategies of their
organization, and in the needs of the target market. They should know that
they are a key factor in achieving a customer-orientation and gaining a
competitive advantage. It is the responsibility of the organization to insure that
Contactors are well trained and motivated to serve customers in a responsive
manner and to reinforce a favorable image of the organization. Contactors
should be hired based on their potential for being responsible to customers’
needs and should be evaluated and rewarded accordingly.
Those classified as Modifiers need the opportunity to understand the
exchange process from the points of view of both their organization and the
customer. They are not directly part of the traditional marketing mix, and their
contact with customers is often not face-to-face. Nevertheless, that fact that
Modifiers do have customer contact puts them in a position to shape customers’
beliefs, attitudes, intentions and behaviors with respect to the organization’s
marketing mix and the organization overall. Modifiers need to understand the
marketing strategies of their organization and how the organization is trying to
meet customer needs. They must realize that their responsiveness to customers’
needs will help create a favorable perception of the organization in the
customers’ eyes. They need to have the customer personified for them so they
can better recognize the significance of an individual customer. In some
nonprofit organizations where identity of the customer is guarded, there may
be little or no opportunity for first-hand exposure to customers. Where this is
not the case, however, modifiers should be encouraged to interact with
customers. Modifiers should be screened for requisite communication skills and
further trained in communication skills. They should be evaluated, in part, on
their customer-relation skills and rewarded accordingly.
Influencers are generally very much a part of the implementation of the
organization’s traditional marketing strategy. As a result, their efforts are
visible to the target market. Consequently, perceptions of the organization and
its marketing mix are greatly influenced by how well they perform their jobs.
Influencers typically have no direct contact with customers, although it would
seem that they would have to have a great deal of knowledge of their
organization’s capabilities and resources and of customer needs if they are to
participate effectively in marketing strategy design and/or execution. They
need to recognize that they are a key component in developing and sustaining a
customer orientation for their organization. In hiring influencers, management
should be concerned with finding people who have the potential to develop a Achieving a
sense of customer responsiveness. Influencers should be evaluated and customer
rewarded based on customer-oriented performance standards. Consumer orientation
contact, if appropriate, should be programmed as a requirement of their jobs.
Isolateds are support people who neither have contact with customers
nor are directly involved with the design and implementation of the
marketing mix. Yet as support people, their efficiency and effectiveness
1309
affects the performance of the organization’s ability to serve customers’
needs. Borrowing on the notion that achieving a customer orientation
requires total organizational support and commitment to the customer, the
Isolateds must be sensitized to the idea that their services are required only
in the context of the organization serving its customers. They need to
understand their organization’s marketing strategy and how their
organization serves the needs of its customers. Reality for the Isolateds
would be to recognize that their functions are the means to their
organizations’s ends, and those ends involve serving real life customers
who have expectations as to how their needs should be met. It generally
would not be feasible for Isolated to have face-to-face contact with
customers. An opportunity, however, exists for making customers a reality
by other means such as written and/or audio visual materials relating to
customers’ needs, and the organizations role in meeting these needs.
Finally, people in all categories need to know that they are involved in
marketing strategy through the element of people-power and that people power
is an asset that will help their organization achieve a customer orientation,
thereby increasing the probability of the survival of both their organization and
themselves as employees, volunteers or board members. In the context of the
value chain, every employee is responsible for creating customer value either
directly or by way of internal cross-functional relationships and cooperation.
Accordingly, management must establish people-power and customer
orientation as key elements of organizational culture. Management must
accept and communicate the importance of a customer orientation and
customer responsiveness at all levels of the organization. Communications,
where relevant, should stress the importance of the organization’s customers,
emphasizing that the organization survives only if it is satisfying customers’
needs better than competitive organizations.
The approach to managing people-power is summarized in Table I. The
approach is not inclusive; it is only suggestive of the responses management
might make to incorporate people-power in the marketing mix.

Conclusion
This paper has recommended that people-power be formalized,
institutionalized, and managed as a distinctive component of the marketing
mix, and consequently as an element of an organization’s marketing strategy. It

Table I.
Managing people-power
“People”
category Traditional marketing role
Contactors Plan and/or implement marketing
strategy
Create the service “offering”
Contact or high probability of customer
contact
May be part of the traditional marketing
mix under the personal selling
component of promotion
Modifiers Do not plan nor implement marketing
strategy
Contact or high probability of customer
contact; contact may not be face-to-face
Influencers Plan and/or implement marketing
strategy
No or low probability of contact with
customers
The new norm: what people should
know and feel
Detailed knowledge of organization’s
marketing strategy and plans
Understand customers’ needs and
customers’ operations
Responsiveness to customers’ needs is a skills
key factor in achieving a customer
orientation
General thrust of organization’s
marketing strategy and plans
How organization can serve customers’
needs
Their response to customers shapes
customers’ beliefs, attitudes, intentions
and behavior toward the organization;
the outcome can be a favorable
perception of the organization
Details of organization’s marketing plans
and their specific strategic role
Specifics on customers’ needs and
operations
They are a key factor in achieving a
customer orientation
EJM
37,10
1310
Management’s response
Recruit and select people who are capable
of developing sensitivity and
responsiveness to customers’ needs
Train people in interpersonal relationship
Develop customer-oriented performance
standards, and evaluate and reward
people accordingly
Recruit and hire people with requisite
communication skills
Train people in interpersonal relationship
skills
Develop customer-oriented performance
standards, and evaluate and reward
people accordingly
Personify the customer by way of
planned face-to-face interactions through
visits to customer locations
Recruit and hire people who – at a
minimum – have the potential to develop
a sense of customer responsiveness
Develop customer-oriented performance
standards, and evaluate and reward
people accordingly
Establish customer contact as a job
requirement
(continued)
“People” The new norm: what people should
category Traditional marketing role know and feel
Isolateds Do not plan nor implement marketing General thrust of organization’s
strategy marketing strategies and plans
No or low probability of contact with How the organization can serve
customers customers’ needs
Their responsibility is to support the
people who directly serve the customers;
the better the support, the better served
will be the customer
All “people” In the context of the value chain,
everyone is responsible for creating value
for the customer directly or by way of
internal cross-functional relationships
Every person is involved in the
organization’s marketing strategies and
plans via people-power, which can help
the organization achieve a
customer-orientation
Without a competitive edge and
well-served customers, the organization
cannot survive
Table I.
Management’s response
Establish customer familiarity as a job
requirement
While it may not be feasible to have
employees visit customers, customers
can be made “real” via audio-visual
materials showing customer operations,
and the organization’s products in use by
customers
Develop an internal marketing program
to:
(1) Facilitate cooperation across the
value-chain functions
(2) Establish people-power and
“customer-orientation” as key elements of
the organization’s culture
(3) Develop an attitude of
customer-responsiveness at all levels of
the organization
(4) Stress the importance of the
organization’s customers in
communications with people,
emphasizing that the organization cannot
achieve its mission without satisfied
customers
(5) Share feedback from customers
(complaint reports, satisfaction reports,
etc.)
customer
orientation
1311
Achieving a
EJM has built on previous work to extend the people-power concept from two
37,10 specific types of organizations to a generic approach applicable to all product
markets. Objectives relating to people-power can be established, programs for
developing and using people-power can be created, and outcomes measured –
just as an organization would do with the other elements of its marketing mix.
The notion of institutionalizing people-power as an element of the marketing
1312 mix is not an exercise in semantics. Merely saying that an organization has
people-power is yet another platitude in the same vein as the overused
statement that, “our employees are our most important asset,” or
acknowledgment of employees as “human resources,” or saying that “our
employees have a marketing orientation.” Institutionalizing and managing
people-power will increase the probability of an organization remaining or
becoming customer-centered.

References
Bagozzi, R.P., Jose, A.R., Kirti, S.C. and Franciso, C. (1998), Marketing Management,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Borden, N.H. (1964), “The concept of the marketing mix”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 4,
June, pp. 2-7.
Business Week (2000), “The 21st century corporation”, Business Week, No. 3696, p. 278.
Chamberlin, E.H. (1965), The Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Christopher, M., Payne, A. and Ballantyne, D. (1993), Relationship Marketing,
Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Dickson, P.R. and Ginter, J.L. (1987), “Market segmentation, product differentiation, and
marketing strategy”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, April, pp. 1-10.
Freeman, J.M. (1993), “Human resources planning-training needs analysis”, Personnel
Management, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 32-4.
Grönroos, C. (1994), “From marketing mix to relationship marketing: towards a paradigm shift in
marketing”, Management Decision, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 4-21.
Gross, A.C., Banting, P.M., Meredith, L.N. and Ford, I.D. (1993), Business Marketing, Houghton
Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Harris, L.C. (1999), “Barriers to developing a market orientation”, Journal of Applied Management
Studies, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 85-101.
Judd, V.C. (1987), “Differentiate with the 5th P: people”, Industrial Marketing Management,
Vol. 16, pp. 241-7.
Judd, V.C. (2001), “Toward a customer-orientation and a differentiated position in a nonprofit
organization: using the 5th P – people”, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing,
Vol. 9 No. 1/2, pp. 5-17.
Kotler, P. (1986), “Megamarketing”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 64, March-April, pp. 117-24.
Kotler, P. (2000), Marketing Management, 10th ed., Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Kotler, P. and Andreasen, A.R. (1996), Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations, 5th ed.,
Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Levitt, T. (1969), The Marketing Mode, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Levitt, T. (1986), The Marketing Imagination, New expanded edition, The Free Press, New York, Achieving a
NY.
McCarthy, E.J. (1960), Basic Marketing, Richard D. Irwin, Homewood, IL.
customer
Mindak, W.A. and Fine, S.H. (1981), “A fifth P: public relations”, in Donnelly, J.H. and
orientation
George, W.R. (Eds), Marketing of Services, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 71-3.
Parkinson, S.T. (1988), “Marketing update”, Journal of General Management, Vol. 14, Autumn, 1313
pp. 8-13.
Peak, M.H. (1997), “People are our greatest asset”, Management Review, Vol. 86 No. 6, p. 1.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, Free
Press, New York, NY.
Rafiq, M. and Ahmed, P.K. (2000), “Advances in the internal marketing concept: definition,
synthesis and extension”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 449-62.
Shoniwa, S. and Gilmore, H.L. (1996), “Development of human resources: a portfolio strategy”,
SAM Advanced Management Journal, Vol. 61 No. 1, pp. 16-23.
Sikula, A. Sr (2001), “The five biggest HRM lies”, Public Personnel Management, Vol. 30 No. 3,
pp. 419-28.
Stershic, S.F. (2001), “Leveraging your greatest weapon”, Marketing Management, Vol. 10,
July/August, pp. 40-3.
Swartz, D.J. (1973), Marketing Today, A Basic Approach, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York,
NY.
Walls, J.E. and Self, D.R. (1995), “Bridging the gap between organizational strategic planning and
product differentiation”, in Thompson, D.L. and Owens Swift, C. (Eds), Transforming
Marketing: On-line and Integrating, Atlantic Marketing Association, Statesboro, GA,
pp. 191-6.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1988), “Rediscovery of the marketing concept”, Business Horizons, Vol. 31 No. 3,
pp. 29-39.
Wind, Y. (1986), “Models for marketing planning and decision making”, in Buell, V.P. (Ed.),
Handbook of Modern Marketing, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, NY.