Marketing Strategy Implementation in Higher Ed

Journal of Marketing ManagementVol. 27, Nos. 11–12, October 2011, 1117–1141

Marketing strategy implementation in highereducation: A mixed approach for model developmentand testing

Vik Naidoo, Enterprise Connect and Deakin University, AustraliaTerry Wu, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Canada

Abstract This study seeks to extend our knowledge of marketing strategyimplementation in the context of international student recruitment. Strategyimplementation remains an area of limited focus in the marketisationof higher education literature. Employing a mixed-design methodology onuniversities in the UK, US, Australia, and New Zealand, a conceptual modelis presented and tested on 570 mid-level international marketing managers.Four overall constructs are found to be significant strategy implementationfactors: implementation related outcome variables, dimensions of commitment,strategy, and role factors. In light of these findings, several implicationsare advanced for university management. The study also makes importanttheoretical contributions: it contributes to a growing body of literature onmarketing of higher education; it adds a more nuanced theoretical foundationof marketing strategy implementation by focusing on academic institutionsrather than business firms; and it enriches the theory of marketing strategyimplementation by taking a cross-national analytical approach.

Keywords international marketing strategy; strategy implementation; educationservices; services trade; international students

Introduction

Trade in education services is a fast-growing global business following the trendof other service sectors. Estimated at US$65 billion and representing roughly3% of global services exports (Chadee & Naidoo, 2009), trade in educationservices is a multidimensional phenomenon (e.g., the import and export oftextbooks, international examinations such as the Graduate Management AptitudeTest (GMAT), etc.), although the cross-border migration of international studentsremains to date the most visible aspect of this trade (OECD, 2009).

Growth in international student mobility is both demand- and supply-motivated(Mazzarol & Soutar, 2002). On the demand side, students increasingly view

ISSN 0267-257X print/ISSN 1472-1376 online© 2011 Westburn Publishers Ltd.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2011.609132http://www.tandfonline.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2011.609132

http://www.tandfonline.com

1118 Journal of Marketing Management, Volume 27

international qualifications as a differentiating asset that tends to command apremium in today’s competitive job market. On the supply side, higher-educationinstitutions (HEIs) faced with a decline in public funding are increasingly compelledto offer their courses to full-fee paying overseas students (Hayes, 2007). Thesedemand and supply dynamics for education services have led to an increasingmarketisation of higher education, not just at the domestic level but also globallyas HEIs compete to attract overseas students (Allen & Shen, 1999; Binsardi &Ekwulugo, 2003; Kwong, 2000).

This increasing global marketisation of higher education has led many HEIsto develop international marketing strategies for international student recruitment(Hemsley-Brown & Goonawardana, 2007; Mazzarol & Soutar, 2001, 2008). Whilepreviously the focus of education marketing was largely domestically focused, inrecent years, there has been an exponential growth in the interest of HEIs ininternational marketing as they reach out to potential students across their nationalboundaries. This interest in international marketing has not been limited at anindividual institutional level but has also been adopted at a national level inmany countries where national governments, realising the export earnings potentialof education services, are promoting the benefits of studying in their respectivecountries. The UK, Australia, and New Zealand are some common examples ofcountries that have adopted a national–international marketing approach to thepromotion of education services offshore, and increasingly, others are following suit.

At the institutional level, while some HEIs have been very successful at recruitinginternational students, others are still struggling to see a significant return fromtheir international marketing efforts (Naude & Ivy, 1999; Ross, Heaney, & Cooper,2007). While there are some uncontrollable factors that determine how successful aparticular institution is in terms of its international student recruitment efforts (e.g.,reputation pull factors), the model developed in this article suggests that there are alsocontrollable factors that influence the success of international marketing strategies. Inparticular, grounded in pervious strategy research, we postulate that the successes ofthese international marketing strategies are often contingent on their implementation(Chebat, 1999; Noble, 1999; Noble & Mokwa 1999; Thorpe & Morgan, 2007a).

This study, using universities as the unit of analysis, seeks to investigate theinfluence of strategic implementation in the marketing of education services tointernational students. In the marketisation of higher-education literature, hardlyany studies, at least to our knowledge, have focused on strategy implementationas opposed to strategy formulation (although there are a number of strategyrelated studies that have investigated education services, their focus are on strategyformulation – e.g., Mazzarol & Soutar, 2001, 2008 – see Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka,2006 for a recent literature review). While this gap in the research literature is quitesurprising, given that strategy failures are often attributed to poor implementationfactors, it is not completely unexpected, as strategy implementation has also been anunder-researched area in other aspects of marketing (Thorpe & Morgan, 2007a).

Grounded in this gap in the literature, the focus of this study is, thus, to examinethe implementation of marketing strategies for recruiting international students.Particularly, using insights from a literature review and based on qualitative data from10 universities in four countries (UK, US, Australia, and New Zealand), a researchmodel is proposed through a qualitative data analysis (QDA). The model is thenempirically tested on 570 mid-level international marketing managers in the foursampled countries. We conclude with a discussion of the observed findings.

Naidoo and Wu Marketing strategy implementation in higher education 1119

Past research

Opposing the traditional positivist view that a literature review should lead tohypothesis development, in this study, we employ a constructivist approach usingQDA (Glaser, 1978, 2006, 2009). Our choice of the methodology is influencedby the fact, as mentioned above, that business research to date has not addressedstrategic implementation in the education services sector. This lack of relevantprevious research suits QDA as a methodology, as it allows for inductive modeldevelopment (Patton, 2002). Accordingly, it is worth mentioning at the outset thatwith respect to the structure of this article, a literature search is postponed until themain insights have emerged from the empirical data. This approach, although stillsubject to debate (e.g., Suddaby, 2006), follows the convention among qualitativeresearchers to avoid using preconceived categories in model development but ratherto allow for an inductive model development that emerges from the data (Mayring,2000; Patton, 2002). Consequently, contrary to articles grounded in deductivepositivist methodologies, we will reserve presenting a comprehensive review of theliterature at this stage, but would weave previous literature in the area of strategyimplementation (e.g., Bourgeois & Brodwin, 1984; Noble, 1999; Parsa 1999) as partof the presentation of our findings. In the remaining paragraphs of this section, wethus only provide an introductory commentary of the state of the literature to set thetone for this study.

Since the 1980s, there has been a great deal of research on strategy in theliterature. In the marketisation of higher education literature, studies on strategicmarketing have largely focused on four themes (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006):segmentation (e.g., Soutar & Turner, 2002), targeting (e.g., Farr, 2003), positioning(e.g., Ivy, 2001), and branding (e.g., Gray, Fam, & Llanes, 2003). These thematicstudies focus on the formulation of strategies (i.e. the planning and decision makingto establish goals) as opposed to strategic implementation (i.e. the operational-levelactions to achieve goals). Similarly, in the broader marketing strategy literature, manystudies focus on the formulation of strategies (Kaplan & Beinhocker, 2003; Walker &Ruekert, 1987; Wind & Robertson, 1983), while others examine the relationshipbetween strategies and performance (Chebat, 1999; Floyd & Wooldridge, 1997;Hooley, Greenley, Cadogan, & Fahy, 2005; Nordqvist & Melin, 2008; Wong &Merrilees, 2007). A review of the literature reveals that there is an undue biastowards formulation, almost to the neglect of implementation (Chimhanzi, 2004),although there is a good foundation of research on strategy implementation (Floyd &Wooldridge, 1992; Qi, 2005; Thorpe & Morgan, 2007a). For example, a numberof factors have been found to influence strategic implementation: organisationalstructure (Drazin & Howard, 1984; Miles & Snow, 1978), control mechanism(Daft & Mackintosh, 1984; Jaworski et al., 1993), strategic consensus (Floyd &Wooldridge, 1992; Wooldridge & Floyd, 1989), leadership (Gupta & Govindarajan,1984; Nutt, 1983), and communication (Hambrick & Cannella, 1989; Workman,1993).

However, given that strategy implementation is a multifaceted and fairly complexorganisational process (Thorpe & Morgan, 2007a), such general conclusions donot fully address our needs for a deeper understanding of strategy implementation.In particular, considering that firms do not implement their strategies in the sameway, there is a growing need to investigate how strategic implementation differs byindustry. The objective of this study is to examine the implementation of marketingstrategies for recruiting international students.


Qualitative data analysis

We undertook a multi-firm qualitative field study conducting interviews withuniversities currently marketing their courses offshore over an eight-month period.The end of data collection came about at the point of theoretical saturation whenwe perceived further data gathering and analysis to cease producing new insights(Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Through these exploratory interviews, we investigatedthe strategic implementation processes of universities with respect to marketingto international students. The aim was to become familiar with their relevantperspectives and to broadly explore issues pertinent to strategic implementation thatuniversities consider to be important.

The interviews lasting about one hour each, adopted an in-depth and semi-structured approach through the use of open-ended questions, in the hope of gaininga better understanding of the subject matter at hand (Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).Applying QDA practice, we iteratively collected and analysed data for building asubstantive conceptual model of the phenomenon under investigation (Glaser, 1978,2009). In that respect, the early stages of data collection were quite open-ended,while the later stages were guided by emerging concepts and benefited from morestructured interview protocols such as the development of an interview guide. Thatsaid, the guide was however, not static in nature, but rather developed as the series ofinterview proceeded (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Thus, emerging questions were alsoasked as judged appropriate by the interviewer. This semi-structured, open-endedinterview format allowed key dimensions of the strategy implementation process toemerge naturally through a conversational manner (Thompson, Locander, & Polio,1989).

Furthermore, a purposeful and maximum variation sampling approach was usedto identify interviewees that were likely to contribute to the current study. Thissampling strategy follows Eisenhardt (1989) and Miles and Huberman (1994),who argue that random sampling in qualitative research is neither necessary norgenerally desirable, since a purposeful sampling approach can help to focus the studyand contribute more effectively to the research objectives. Similarly, a maximumvariation sampling strategy was used to obtain access to a diverse set of opinions andperspectives. In particular, the sample included universities involved across a widerange of international marketing activities (e.g., overseas recruiting trips; attendanceat international education fairs; university pathway programme development suchas foundation and English as a Second Language (ESL) programmes, etc.). Theinterviews were conducted with mid-level managers responsible for internationalmarketing activities. The managers were asked to respond to a series of questionswith respect to the implementation phase of their respective university’s latestinternational marketing strategy. With the framing of the interviews being withrespect to the implementation of the university’s latest strategy, all the intervieweduniversities were purposefully selected to have roughly the same amount of activeinternational recruitment/marketing experience (≈15 years) to ensure that thelength of such experience did not influence the obtained responses. For example,we were concerned that a more experienced university might have had a morestreamlined international marketing process, which could result in a better strategyimplementation, thereby influencing any generalisation from our derived conceptualmodel. Table 1 outlines the universities interviewed and provides some of their keydemographic information.


Table1Demographicinformationofuniversitiesinterviewedasof2010.

USinstitution1

(US1)

USinstitution2

(US2)

USinstitution3

(US3)

UKinstitution1

(UK1)

UKinstitution2

(UK2)

Australia

institution1

(AU1)

Australia

institution2

(AU2)

Australia

institution3

(AU3)

New

Zealand

institution1

(NZ1)

New

Zealand

institution2

(NZ2)

Age(years)

100–150

0–50

50–100

50–100

150–200

50–100

150–200

50–100

100–150

50–100

Domestic

enrolment

25,000–30,000

25,000–30,000

40,000–45,000

2000–5000

20,000–25,000

35,000–40,00035,000–40,00035,000–40,00020,000–25,00015,000–20,000

International

enrolment

1000–5000

1000–5000

5000–10,000

1000–5000

1000–5000

5000–10,000

0–5000

15,000–20,0000–5000

0–5000

Public

/private

university

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Academic

rankinga

50–100

50–100

Top50

Notranked

1–200b

Notranked

150–200

Top50

1–100c

Notranked

Endowment

(US$)

500–600million500–600million1–1.5billion

45–50million

500–600million500–600

million

600–700

million

1–1.5billion

800–900

million

400–500

million

aThe2010TimesHigherEducationrankingisusedinthistable.Althoughthereareanumberofrankingmethodologies,theinformationprovidedinthistableis

indicativeonlyandisnotmeanttobeascientificexaminationoftheseindividualrankingsystems.

bThecategorisationofuniversitiesintermsofresearchintensiveorappliedinstitutionsisderivedfromtheinstitutions’owndescriptionsthroughtheirwebsitesor

strategicdocuments(e.g.,annualreports)

c Rankingrangesof50areusedformostoftheuniversities.However,broaderrangesareusedforoneUKandoneNewZealanduniversity.Thesetwoinstitutionsare

theonlyuniversitiesintheirrespectivecountriesintheirrangesof50,makingthemeasytoidentify.Theuseofthebroaderrangeforthesetwoinstitutionsensures

thatconfidentialityismaintained.


Because the interviews were conducted on the basis of confidentiality, the namesof the interviewees and their respective universities are not disclosed. Instead,the universities are categorised by their country of origin and the demographicinformation disclosed about them is categorised into ranges. A conscious decisionwas made to target universities across countries which are primarily active in therecruitment of international students (i.e. United Kingdom, United States, Australia,New Zealand). These four countries account for approximately 45% of the totalinternational student population in the world (OECD, 2009).

The qualitative data gathered from each individual interview session weretranscribed verbatim from the detailed notes taken by the researchers. The data wereanalysed by coding the transcribed interviews using an inductive approach, allowingpatterns and themes to emerge. These data were then subjected to content analysisusing N6 (previously QSR∗NUDIST), allowing for the exploration and explanationof the inter-relationships among the generated constructs. Using the inter-judge test(Wagner, Lukassen, & Mahlendorf, 2010), two independent researchers conductedthe data collection, analysis, and interpretation to allow for adequate triangulationand validation (Stöttinger, 2001).

Conceptual framework

Theoretical sampling was used in the data-collection process for gradually buildingconcepts of interest. Using insights from the literature review and the QDA process,we derived the proposed conceptual model shown in Figure 1. Four overall constructsemerged from the data: implementation related outcome variables, dimensions ofcommitment, strategy factors and role factors. These are discussed below.

Outcome variables

Building on previous scholars who have conceptualised strategy implementation(e.g., Giles, 1991; Mintzberg, 1978), the dependent variable of our phenomenonunder investigation is strategy implementation success. Using the latter concept as the

Figure 1 Conceptual model.

Hypothesis 4

Hypothesis 5

Hypothesis 6

Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 1 Hypothesis 3

Hypothesis 7

Vision Fit

Significance

Buy-in

StrategyCommitment

RolePerformance

MarketingStrategy

ImplementationSuccess

RoleCommitment

RoleSignificance


starting-point of our research, we delved into identifying the factors that influenceimplementation success. The first concept that our research revealed was that theinterviewed international marketing managers considered their own implementationroles, particularly the performance of these roles to be crucial to the successfulimplementation of a marketing strategy. For example, the interviewee from AU1indicated:

The success of our marketing strategy implementation all comes down to mystaff’s and my performance. – AU1

Another manager commented:

My team and I determine our success with our marketing strategyimplementation. By team, I don’t mean only those staff directly involved withmarketing but the whole team, including our administrative support group. Howour people perform their duties is thus critical in strategy implementation. – NZ1

Similar views resonated with the other eight interviewed university representatives.Implicit in these comments is that strategy implementation is operational in natureand grounded in the performance of daily activities carried out by employees atall levels of the organisation. This latter view is shared by previous studies such asChimhanzi (2004), Hrebiniak and Joyce (1984), and Webster (1997). Thus, similarto these previous studies, our data suggest a direct relationship between the successof strategy implementation and role performance.

H1: In the education services sector, the success of the strategy implementationis positively influenced by the role performance of the international marketingmanagers.

Dimensions of commitment

Developing commitment to an organisational purpose is a key element for achievingintegration and coordination, both essential components of effective strategyimplementation (Vila & Canales, 2008). Thus, top management must first developa clear purpose and convey that purpose to organisational members with anobjective of inspiring commitment around it. A dimension of commitment whichhas been identified in the literature is strategy commitment, which refers to thelevel of managerial support and commitment to a particular marketing strategy(Wooldridge & Floyd, 1989). This commitment may be due to identification with thevalues or goals of the strategy (Ford, Weissbein, & Plamondon, 2003). It is arguedthat a commitment to a particular strategic course takes places at an early point inthe evolution of an autonomous strategic initiative (Hutt, Reingen, & Ronchetto,1988). The strategy commitment is expected to result in strategy-related behaviour.When there is a strong commitment to the strategy among marketing managers, itis likely that the strategy can be implemented more effectively (Noble & Mokwa,1999). Consistent with the literature, supportive evidence was observed during theinterviews to suggest a positive relationship between strategy commitment and roleperformance. As the following managers noted:


Commitment to a particular strategy results in me improving my performance asI have a sense of ownership. – US3

When a strategy makes sense and I believe in it, it is easier for me to do my job.Personally committing to a particular strategy allows me to adequately sell it tomy staff who, ultimately, are responsible for effectively implementing the saidstrategy. – US2

With similar comments obtained from all the other interviewees, the collected datawould indicate that, generally, international marketing managers in the universitysector, perceived their commitment in a strategy as critical to how they delivered ontheir professional responsibilities.

H2: In the education services sector, the higher the level of strategy commitment, thebetter is the role performance by the international marketing managers.

Another dimension of commitment which emerged from the data is role commitment.It relates to the level of dedication an employee demonstrates in performing his/herjob (Broderick 1998; Darden, Hampton, & Howell, 1989). Cohen (1993) highlightsthe importance of role commitment in organisations and argues that a lack of rolecommitment is likely to result in higher employee turnover, growing dissatisfaction,and poorer performance. Noble and Mokwa (1999) suggest that there is a positiverelationship between role commitment and role performance. The collected dataseems to indicate a similar positive relationship as demonstrated by the followingexcerpts captured during the interviews.

My commitment to my role is what drives me to succeed and perform. – NZ2

My job and my particular professional responsibilities are a large part of who Iam as a person. Being true to myself and being committed to what I do [i.e. rolecommitment], I strive to always do the best I can given the resources I have tooperate with. – UK2

While the above comments and others similar to them express an explicit linkbetween role commitment and role performance, the representative from UK1expressed how s/he performs in his/her role because of commitment to his/herindividual career path rather than the role itself.

I am here to do a good job because of my commitment to my own career path. –UK 1

Since, in many ways career commitment is similar to the notion of role commitment(Darden et al., 1989), one can suggest from UK1’s comments that all the intervieweesconsistently indicated a direct relationship between role commitment and roleperformance. Thus, is it proposed that:

H3: In the education services sector, the higher the level of role commitment, thebetter is the role performance by the international marketing managers.


Strategy factors

Furthermore, from the collected qualitative data, we found that three strategy factorsare likely to influence how committed international marketing managers are tostrategy implementation. First, consistent with previous studies (e.g., Dvir, Kass, &Shamir, 2004; Parish, Cadwallader, & Busch, 2008), we identified vision fit as animportant strategic factor. Vision fit is the situation where a strategy is perceived tofit in with an organisation’s strategic goals. Morris (1987) argues that a vision allowsmanagers to build long-term problem-solving linkages from the present state of thebusiness to its future direction. In most cases, a vision represents innovative waysdesigned to meet the changing needs of the business. In the context of this study,vision fit, therefore, relates to whether a given marketing strategy for recruitinginternational students fits in with the university’s overall strategic plan. The datasuggest that the level of strategy commitment is influenced by the level of perceivedfit with the university’s strategic direction. As one manager noted:

A strategy makes sense when it fits with the broad scheme of things, particularlywith the direction that the university is heading towards. – US1

Similarly, another interviewee highlighted how s/he is always questioning how a newstrategy fits with the existing ones.

Does it [i.e. the strategy] make sense? Does it align with our current operation?Is it going to be value added to the overall direction of the institution? There isno point implementing a new strategy if it is not aligned with the broader visionof the university. Doing so will lead to poor buy in and commitment from seniormanagement. Not only will this [i.e. implementing a misaligned strategy] be ahard sell, but would be a complete waste of time and resources. – AU3

These comments were similarly shared among the other interviewees. Thesecomments, thus lead us to propose that:

H4: In the education services sector, the higher the level of perceived fit with theuniversity’s strategic direction, the higher is the level of strategic commitment amongthe international marketing managers.

Another strategic factor emerging from the data is the perceived significance of astrategy, which appears to affect an international marketing manager’s commitmentto implementation. This is consistent with the observations made by Floyd andWooldridge (1992) that managers’ affective consensus depends on how a proposedstrategy fits with the best interests of an organisation. In this study, the collecteddata lend support to this perspective and the following representative excerpts areindicative of this support:

The more I perceive a strategy to be significant, the more I’m likely to becommitted to it. –AU2

An important strategy is likely to be one that leads to greater outcomes. Sincethese outcomes are in turn more likely to assist me achieve my professional KPIs[key performance indicators], I tend to be more committed to strategies that Iperceive as important. – US1

Thus, consistent with previous strategic implementation studies (e.g., Kiesler& Sproull, 1982; Noble & Mokwa, 1999; Sproull & Hofmeister, 1986), we


postulate from the collected data that the perceived significance of a strategyis likely to influence international marketing managers’ commitment to strategyimplementation. In other words, when international marketing managers perceivea marketing strategy to be significant, they are likely to be more committed to thatparticular strategy.

H5: In the education services sector, the higher the level of perceived significanceof a marketing strategy, the higher is the level of strategy commitment among theinternational marketing managers.

The last strategy factor identified from the interviews is institutional buy-in. Buy-in reflects the depth of commitment from those individuals in the implementationprocess (Hrebiniak & Snow, 1982; Hutt & Speh, 1984). Merely communicating astrategy to organisational members has serious limitations in aligning people withexpected behaviour (Vila & Canales, 2008). In order to accomplish its strategic goals,an organisation must bring key people on board so that they are committed to theproject. The data indicated that if there is a university-wide buy-in for the marketingstrategy, it is likely that the international marketing managers will be more committedto the strategy. The following excerpts are indicative of this proposition.

The successful implementation of a strategy depends on its acceptance by therest of the university. – UK2

The international office can only be partly responsible for successfullyimplementing ourmarketing strategy. We depend on other areas of the universityto ensure that the strategy is adequately implemented. For example, we relyon the finance office to set tuition fees, on the housing office for findingaccommodation options for our international students, on the faculties fordeveloping programmes that are relevant and attractive to the internationalstudent market. Without buy-in from these other stakeholders, the internationaloffice will not be successful in our marketing strategy implementation. – UK1

Thus, from the interviews conducted, we propose that:

H6: In the education services sector, the higher the level of institutional buy-in forthe marketing strategy, the higher is the level of strategy commitment among theinternational marketing managers.

Role factors

Last but not least, the interviewees highlighted a number of comments whichwe categorised under the theme of role significance. Role significance refers to amanager’s perceived level of importance in performing a role. This implies thata manager is enacting an identity of his particular role, which s/he feels to beimportant, meaningful and crucial to the implementation success (Reich, 1997). Thedata indicate that the greater the perceived role significance, the higher the rolecommitment of the marketing managers. For example,

Themore I perceive my particular position to be significant in the implementationprocess, the more I tend to be committed to it. This is because with significancecomes the ability to make decisions. Without significance, I find it very hardto have a say in how a strategy is going to be implemented. This is especially


so in the university sector where the organisational structure is extremelyhierarchical. – US2

The significance of my role in the strategy formulation and implementationdictates how committed I am to the strategy. Otherwise, being a busy manager,I tend to not get heavily involved and thus exemplify low commitment to aparticular strategy. – AU3

Thus, based on the data, and similar to previous studies (e.g., Noble & Mokwa,1999), we propose that when international marketing managers feel they are beingempowered to carry out an important task, they should be much more committed totheir role in implementing the strategy.

H7: In the education services sector, the higher the level of perceived rolesignificance, the higher is the role commitment among international marketingmanagers.

Empirical methodology

The second stage of our research consisted of empirically testing the research modeldeveloped from our qualitative findings (see Figure 1). Based on the proposedconceptual model, a series of 5-point Likert scale measures were developed groundedin previous literature. Responses to each item in the survey ranged from 1 (stronglyagree) to 5 (strong disagree). To ensure face validity, the measures were pre-testedwith a number of international marketing academics and managers. Based on theirfeedback, any ambiguities and unclear questions were modified or eliminated. Inorder to collect comparable data on marketing strategies for recruiting internationalstudents across countries, we specifically designed a survey that was applicable toall universities. The finalised survey was then randomly distributed to universitiespicked from a purposefully identified sampling frame (see section ‘Qualitativedata analysis’) of HEIs in our four sampled countries (UK, US, Australia, andNew Zealand). (Through purposeful sampling, we controlled for internationalrecruitment/marketing experience of the universities in our sampling frame.) Thedata were collected over a 10-month period through a confidential questionnairedistributed to international marketing managers (the target respondent). To maximisethe response rate, the authors personally hand-delivered the questionnaires to thetargeted international marketing managers at trade conferences and expos wherethey congregated to ‘sell’ their respective universities to prospective internationalstudents.

A total of 2562 questionnaires were distributed, and 570 completed, usablequestionnaires were returned, representing an overall response rate of 22%. Weobtained 143 completed responses from UK, 120 from the US, 167 from Australia,and 140 from New Zealand. All respondents who participated in this research wereinternational marketing managers or directors with at least three years of experiencein international student recruitment. This means that these respondents are notonly experienced in the international student recruitment process but also veryfamiliar with their university mission and strategies. To test for non-response bias, theextrapolation method recommended by Armstrong and Overton (1977) was appliedand revealed no significant differences between early and late respondents.


Data analysis and results

The conceptual model was tested using LISREL to assess the validity of the proposedconstructs. The data analysis was conducted in multiple stages.

Measures

First, following previous studies such as Mullen (1995) and Steenkamp andBaumgartner (1998), we conducted a Multiple Group LISREL to investigate the useof our measures across different cultural settings. This involved conducting separateanalysis of a confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) measurement model for eachsampled country, followed by a formal assessment of how the parameter estimatesof λi (the factor loading) and δi (the error variance) compared for each sampledcountry. In particular, factorial similarity, factorial equivalence, and measurementequivalence were tested. Following Mullen (1995), our first step in assessing factorialsimilarity was to set the construct variance to one and specifying the factor loadingsand error variances as free. Chi-square (df ) statistics (NZ = 3.39(8), AU = 5.43(8),UK = 6.31(8), US = 3.21(8)), comparative fit index (CFI) (NZ = 0.99, AU = 0.95,UK = 1.00, US = 0.94), Tucker and Lewis index (TLI) (NZ = 0.98, AU = 0.93,UK = 0.101, US = 0.92), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA)(NZ = 0.04, AU = 0.03, UK = 0.00, US = 0.02) all indicate that an acceptablemeasurement model was produced across the sampled countries. Next, similar toMullen (1995), to assess factorial equivalence, we assumed factor loadings to beequal across samples, but allowed error variances to differ. The chi-square statisticwas computed against a four-group model in which both λi and δi were set free foreach country sample and was found to be non-significant (p = 0.73, χ2 = 12.96,df = 17). This non-significant result corroborates the earlier support for factorialsimilarity and provides a benchmark model for a Chi-square difference test (χ2

diff),which was also found to be non-significant (p > 0.10). This finding lends supportfor factorial equivalence in the sense that the factor loadings across the four countrysamples are, within the statistical bounds set, the same. Finally, to assess measurementequivalence, we used a more constrained model where both λi and δi were assumedto be equal across the four samples. The resulting chi-square of 16.73 (20 df ) wasinsignificant, as was the χ2

diff when comparing this model with the previous equalfactor model (p > 0.10). These findings suggest that the obtained response patternsacross the countries investigated were similar and exhibited scalar equivalence. Suchresults were to be expected given the pre-testing that took place and the fact that allsampled countries are English-speaking.

Next, we followed up by randomly picking the New Zealand sample and using itfor measure and model purification purposes. An initial confirmatory factor analysiswas first performed on the New Zealand sample and the final item set used are shownin Table 2. In the New Zealand sample, 11 items were deleted to arrive at a final 32used in this study. As indicated in Table 3, most coefficient alpha values are greaterthan 0.7, which is a generally accepted level. There are three values that are less thanthe standard of 0.7, suggesting the need for further measure refinement and somecaution in the interpretation of results. The chi-square was 284.26 on 108 d.f. (p <

0.001), the CFI was 0.946, and the RMSEA was 0.059. All the standardised factorloadings are statistically significant for all variables. Once the standardised factorloadings were obtained, we then combined the scale items to produce a summed score


Table 2 Alpha coefficients, factor loadings, and t-values for scale items(NZ/AU/UK/US).

Scale SourceCoefficient

alpha Itema

Standardisedfactorloading t-valueb

Vision Fit Wilson andWong (2003)Parish et al.(2008)

0.633/0.758/0.673/0.842

This initiative waspart of an overallstrategic planwithin theuniversity

0.719/0.842/0.649/0.764

6.18/5.46/6.48/6.31

This strategywasn’t consistentwith other thingsgoing on in theuniversity at thetime (R)

0.700/0.672/0.536/0.728

6.85/6.33/5.86/8.43

I understood howthis strategy fitwithin thestrategic versionof the university

0.641/0.623/0.746/0.632

5.63/5.67/6.43/5.21

Importance Noble andMokwa(1999)Fogliatto, DaSilveira, andRoyer (2003)

0.500/0.642/0.831/0.812

The strategy willinfluence theuniversity foryears to come

0.590/0.643/0.843/0.562

5.62/6.41/5.83/5.94

The strategy wasextremelyimportant

0.534/0.634/0.721/0.684

5.47/5.86/5.73/5.16

This strategy waspretty minor inthe overallmission of theuniversity (R)

0.518/0.584/0.834/0.887

5.36/6.32/5.46/5.63

The success of thestrategy wasexpected tosignificantlyaffect the futureof the university

0.799/0.777/0.745/0.643

6.83/5.49/6.48/6.51

Buy-in Hrebiniak andSnow (1982)Thomson, deChernatony,Arganbright,and Sajid(1999)

0.776/0.843/0.685/0.746

Across theuniversity, therewas high level of‘buy-in’ for thisstrategy

0.809/0.769/0.685/0.846

9.37/9.46/8.48/7.63

(Continued)


Table 2 (Continued).


alpha Itema


The studentrecruiting teamfelt like it was onits own in tryingto make thestrategy asuccess (R)

0.804/0.743/0.638/0.509

9.32/8.46/7.65/6.89

There was ageneral lack ofsupport of thisstrategy acrossthe university (R)

0.901/0.894/0.769/0.845

9.56/8.76/7.88/6.98

There was atremendousground swell ofsupport in theuniversity for thestrategy

0.947/0.857/0.698/0.749

10.32/9.86/9.45/9.58

RoleSignificance

Thorpe andMorgan(2007b)Noble andMokwa(1999)

0.885/0.846/0.759/0.689

My responsibilitiesin implementingthis strategywere not thatsignificant (R)

0.702/0.689/0.867/0.858

8.13/7.46/6.58/7.39

I played a relativelyminor role in thedevelopment ofthis strategy (R)

0.896/0.746/0.698/0.752

9.52/9.43/8.46/7.68

I was one of the keymembers of theimplementationteam of thisinitiative

0.692/0.645/0.638/0.987

7.83/7.63/7.44/6.98

StrategyCommitment

Herscovitchand Meyer(2002)Parish et al.(2008)

0.946/0.841/0.743/0.645

I didn’t think thisstrategy was inthe best interestof the university(R)

0.812/0.842/0.536/0.749

6.59/5.76/6.41/7.85

I thought thestrategy was agreat idea

0.845/0.746/0.861/0.743

7.14/7.45/8.41/6.79

I can’t say that Isupported thestrategy (R)

0.800/0.741/0.689/0.897

6.93/7.46/6.12/6.33

(Continued)




alpha Itema


I personally feltthat the goals ofthe strategy wereappropriate

0.623/0.529/0.683/0.637

5.19/6.48/6.01/5.98

RoleCommitment

Ganesan andWeitz(1996)Herscovitchand Meyer(2002)

0.732/0.956/0.843/0.786

In implementingthis strategy, Itried to work ashard as possible

0.805/0.746/0.638/0.764

8.69/7.04/7.52/7.63

I took tremendouspride in myresponsibilitiesin this strategy

0.529/0.536/0.687/0.762

6.17/6.54/6.89/7.84

I was committed tomy role inimplementingthe strategy

0.722/0.742/0.623/0.641

7.24/7.06/6.51/5.98

I understood mypersonalobjectives clearlyin this initiativeand wasdetermined tomeet them

0.757/0.687/0.602/0.598

7.43/6.45/7.86/7.43/

I intentionallyexpended a greatdeal of effort incarrying out myresponsibilitieson this strategy

0.556/0.649/0.601/0.659

6.76/6.44/6.38/5.96

I gave atremendouseffort inimplementingthe strategy

0.711/0.659/0.723/0.804

7.09/6.84/7.05/7.33

RolePerformance

Homburg,Hoyer, andFassnacht(2002)Parish et al.(2008)

0.601/0.642/0.765/0.804

My superiors wouldsay I performedextremely wellon implementingthe strategy

0.605/0.587/0.865/0.984

5.29/6.04/5.98/6.46

This was not one ofmy betterimplementationefforts (R)

0.526/0.645/0.842/0.965

4.73/5.76/5.86/6.78

(Continued)




alpha Itema


My overallperformance inimplementing thestrategy wasoutstanding

0.705/0.854/0.863/0.504

6.04/6.83/5.89/7.45


Miller (1997)Chimhanzi(2004)

0.799/0.896/0.847/0.687

I personally thinktheimplementation ofthe strategy was asuccess

0.780/0.648/0.598/0.638

6.43/5.41/5.69/6.48

The strategy waseffectivelyimplemented

0.850/0.637/0.786/0.861

7.92/7.41/6.48/6.86

The implementationof the strategywas considered asuccess at theuniversity

0.820/0.741/0.689/0.565

7.69/7.42/7.06/6.59

The implementationof the strategywas considered asuccess in myteam

0.583/0.866/0.745/

4.97/5.41/6.03/5.98

The university’simplementationeffort on thisinitiative wasdisappointing (R)

0.635/0.704/0.745/0.652

5.29/5.04/5.63/5.94

Note: (R) = reverse-coded variables.aAll on a 5-point scale where 1 = ‘strongly agree’ and 5 = ‘strongly disagree’.bIndividual factor loadings all had t-values exceeding p < 0.001 significance level.

Table 3 Correlation matrix, means, and standard deviations (NZ sample).

Measure Ma SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 81. Vision Fit 5.4 1.25 –2. Importance 6.9 2.13 0.31 –3. Buy-in 5.4 3.16 0.56 0.32 –4. Role Significance 6.2 3.35 0.46 0.46 0.21 –5. Strategy Commitment 9.6 4.63 0.40 0.34 0.31 0.34 –6. Role Commitment 8.4 5.81 0.31 0.15 0.11 0.22 0.23 –7. Role Performance 5.9 2.11 0.26 0.31 0.54 0.13 0.46 0.30 –8. Implementation Success 12.3 5.32 0.45 0.21 0.32 0.22 0.32 0.45 0.33 –a Negatively worded items were reverse-coded for the calculation of means.


for each factor variable. Based on all fit indices, the model fitted the data well. Theresults of confirmatory factor analysis showed that the measures used in this studywere acceptable. Table 3 shows the correlations, means, and standard deviations forthese variables.

We then tested the UK, US, and Australian model, and found that the same numberof factors (constructs) loaded across the national samples. This methodology of usingthe parameters from the New Zealand sample to investigate the effectiveness ofprediction on the other country samples allows for robustness testing and stringent‘validity generalisation’ (Bagozzi & Yi, 1988).

Structural equation model

Finally, we used a structural equation model (SEM) to test the proposed hypotheseswhich were depicted in Figure 1. We conducted a sensitivity analysis and comparedalternative models using respecification techniques such as the Lagrange multiplierand Wald tests. However, given our use of a constructivist approach to modeldevelopment and the fact that our qualitative data did not support these re-specifiedmodels, we stayed true to the original model rather than data-mine for model-improvement purposes (e.g., using Bagozzi’s partial disaggregated approach). Thisapproach builds on the argument that SEM is a model-testing procedure, not amodel-building one (see Bagozzi & Edwards, 1998; Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, &Tatham, 2005). Overall, the tested model appear to provide a good fit to the dataas indicated by the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI).Other relevant fit statistics such as adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), normed fitindex (NFI), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and chi-square (χ2),were also examined and suggested an adequate fit to the data. Residual terms andmodification indices were also reviewed and revealed no problematic issues. Lastly,the model was run on the UK, US, and Australian samples for confirming the findingsobtained from the New Zealand sample. The results from the four samples indicatedthat the overall fit of the proposed model to the observed data was adequate andfavourable. Figure 2 shows the path coefficients for all the samples. Overall, thefindings are consistent across all the models run. As shown in Figure 2, the examinedhypotheses are all supported in the samples analysed. The first hypothesis (H1), whichpostulates the success of the strategy implementation is positively influenced by therole performance, is supported. The effect of role performance on implementationsuccess was positive and significant (p < 0.01) in all four samples. This suggeststhat international marketing managers clearly attribute their role performance to thesuccess of implementation effort.

The findings also support commitment factors as critical to strategyimplementation, with both strategy commitment (H2) and role commitment(H3) found to be positive and significant in influencing role performance. Thisconfirms that international marketing managers’ performance is dependent on theircommitment to the strategy and role commitment. The three strategy factorsexamined, namely fit with vision (H4), perceived importance of a marketingstrategy (H5), and buy-in (H6), are also found to be positive and significant ininfluencing strategy commitment among international marketing managers. Similarly,the perceived role significance (H7) is shown to be positive and significant ininfluencing role commitment.


Figure 2 Path model results (standardised coefficients shown). ∗p < 0.05, ∗∗p < 0.01,∗∗∗p < 0.001.

H4:.305**/.355**/.369***/.296***

H2:.204**/.269*/.296***/.196**

H5:.341**/.322***/.493***/.395*

H1:.243**/.264***/.324***/.315***

H6:.163**/.176**/.213*/.415***

H3:.397***/.514***/.578***/.431**H7:.373***/.272***/.411***/.286**

Final Fit StatisticsUKModel

USModel

AUModel

NZModel

GFI 0.93 0.91 0.92 0.94AGFI 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.93CFI 0.91 0.90 0.91 0.92NFI 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.91RMSEA 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07χ2/df 6.23 2.76 5.12 4.35P-value 0.867 0.991 0.793 0.987N 143 120 167 140

Vision Fit

Significance

Buy-in

StrategyCommitment

RolePerformance

MarketingStrategy


RoleCommitment

RoleSignificance

Discussion and conclusion: Managerial relevance and theoreticalcontribution

In light of the above findings, this study has several implications for universitymanagement. First, it would appear that, in order to be successful, universitiesmarketing themselves to international students need to have an internationalmarketing strategy that emphasises strategy (H2) and role commitment (H3) asantecedents to role performance (H1) and ultimately implementation success. Inturn, vision fit (H4) as a significant driver of strategy commitment suggests that formanagers to fully support a strategic initiative, they need to understand how the saidstrategy aligns with the university’s overall strategic direction. Our qualitative dataindicated that international marketing managers often failed to understand how thestrategy they were tasked to implement fitted with the overall vision and strategicdirection of the university. As one mid-level manager from the UK communicated:‘I fail to understand why we keep being told to increase our recruitment activitiesin China, when the University’s strategic documents talk of international studentdiversification and we already have a big cohort of Chinese students. . . . I’m suresenior management knows what they are doing, but they haven’t quite informedus of their reasoning.’ Consequently, this finding highlights the critical role thatcommunication needs to play between the university’s senior management and themid-level marketing managers. Our findings also emphasise the perceived significanceof a strategy (H5) as an antecedent to strategy commitment. This finding, similar tothe findings for H4 also accentuates the need for ongoing communication betweensenior and mid-level management, as there is a perceived need to highlight theimportance of specific strategies to the overall university. Likewise, the importance ofrole significance (H7) on role commitment suggests that mid-level managers are more


likely to be committed to their role if they possess a comprehensive understandingof how their roles contribute to the university’s overall strategic direction, in turnhighlighting the importance of communication. This communication need cannot beemphasised enough, especially in very hierarchical organisations such as universitieswhere bureaucracy can impede on the communication flow.

The qualitative interviews also highlighted that the empirical evidence withrespect to buy-in (H6) might not necessarily be attributable to buy-in at themarketing manager level, but would also involve buy-in among the university’s seniormanagement group, as well as shared among critical academic leaders such as deansand department heads. The qualitative data highlighted that only when buy-in isgarnered at all these three levels of operations is an international marketing strategybound to be implemented successfully. For example, the interviews emphasisedthat academic staff members play an important role in marketing institutions sincethey bring credibility when marketing the intangible benefits of education services.Consequently, the interviewees underscored that marketing teams are encouragingof academics getting involved in marketing activities to assist in the recruitmentof international students. In other words, cross-functional support and buy-in fora strategy appears to be critical to improve strategic commitment and ultimatelyimplementation success. However, most academics are reluctant to get involvedin the marketing of international education which requires tremendous effortsand extensive time commitments. In most research-intensive universities, thereare virtually no incentives for academics to engage in marketing of internationaleducation because the current academic reward system focuses mostly on teachingand research. In that respect, university senior management need to addressthis disconnect if they are to maximise the likelihood of their internationalmarketing strategy being implemented successfully. For example, involvement ininternational recruitment activities can be formerly recognised as part of the ‘service’responsibilities of academics.

Furthermore, the observed findings enhance our understanding of marketinginternational education to overseas students. For most universities, the ability tosuccessfully implement a marketing strategy is directly linked to performance of theirinternational marketing managers (Hemsley-Brown & Oplatka, 2006). In particular,international marketing managers are the ones who market academic programmesto international students on a daily basis. Our research confirms that internationalmarketing managers’ performance is influenced by both their commitment to thestrategy and their commitment to their job (Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002; Parish et al.,2008). This is especially relevant in dealing with the highly competitive internationaleducation market which requires a high level of commitment and dedication on thepart of international marketing managers. Such commitment is, however, at risk in anincreasingly commercial environment where international students are treated almostas ‘cash cows’. As one manager from Australia indicated:

I don’t want to be part of the team that is responsible for recruiting studentsthat the university does not fully support once they are enrolled. Because ofthe increasingly commercial approach the university is taking to internationalrecruitment, I fear that in the years ahead, it will be overpromising and under-delivering when it comes to providing international student services. I don’t wantto be part of that environment.


Another manager from the UK highlighted how the international recruiting ethosof his university is slowly shifting to an aggressive commercial model that does notnecessarily align well with his personal values:

The university is not in a position to cater for a substantial increase ininternational students and yet, we are increasingly being pushed to recruit moreinternational students. I feel that the university will increasingly struggle todeliver on what it promises to deliver in its marketing collaterals. That does notsit well with me.

Indeed, the priorities of many institutions have shifted from international/culturalexchanges to revenue generation when they recruit students from overseas. Tomany academic institutions, international students represent a major source ofrevenues for their operating budgets in the face of continuous financial pressureand cutbacks. While we do not aim to take a stance on whether a revenue drivenapproach to international student recruitment is appropriate, our findings indicatethat universities that do choose a revenue driven approach to recruitment need to becautious not to take that business model too far. If they do, they run the risk of losingtheir international marketing managers’ dual commitments to the strategy and to thejob and in turn decrease the likelihood of marketing strategy implementation success.

Our study also makes three contributions to the literature. First, this studycontributes to a growing body of literature in marketing of higher education. Thisstudy uses a mixed-design methodology to examine the role of marketing strategyin recruiting international students from the perspective of middle management.Second, much of prior research has focused on strategy formulation in businessfirms rather than academic institutions. There have been no empirical studies onthe marketing strategy implementation for recruiting international students. To thebest of our knowledge, this is the first empirical study to integrate marketing strategyimplementation and higher education. Third, this study focuses on marketing strategyimplementation in higher education in four major international student recipientcountries. This is the first cross-national study to test a strategy implementation modelof international marketing in higher education.

Limitations and future research

The marketing strategy implementation in education services is an important topicin international marketing that to date has received little attention. This study hasaimed to lay a foundation for a better understanding of the implementation processof marketing strategies for recruiting international students. It is hoped that this studywill lead to further research in this area. However, as with any research, this studyhas several limitations which provide opportunities for future research in this area.

First, the caveats concerning self-reported data collection apply to this study. Usinga cross-sectional self-report methodology, asking international marketing managersabout their own jobs, raises concerns of appropriate inferences being drawn from theobtained results. Consequently, the findings of this study ought to be only exploratoryin nature. Additional methodologies will be needed to fully test the proposedhypotheses (e.g., ethnography). Therefore, the obtained results only provide a firststep in studying marketing strategy implementation in the higher education context.That said, the fact that the interviewed marketing managers gave a critical account


of their concerns and perception of international students being treated as cash cows(see ‘Discussion and conclusion: Managerial relevance and theoretical contribution’)adds to the likelihood of the obtained results being derived from an accurateself-reported account.

Second, our samples came from international marketing managers who chose toattend international trade conferences and expos to ‘sell’ their respective universities.Hence, there could be some sampling and response biases when a self-selectedgroup of international marketing managers gave their perceptual responses ofimplementation success. In this study, we were unable to capture the responses ofthose universities that did not attend international trade conferences and expos.Future research needs to collect sample data from multiple sources.

Third, this study explores the marketing strategy implementation from theperspective of middle international marketing managers or directors. Hence, wehave neglected the other side of the equation, namely the perspective of seniormanagement. For example, factors such as leadership of senior management couldinfluence strategy implementation of the international marketing manager. Futureresearch should thus focus on variables specific to senior university administrationand evaluate their influence on our theoretical model.

Fourth, given the contructivist research design we have adopted in this study, wehave been limited to empirically investigate only variables that were derived fromthe qualitative data analysis. Consequently, we have not considered other potentialvariables which have been documented in the extant literature as particularlyrelevant to strategy implementation. For example, these include variables such asinstitutional priorities, cultural differences, and university size in our model (e.g.,see Bharadwaj, Varadarajan, & Fahy, 1993). Future additional research adoptinga deductive positivist methodology could, therefore, consider these other relevantvariables to enhance our understanding of the strategy implementation process in theeducation services context.

Last but not least, it must be acknowledged that the derived empirical findingsdo not show much difference in strategy implementation success across countries.This result is not surprising because all the universities in the sample are fromEnglish speaking countries with roughly the same amount of active internationalrecruitment/marketing experience (i.e. 15 years – see section ‘Qualitative dataanalysis’ regarding the use of a purposefully identified sampling frame). Accordingly,future research needs to use a broader sampling frame (e.g., universities fromnon-English-speaking countries which are also becoming increasingly active ininternational student recruitment) in order to further advance our understanding ofstrategy implementation in the education services context.

References

Allen, R.F., & Shen, J. (1999). Some evidence of the character of competition among highereducation institutions. Economics of Education Review, 18, 465–470,

Armstrong, J.S., & Overton, T.S. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys. Journalof Marketing Research, 16(August), 396–400.

Bagozzi, R.P., & Edwards, J.R. (1998). A general approach to representing constructs inorganizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1(1), 45–87.

Bagozzi, R.P., & Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. Journal ofAcademy of Marketing Science, 16(1), 74–94.


Bharadwaj, S.G., Varadarajan, P.R., & Fahy, J. (1993). Sustainable competitive advantage inservice industries: a conceptual model and research propositions. Journal of Marketing,57(4), 83–99.

Binsardi, A., & Ekwulugo, F. (2003). International marketing of British education: Researchon the student’s perception and the UK market penetration. Marketing Intelligence andPlanning, 21, 318–327.

Bourgeois, L.J., & Brodwin, D.R. (1984). Strategic implementation: Five approaches to anelusive phenomenon. Strategic Management Journal, 5, 241–264.

Broderick, A.J. (1998) Role theory, role management and service performance. Journal ofServices Marketing, 12(5), 348–361.

Chadee, D., & Naidoo, V. (2009). Higher educational services exports: sources of growth ofAsian students in US and UK. Service Business, 3(2), 173–187.

Chebat, J.-C. (1999). Special issue on strategy implementation and assessment research:Research on implementation deserves as much attention as strategy formulation. Journalof Business Research, 45(2), 107–246.

Chimhanzi, J. (2004). The impact of marketing/HR interactions on marketing strategyimplementation. European Journal of Marketing, 38(1/2), 73–98.

Cohen, A. (1993). Organisational commitment and turnover: A meta analysis. Academy ofManagement Journal, 36(5), 1140–1157.

Daft, R.L., & Mackintosh, N.B. (1984). The nature and use of formal control systems formanagement control and strategy implementation. Journal of Management, 10, 43–66.

Darden, W.R., Hampton, R., & Howell, R.D. (1989). Career versus organisationalcommitment: Antecedents and consequences of retail salespeoples’ commitment. Journalof Retailing, 65(1), 80–106.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.) pp. 1–28.Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Drazin, R., & Howard, P. (1984). Strategy implementation: a technique for organizationaldesign. Columbia Journal of World Business, 19(Summer), 40–6.

Dvir, T., Kass, N., & Shamir, B. (2004). The emotional bond: Vision and organisationalcommitment among high-tech employees. Journal of Organisational Change Management,17(2), 126–43.

Eisenhardt, K.M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of ManagementReview, 14(4), 532–550.

Farr, M. (2003). Extending participation in higher education – implications for marketing.Journal of Targeting, Measurement and Analysis for Marketing, 11(4), 314–25.

Floyd, S.W., & Wooldridge, B. (1992). Managing strategic consensus: the foundation ofeffective implementation. Academy of Management Executive, 6(4), 27–39.

Floyd, S.W., & Wooldridge, B. (1997). Middle management’s strategic influence andorganisational performance. Journal of Management Studies, 34(3), 465–85.

Fogliatto, F., Da Silveira, G., & Royer, R. (2003). Flexibility-driven index for measuring masscustomisation feasibility on industrialised products. International Journal of ProductionResearch, 41(8), 1811–1829.

Ford, J.K., Weissbein, D.A., & Plamondon, K.E. (2003). Distinguishing organisational fromstrategy commitment: linking managers’ commitment to community policing to jobbehaviors and satisfaction. Justice Quarterly, 20(1), 159–185.

Ganesan, S., & Weitz, B.A. (1996). The impact of staffing policies on retail buyer job attitudesand behaviours. Journal of Retailing, 72(1), 31–57.

Giles, W.D. (1991). Making strategy work. Long Range Planning, 24(5), 75–91.Glaser, B.G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: advances in the methodology of ground theory.

Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Glaser, B.G. (2006). Doing formal grounded theory: a proposal. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology

Press.Glaser, B.G. (2009). Jargonizing: using the ground theory vocabulary. Mill Valley, CA:

Sociology Press.


Gray, B.J., Fam, K.S. and Llanes, V.A. (2003). Cross cultural values and the positioningof international education brands. Journal of Product and Brand Management, 12(2),108–119.

Gupta, A.K., & Govindarajan, V. (1984). Business unit strategy, managerial characteristics andbusiness unit effectiveness at strategy implementation. Academy of Management Journal,27(1), 25–41.

Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. Anderson, & Tatham, R.L. (2005). Multivariate dataanalysis (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall.

Hambrick, D.C., & Cannella, A.A. (1989). Strategy implementation as substance and sellingAcademy of Management Executive, 3(November), 278–85.

Hayes, T. (2007). Delphi study of the future of marketing of higher education. Journal ofBusiness Research, 60(9), 927–931.

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Goonawardana, S. (2007). Brand harmonisation in the internationalhigher education market. Journal of Business Research, 60, 942–948.

Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2006). Universities in a competitive global marketplace: asystematic review of the literature on higher education marketing. International Journal ofPublic Sector Management, 19(4), 316–338.

Herscovitch, L., & Meyer, J.P. (2002). Commitment to organisational change: extension of athree-component model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(3), 474–87.

Homburg, C., Hoyer, W.D., & Fassnacht, M. (2002). Service orientation of a retailer’s businessstrategy: dimensions, antecedents and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 66,86–101.

Hooley, G.J., Greenley, G.E., Cadogan, J.W., & Fahy, J. (2005). The performance impact ofmarketing resources. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 18–27.

Hrebiniak, L., & Joyce, W. (1984). Implementing strategy. New York: Macmillan.Hrebiniak, L., & Snow, C. (1982). Top management agreement and organisational

performance. Human Relations, 35(December), 139–1158.Hutt, M.D., Reingen, P.H., & Ronchetto, J.R. (1988). Tracing emergent processes in marketing

strategy formation. Journal of Marketing, 52(1), 4–19.Hutt, M.D., & Speh, T.W. (1984). The marketing strategy center: diagnosing the industrial

marketer’s interdisciplinary role. Journal of Marketing, 48(4), 53–61.Ivy, J. (2001). Higher education institution image. A correspondence analysis approach. The

International Journal of Education Management, 15(6), 276–282.Jaworski, B.J., Stathakopoulos, V., & Krishnan, H.S. (1993). Control combinations in

marketing: conceptual framework and empirical evidence. Journal of Marketing, 57(1),406–19.

Kaplan, S., & Neimhocker, E.D. (2003). The real value of strategic planning. SloanManagement Review, 44(2), 71–76.

Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. (1982). Managerial response to changing environments: perspectiveson problem sensing from social cognition. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27, 548–570.

Kwong, J. (2000). Introduction: marketisation and privatisation in education. InternationalJournal of Educational Development, 20, 87–92.

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2).Retrieved from: http://qualitative-research.net/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm

Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G.N. (2001). The global market for higher education: sustainablecompetitive strategies for the new millennium. London: Elgar

Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G.N. (2002). The push-pull factors influencing international studentselection of education destination. International Journal of Educational Management,16(2), 82–90.

Mazzarol, T., & Soutar, G.N. (2008). Australian educational institution’s internationalmarkets: a correspondence analysis. International Journal of Educational Management,22(3), 229–238.

Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

http://qualitative-research.net/fqs-e/2-00inhalt-e.htm


Miles, R.E., & Snow, C.C. (1978). Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process. New York,NY: McGraw Hill.

Miller, S. (1997). Implementing strategic decisions; four key success factors. OrganisationStudies, 18(4), 577–602.

Mintzberg, H. (1978). Patterns in strategy formulation. Management Science, 24(9), 934–48.Morris, E. (1987). Vision and strategy: a focus for the future. Journal of Business Strategy, 8(2),

51–58.Mullen, M.R. (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Journal

of International Business Studies, 26(3), 573–596.Naude, P., & Ivy, J. (1999). The marketing strategies of universities in the United Kingdom.

International Journal of Educational Management, 13(3), 126–134.Noble, C.H. (1999). The eclectic roots of strategy implementation research. Journal of Business

Research, 45(2), 119–134.Noble, C.H., & Mokwa, M.P. (1999). Implementing marketing strategies: developing and

testing a managerial theory. Journal of Marketing, 63(4), 57–73.Nutt, P.C. (1983). Implementation approaches for project planning. Academy of Management

Review, 8(4), 600–11.OECD (2009). Education at a glance: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD.Parish, J.T., Cadwallader, S., & Busch, P. (2008). Want to, need to, ought to; employee

commitment to organisational change. Journal of Organisational Change Management,21(1), 32–52.

Parsa, H.G. (1999). Interaction of strategy implementation and power perceptions in franchisesystems: an empirical investigation. Journal of Business Research, 45, 173–185.

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Quantitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

Qi, H. (2005). Strategy implementation: the impact of demographic characteristics on the levelof support received by middle managers. Management International Review, 45(1), 45–70.

Reich, W.A. (1997). Social audiences and role commitment. Journal of Psychology, 131(5),453–462.

Ross, M., Heaney, J., & Cooper, M. (2007). Institutional and managerial factors affectinginternational student recruitment, International Journal of Educational Management, 21(7),593–605.

Soutar, G.N., & Turner, J.P (2002) Students’ preferences for university: a conjoint analysis.The International Journal of Educational Management, 16(1), 40–45.

Sproull, L.S., & Hofmeister, K.R. (1986). Thinking about implementation. Journal ofManagement, 12(1), 43–60.

Steenkamp, J-B.E., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25(1), 78–90.

Stöttinger, B. (2001). Strategic export pricing: a long and winding road. Journal ofInternational Marketing, 9(1), 40–63.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory. Beverly Hills. CA: Sage.

Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: what grounded theory is not. Academy of ManagementJournal, 49(4), 633–642.

Thompson, C.J., Locander, W.B., & Polio, H.R. (1989). Putting consumer experience backinto consumer research: the philosophy and method of existential phenomenology. Journalof Consumer Research, 16, 133–147.

Thomson, K., de Chernatony, L., Arganbright, L., & Sajid, K. (1999). The buy-in benchmark:how staff understanding and commitment impact brand and business performance. Journalof Marketing Management, 15(8), 819–835.

Thorpe, E.R., & Morgan, R.E. (2007a). In pursuit of the ‘ideal approach’ to successfulmarketing strategy implementation. European Journal of Marketing, 41(5/6), 659–677.


Thorpe, E.R., & Morgan, R.E. (2007b). A role theoretic view of product-market strategyexecution: an investigation of mid-level marketing managers. Journal of Strategic Marketing,15(2), 223–236.

Vila, J., & Canales, J.I. (2008). Can strategic planning make strategy more relevant and buildcommitment over time? The case of RACC. Long Range Planning, 41, 273–290.

Wagner, S.M., Lukassen, P., & Mahlendorf, M. (2010). Misused and missed use – groundedtheory and objective hermeneutics as methods for research in industrial marketing.Industrial Marketing Management, 39, 5–15.

Walker, O.C., & Ruekert, R.W. (1987). Marketing’s role in the implementation of businessstrategies: a critical review and conceptual framework. Journal of Marketing, 51(July),15–33.

Webster, F.E. (1997). The future role of the marketing in the organisation. In Lehmann, K.W.& Jocz, K.E. (Eds.). Reflections on the future of marketing (pp. 39–66). Cambridge, MA:Marketing Science Institute.

Wilson, K., & Wong, S.M. (2003). Key determinants of successful marketing strategyimplementation. In Proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Marketing Academy(ANZMAC) Conference 2003, 1–3 December, Adelaide, South Australia

Wind, Y., & Robertson, T.S. (1983). Marketing strategy: new directions for theory and researchJournal of Marketing, 47(2), 12–25.

Wong, H.Y., & Merrilees, B. (2007). Multiple roles for branding in international marketing.International Marketing Review, 24(4), 384–408.

Wooldridge, B., & Floyd, S.W. (1989), Research notes and communications: strategic processeffects on consensus. Strategic Management Journal, 10(3), 295–302.

Workman, J.P. (1993). Marketing’s limited role in new product development in one computersystems firm. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 405–21.

About the authors

Vik Naidoo is a Senior Research Fellow at Deakin University, Australia and is currentlyon secondment as a Strategic Adviser to the Australian Federal Government. His researchinterests are in the areas of international business, strategic management and higher educationmarketing.

Corresponding author: Dr Vik Naidoo, Enterprise Connect, c/o Deakin ManagementCentre, Deakin University, Geelong Campus at Waurn Ponds, Victoria 3217, Australia.

T +61 3 5227 3446E [email protected] or [email protected]

Terry Wu is Professor of Business and Director of the Management Development Centre atthe University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), Canada. His research interests arein the areas of international marketing and globalisation.

E [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



Copyright of Journal of Marketing Management is the property of Routledge and its content may not be copied

or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Documents

Marketing Strategy Implementation in Higher Ed