A new positioning framework for organizational value: Juxtaposing organizational value positions with customer centricity

• Author: Michael Cassop Thompson,Neil Richardson
• Date: 01 March 2019
• Published date: 01 March 2019
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/jsc.2253

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A new positioning framework for organizational value:

Juxtaposing organizational value positions with customer

centricity

Neil Richardson | Michael Cassop Thompson

Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, United

Kingdom

Correspondence

Neil Richardson, Leeds Business School,

Leeds Beckett University, The Rose Bowl,

Portland Gate, Leeds, LS1 3HB,

United Kingdom.

Email: n.richardson@leedsbeckett.ac.uk

Abstract

In recognizing the distinct pos itions that have occupied valu e research to-date, distinct an d

overlapping position s have been identified whi ch (when juxtaposed with cu stomer versus

company-centric orie ntations) produce an original position ing framework. “Value”is worthy of

study as it determines succe ss for leaders, provides competitive advan tage, and contributes to

economic prosperity. Va lue may be a superordinat e concept that has “upstaged”previous

research areas such as se rvice quality, servic e satisfaction, and relat ionship marketing. Li ttle

research exists on evalu ating whether more than one organizatio nal value position exists.

1|INTRODUCTION

This conceptual paper provides insights to the role of value. Value is

seen as a worthy research topic as it is considered to be a key func-

tion of leadership (Nicholls, 1999). A better understanding of value

can generate competitive advantage (Bohm, Neumann, & Gassmann,

2017; Gallarza, Gil, & Holbrook, 2011; Porter, 1985). Customers seek-

ing and taking more value from organizations are likely to generate

greater revenues (Pynnonen, Ritala, & Hallikas, 2011; Waseem,

Biggeman, & Garry, 2017). This differential advantage derives from

the customer's recognition of superior value (Brock Smith & Colgate,

2007). Hence, organizations are able to take a greater market share

than their competitors (Gallarza & Gil, 2008). Value has arguably been

discussed more in marketing than most disciplines. A key driver for

this paper is partially to address this imbalance.

Rashirdirad, Salimian, Soltani, and Fazeli (2017) allude to resur-

gent academic interest in the strategic relationship between competi-

tive strategies and dynamic capabilities as a departure point for firms

to create value. Value creation is considered a significant contributor

toward economic prosperity (Moran & Ghoshal, 1999) and it is not

surprising that the notion of value is ancient. It is wise (in the context

of a conceptual paper) to consider a historical perspective as value is

not fixed and perceptions, or even calculations (of value), may change

with time (Liesen, Figge, & Hahn, 2013). Many commentators

have reflected on how consumers have demonstrated differing values

(Figure 1).

The list of commentators interested in value in Figure 1 is not

exhaustive. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx elaborated on

value in exchange (Woodhall, 2003). Marx also differentiated between

value in exchange and value in use (Boztepe, 2007; Humphreys &

Grayson, 2008) as discussed in Section 4. Donaldson (2008, p. 173)

describes Adam Smith as

a young moral philosopher (who) suggested that we

throw out the assumption of the zero sum game

(i.e. assuming that there was a fixed amount of wealth)

and begin to talk about how wealth is created, espe-

cially through labour and voluntary exchange.

However, in the nineteenth century, Hobbes had already noted the

pervasive anxiety of a society characterized by unlimited materialist

value perspectives (Jackson, 2005). When seeking discussion of value

within Smith's Wealth of Nations, considered by many to be the pro-

genitor of modern business texts, the discussion of the (economic

only) value of slaves is repugnant to all right-minded people in the

twenty-first century. Adam Smith may well have been a “moral”phi-

losopher of his time; however, societal attitudes to slavery have

rightly changed. This resonates with those who argue that value is

always temporal and spatial (Heinonen, 2006).

Smith's (1996) review of the historic perspective of the purpose

of wealth highlighted how many nineteenth century economists ques-

tioned the proposition that economic growth was an end rather than

a means (Tilley & Young, 2009). Victor Hugo suggested that the two

DOI: 10.1002/jsc.2253

Strategic Change. 2019;28:123–132. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jsc © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 123