A Conceptual Discussion of How Social Power Theory and the Extended Marketing Mix Can Be Used to Improve Alignment and Engagement in Organisations

Abstract

Instead of being a mechanism used by management in the name of productivity, it is suggested that social power theory can be combined with the extended marketing mix to empower groups of actors in organisations. These two foundational rubrics usually perpetuate the status quo, but when used with a fresh approach, they may be used to improve engagement. The question is how these two theories can be used to describe performance, connections and power relationships, and how might this change organisations for the better? This conceptual paper combines these two rubrics in a single heuristic that reflects hidden currents in organisations. Understanding how these intersections work can foster greater empowerment for actors and produce efficiencies for management. Learning how to use the points of leverage would be a significant step forward for marketing within and between organisations.

1. Introduction

An organisation could make performance and relationships more effective by drilling down to the foundations of marketing and management and examining how they operate together. In its own way, this simple exercise would be quite radical and there might be reason to wonder why it has not been performed before. One possible explanation is that the interaction of these two foundational rubrics has been obscured by the vanishing point of a busy manager’s perspective (Berdayes, 2002; McKinlay & Starkey, 1997). The interaction of these two rubrics will be examined in terms of their respective disciplines and interactions. One of these proposed elements is the extended marketing mix (EMM) which encapsulates the field of essential categories and variables in both transactional and relational situations (Grönroos, 1997). The other is the still useful Social Power Theory (SPT) (Elias, 2008; Raven, 1993), which is applied to actors to motivate them to achieve certain ends.

The irony is that the application of these rubrics both determines and limits efficiency and performance in organisations. It would be logical to suppose that more productivity would be desirable. However, there is more to this than meets the eye. Always difficult to conceptualise as a process, organisational productivity has been described as a black box problem where inputs and outputs can be measured but what happens is often not clear (Boxall et al., 2011; Savaneviciene & Stankeviciute, 2010; Townley, 2005).

Organisational relationships might also need further clarification, especially with respect to alignment and intentionality, since these have a direct bearing on performance (Corsaro & Snehota, 2011). In part, this may be due to a continuing lack of precision in our understanding of the interactions of knowledge and power and associated resistance within and between organisations (Dalgliesh, 2009). Every black box has a lid, though, and given that possibility, the lid might be lifted to provide a panoptic view for actors (McKinlay & Starkey, 1997; Wood, 2016), where all actors can be simultaneously observed and addressed.

Positioning and Incremental Contribution

Combining the social power theory (SPT) and the extended marketing mix (EMM), this concept paper offers an integrative framework to enhance our understanding of how different actors can influence performance through their unique engagements with each other and in alignment with the organisation. Engagements may include but are not limited to instructions, queries, face-to-face conversations, emails, online meetings, physical meetings, requests for action, completion of forms and processes, workshops, quality circles, investigations, discussions with clients, fielding complaints and various collaborative work. The approach detailed here potentially bridges the gap between internal and external marketing and resolves contradictions between them, allowing for an integrated approach that harmonises exchanges (Ahmed et al., 2003; Rafiq & Ahmed, 2000; Huang & Rundle-Thiele, 2015). For the purpose of this discussion an engagement might refer to an entire process as described above but an exchange is a discrete part of the process.

Other approaches, such as actor engagement theory, can be considered as viable candidates for providing lenses to capture and describe this level of organisational behaviour (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011; Storbacka, 2019). However, while our proposed framework brings nothing new to the table in terms of the theories that it uses, it does consider them in a new way by applying them in combination. Our proposed framework also supports the actor-to-actor engagement theory based on S-D logic. The underlying assumption is that if they are universally applicable in an organisational context, they must operate together in some shape or form within and between organisations. This paper aims to explain the above contention.

To present our proposed framework, we first define and critically link the core constructs (EMM and SPT) and theories underpinning the integration of SPT and EMM theories for better organisational outcomes. We then present the proposed engagement network framework across key actors, followed by a hypothetical empirical illustration and propositions. We then explore the boundary conditions for applying the proposed framework before presenting the conclusion and implications.

2. The Core Constructs

Our proposed framework integrates two key rubrics, i.e., EMM and SPT. We critically discussed both in this section, with the logic behind selecting the original six constructs of SPT and the extended 7Ps framework of marketing mix. We also identify alignment, intentionality, engagement, and exchange as four pillars that underpin and bind our theoretical constructs and arguments. These are in-built conditions within an organisational context, rather than antecedents or mediators. We acknowledge that these factors may influence the interactions between actors in various ways, the varying nature of which future researchers need to establish within their selected contexts using empirical evidence. Our discussion of core constructs will conclude with a critical discussion of the actor-to-actor engagement framework and S-D logic as the underlying premise of our proposed engagement network model.

2.1. Marketing Mix

Some aspects of the marketing mix require further examination to explore how they can be applied in the heuristic described above. An examination of the original 4 Ps situates them in an organisational context for the purpose of this discussion. Product encompasses the work task while Price reflects underpinning financial aspects such as budgets and cost accounting (McCarthy, 1964). Place corresponds to the specific location at the workplace, department, branch, state or national level, and Promotion can be used along with elements of Process from the extended marketing mix to reflect quality improvement initiatives and training, work instructions, and general operational commands (McCarthy, 1964).

Adding Process/Physical Evidence/Participants to the original 4 Ps to make 7 Ps addresses some of the shortfalls of the original formulation with respect to the service aspect (Booms & Bitner, 1981; Rafiq & Ahmed, 1995). Process can be regarded as a combination of company policies, safe work procedures and workplace training. Promotions might be broader campaigns or specific persuasion tailored and targeted at an audience to get them to change their behaviour or adopt a new Process. Physical evidence can include operational statistics, which can then be used to inform management decisions and adjustments to the marketing mix, or it can be standards in the workplace. Finally, Participants refers to the people component and can start with appropriate recruitment strategies and move on to include the training and motivation of staff and awareness of individual and group characteristics.

We argue that the justification using the 7 Ps marketing mix instead of the 4 Ps is deeper than surface-level enumeration and embedded in a service-dominant logic (SDL) and actor-to-actor engagement framework. For example, the additional three elements, such as ‘Processes’, ‘Participants’, and ‘Physical Evidence’ act as institutional arrangements through, which power relations are enacted, negotiated, and stabilised. All these elements in application can be regarded as forms of internal and external marketing aimed at specific organisational goals (Piercy & Morgan, 1991). When applied to a specific organisational context, categories in the marketing mix would probably need more precise definition, given issues with the shift from the broader formulation of Borden (1964) to the radical simplification of McCarthy (1964), although this is outside the scope of this paper (Grönroos, 1997; Van Waterschoot & Van den Bulte, 1992). This is further explained in the subsequent sections.

Potentially, this approach can be adapted to provide solutions which integrate the social and system aspects of workplace communications within and between organisations (Ferdous et al., 2013; Lings & Greenley, 2009). Supporting this to some degree, it has been argued that companies which achieve a high degree of consistency in their internal communications and align this with their marketing channels will then display a greater degree of marketing orientation (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Peters & Fletcher, 2004). It is also possible that these companies may tend to perform better over time with a greater degree of innovation, entrepreneurship, and new product development (Duncan & Moriarty, 1998; Mohr & Nevin, 1990). This brings us to a discussion of how power operates in social and organisational contexts.

2.2. Social Power Theory

French and Raven’s (1959) social power theory (also see Elias, 2008; Raven, 1993) was conceived as being something which applies to the individual but has also been applied organisationally (Kovach, 2020; Madigan et al., 2020; Yukl, 2002). Social power theory has tended to be taught in management courses as a simple six-part structure, including subdivisions of Coercion, Reward, Legitimacy, Expert, Referential and Information power types. Its later expansion features 14 components and provides a more detailed understanding (Elias, 2008; Raven, 1993). However, for the sake of simplicity and generalisability, we shall focus on six types of social power in this paper, we chose the original French and Raven (1959) six bases of power model (reward, coercion, legitimate, expert, referent, and informational/persuasion (Raven, 1965).

We contend that theoretical integrity is not compromised, as the original six bases were not distorted in any way in the 14 component constructs developed later. Rather, adopting the extended SPT would risk compromising its generalisability because those developments are not uncontested. Therefore, the widely accepted basic model ensures the integrity and acceptability of our framework across contexts. As Raven (2008, p. 3) stated, “Though these six bases of power are widely cited in the organizational literature (in some cases, Informational Power is omitted, since it was not included in the original French and Raven (1959) paper), as well as in many research areas, there has been continual development of the typology, based on additional research (Raven, 1992; Raven et al., 1998). The original six bases are still included, but with further differentiation.” Since the original six bases were never discarded and rather each extended by further sub-classification based on specific contextual research, we used the seminal framework for parsimony. We also included some modern alternative terms for some of these bases for simplicity and practicality (See Table 1). The modernised terms are used side by side as practical synonyms for the practitioners.

Table 1. The engagement network.

The Engagement Network
Power Bases (Elias, 2008; Raven, 1993).			Participants	Process	Physical Evidence	Product	Price	Promotion	Place
			Relational Marketing Mix			Transactional Marketing Mix
			A	B	C	D	E	F	G
Expert	1	Personal	Quadrant 4: External Colleagues and Professional Peers			Quadrant 1: Internal Operators
			Consultants, Subject matter experts, Trainers, Auditors, Investigators	Training Supervision, Meetings, Coaching, Mentoring, Investigations, Audits, Complaints, Criticism	Reports Recommendations Changes	Improvement via deference to superior knowledge, Identification of non-compliance	Cost of improvement process and costs of production and service delivery	Memos Instructions, Training Campaigns, Complaints, Industrial action, and Disciplinary action	National State Company Workplace Work Area
Referential (Social)	2		Consultants, Subject matter experts, Trainers, Auditors, Investigators	Meetings, Face to face, Phone calls, Emails	Performance reviews, Reports Morale	Team or individual behaviour—modelling, Mentoring, Coaching	Time cost to team member and the company	Team Meetings Face-to-face reporting to supervisor	National State Company Workplace Work Area
Information	3		Consultants, Subject matter experts, Trainers, Auditors, Investigators	Reports Audits Emails, Verbal exchanges, Observations	Productivity and Compliance statistics, Organisational culture, and memory	SOPs, Administrative directives Memos	Cost of producing, circulating and storing information	Meetings, Email Training, face-to-face, secondary channels	National State Company Workplace Work Area
Coercion (Authoritative)	4	Positional	Quadrant 3: Internal Colleagues and Professional Peers			Quadrant 2: External Operators
			Key performance Indicators, questions, investigations, management actions	Meetings, emails, verbal, performance management, disciplinary actions	Reports, budgets, statistics, targets, full-time employment	Compliance via fear and desire to obey rules	Cost to the organisation, loss of income	Campaigns for compliance, written and verbal communications	National State Company Workplace Work Area
Reward (Incentive)	5		Happiness and well-being of fellow team members, Promotion, self-development, higher income, job satisfaction	Meeting team and individual targets, annual reviews, salary increases, share plans, bonuses	Full-time employment and wellbeing for team members	Advantage to company, Job satisfaction, bonuses, employment	Time cost to team member, time cost to organisation	Co-creation of value, financial gain	National State Company Workplace Work Area
Legitimacy	6		Manager Supervisor Team members	Acts Regulations Codes Site Rules, company procedures,	Managing Supervising Monitoring, Records actions, reviews	Compliance with positional authority	Cost to organisation	Meetings, memos, emails, contract, job specifications	National State Company Workplace Work Area

Note: Authors’ own conceptual work based on existing theories.

While the harder, positional power types of Coercion, Reward and Legitimacy remain a constant but latent presence, the softer personal power types of Expert, Referential (or social) and Informational are often more effective and obvious when applied in organisations (Rahim, 1989). Informed by this perspective, this study suggests that a social power theory featuring six types of power (Elias, 2008; Raven, 1993) together with the extended marketing mix of seven Ps (Booms & Bitner, 1981; Rafiq & Ahmed, 1995) can be used to reveal a network of engagements that reflect both internal and external marketing (Piercy & Morgan, 1991). This suggests at least 42 possible areas of intersection, providing a granular level of engagement which allows identification of actor exchange typologies and practices at the most basic level (Storbacka et al., 2016). Our proposed framework (power base and P-lever pairs/intersections) also underpins a core causal spine linking proximal perceptions (legitimacy, fairness, competence, relatedness), to alignment and intentionality, engagement and exchange quality/performance.

2.3. Defining Alignment, Intentionality, Engagement, and Exchange for Linking EMM to SPT

Alignment, intentionality, engagement, and exchange are core organisational and behavioural concepts underpinning our proposed integration of EMM and SPT theories. In an organisational context, these interconnected concepts describe a unified and purposeful approach to achieving organisational outcomes. Collectively, these concepts ensure that everyone in an organisation is moving in the same direction, understands their contribution, and is motivated by a shared purpose, leading to sustained high performance. Alignment in business refers to the congruence between organisational strategies, goals, processes, and the interests of stakeholders (Sabherwal & Chan, 2001). Strategic alignment ensures that all resources and actions reinforce a common purpose, enhancing effectiveness and competitive advantage. Alignment is indicated by coordinated efforts from all actors where the organisation’s strategy, processes, teams, and technology work together toward shared goals and objectives. When aligned, every department supports the company’s mission, which leads to increased efficiency, focus, and agility.

Alignment and intentionality are intertwined, as intentional actions require alignment with strategic objectives to be effective (Sabherwal & Chan, 2001). Intentionality involves all actors being deliberate, purposeful, and thoughtful in decisions and actions rather than operating by rote (system or order) or chance (by accident). It means having a clear purpose or reason behind a course of action, which helps to align daily activities with core values and long-term objectives, thereby fostering a sense of purpose-driven work. Intentionality denotes the purposeful and deliberate orientation of organisational actions, often reflecting a firm’s commitment to its values, strategy, and desired outcomes (Bridoux & Stoelhorst, 2014). Intentionality underpins strategic decision-making, guiding choices so that they are not accidental but designed to meet specific business objectives.

Engagement describes employees’ emotional commitment and involvement with the organisation’s values and goals. Engaged employees are motivated to contribute to organisational success, often resulting in higher productivity, better communication, and improved retention rates. Engagement involves the active participation, emotional investment, and involvement of stakeholders, such as employees, customers, or partners, in organisational processes (Kahn, 1990; Saks, 2006). High engagement levels positively influence innovation, loyalty, and performance. Better engagement is ensured when stakeholders perceive intentionality and alignment in business practices, boosting trust and involvement (Saks, 2006).

Exchange within an organisational context refers to the mutual transfer or trade of value, information, or feedback between parties, such as an employer and employee, or between different teams. In healthy business environments, this involves a continuous, integrated flow of information and open communication channels that support collaboration and data-informed decision-making. Exchange refers to the transfer of resources, information, or value between parties in a marketing context (Bagozzi, 1975). Exchanges are also a foundation for all relationships between internal and external organisational actors, shaping ongoing interactions and mutual benefit. Exchange depends on engagement; without stakeholders’ active participation, exchanges lack value. Meanwhile, exchanges are more successful when intentionality and strategic alignment support fair, transparent interactions (Bagozzi, 1975).

Though these four interrelated concepts are often applied slightly differently in marketing and management literature (system vs. behaviour), together, they drive sustainable organisational relationships and performance. For instance, intentional alignment in strategy encourages stakeholder engagement, facilitating meaningful exchanges that reinforce organisational goals. Underpinning the actor-to-actor engagement framework and of Service-Dominant (S-D) Logic, the argument for integrating these two marketing (EMM) and management/behavioural (SPT) theories benefits from the comprehensive conceptualisation of these constructs within the organisational context, encompassing both internal and external actors.

2.4. Actor-to-Actor Engagement Framework and Service-Dominant Logic

The actor-to-actor engagement framework is closely aligned with and extends the principles of S-D logic. Both frameworks emphasise that value is co-created through the collaborative efforts of multiple actors within service ecosystems, rather than being delivered unilaterally by firms to customers. S-D Logic establishes that value creation happens in networks of interacting actors, not isolated dyads (Vargo & Lusch, 2016). The actor-to-actor engagement framework builds on this by mapping how all actors (individuals, firms, systems) engage and interact within these service ecosystems (Brodie et al., 2019). Both frameworks recognise that actors integrate resources—skills, knowledge, technologies—to jointly co-create value rather than passively consuming it (Vargo & Lusch, 2017; Storbacka et al., 2016). Actor-to-actor engagement underscores the reciprocal and dynamic nature of interactions among actors, aligning with S-D Logic’s premise that value emerges through ongoing, mutual engagement within a broader context (Jaakkola & Alexander, 2014). S-D Logic broadens the definition of service to encompass all beneficial applications of resources; the actor-to-actor framework illustrates how these services are enacted and experienced among various actors within the ecosystem (Chandler & Lusch, 2015). These principles underpin our argument for integrating EMM with SPT for consistent and sustained organisational performance.

3. Linking EMM to SPT

It is noteworthy that these two rubrics (EMM and SPT) are not taught together. This may have created a blind spot in disciplinary understanding. Why this has not been noticed before is an interesting question. It is possible that classroom practice is the reason where management is generally taught as a separate discipline from marketing. One legacy issue related to this is that the descriptors for social power theory are now very outdated and probably need to be revised to align better with twenty-first century values. In this way for the positional variants, coercion might best be understood as authority, reward might become incentive, and legitimacy might be seen as compliance. Similarly, for personal power types, referential might be better understood as social skills. These alternatives have been included in brackets but for the purpose of the discussion the original descriptors will be retained to demonstrate the points of origin.

The marketing mix (McCarthy, 1964) also suffers from its own success in that it is more easily taught according to a convenient mnemonic as the four Ps in marketing courses with extensions into the slightly more complex seven Ps (Booms & Bitner, 1981) or other more diverse configurations which are harder to remember (Borden, 1964; Constantinides, 2006). In this way, pedagogical convenience, disciplinary demarcation and business practice have all probably prevented further development. Many alternatives have been proposed, but none seems to resonate as well with the commonly accepted elements of the marketing mix which have demonstrated their usefulness over time (Booms & Bitner, 1981; Rafiq & Ahmed, 1995).

Regardless of how it is applied in practice, the ongoing utility of the selected marketing mix put forward by McCarthy (1964) has often been questioned, with suggestions that it may be less relevant today. An entire debate surrounds the proposition that it would be better replaced with a schema that more accurately reflects current service paradigms (Grönroos, 1997). Reflecting that, the McCarthy formulation of four Ps was extended to the seven Ps to address these areas of deficit (Booms & Bitner, 1981). As such, the extended formulation incorporated Participants/Physical Evidence/Process, which anticipates the service turn in a very basic way (Rafiq & Ahmed, 1995). Viewed holistically, the extended marketing mix of Booms and Bitner (1981) and its precursors can be considered as a selection of categories and variables that communicate choices (Grönroos, 1997). This makes it implicitly more action-oriented based on the knowledge of a range of options. The net effect may be the decision to present these determinations rhetorically as a value proposition to a targeted group.

Social power theory, in contrast, is more focused on what people do and say to each other to achieve specific goals (Madigan et al., 2020; Yukl, 2002). As a result, it is more communication-oriented at the onset, but with specific action that is aimed towards a final target. In summary, it is suggested that social power theory can assist in harmonising an approach that also applies the extended marketing mix in an organisational setting (Piercy & Morgan, 1991).

Closer scrutiny reveals the fault lines of human behaviour and explains some interesting dynamics within hierarchies as well (Townley, 2005). Organisational context is strongly determinative of the type of exchange possible. For example, it is possible to have an exchange without a lasting engagement. Conversely, a limited type of engagement may develop and persist for a period before meaningful exchanges commence. Initially, exchanges might be limited and transactional, but enough of them over time might lead first to a relationship and then onto engagement. For actors at the beginning, their activities would be determined through their intentions, attitudes, cognitive processes, value perceptions, and determinations.

On a basic level, this would involve telephone conversations, discussions and negotiations, emails and face-to-face or online meetings as engagements. What would initially emerge from these passing interactions would be the clarification of roles, discussion of topics, options, strategies and preferences. These would consolidate into more stable and enduring manifestations such as common intentions, business norms, rules of exchange, transaction routines and shared practices. In terms of the social structure or formal level between organisations, there would be contractual and compliance frameworks and entire business eco-systems or groups of companies engaged in alliances or supply chains with shared understandings and intentionality (Sawyer, 2005; Taillard et al., 2016).

Brodie et al. (2019) has drawn all these threads together into a summary of actors exchange foundational principles. He suggests that these develop in a hierarchy, starting with initial exchange via disposition, moving towards ongoing one-on-one relationships, evolving to networked multidirectional relationships, altering the organisational ecology, then finally arriving at new mutually recognised and standardised practice platforms. All these activities reflect the daily practice of exchanges by actors in an organisational setting. Their actions would also be characterised and conditioned by their sense of social position and organisational obligation (Sementelli, 2005).

Considering the progression above, it can be suggested that actor engagement and exchange theories evolved from relationship marketing, although they have moved away from the generalities of earlier speculations (Gummesson, 1994). Despite the potential for egalitarianism, there is still a hierarchy which has spatial aspects (Jessop, 2005). These spatial aspects manifest themselves as interiority versus exteriority with respect to an organisation. There are also operational or subordinate versus collegiate or professional relationships. It has also been suggested that actors identify with their organisational position, professional image and relationships with others, and derive their status and power from these factors (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002).

4. Empirical Illustrations and Propositions

This paper combines social power theory with the extended marketing mix. These two rubrics have been used in an intersectional table that maps these concepts together to create a heuristic that is then applied to four hypothetical groups to improve understanding of organisation dynamics. The extant and seminal academic journal articles have been used to define and link these concepts and their contents. Our engagement network framework is not prescriptive, but rather propositional and flexible, allowing for adaptation to different cultural and emerging institutional contexts and norms through further empirical studies. Though concept papers are not bound by any particular methodological design, the following sections will outline the conceptual mapping process for the proposed framework.

The first question we asked is which groups of actors to consider and how to differentiate and describe them. Consideration of relationships and hierarchy in a network might lead a manager to conclude that they had influence in descending order over internal operators, external operators, internal colleagues or professional peers and external colleagues or professional peers (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002). However, this is a relatively simple ranking which employs basic prepositional categories of inside and outside the organisation or above and below in the report line and takes no account of organisational status and social dynamics (Magee & Galinsky, 2008). The basic categories of internal and external with respect to an organisation versus above or below in a hierarchy of operators should be sufficient to situate this approach at this stage. This is not to say that actors would not deal with marketing mix elements or social power variants outside their section, but rather that their primary task and focus would be governed by the elements within their section. Accordingly, our proposition is that those elements of relational marketing would tend to align in the first instance with external and internal colleagues or professional peers, and the elements of transactional marketing would similarly align with external and internal operators.

A similar division can be seen with social power theory, which ranges from the harder positional power types, which are coercive, reward, and legitimacy, to softer personal power types, such as referential, expert, and informational. Another caveat is that the exercise of social power and the marketing mix in combination might depend on cultural context. This might manifest itself in dimensional or dynamic terms, as has been suggested by Beugelsdijk and Welzel (2018). These theories may be global in application but there will be local variations in how they operate. Accordingly, our next proposition for future management practitioners and researchers is to acknowledge that factors such as culture, regulation, power distance, and authority compliance may influence which power bases are more effective in a particular organisational relationship. Section 6 will explain a few environmental contingencies under which each quadrant or power configuration is likely to dominate, considering variables such as task uncertainty, degree of formalisation, regulatory intensity, and cultural norms around hierarchy and authority.

The areas of exchange within these lines could involve workplace safety, quality, production issues, procurement, supply, financial, change management, environmental, business relationships or operational matters in general. Some of these 42 areas are demonstrated below as potential engagements with respect to the four target groups of actors. Once the two rubrics are combined to produce the heuristic, a hierarchy of effect appears in the extended marketing mix. The four Ps on the top right-hand side of the table are the more overt criteria that were extracted from Borden’s (1964) work by McCarthy (1964), which became the commonly accepted version. They can be more easily related to transactional marketing (Grönroos, 1997; Van Waterschoot & Van den Bulte, 1992). The three on the top left-hand side are later additions that better encapsulate limited aspects of relational marketing (Booms & Bitner, 1981; Rafiq & Ahmed, 1995).

Hypothetical Business Application

To illustrate this theory in application, a hypothetical business context has been chosen. This hypothetical organisation is a wholesale company with several warehouses, multiple retail outlets, suppliers, and a limited number of internal departments. These might include receiving, dispatch, warehouse, purchasing, human resources, finance, and customer service. External business operators would include trucking companies, product suppliers, service providers, and tradesmen. Other external parties would also include colleagues and professional peers such as auditors, subject matter experts in areas like safety, construction and other consultants.

For example, our proposed engagement network framework acknowledges contextual changes and variations and avoids being prescriptive about which quadrant or actors will effectively use certain types of power bases. If this wholesale company wanted to test how a safety approach would work in the field, it would be possible to develop a study that compared different approaches in achieving compliance with the correct use of load restraint equipment at two sites. They can start with an explicit or broad proposition, such as “When dealing with internal operators in low power-distance environments, informational and expert power combined with process-based levers enhance engagement more effectively than positional power.” Firstly, audits would have to be conducted to achieve a baseline for comparison. Then at the first site, the transactional elements of the marketing mix might be used, focusing on the ‘Promotion’ to use load restraint correctly, a different approach for the ‘Place’ or location and a possible penalty or reward in terms of ‘Price’. The ‘Product’ itself is in compliance with the rules of load restraint and the safe transport of the loads. In contrast, at the second site, the audit results would be shared, and trainers would also be involved with the drivers. The campaign would then be augmented by bringing in consultants to establish a dialogue with drivers and to give them some status as subject matter experts. In this approach, they would be treated more like external colleagues. The results for both sites could then be compared for desired compliance and performance outcomes.

5. Integration of SPT and EMM for Understanding the Engagement Network in Organisations

Our engagement network framework supports the proposition that the most concrete exchanges might be at intersections on the bottom right-hand corner of Table 1 and the more abstract ones might be at the top left-hand corner. In turn, this means that the bottom right section might be described as more transactional and action-oriented, whereas the top left section might be considered more relationship and communication-oriented. In sum, four distinct sections in the heuristic emerge given the dual structure of the contributing rubrics. This will tend to happen whenever two continua that work from lower to higher values are mapped against each other. Other examples of this are Blake and Mouton’s management styles (Blake & Mouton, 1975) and Hershey and Blanchard’s situational influences (Hersey & Blanchard, 1982). It is suggested that these can be regarded as congruent with external and internal colleagues or professional peers and operators, reflecting four possible communities of actors as shown in Table 1. The suggested groups and their exchanges can be explored with that in mind. The first area under consideration is that which applies to internal operators.

5.1. Internal Operators

The ‘internal operators’ of Table 1 correspond with office workers, factory and warehouse operators, and other employees working in areas with strong supervision and repetitive tasks. Internal operators are structurally placed in a formal hierarchy, which may indicate a strong influence of positional power. However, somewhat paradoxically for this group, the types of social power employed in an immediate sense will likely be personal rather than positional. These include Expert, Referential, and Informational power types. Influence tactics in the shape of rhetorical appeals, which in turn correspond with selected aspects of social power theory, have been suggested (Kovach, 2020; Madigan et al., 2020; Yukl, 2002).

Supporting this, Rahim (1989) noted that the use of Coercive and Reward power did not correlate positively with compliance in organisational settings, but ‘Legitimacy, Referent and Expert’ power did provide strong correlations with compliance. Given those findings, it is suggested that these personal variants, perhaps augmented by Legitimacy, might be more effective to use in this setting with this group of actors. Furthermore, the need for clear communication and explanations of the reasoning behind management initiatives has been noted (Ayub et al., 2014). Considering that this space is bound and protected by job descriptions, unionisation, safe work procedures, quality processes and organisational structures, it appears that the original transactional marketing mix can easily be extended into clearly defined operational aspects of workplace functions such as manufacturing, clerical and logistics processes. The second area to be considered is that of external operators.

5.2. External Operators

The bottom right-hand corner in Table 1 aligns with contractors or suppliers of discrete services and products to the organisation. Examples of these contractors might include printers, website hosts, technicians and other providers of services. This category extends through the supply chain to include truck drivers, tradesmen, and service providers, suppliers of finished goods and raw materials via normal procurement procedures. In that case, it will be possible to describe quite clearly in terms of the original transactional marketing mix what the business requires in terms of contract specifications, written and verbal instructions.

While ‘Product’, ‘Price’, and ‘Place’ are relatively easy to apply here, the one element of the original marketing mix that does not appear to fit well at first is ‘Promotion’. However, this can be regarded as general persuasion in a rhetorical sense via firm messages which spell out and reinforce exact specifications and needs to actors (Booms & Bitner, 1981). Given that it is difficult sometimes to ensure compliance from subcontractors and suppliers, promotion as persuasion could manifest itself as an energetic campaign to ensure that they deliver the goods and services in the manner required. These aspects are the starting point for relationships, which are characterised by the application of the harder positional forms of social power. These are Coercion, Reward, and Legitimacy. The third area to be considered is Internal Colleagues or professional peers.

5.3. Internal Colleagues or Professional Peers

The bottom left corner in Table 1 (internal colleagues or professional peers) aligns with coordinators, supervisors and administrators at the departmental level. Elements from the extended marketing mix such as ‘Process’/‘Participants’/’Physical evidence’ such as standards, events, key performance metrics or statistical descriptors and reports can be employed here to encapsulate actions and communications. Actors might be engaged in procurement, production, logistics, customer service, credit, human resources, sales, or marketing. These parties are engaged continuously via meetings, emails and face-to-face discussions in an organisational context. Because these relationships are socially on the same level within an organisation, a greater degree of respect and tact is required. It is possible that taking the position of focus on ‘Process’/’Physical evidence’ and treating Participants professionally in a spirit of interdepartmental teamwork might lend itself to better exchanges, which are more productive for the organisation.

However, this group is the most problematic in terms of congruence and fit within this quadrant. In their exchanges, the subject at hand might often be stated in terms of Process/Physical Evidence/Participants, but the underlying power dynamic reflects something very different. Instead of exercising positional types of social power overtly, which are Coercive, Reward, and Legitimacy, actors would probably regard those types of power as latent potential. Instead, actors might choose to behave in a more egalitarian fashion, respecting each other’s organisational contributions. In these situations, positional power is always present but not flaunted. An actor seeking to influence colleagues or professional peers could use influence tactics based on rhetorical appeals which employ personal power.

Madigan et al. (2020), drawing upon Yukl (2002), has suggested the deliberate use of social power theory as a framework in the context of workplace safety within an organisation. With respect to leadership, Kovach (2020) has provided detailed analyses of how social power can be used to drive productivity. Like other primary positions, positional power might be the starting point, but it would likely transition into its diagonal opposite with more use of ‘Legitimacy’, ‘Expert’, and ‘Referential’ or social power (Rahim, 1989). Given the many paradoxes inherent in this area, this section of the network reflects the ambiguity and contradictions of organisational politics (Cacciattolo, 2014). The last group to be considered is external colleagues or professional peers.

5.4. External Colleagues or Professional Peers

The top left corner in Table 1 applies to external colleagues or professional peers. These might include auditors, consultants, advisors, subject matter experts, regulatory authorities and actors in similar positions in other companies. These include Expert, Referential, and Informational types of power. Rhetorical appeals may also reflect the employment of these types of power (Yukl, 2002). The target actors might include consultants, high-level service providers and colleagues or professional peers in other organisations or separate divisions within a group.

Given that an actor might have no direct control over these people, the relationship would be characterised by respectful collegiate engagements, professional development, shared work practices and standards, communication protocols, and appeals. This might involve emphasis on Process, an awareness of Participants and a focus on Physical Evidence as reports on events, benchmarks, statistical analyses or industry standards. Their activities and efforts may exert a strong effect on the other three groups in the hierarchy. This group sits at the top of the hierarchy since it enjoys respect and operational autonomy. It is bound by contractual and professional obligations and enjoys high monetary rewards and industry recognition.

6. Boundary Conditions

Cultural and institutional factors play a critical role in shaping how French and Raven’s (1959) six power bases are preferred or used, as well as their effectiveness in a particular relationship context within an organisation. Therefore, our proposed engagement network framework cannot be prescriptive about the environmental contingencies under which each quadrant or power configuration is likely to dominate. However, we acknowledge that variables such as task uncertainty, degree of formalisation, regulatory intensity, and cultural norms around hierarchy and authority will influence the effective use of power in each relationship (see Table 2). For example, legitimate power is widely accepted and effective in high power-distance cultures and hierarchical institutions (Vecchio, 2007; Hofstede, 1980) compared to more egalitarian cultures. Cultures valuing material success (e.g., individualistic cultures) favour reward power and institutional policies that transparently link rewards to performance enhance effectiveness (Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985). Referent power is also more prominent in collectivist cultures and institutions with strong relational norms, as personal connections and social cohesion are highly valued (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989; Hofstede, 1980).

Table 2. Influence of cultural and institutional factors on social power bases.

Power Base	Cultural Influences	Institutional Influences	Preference/Effectiveness
Legitimate	More accepted in high power-distance cultures	Hierarchical structures—effective	Less effective in egalitarian cultures
Reward	Valued in individualistic/material-focused cultures	Performance-linked systems enhance effectiveness	Less preferred if rewards are unavailable or uneven
Coercive	Less effective in collectivist/harmony-focused cultures	Rule-heavy, punitive contexts—more accepted	Can cause dissatisfaction in collaborative cultures
Expert	Valued in expertise-oriented cultures	Recognition via credentials and education	Less influential in seniority/tradition-based orgs
Referent	Preferred in collectivist, relational cultures	Strong team/social cohesion amplifies use	Limited impact where relationships matter less
Informational	Effective in open, participative cultures	Transparent structures promote effectiveness	Limited in secretive/bureaucratic institutions

Note: Authors’ own creation based on literature review.

Similarly, coercive power is often found less effective in cultures emphasising harmony (e.g., collectivist societies) but can be more prevalent where strict rules or penalties are institutionalised (Rahim, 1989; Brodbeck et al., 2000). On the other hand, expert power is highly influential in cultures and institutions that emphasise education and expertise (Peiró & Meliá, 2003) but less impactful in cultures that value seniority or tradition over skill. Informational power is more effective in open, participative cultures supportive of information sharing but in bureaucratic or secretive institutions, its use and impact are limited (Raven, 2008).

7. Implications and Conclusions

Our proposed engagement framework minimises the gap between the marketing and management perspectives of engagement and connections within the organisation with performance implications. Understanding how these intersections work can foster greater empowerment for actors and produce efficiencies for management. The three Ps relationship elements of the extended marketing mix are aligned with both external and internal colleagues or professional peers in Table 1. On the other hand, the four Ps transactional elements of the original marketing mix align with external and internal operators on the right side of Table 1. The softer personal power seems to apply more to external colleagues or professional peers and internal operators, while the harder positional power applies to external operators. However, the harder positional power that is applied to internal colleagues or professional peers may be somewhat moderated by the necessity to observe the social niceties more appropriate to exchanges with external colleagues or professional peers. Likewise, the transactional focus of the section aligning with internal operators may be influenced by personal power rather than positional power, depending on the cultural or institutional context or norms. This behavioural shift explains why there is often a structural tension between alignment and intentionality.

This tension must be explored further to clarify the link between these two terms. Alignment is when there is an area of engagement that involves actors both within or between organisations, where there is agreement about the services or products being supplied. For example, a critical threshold for quality in a product, the schedule for delivery or agreement as to what a workplace health and safety framework is. Intentionality is the stated understanding from one party to another with respect to one of these elements in a business relationship. When both parties agree on these details, then there is alignment between them. When actors are motivated to respond to alignment and intentionality, then there is engagement with what another party in an organisation may require. However, this can be complicated by other factors. For example, actors may appear to want similar things in terms of goals, practice, and stated intentions, but their organisational position sometimes clashes with their social expectations (Karpen & Kleinaltenkamp, 2018; Ingstrup et al., 2021 Taillard et al., 2016).

As a heuristic, this network of exchanges describes how these contradictions operate and explains the way actors can optimise their situational behaviour (Guercini et al., 2014). It presents the potential to transform actor exchange by framing action and communication strategies in terms of their most effective and creative intersections. Indeed, it may even suggest actions at points where previously there was unrecognised potential. Instilling the essence of marketing into the decision-making framework and operational structure of an organisation would have the advantage of building a market orientation into its foundations (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). This is often associated with commercial success, learning organisations, creativity, and innovation (Atuahene-Gima & Ko, 2001; Slater & Narver, 1995). Additionally, optimising this marketing orientation with a firm understanding of social power theory to expedite management initiatives, improve alignment, and reduce confusion between actors could be even more useful (Ingstrup et al., 2021). Going further, leveraging social power theory to treat operators as colleagues or professional peers may improve productivity.

Even allowing for cultural variations, this heuristic as shown in Table 1 would probably be useful in a multipolar, globalised world. However, some adaptations might have to be made. For example, in countries with low power-distance, some of these engagements might be different. In Commonwealth countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and Canada there is often an egalitarian culture practiced in the workforce (Eylon & Au, 1999). In these countries, the quadrant of ‘Internal Colleagues or professional peers might operate in a condition of paradox where the real power is latent and not manifested overtly. In other countries with a high power distance such as the USA, Germany, or Japan, relationships in this quadrant might adhere more closely to the corresponding social power descriptors of Coercion, Reward, and Legitimacy. Similarly, in countries with high power distance and less power held by unions and workers, the softer personal power approach might not work at all. In these contexts, the harder positional power types might operate in a primary sense and may not be supplanted by personal power types.

What emerges is that this mapping of SPT onto EMM suggests a fresh way of looking at power relationships and deliverables in organisations and inter-organisational contexts. It is likely that power relationships in organisations move fluidly from one quadrant to another, where certain intersectional interests hold sway for a time before being displaced by others. The central contention of this paper is not that these intersections of the EMM and SPT are exclusive and rigidly determined, but simply that certain quadrants are primary for the four groups under discussion. Other intersections of SPT and EMM certainly have continued effects on these groups, but they tend to do this after the primary engagement has been established. Challenges and changes can be made to these designated work groups and their associated quadrants and if necessary, they can be entirely dissolved into new alignments.

Our paper suggests a new approach that combines older paradigms of transactional marketing, which are still operational, and the newer approaches of relationship marketing, which have emerged (Gummesson, 1994; Skålén & Hackley, 2011). These have evolved into the relatively new field of actor engagement approaches (Storbacka & Nenonen, 2011; Storbacka, 2019). The heuristic presented here provides a perspective of actor exchanges which suggests that transactional marketing and relationship marketing do not have to be mutually exclusive but can in fact be adjacent and supportive practices in organisational contexts (Möller & Halinen, 2000; Zineldin & Philipson, 2007). This approach does not displace actor engagement theory but instead supplements it by providing a simple framework that describes inter and intra organisational behaviours. Moreover, it uses EMM and SPT, which are easily recognised and employed.

Going further, it provides a framework that would align both internal and external marketing (Ahmed et al., 2003; Rafiq & Ahmed, 2000; Huang & Rundle-Thiele, 2015). This insight also provides a vantage point for improving relations between four key groups which are situated in a hierarchy of knowledge and power (Alvesson & Willmott, 2002; Jessop, 2005). It is suggested that providing actors with knowledge of these perspectives would greatly enhance their autonomy, self-determination, and creativity (Spicer et al., 2009). The perspectives and analysis demonstrated in this paper provide a road map for assisting this. This may facilitate managers to think creatively within the box before seeking solutions outside the box.

7.1. Ethical and Managerial Implications of Exercising Power

The use of any power base carries both ethical and managerial considerations. Particularly with coercive, authoritative, or incentive/reward-based influence, it is important to recognise potential unintended outcomes, such as psychological resistance, gaming of performance indicators, or loss of trust. For instance, the ethical risk associated with using legitimate power is the potential for abuse of authority, which can erode trust and foster resistance. While exercising this power base, managers must balance formal authority with fairness and transparent decision-making (Rahim et al., 1992). Similarly, unfair or discriminatory reward distribution may indicate unethical behaviour, favouritism, and undermine morale (Podsakoff & Schriesheim, 1985; Khan et al., 2023). Use of threats and sanctions may also result in psychological harm, decreased job satisfaction, and ethical conflicts regarding employee autonomy (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 1989). Just like the three positional power bases, personal power should be used with care. Over-reliance on expertise can stifle diversity and ethical decision-making when not combined with humility and openness to other viewpoints (Elias, 2008). Ethically, managers must ensure power derived from admiration or respect (referential or social power) is not manipulated for personal gain or creating dependence (Yukl, 2002 ). The selective sharing of information or withholding of information raises ethical concerns around transparency and integrity as well (Raven, 2008). Considering these ethical aspects, we recommend that transparent communication and participatory feedback mechanisms act as ethical safeguards when applying both positional and personal power bases.

7.2. Conclusions

The proposed conceptual framework is built on two rubrics: social power theory and the extended marketing mix. French and Raven’s (1959) six psychological and social bases of power were used as a simplified version of the social power theory instead of the 14 sources of power in the extended model. This may have oversimplified the model at a level that may not effectively capture the complexity of the internal and external organisational relationships and the emerging power dynamics. The nature of the relationships and the four categories of actors may interact or shape up differently in terms of power dynamics and sources of power depending on the sociocultural, political, economic, historical, and technological contexts. The nature of business, strategy and emerging alternative work arrangements may also critically challenge this model theoretically and practically. However, our proposed engagement framework’s simplicity and generic nature will help inform the design of future contextual and comparative empirical research in the fields of organisational studies, marketing and strategic management. Management practitioners will also find this helpful to better understand the sources of power that different actors may exercise to influence performance and the elements of the extended marketing mix.