Market Orientation Emphases (...)

8/6/2019 Market Orientation Emphases (...)

1/21

Market orientation emphases:an exploration of macro, meso

and micro driversKaty J. Mason and Lloyd C. Harris

Cardiff Business School, Cardiff, UK

Abstract

Purpose Although much has been written about the antecedents and consequences of marketorientation, and previous studies have generated useful insights into different forms of marketorientation, little is known of the emphases placed on different dimensions of market orientation, andno published research to date has explicitly focused on the environmental factors that may contribute

to the development of particular orientation emphases. Accordingly, the study reported here aims toexplore the divergent varieties of emphasis in practice, and to identify the environmental factors thatcontribute to that variation.

Design/methodology/approach This paper begins with a comprehensive review of the literatureof market orientation. The study it then reports adopted a realist perspective and used techniquesusually associated with qualitative research and grounded theory, a departure from the positivistapproach and survey methodology typically found in published studies of market orientation. Datawere collected in 114 face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured interviews in more than 50 UK-basedfirms.

Findings Results uncover four variations of market orientation, each of which exhibits a differentemphasis, linked to environmental factors at the micro, meso and macro levels. The emphasis placedon the different dimensions of market orientation appears to be dynamic, and driven by changingenvironmental factors.

Practical implications Marketing planners need to consider which emphasis of marketorientation is most suited to stated strategic objectives. After instituting strategic change, managersneed to ensure that the form of market orientation developed continues to reflect and respond toenvironmental conditions.

Originality/value This paper offers interesting insights to practitioners concerned with the widerimplications of market orientation.

Keywords Market orientation, Marketing strategy

Paper type Research paper

IntroductionSince the conceptualisation of market orientation in the 1990s (Kohli and Jaworski,1990; Narver and Slater, 1990), the tenet has continued to be a central focus of attention

in the marketing and management literature (Perry and Shao, 2002; Pulendran et al.,2003; Verhees and Meulenberg, 2004). Much of that interest can be attributed to the linkbetween market orientation, sales growth and profitability (Greenley, 1995b; Harris,2001; Hooley et al., 2003). These findings have ensured that the construct remains ofsignificant interest to marketing scholars and commentators, from both a strategic andoperational perspective.

More recently, a range of studies has found that different firms adopt differentforms of market orientation (Siguaw et al., 1998). However, despite a number of

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

MIP24,6

552

Received April 2005Revised June 2006Accepted June 2006

Marketing Intelligence & Planning

Vol. 24 No. 6, 2006

pp. 552-571

q Emerald Group Publishing Limited

0263-4503

DOI 10.1108/02634500610701654
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htmhttp://www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm


2/21

useful contributions to our understanding of market orientation, it is perhapssurprising that the emphases placed on different dimensions of market orientationhave yet to be systematically studied, according to Narver and Slater (1990).Specifically, little attention has been paid to the environmental factors that may

contribute to the development of particular orientation emphases (Harris and Piercy,1999). One notable exception is the work of Greenley (1995b) whos quantitative study,identified performance differences between five market orientation forms but nosignificant difference between the market environments that they were associatedwith. However, as Day (1999), observes, there are practical limitations to thisquantitative approach. This, together with the increasing recognition of the complexnature of market orientation, suggests that there may well be value in re-visiting thefield from a qualitative perspective.

This paper seeks to address these limitations by concentrating on differentiation inmarket orientation forms, taking a qualitative approach. Its aim is to contributepractical and conceptual insights by identifying and describing the environmentalfactors that lead to this variance in market orientation emphasis. The paper elucidatesthe strategic development and implementation of market orientation for theorists andpractitioners across a range of fields including general management, strategicmanagement and organizational behaviour.

It begins with a review of the market orientation literature, describes themethodology for the study, presents the findings, and closes with conclusions andimplications relevant to both theorists and practitioners.

The market orientation constructThe market orientation construct emerged in two seminal papers published in the sameyear over a decade ago: Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990).Previously, varied terminology had been used in the marketing literature to reflect the

marketing concept for example, market driven, market focused, marketoriented, and customer oriented (Day, 1994). After 1990, market orientationbecame the widely accepted term to refer specifically to implementation of themarketing concept.

Notwithstanding the shift towards a shared conceptualisation, the two seminalpapers also marked an important divide in the marketing literature. Kohli and Jaworski(1990) take an information-based perspective on market orientation, and conceptualisea three-component construct comprising market information generation anddissemination, and responsiveness to market intelligence. This, it has been argued,represents a purely behavioural perspective. In contrast, Narver and Slater (1990)present market orientation as a form of organizational culture that manifests itselfthrough measurable behaviours and activities. They argue that market orientation is

the culture that creates the necessary behaviours for generating value, and concludethat market orientation is a three-dimensional construct consisting of inter-functionalco-ordination, customer orientation and competitor orientation.

Despite the differences, the similarities between these two conceptualisations arealso noteworthy. For example, each focuses on the customer as the core component ofthe definition; both entail an external orientation (a focus outside organizationalboundaries); each acknowledges the importance of being responsive to customers; bothacknowledge that market orientation is more than a focus on just the customer.

Markeorientatio

emphase

55


3/21

Moreover, in a later review of the market orientation literature, Jaworski and Kohli(1996) suggest a shift towards the Narver and Slater definition. Recently, Hooley et al.(2000) observe that the conceptualization and measure of the Narver and Slater (1990,p. 274) scale:

. . . is both conceptually and operationally appealing because it encapsulates the main aspectsof the Kohli and Jaworskis intelligence gathering, dissemination, and responsivenessconstructs while at the same time assessing cultural factors.

This, it is argued, marks a shift towards a conciliation and integration of the twoconceptualisations.

Forms of market orientationThose advances in defining the market orientation construct in the early 1990s werefollowed by a small number of studies exploring different forms of market orientation.One of the earliest, by Hooley et al. (1990), explores marketing typologies. In contrast to

many of the studies in this field, it adopted a grounded approach to elucidate whatmarketing means to practitioners. The researchers identified four clusters, and foundsignificant differences between the organisational systems, strategies and performanceamong them. In a survey of the UK manufacturing sector, Lui (1996) found that justover a third of companies considered themselves to be market oriented. Otherorientations reported included production, selling, product and competitor. Thesefindings lead Lui to suggest that a significant proportion of UK firms undulyemphasise short-term cost cutting at the expense of long-term business performance(Doyle, 1987). Likewise, Wong and Saunders (1993) investigated different forms ofbusiness orientation and identified six described in conventional texts. Significantly,they also found correlations between these forms and the country or culture fromwhich they emerged. This is in contrast to other studies in this area, such as those by

Narver and Slater (1990) and Greenley (1995a), in which market orientation was foundto be advantageous to firms regardless of environmental conditions.

While these authors offer some valuable insights, their studies do not represent anin-depth analysis of patterns of market orientation. Research in that specific area includesthe work of Dunn et al. (1994), who identify three forms of marketing effort and concludethat different types of marketing firm are characterised by differingorganizationalvalues,goals and climate (Hooley etal., 2000). In contrast,Greenley (1995a) finds similar clusters ofmarket orientation forms, but concludes that environmental conditions do influence theeffectiveness of market orientation (Harris and Piercy, 1999).

Despite the clear contribution of this research, a number of important limitationscan be identified. First, the extant literature on market orientation forms exploresneither the drivers nor the emphasis of the different dimensions within these forms.

Second, the uni-dimensional perspective of market-orientation focuses on a singledifferentiation characteristic. In each of these studies, market orientation isconceptualized as a continuum (not just a dichotomous concept). This leads tochallenges in the interpretation of findings. Third, as with the Harris and Piercy (1999)study, many of these studies have focused on a single industry.

Finally, the conceptualisations have been developed out of a single literature. Thisappears particularly limiting, considering the contributions made in the organisationalculture and strategy literature.

MIP24,6

554


4/21

Thus, existing studies fail to provide a comprehensive analysis of potentialdistinguishing behaviours, cultures, structures, strategies or environmentcharacteristics related to different market orientation forms. Therefore, any newfindings that can improve our understanding and application of the marketing

philosophy would be both valuable and useful. Such insights should be drawn from aholistic perspective.

Insights into potential influences on market orientation formsGiven that the concept of market orientation is deeply embedded in the strategic intentof the organisation, the strategic management literature has much to contribute to ourunderstanding of the potential influences on market orientation forms. It identifies twocategories of environmental influences that appear pertinent, intra- and extra-firms,which have important implications for the likely manifestation of the marketingphilosophy. The former are concerned with the internal environment of the firm andare generally regarded as manageable; the latter emerge from beyond the boundaries of

the firm.The general marketing literature recognises culture as being fundamental tothe conceptualisation of market orientation (Deshpande and Webster, 1989). In thestrategic management literature, corporate culture represents an intra-firm perspectiveof environmental influencers. For example, Whipp et al. (1989) consider how corporateculture might be altered, and examine the links between corporate culture, strategicchange and competitive performance. Recognising the pluralistic nature of culture,they suggest it to be correspondingly difficult to change. They conclude that corebeliefs and values held by members of an organisation, which lend meaning to theirenvironment, have a number of distinctive characteristics. In this way, multiplemanifestations of culture are likely to result in multiple manifestations of marketorientation, dependent on the micro-level influencers within the firm (Barney, 1986;

Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Garvin, 2004).An alternative approach to intra-organizational environmental influencers was

adopted where the relationship between the vision and strategy of an organizationsfounder and the strategy of subsequent managements was examined. They concludedthat the strategic legacy created by founders plays a critical role in the development oforganizational culture and strategy. Thus, environmental factors appear to influencecorporate cultures and, in this way, multiple manifestations of strategicimplementation.

As market orientation is concerned with the collection and dissemination ofmarket information to inform strategy development, the implications is that theseextra-firm factors are likely to influence future manifestations of market orientation. Anextra-firm perspective of environmental influencers can be found in the strategic

management literature at the industry level, through the phenomenon of strategic legacy(Abrahamson and Fombrun, 1994; Scherer and Ross, 1990; Spender, 1989). For example,Abrahamson and Fombrun conclude that business networks both induce and reflect theexistence and persistence of more or less homogeneous, industry-level macrocultures(Dutton and Jackson, 1987; Van de Ven and Garud, 1992). In turn, those increase the levelof inertia these organizations experience. That is, industry-level macrocultures influencethe inventiveness of organizations and the diffusion of innovations among them. In thisway,they increasethe similarity of member organizations strategic profiles. We suggest

Markeorientatio

emphase

55


5/21

that the industry sector to which a firm belongs is likely to influence the emphasis thatindustry places on any single dimension of market orientation (Gordon, 1991; Sparrowand Gaston, 1996; Weber, 1996).

The existence of a common industry culture suggests the possibility that market

orientation forms will vary by industry sector. Chatman and Jehn (1994) found thatstable organizational cultural dimensions existed, and varied more across industriesthan within them. They explain that firms in similar industries may face constraints onhow distinct their cultures can actually be, and thus on the extent to which culture canbe used as a source of competitive advantage.

In their discussion of corporate culture Whipp et al. (1989) suggest that a powerfulagent of change affecting company culture is the sector within which a firmoperates. Yet:

. . . in spite of its potency, an industry culture is even less amenable to change than acorporate culture. Since the sector culture is so often a collective expression of the dominantbeliefs of its constituents cultures, the difficulties are multiplied (p. 582).

It therefore appears likely that an industry sector that does not have a typically marketoriented culture is likely to spawn a specific form of market-oriented firm.

The extant literature presents empirical evidence to support the theory that bothintra- and extra-firm factors influence organisation ideologies and their consequentmanifestation. Therefore, we suggest that market orientation will emphasise differentdimensions, dependent on specific intra- and extra-firm influencers.

Research methodologyOwing to the poorly understood nature of some of the issues involved in the study plan,a largely exploratory research design was considered appropriate (Strauss and Corbin,1998). Specifically, the aim was to explore, investigate, and examine the dynamics and

dimensions of market orientation. Consequently, in order to explore differentiation inmarket orientation emphasis and the factors associated with such variance, thisstudys research design employed semi-structured interviews as the primary means ofcollecting data. The structure of the interviews was broadly based around the Narverand Slater (1990) Likert-type scale of market orientation. Respondents wereencouraged to explain and justify their response to each of the items and to citeillustrative examples of the behaviour under discussion. This semi-structuredapproach facilitated the measurement of market orientation dimensions, as well as theexploration of environmental dimensions associated with each market orientationform. It is consistent with a realist epistemology (Bhaskar, 1979; Outhwaite, 1987).Thus, data were collected in an appropriately scientific manner.

This research design and methodology has previously been argued to provide a

means through which data-driven theory can emerge. The use of in-depth interviewmethods was also based on the grounds that such methods enable informants to describephenomena using their own terminology while allowing the researcher toseek clarifications, to question arguments and to probe interesting avenues or issues.Miller (1991) argues that such adaptability and interactivity reduces the likelihoodof misinterpretations on the part of either the interviewer or the informant. Furthermore,the adaptable nature of in-depth interviewing also facilitates discovery of what has beendescribed as real, rich, and deep data (Stainback and Stainback, 1988).

MIP24,6

556


6/21

In order to generate interesting insights for theory and practice, a very broadcross-section of industries and sectors was included in the study. The majority of firmsinterviewed could be categorised as large organizations, although medium-sized andsmaller companies were included in the sample, typically in the professional services

sector. This study concentrated (but not exclusively) on larger firms because those notonly have a more developed marketing approach and a more considered strategy, butalso are sufficiently large for organizational cultural influences to be ingrained andmanifest. Over a 100 interviews (114) were conducted in more than 50 organizations.Informants were, in general, at the middle or top level of general and marketingmanagement. Just over three quarters (77 per cent) were male, the average age wasalmost exactly 40, and the average length of company service was eight years.

Typically, interviews lasted for 60 minutes, although some were considerably longer.To improve the reliability and validity of subsequent analysis, each interview wasrecorded, transcribed and supplemented with interviewer notes. Data collection stoppedwhen the criterion of theoretical saturation was met, defined in the grounded-theoryliterature as the point beyond which no new themes or insights are emerging. Followingthe procedure recommended by Strauss and Corbin (1998), three types of coding wereused to analyze the data. First, open coding uncovered and identified the propertiesand dimensions of concepts in the data. Second, axial coding linked the core categoriestogether at the level of properties and dimensions. Third, selective coding provided themeans of integrating and refining theory. To organize this process, a systematicapproach to the analysis of transcripts was adopted in a procedure akin to that explainedby Turner (1981). In order to gauge the reliability of the analysis, the authors undertookcoding separately, then compared results. Differences between the two outcomes wereresolved in discussion. Finally, to verify and validate the findings, four ex-postinterviews were held with informants, and the results discussed.

FindingsThis study explores how the emphases in market orientation vary betweenorganizations. Data analysis found evidence to suggest that different firms placedifferent emphasis on the different dimensions and that these differentiated forms ofmarket orientation were associated with a range of what could be labelled micro,meso and macro environmental influences. The remainder of this section of thepaper details first the emphases on market orientation identified and then the range ofenvironmental influences found.

Market orientation emphasesTaxonomic analysis (Table I) suggests that eight possible forms of market orientationexist. Our analysis identified only six types of market orientation. Neither the

externally focused nor the dynamic customer focused forms was found in the study.The first two categories identified were the highly and weakly market-orientedvariants, placing equal emphasis on all dimensions. In line with previous research(Greenley, 1995a; Harris and Piercy, 1999) the former was found to be stronglyassociated with business performance and the latter to be negatively associated.Therefore, we do not dwell on these findings in this paper. Three of the marketorientation forms placed an emphasis on one of the dimensions: customer focused,competitor focused and highly co-ordinated. The remaining form, labelled dynamic

Markeorientatio

emphase

55


7/21

competitor focused, emphasised two dimensions of market orientation and appeared tobe a subset of the competitor focused form. These four, each associated with a specificdimension of emphasis, are the focus of the remainder of this paper.

Customer focus. The customer-focused market orientation was the first form found.

It was characterised by firms adoption of a particularly strong customer orientation(relative to their scores on competitor orientation and inter-functional co-ordination),and dealing directly with the customer and consumer. Their focus on customers wasreflected in the comments such as:

If you listen carefully to what customers are telling . . . , you dont have to worry too muchabout what your competitors are doing because if you really get it right, all they [thecompetitors] do is try and copy.

This observation reflects the priority that organization placed on the collection andinterpretation of customer information and the emphasis on this information within thestrategic development and planning processes. Similarly, another manager describedhow customer interaction and input into product development were encouraged:

Weve had many instances where customers have come to us and said, why dont youdo a range of products X, Y or Z? . . . and our guys have gone out and done it.

About 38 per cent of firms that emphasised a single dimension of market orientationplaced customer orientation significantly above competitor orientation andinter-functional co-ordination.

This group of companies interpreted market orientation in terms of customerexpectations. When these firms asked their customers what they thought of thecompany, customers respond in terms of their experience of service excellence.One executive observed that:

Customers know what they want; its our job to deliver it as effectively as possible. Weve got

excellent customer complaint procedures in place so we know if and when we get it wrong. . .but it is true, we do rely on them telling us.

These firms invested significant resources in gathering and interpreting customersatisfaction data. One firm boasted that it dedicated as much as 20 per cent of itsmarketing budget to this activity. The customer satisfaction perspective has importantimplications for how firms interpret market orientation in practice, and appears toresult in an emphasis that dominates all other dimensions of the market orientationconstruct.

Market orientation typeCustomerorientation

Competitororientation

Inter-functionalco-ordination

Highly market-oriented High High HighWeakly market-oriented Low Low LowCustomer focused High Low LowCompetitor focused Low High LowCo-ordination focused Low Low HighExternally focused High High LowDynamic customer focused High Low HighDynamic competitor focused Low High High

Table I.Taxonomy of marketorientation emphases

MIP24,6

558


8/21

Competitor focus. Competitor focused market orientation was the second form to befound. In contrast to the customer focused variant, informants in this group paid littleattention to their customers, but instead dedicated significant resources to tracking,charting, and predicting competitor actions. This took different forms; for example, one

executive explained that:

The competition game is about balance . . . the competences that give you the edge are yourproducts, then manufacturing at lowest cost . . . then the highest possible quality thats whywe sell more. But unless we keep an eye on the competition, its difficult to know what yourbenchmark is . . .

Another manager put it thus:

. . . some of our competitors see themselves as breakfast [cereal manufacturing]companies, but its not just cereal based, its healthy eating we need to be careful howwe define and then monitor our competitors so that we dont miss out.

Competitor focused firms developed and planned their business strategy in accordance to

the perceived level of their competitiveness, defined in terms of efficiency, price, serviceofferings, added value and flexibility. A manager of a consultancy explained that:

This is a fast moving business. You need to be on the ball. If your competitors can offersomething you cant, you can miss the boat . . . in this game, our customers know theirproblems all too well, they just dont have a clue about the solutions thats why we allwatch each other like hawks to see whos offering what.

Approaching half of all firms (42 per cent) emphasised the competitor orientationdimension of market orientation; a further 5 per cent emphasised both that andinter-functional co-ordination. These firms were almost exclusively in the professionalservices sector (legal practices, business consultants and financial service providers).The services they offered were homogeneous and difficult to differentiate. Often, they

were one-off purchases with no need to canvass for customer retention. In this regard,the third market orientation form identified, dynamic competitor focused (emphasisingcompetitor orientation and co-ordination) appeared to be a subgroup of this one.

This focus on competitor actions sometimes came across as an unhealthyprofessional envy and something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, oneinterviewee from a financial services provider suggested that:

. . . the internet is changing things. We know customers say they want to do thingsface-to-face but its just not cost effective our competitors are all going electronic . . .internet banking is definitely the way forward.

As firms focused increasingly on their competitors actions, a perceived need forsecrecy appeared to be amplified, resulting in an increasingly paranoid focus on

competitor actions. Managers and executives also reported a consequent andsimultaneous increase in demand for resources to track and interpret competitorbehaviour. One manager observed that:

. . . the trick is to offer the service without revealing to your competitors exactly what it isyoure doing.

As we have suggested, competitor focused firms exhibit characteristics similar to thosein the dynamic competitive focused category. However, the latter appeared to be

Markeorientatio

emphase

559


9/21

more effective, by virtue of being better at sharing, reacting to and generatingappropriate strategies from competitive behaviour. This is a valuable observation, as itappears to suggest that a single dimension focus may not be sufficient to maximiseperformance leverage.

Co-ordination focus. The fourth type of market orientation identified (two havingbeen subsumed into the previous category) was the co-ordination focused variant.It emphasises the inter-functional co-ordination dimension, which is viewed by thetraditional market orientation literature as the co-ordinated utilization of companyresources in creating superior value for target customers (Narver and Slater, 1990, p. 22).An emphasis on this dimension was reflected in the way firms adopted a perspectivefocused particularly on operations and efficiency. They were distinctly inward looking.About 15 per cent of firms emphasising a single market orientation dimensionconcentrated on this one. All firms in this category were manufacturers of products.

Informants typically found the systematic gathering and analysis of customer andcompetitor intelligence difficult. Such data were frequently referred to by managers asscarce, inaccessible, with the accuracy and validity of the intelligence being

described as often questionable. This perspective is illustrated by the comment of aMarketing and Sales Director:

Its never easy to get good market intelligence. Its also very expensive [to collect]. Thats whyits vital that we maximise the use of the information we do have. Weve got an excellentweb-based system that key personnel can access and contribute to. This way we all knowwhats going on.

This approach to market orientation categorically places the emphasis of marketorientation on internal functions and operations. These organizations appeared to berestricted by their own competencies and capabilities (Hamel and Prahalad, 1995). Thatis, where firms lacked the resources to develop systems to capture or buy-in marketintelligence, the focus became influenced by existing core competencies. In the

manufacturing sector, there appeared to be a focus on internal operations and in thisway, the efficiency philosophy is subsequently applied to their interpretation of marketorientation.

Table II collects together an illustrative selection of further verbatim extracts fromthe transcripts, each allocated to one of the six forms of market orientation defined.

Factors linked to market orientation emphasesOur findings reveal a number of factors that appear to be important in determining theparticular emphasis placed on the dimensions of market orientation. Data analysisdemonstrates that environmental influences are best examined through theidentification of three distinct categories; micro, meso and macro, as shown inTable III. Consistent with the work of Srnka (2004), we define the micro level asintra-firm factors, the meso level as professional and industrial norms and the macrolevel as national, political and economic factors (Abrahamson and Fombrun, 1994;Gordon, 1991). In this way, the analysis reflects the different levels of environmentalinfluences on the strategic orientation of the organisation. The remainder of the paperdescribes these factors and explores how they influence the market orientationemphasis identified.

Micro factors. Micro environmental factors are intra-firm environmental influences,typically including the culture of the firm and the management plus strategic issues

MIP24,6

560


10/21

Marketorientationform

identified

Marketorientationdimension

emphasised

Illustrativequotesfrom

firmsfou

ndtobeadoptingoneofthemarket

orientation

formsidentified

Customerfocused

Customerorientation

..

.

customerperceptionisseven

tenthsofthelaw;ourcustomerdemandincreases

atthesamerateasweimprovew

hatweoffer,customer-focusiseverything.

.

.

it

seemstomatteroverandaboveeverythingelse

Dynamiccustomerfocus

Customerorientationand

inter-functionalco-ordination

youhavetoconstantlytrackan

dreacttowhatcustomerssay.

.

.

and

howthey

behave;itskeytoknowthevalueofasupplierso,youneedtoknowtheirvalueto

ourcustomer.

.

.

theseguys[sale

semployees]actuallyknowwhathap

pensatthe

frontendofthebusiness;yousa

yjump,andIllsayhowhigh?;.

.

.w

eretryingto

makeshoesinresponsetosomeo

newantingthem

.

.

.

thishasmoreto

dowith

survivalofthefittestthanbeatin

gthecompetition;wehaveallsorts

ofschemes,

wehaveschemeswherewesubscribetodatabasesofnewbornbabies

andthenwe

sendthem

acardtocomeforafreefitting.

.

.

Competitorfocused


werejustnotgoodatmonitoring

howweserviceourcustomersneeds;becauseof

ourcompetitors.

.

.

weratedourselvesaseriousdisaster;wespecialiseinselling

today,whatourcompetitorscan

gettomorrow

.

.

.

Dynamiccompetitorfocu

s

Competitororientationand

inter-functionalco-ordination

Ihaveadata-baseherethattells

metheir[thecompetitors]everymove

,everyweek

.

.

.

somepeople[employees]saytheyspendlongerlookingattheircom

petitorsthan

attheirownbusiness.weshareinfo.oncompetitorstrategyandwe

canreact

quicklybecausewerelean

Co-ordinationfocused


wedontreallyknowwhatourcompetitorsareupto

.

.

.

customersdon

tgettogive

asmuchinputastheyshould

...

wereverygoodattalkingtoeachothe

rthoughand

thisiswheremostofthe[product]improvementcomefrom.

Theresc

ertainlyalot

ofinformationavailable[internally],butwedontshareitwithourcustomers

Externallyfocused

Customerandcompetitororientation

wehavetocreateproductsthat

consumersbuyinpreferencetoourc

ompetition;

wehavealotofcustomerandcompetitorinformationbutwerejustn

otverygood

atmakinguseofit;oneofour

strategicthrustsistocorrectthis,we

renotvery

goodatsharingcustomerexperiencebetweenfunctions.

.

.

ittendsto

getstuckin

marketing;.

.

.

youshouldtalk

toourmarketers,butIdontthinkwesharemuch

informationwiththem

Table IA selection of illustrativ

quotes from firmidentified as adopting onof six market orientatio

form

Markeorientatio

emphase

56


11/21

that influence the internal environment through organizational cultures, processes and

systems. In this study, the key micro factors identified were supply chain position,structure, cultural climate, customer contact and leadership style.

Our analysis indicated that, while these micro level factors were recognised asimpacting upon the full range of market orientation types, there appeared aparticularly strong association between customer focused and competitor focusedfirms. For example, an informant from one identified as a customer focusedorganization averred that:

Its the way this firm thinks that effects what we do at the front-line.

A manager from a competitor focused counterpart asserted that:

Its how we operate. We all know that and so, we all know what kind of competitorinformation we need to be collecting . . .

Further, the position of a firm in the supply chain also appeared to influence the form ofmarket-orientation form. More than three quarters of the firms in this group weretraditional retailers with a high street presence. When asked to describe theenvironmental factors that they identified as significantly affecting the way their firmdeveloped its market orientation, fully 95 percent of managers from customer-focusedfirms acknowledged that their downstream position in the supply chain was asignificant driver of market orientation emphasis. It afforded them direct contact andfeedback from consumers. One manager explained that:

. . . because we have that immediate interface with customers on a day to day basis, wereused to listening to them . . . Ignoring them just isnt an option.

This finding is concordant with the work of Homburg et al. (2002), who recognise theneed for both organizational and individual level service orientation. They observedthat micro factors, including the structure, culture and climate, have an impact on thesuccess of retail strategy implementation. These micro factors were identified by ourrespondents. One retailer considered that:

. . . were getting better at developing quite sophisticated incentive programmes to makesure that we actually deliver the levels of service that we know our customers value andexpect . . .

Marketorientationdimensions Micro

Environmental factorsMeso Macro

Customerorientation

Supply chain positioning,structure, culture, climate,leadership style

Low perceivedcompetitor threat,market-leaders

Economic slow down;this may force leadershipstyle to change


Regulation and codes ofpractice industry sector:typically professionalservices


Leadership style Industry norms andindustry sector culture

National culture

Table III.Environmental factorsassociated with differentmarket orientationdimension emphases

MIP24,6

562


12/21

This has important implications for market orientation, as it seems to suggest that acustomer focused market orientation may be a more appropriate form in a highlycompetitive retail sector, where differentiation between firms can be difficult toestablish (Borucki and Burke, 1999; Homburg et al., 2002). A second retailer felt that:

. . . its our interaction with customer that makes the difference really everything else iswindow dressing.

In this regard, the micro influence of customer contact appears to drive acustomer-focused form of market orientation.

Another noteworthy micro factor to emerge from analysis of the customer focusedinformants responses was the association made with leadership style. Whilst the firmsin this group scored relatively poorly on the inter-functional co-ordination dimension,their leaders either came across in interviews, or were portrayed by interviewees, ascontrolling and authoritative. In these cases, inter-functional co-ordination was lesssystematic and routinized than would be typically expected and tended to becentralised and controlled by the dissemination of market intelligence under the

leaders discretion. Managers explained, we just ask the boss, we are told what todo and thats not within our remit thats decided at board level. In this group,there was no sense of inter-functional development and interpretation of marketintelligence. The approach to strategic development and implementation wasprescriptive and suggests an association with organizational leadership.

Our finding are in keeping with the work of Martin and Bush (2003), who foundleadership style to be significant in leveraging customer-oriented behaviour andultimately business performance (Dubinsky et al., 1995; Maccoby, 2000). Leadershipstyle has further been found to motivate and enhance the efficacy of salespeople byincreasing decision-making capabilities, boosting perceptions of empowerment andencouraging a focus on long-term customer satisfaction (Martin and Bush, 2003; Stockand Hoyer, 2002). An example of this cause and effect is provided by a comment fromone front-line employee:

Its really great when you can pass that little snippet of information [from the customer] upthe chain [to management] and you know its going to make a difference in how we do things[for the customer].

Thus, in the same way that leadership style impacts on salesperson behaviour, it canbe argued that leadership style is likely to affect the emphasis placed on marketorientation dimensions.

Meso factors. Meso environmental factors are extra-firm factors that relate toindustries and industry sectors. They describe the middle layer of environmentalfactors that provide the professional and industry norms (Abrahamson and Fombrun,1994; Srnka, 2004). In this study, the key meso factors associated with the emphasis ofmarket-orientation dimensions were competitive intensity, market positioning andindustry sector. Those were closely associated with virtually all competitor focusedand dynamic competitor focused firms (97 per cent) and more than a third of customerfocused firms (37 per cent).

Customer focused firms demonstrated a low level of competitive intensity; they hadfew competitors. Further, informants appeared to be confident and satisfied with theirfirms market position, and did not seem to feel threatened by competitor activity.In trying to explain why they were so customer focused, one informant said:

Markeorientatio

emphase

56


13/21

Competitors can be a distraction. We know were doing OK because our figures tell us that.

And were the market-leaders in what is really not a very big market place.

All firms in this category saw themselves as key players in their sector, and four in

every five considered themselves to be market leaders. In line with the findings of Dayand Wensley (1988), customer-focused assessments started with a detailed analysis ofcustomer benefits within consumer segments and worked backwards from the

customer to identify the appropriate strategic direction and action required ofmanagement and employees. One informant was adamant that:

. . . youve got to get to grips with what your customers are telling you. This is really the key

and everything else comes out of this.

The competitor focused group were the most obviously influenced by meso level

factors, which were defined in terms of the industry and profession influences thatbrought about behaviours affecting the forms of market orientation adopted. In thisregard, we found a clear distinction within organizations offering professional services:

lawyers, business consultants and financial service providers. Interviewees arguedthat professional guidelines often prevented them from employing sales and

advertising techniques typically associated with the retail and manufacturing sectors.One services provider noted that:

. . . we have to proceed with extreme caution in this area. There are guidelines to stick to, and

then there are the unwritten rules of the game. Some things one just does not do.

This observation reflects a finding of Avlonitis and Gounaris (1997). In their

comparative study of the market orientation and performance relationships inindustrial and consumer goods companies, they observed the distinctions and benefitsof market orientation in the two sectors. While it did not include an investigation of

professional services, it seems arguable that market orientation would manifest itselfdifferently in that environment. For example, it is against the UK Bar Councils rulesfor barristers (advocates) to approach solicitors for business, a practice described astouting, and they are thus obliged to focus on competition rather than customers.In such specialist fields, competitors are few in number and differentiation must bedeveloped through the quality of the services provided and the specialisation and

expertise of the individuals offering them. These considerations are reflected in thebusiness consultancy and financial services sectors. For example, one practitionercommented that:

. . . most of what we sell could be pulled directly out of text books its not unique. What is

unique is the way we make it work for our customers and for that, we need to do what we do

better and faster and more cost effectively than our competitors word of mouth does therest.

This finding echoes Day and Wensley (1988), who suggested that companies identifyvalues which distinguish their firm, and consequently adopt either a customer-focusedor competitor-centred orientation. The latter closely resembles the competitor focused

form of market orientation found in the legal profession by the current study. Theregulated environment appears to drive lawyers to adopt a competitor focusedperspective. One solicitor put it thus:

MIP24,6

564


14/21

This games allabout competition. Clients dont reallyknow what to expectfrom you most ofthem are in a daze. Its all about being seen to be better than the competition. It all comes downto basic maths; there are too few clients and too damn many of us its a cut-throat business.

This perspective is thus based on direct management comparisons with a few targetcompetitors, and the focus of the core organization resides on issues surrounding theidentification and comparison of capabilities and offerings.

Macro factors. Macro environmental factors were defined for our study as thepolitical, economic, social, legal and technological factors associated with influencingindustries and industry sectors. This definition differs from that adopted byAbrahamson and Fombrun (1994), in that the factors they identify as macroculture areframed in terms that we define as the meso level influences defined and discussedabove. The additional level of analysis applied here is a response, in part, to theobservations of Greenley (1995a, p. 27), who concludes that the lack of associationbetween meso environmental factors and market orientation in his study is arguablydue to data being generated from a country in the middle of a recession. That is to

say, the economic climate in which firms operated was thought to affect marketorientation. Thus, it is arguable that economic, regulatory, political and cultural macroenvironmental factors affect the type of market orientation a firm adopts.

Equally, firms dealing with an economic slow-down in a highly market-sensitiveindustry sector may alter their market orientation accordingly. For example, severalmanagers explained that when, in the past, their organization had experienced suchpressures, there had been a general shift towards a customer focused market orientation.Managers described their organizations as becoming customer obsessed, toocustomer-oriented and jumping on the customers every word. Martin and Bush(2003) suggest that, when economic pressures increase, leadership style can change,shifting the entire focus of the organization through the directed behaviour of the salesteam. The implications of this observation are twofold. First, it suggests that market

orientation may emphasise different dimensions. Second, it presents market orientationas a dynamic construct with the emphasis on different dimensions changing inaccordance with macro economic environments. As one informant explained:

Sometimes our competitors do something, the time is right and it works. Then all ourattention is channelled towards what this and other competitors are doing . . . othertimes, the same happens with customers and our focus has to shift.

Finally, our findings suggest that national culture is likely to affect the form of marketorientation adopted. While the concept of psychic distance is not new to the field ofmarketing, the recognition that individual cultural differences affect buying behaviourhas generally been associated with the field of consumer research (Davies and Fitchett,2004; McCracken, 1990; Pressey and Selassie, 2003). Yet the impact of national culture

is arguably just as applicable to organizational theory and strategy development(Mehta et al., 2003). These findings are consistent with those of other commentatorswho observe that, while the standardization of products and services continues acrossthe globe, national cultures are seemingly somewhat resistant to change. Hence,cultural differences require adaptation of management practices (Barkema andVermeulen, 1997; Hofstede, 1991, 1980; Morris and Pavett, 1992).

The research design applied in this study restricted the data collection to the UK, butinformants in multinational corporations were asked how their firms market-oriented

Markeorientatio

emphase

56


15/21

behaviour compared with those of their international counterparts involved in overseasoperations. They generally responded dismissively to suggestions of comparability.A manager from a highly market-oriented firm, commenting on the way marketintelligence was gathered in a continental European subsidiary, added that . . . youd

never get away with that here. Similarly, a manager describing how market intelligencewas disseminated throughout the UK branch commented that in that just wouldnt fly[work] over there, in the Dubai subsidiary.

One executive summarised the national cultural differences manifest in marketorientation forms as, different strokes for different folks, implying that marketorientation behaviours took a very different emphasis within the different countries thefirm operated in. While such evidence can at best be considered exploratory and atworst purely anecdotal, there do appear to be some grounds for further investigationinto the effect of national culture as an environmental influence on the form of marketorientation practised.

Conclusions and implicationsThe first contribution of this paper is to uncover different market orientationemphases. This suggests that, when organizations develop a market orientation theyfocus on and emphasise different dimensions. The original conceptualisation of marketorientation by Narver and Slater (1990) suggest that different dimension emphases,dependent on environmental influences, are likely to be observable and in somecircumstances preferable (Greenley, 1995a, b; Miles and Snow, 1978). This researchstudy has presented some of the first empirical evidence in support of that proposition(Day and Wensley, 1988; Greenley, 1995a; Narver and Slater, 1990; Siguaw et al., 1998).It differs from previous research in offering insights into the complex and variednature of market orientation. Whereas other studies have focused on the strength ofmarket orientation as a whole, this has examined the levels and strengths of the

different market orientation dimensions. A central implication of our findings is that amore complete understanding of market focus can be achieved only through theexploration of a wide range of diverse intra-organizational functions. It could be arguedthat many conceptualizations of market orientation are weakened by their limitedattention to the emphases of the dimensions exhibited by firms.

The second contribution of the study reported here relates to the environmentalinfluences identified. Their variety suggests that the effective development of amarket-orientation style requires a detailed understanding of micro, meso and macroenvironmental influences. This study thus contributes novel empirical evidence of therange, nature and dynamics of environmental influences and the links with the form ofmarket orientation adopted. It also generates implications for wider theory. Previousresearch has found market orientation to be linked to performance, regardless of

environmental conditions (Agarwal et al., 2003; Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001; Bigneet al., 2000; Cadogan et al., 2001; Cervera et al., 2001). Hence, numerous conceptual andempirical studies extol the need to develop higher levels of market orientationregardless of the contingencies facing the firm. In contrast, we suggest that the verynature of the market orientation developed is contingent on the peculiarities andidiosyncrasies of individual context. Therefore, an important implication of our studyis that the market orientation emphasis exhibited by each firm (whether highly orpoorly market focused) is likely to reflect environmental conditions. In essence, what is

MIP24,6

566


16/21

market oriented for one firm is not for another. Market orientation is not, and wasnever intended to be, a universal panacea.

Our study also generates practical insights into how market orientation can bedeveloped that is, how the extent of market orientation can be improved. It should be

noted that the focus is on development and not implementation, since the latter impliesthe creation of market orientation, something a number of commentators have arguedto be absurd, as all organizations that continue to exist exhibit some degree of marketfocus (Harris, 2000). While it is recognized that market orientation does not offer auniversal solution for all the challenges and threats facing a firm, the recognition ofmarket orientation emphases and their links to environmental conditions may proveuseful to some organizations.

First, given the limited resources available to most organizations, an understandingof the most appropriate emphasis of market orientation may prove useful whenallocating restricted resources and assets. For example, a customer-focused marketorientation may be a more appropriate for firms operating in the retail sector wherehyper-competition is an issue and differentiation between firms can be difficult toestablish. Second, the findings suggest that firms wishing to develop or improve theirmarket orientation should undertake a comprehensive and inclusive audit of not onlythe current and past market orientation exhibited by the firm but also the wide array ofmicro, meso and macro influences either currently prevailing or likely to be present inthe immediate future. In this regard, the development of a genuine understanding ofthe current position is crucial, prior to initiation of any change. For example, oneinformant explained how, after the introduction of takeaway bags into the supermarketsector, directors of his chain of takeaway stores became very competitor oriented forabout eight months before returning to a more balance market orientation form. Thus,organizations should consider which market orientation emphasis is most suitable andundertake a basic and then comprehensive gap analysis, as a means of identifying and

prioritising avenues of market-led strategic change.This study also offers interesting insights to practitioners concerned with the wider

implications of market orientation. Indeed, distinguishing the range of marketorientation emphases that can be manifested by firms is useful to a broad range ofmanagers concerned with inter-organizational dynamics. First, auditing of the marketfocus of competitors is improved through explicitly recognising that marketorientation emphases exist and are likely to differ from firm to firm. Second,analysis of such emphases is likely to prove useful when developing and managingassociations with collaborators (such as suppliers, agencies and distributors), which anumber of studies have found to influence one others market orientation (Baker et al.,1999). A key implication is thus that the concept of market orientation should beacknowledged as broader, and arguably more important, than merely the marketing

function. Indeed, without this greater understanding, developing genuinely innovativemarket orientation is likely to prove elusive.

While the current study has generated a number of important insights andcontributions to both theory and practice, the limitations of the research design highlighttwo potentially fruitful avenues for future research in particular. First, the exploratory,qualitative approach could be supplemented by a more descriptive, broader survey typeof design, which might link orientation emphases and performance metrics. Second,future work might set out to gauge the generalisability of the conclusions drawn here,

Markeorientatio

emphase

56


17/21

which could be significantly enhanced by studying emphases and environmental factorsin a wider range of business and national contexts. It is hoped that the current study willprovide a useful point of departure for such future developments.

References

Abrahamson, E. and Fombrun, C.J. (1994), Macrocultures: determinants and consequences, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 728-55.

Agarwal, S., Erramilli, M.K. and Chekitan, S.D. (2003), Market orientation and performance inservice firms: role of innovation, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 68.

Atuahene-Gima, K. and Ko, A. (2001), An empirical investigation of the effect of marketorientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation,Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 54.

Avlonitis, G.J. and Gounaris, S.P. (1997), Marketing orientation and company performance:industrial vs. consumer goods companies, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26No. 5, p. 385.

Baker, T.L., Simpson, P.M. and Siguaw, J.A. (1999), The impact of suppliers perceptions ofreseller market orientation on key relationship constructs, Academy of Marketing Science.

Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, p. 50.

Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997), What differences in the cultural backgrounds ofpartners are detrimental for international joint ventures?, Journal of International

Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 854-64.

Barney, J. (1986), Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitiveadvantage?, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 791-800.

Bhaskar, R. (1979), The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philisophical Critique of the ContemporaryHuman Sciences, Harvester, Brighton.

Bigne, E., Vila-Lopez, N. and Kuster-Boluda, I. (2000), Competitive positioning and market

orientation: two interrelated constructs, European Journal of Innovation Management,Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 190.

Borucki, C.C. and Burke, M.J. (1999), An examination of service-related antecedents to retailstore performance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, p. 943.

Cadogan, J.W., Paul, N.J., Salminen, R.T., Puumalainen, K. and Sundqvist, S. (2001), Keyantecedents to export market-oriented behaviors: a cross-national empirical examination,

International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, p. 261.

Cervera, A., Molla, A. and Sanchez, M. (2001), Antecedents and consequences of marketorientation in public organisations, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12,p. 1259.

Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1994), Assessing the relationship between industry characteristicsand organizational culture: how different can you be?, Academy of Management Journal,

Vol. 37 No. 3, p. 522.

Davies, A. and Fitchett, J.A. (2004), Crossing culture: a multi-method enquiry into consumerbehaviour and the experience of cultural transition,Journal of Consumer Behaviour,Vol.3No. 4, p. 315.

Day, G.S. (1994), The capabilities of market-driven organizations, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58No. 4, p. 37.

Day, G.S. (1999), Misconceptions about market orientation, Journal of Market FocusedManagement, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 5.

MIP24,6

568


18/21

Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosingcompetitive, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 2, p. 1.

Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.

Deshpande, R. and Webster, F.E. (1989), Organizational culture and marketing: defining theresearch agenda, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 3-15.

Doyle, P. (1987), Marketing and the British chief executive, British Journal of Management,Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 121-32.

Dubinsky, A.J., Yammarino, F.J., Jolson, M.A. and Spangler, W.D. (1995), Transformationalleadership: an initial investignation in sales management, Journal of Personal Selling &Sales Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 17-29.

Dunn, M.G., Norburn, D. and Birley, S. (1994), The impact of organizational values, goals andclimate on marketing effectiveness, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30, pp. 131-41.

Dutton, J.E. and Jackson, S. (1987), Categorizing strategic issues: linking to organizationalaction, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 76-90.

Garvin, D.A. (2004), What every CEO should know about creating new businesses, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 82 Nos 7/8, p. 18.

Gordon, G.G. (1991), Industry determinants of organizational culture, Academy of Management. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, p. 396.

Greenley, G.E. (1995a), Forms of market orientation in UK companies, The Journal ofManagement Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 47.

Greenley, G.E. (1995b), Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence fromUK companies, British Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 1.

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1995), Competing for the future, Success, Vol. 42 No. 9, p. 36.

Harris, L.C. (2000), The organizational barriers to developing market orientation, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 5/6, p. 598.

Harris, L.C. (2001), Market orientation and performance: objective and subjective empiricalevidence from UK companies, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1, p. 17.

Harris, L.C. and Piercy, N.F. (1999), A contingency approach to market orientation:distinguishing behaviours, systems, structures, strategies and performancecharacteristics, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 617-46.

Hofstede, G. (1980), Motivation, leadership and organization: do American theories applyabroad?, Organizational Dynamics, Summer, pp. 42-63.

Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill,Maidenhead.

Homburg, C., Hoyer, W.D. and Fassnacht, M. (2002), Service orientation of a retailers businessstrategy: dimensions, antecedents, and performance outcomes, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 66 No. 4, p. 86.

Hooley, G., Cox, T., Fahy, J. and Shipley, D. (2000), Market orientation in the transitioneconomies of central Europe: tests of the Narver and Slater market orientation scales,

Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50 No. 3, p. 273.

Hooley, G., Fahy, J., Greenley, J. and Beracs, J. (2003), Market orientation in the service sector ofthe transition economies of central Europe, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37Nos 1/2, p. 86.

Hooley, G.J., Lynch, J.E. and Shepherd, J. (1990), The marketing concept: putting theory intopractice, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 7-24.

Markeorientatio

emphase

569


19/21

Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1996), Market orientation: review, refinement and roadmap, Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 1, pp. 119-35.

Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, p. 1.

Lui, H. (1996), Patterns of market orientation in UK manufacturing companies, Journal ofEuromarketing, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 77-100.

Maccoby, M. (2000), Narcissistic leaders: the incredible pros and inevitable cons, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 68-77.

Martin, C.A. and Bush, A.J. (2003), The potential influence of organizational and personalvariables on customer-oriented selling,Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18Nos 2/3, p. 114.

McCracken, G. (1990), Culture and consumer behaviour: an anthropological perspective, Market Research Society. Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 3.

Mehta, R., Dubinsky, A.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2003), Leadership style, motivation andperformance in international marketing channels: an empirical investigation of the USA,

Finland and Poland, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 1/2, p. 50.Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, McGraw-Hill,

New York, NY.

Miller, D.C. (1991), Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, 5th ed., Sage,Newbury Park, CA.

Morris, T. and Pavett, C.M. (1992), Management style and productivity in two cultures, Journalof International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 169-79.

Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), The effect of a market orientation on business profitability, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, p. 20.

Outhwaite, W. (1987), New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and CriticalTheory, Macmillan, London.

Perry, M.L. and Shao, A.T. (2002), Market orientation and incumbent performance in dynamicmarket, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 9/10, p. 1140.

Pressey, A.D. and Selassie, H.G. (2003), Are cultural differences overrated? Examining theinfluence of national culture on international buyer-seller relationships, Journal ofConsumer Behaviour, Vol. 2 No. 4, p. 354.

Pulendran, S., Speed, S. and Widing, R.E. (2003), Marketing planning, market orientation andbusiness performance, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 3/4, p. 476.

Scherer, F.M. and Ross, D. (1990), Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance,Houghtn Mifflin, Boston, MA.

Siguaw, J.A., Simpson, P.M. and Baker, T.L. (1998), Effects of supplier market orientation ondistributor market orientation and the channel relationship: the distributor perspective,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, p. 99.

Sparrow, P.R. and Gaston, K. (1996), Generic climate maps: a strategic application of climatesurvey data?, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 6, p. 679.

Spender, J.C. (1989), Industry Recipes: The Nature and Source of Managerial Judgement,Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.

Srnka, K.J. (2004), Cultures role in marketers ethical decision making: an integrated theoreticalframework, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2004, p. 1.

Stainback, S. and Stainback, W. (1988), Understanding and Conducting Qualitative Research,Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA.

MIP24,6

570


20/21

Stock, R.M. and Hoyer, W.D. (2002), Leadership style as driver of salespeoples customerorientation, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, p. 355.

Strauss, A. and Corbin, C. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures forDeveloping Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Turner, B. (1981), Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis, Quality & Quantity,Vol. 15, pp. 225-47.

Van de Ven, A.H. and Garud, R. (1992), The co-evolution of technological and institutionalinnovations, working paper, University of Minnesota Strategic Management ResearchCenter, Minneapolis.

Verhees, F.J.H.M. and Meulenberg, M.T.G. (2004), Market orientation, innovativeness, productinnovation, and performance in small firms, Journal of Small Business Management,Vol. 42 No. 2, p. 134.

Weber, Y. (1996), Corporate cultural fit and performance in mergers and acquisitions, HumanRelations, Vol. 49 No. 9, p. 1181.

Whipp, R., Rosenfeld, R. and Pettigrew, A. (1989), Culture and competitiveness: evidence fromtwo mature UK industries, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 6, p. 561.

Wong, V. and Saunders, J. (1993), Business orientations and corporate success, Journal ofStrategic Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 20-40.

Further reading

Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999), Learning orientation, market orientation, and innovation:integrating and extending models of organizational performance, Journal of

Market-Focused Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, p. 295.

Harris, L.C. (1999), The strategic legacy of company founders, Long Range Planning, Vol. 32No. 3, p. 333.

Markeorientatio

emphase

57

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected] visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints


21/21

Reproducedwithpermissionof thecopyrightowner. Further reproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

Documents

Market Orientation Emphases (...)