Professional Documents
Culture Documents
BY
IKHLAQ AHMAD
BASHARAT NAEEM
Head
Department of Management Sciences
GLOBAL INSTITUTE LAHORE, PAKISTAN
2
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many thanks
3
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Abstract
Market orientation, still a captivating concept, carries the pledge of
superior business performance through the satisfaction of customers’ needs and top
management commitment. In this connection the current study explores the impact of
Table of Contents
Dedication 2
4
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Acknowledgements 3
Abstract 4
Table of Contents 5
Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 7
Market Orientation 8
Market Orientation in Pakistan 11
Benefits of Market Orientation 13
Business Performance 14
Structure of the dissertation 15
Figure 1 Structure of the dissertation 16
Chapter 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 17
Market orientation and business performance 18
The strength of the relationship between MO and business performance 21
differs across scales.
R-A Theory and the Market Orientation-Performance Relationship 22
Performance Outcomes 23
Subjective and Objective Performance Measures 23
The Jaworski and Kohli model of market orientation 25
Chapter 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 28
Hypotheses 29
Data Collection & Sample Plan 42
Figure 2 Response Weight age 43
Measures and Survey Instrument 44
Chapter 4 ESTIMATION AND RESULT ANALYSIS 48
Estimation and result analysis 49
Table 1 Correlation Matrix for Business performance and 50
Variables (market orientation)
Table 2 Correlation Matrix for Overall Market Orientation with 50
Business Performance
Future Research Directions 53
Chapter 5 CONCLUSION 56
REFERENCES 58
Appendix 68
5
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Chapter 1
6
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
INTRODUCTION
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Market Orientation
Market orientation (MO) concept, relationships between MO and business performance (BP)
role is subject of thesis.
Market orientation was defined by Narver and Slater (1990) as the competitive strategy that
most efficiently generates the right kinds of behavior to create enhanced value for the
consumer and therefore assures better long-term results for corporations. According to these
authors, market orientation is based on orientation towards the customer, orientation towards
competitors and inter-functional coordination. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) identify three
structural components of market orientation:(1) generation and analysis of all relevant
information about the market;(2) dissemination of this information among the various
departments of the organization in order to coordinate and arrange strategic planning; and(3)
implementation of strategic initiatives designed to satisfy the market. In reviewing this
construct, Lado et al. (1998a) have provided a broader definition of market orientation, which
they define as a competitive strategy that involves all functional areas and levels of the
7
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
organization and embraces the different market participants. These market participants or
market forces are: the final customer; the intermediate customer (distributor); the
competitors; and. environmental factors. To create and hold on to a competitive advantage,
companies must analyze and act on every one of these market forces with proper
coordination between their functions. As a result, in this theoretical framework, market
orientation can be conceptualized as consisting of nine facets:
(1) Analysis of the final customers;
(2) Analysis of intermediate customers (distributors)
(3) Analysis of the competitors;
(4) Analysis of the market environment;
(5) Strategic actions on the final customers;
(6) Strategic actions on intermediate customers (distributors);
(7) Strategic actions on the competitors;
(8) Strategic actions on the market environment; and
(9) Inter-functional coordination.
That market orientation is conceptualized as consisting of nine facets should not be taken to
imply that market orientation is a multidimensional concept. Lado et al. (1998a) have shown
that these facets are well accounted for by a one-factor model. Therefore, these nine facets
should be taken as the conceptual components of a one-dimensional construct of market
orientation, and one-dimensional measure of market orientation is called for.
The subject of market orientation in one form or another has had the center stage in the
theory and practice of marketing since the late 1980s (Kotler, 1977; Levitt, 1960; Shaprio,
1988; Webster, 1988). Only recently, however, have researchers built a theory of the
antecedents and consequences of market orientation, developed a valid measure of the
construct, and tested its effect on business performance (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver &
Slater, 1990). Kohli and Jaworski described and offered a theory of market orientation. They
stated, “A market orientation appears to provide a unifying focus for the efforts and projects
of individuals and departments within the organization, thereby leading to superior
performance” (p. 13). Narver and Slater developed a measure of market orientation and
tested its effect on business performance. Their measure of market orientation consists of
three behavioral components–customer orientations, competitor orientation, and inter-
8
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
functional coordination–all of which are critical and related to creating sustainable superior
value for customers. In recent years, the number of empirical studies based on the market
orientation concept has increased (Atuahene-Gima, 1995; Deng & Dart, 1994;
Diamontopoulos & Hart, 1993a; Pitt, Caruana, & Berthon, 1996). Many studies have
examined the links between market orientation and various correlates. Market orientation
was first applied in consumer packaged-goods industries (Chandler, 1977). Later on, it
broadened into other sectors such as aerospace (Reynold, 1966), health service (Zaltman &
Vertinsky, 1971), fundraising (Mindak & Bybee, 1976), promotion of social objectives
(Kotler & Zaltman, 1971), banking and financial services (Davies, 1974), nursing (Lewis,
1977), railways (Christoper, 1975), tourism (Greenley & Matcham, 1986) and apparel
manufacturing (Socha, 1996). As early as 1965, Frame argued that many large U.S. retailers
focused mainly on product, rather than on customers, and suggestions were made to correct
this. Berry, Gresham, and Millikan (1990) observed that, despite significant research on the
market orientation of manufacturing firms and a growing interest in the application of market
orientation to business areas other than manufacturing, research on the implementation of
market orientation in retailing remained limited. An extensive search of the literature showed
that such research concerning retailing remains limited to the present. Research has been
conducted to examine the role of the marketing departments of retailing companies (Piercy &
Alexander, 1988) by comparing UK department stores’ and supermarkets’ operational
marketing practices (Greenley & Shipley, 1992) and by looking into retailing organizational
selling behavior (Hogarth-Scott & Parkinson, 1993). Greenley and Shipley conducted a
survey of UK retailers’ attitudes towards marketing mix factors, customer services, and
sources of information for marketing decision making. Piercy and Alexander (1988) found
that 6% of the sample firms were “merchandising orientated,” 29% were “sales orientated,”
and 65% were “marketing orientated.” Many studies have found that market orientation leads
to greater customer satisfaction (Siguaw, Brown, & Widing, 1994), teamwork, and
organizational commitment (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). Literature pertaining to market
orientation is primarily concerned with large firms, and relatively little research has
concerned small and medium-sized businesses, though some such research does exist.
Peterson (1989) and Sriram and Sapienza (1991) found that most small U.S. manufacturing
businesses adopted a production orientation, and focusing on sales was the second most
9
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
common orientation. Meziou (1991) found areas of strength and weakness in small-business
efforts to adopt the marketing concept. These findings suggest that the marketing concept is
part of the managerial philosophy of many executives, particularly those who have attended
training courses on marketing. Peter Drucker’s (1954) pioneering assertion that customer
satisfaction is most important to the success of the firm is essential to the modern definitions
of the marketing concept (see McNamara 1972). Scholars such as Mickitrick (1957), Felton
(1959), Barksdale and Darden (1971), who follow Drucker’s lead, further lay the foundation
for the current conceptualization of market orientation and the “market driven” organization.
Eventually, Webster (1992) establishes that the customer should drive organizational goals
while the competition derives its importance to the organization from its inherent importance
to the discerning customer. This view mandates that the firm should focus on the needs of its
customers while keeping the competition in sight so as to stay ahead in commonly
competitive markets (Day 1994; Narver et al. 2004). In addition to customer and competitor
orientation, Market orientation also encompasses inter functional coordination (Narver and
Slater 1990; Slater and Narver 1994). Customer orientation is conceptualized as
understanding and satisfying customers’ needs and wants; competitor orientation takes into
account understanding rivals’ strengths and weaknesses and how they satisfy customers; inter
functional coordination may be simplistically described as utilizing organizational resources
to create value (Narver and Slater 1990). Market orientation has been specifically defined in
a variety of ways in the marketing literature. For example, Day (1994) pieces together
previous studies conducted by Deshpande, Farley, and Webster (1993), Narver and Slater
(1990), and Shapiro (1988), to consolidate the idea that market orientation is a way of
understanding and satisfying customers through a combination of putting customers’ interests
first, utilizing inter functional resources to create customer value, and generating and using
customer and competitor information (Kohli and Jaworski 1990). Deshpandé and Farley
(1996, p. 14) define market orientation as the “set of cross-functional processes and activities
directed at creating and satisfying customers through continuous needs-assessment.” Narver
and Slater (1990; 1998) define the marketing concept as being a value creating, long-term,
and profit-minded focus combined with behaviors of customer orientation, competitor
orientation, and inter functional coordination of the resources of the firm. Furthermore, they
provide empirical evidence that marketing efforts have a substantial effect on profitability.
10
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Market orientation as defined by Kohli and Jaworski (1990, p. 6) is "the organization wide
generation of market intelligence pertaining to current and future customer needs,
dissemination of the intelligence across departments, and organization wide responsiveness
to it." These researchers further describe the market orientation concept as involving
generating, disseminating, and responding not only to market intelligence that is directly
linked to customer needs but also to external factors that are indirectly linked to customer
needs such as competition and regulation. Furthermore, they consider affects on both current
and future customer needs. Based on the above conceptualizations, the marketing orientation
may be interpreted as a focus on the customer and competition (Noble, Sinha, and Kumar
2002).
Market Orientation in Pakistan
A distinct Pakistani business culture, different from that found in the Developed economies,
exists particularly in the area of service delivery and interaction with customers. To illustrate
these characteristics of Pakistani business culture, attention is drawn on the findings of a
round table discussion on South Asian customer management where the participants were
business leaders and advisers conducted by Nolan Norton Institute (1999), the research arm
of KPMG. The following comments are highlighted recorded in the published record of that
discussion to reveal a business culture that places a low priority on delivering customer
satisfaction:
It is not only in contemporary business that this phenomenon has been noted. Historian
Blainey (1996) has argued that South Asian business culture has some longstanding features
that are problematic for marketing. ‘Most Pakistanis had been reared to suspect
salesmanship, for it was alien to the pioneering tradition. I suspect this is one of the
unfortunate legacies we inherit from earlier eras. Marketing as a skill is now vital for large
sectors of Pakistan’s economy but we have not been prepared for this swing in emphases.
This type of anecdotal evidence suggests that the interest in and ability to deliver customer
service in Pakistani firms is not strong. Kohli and Jaworski’s work on market orientation,
with its focus on the systems and processes used to gather, use and respond to market
information, focuses on the organizational aspects of delivering value for customers, rather
than on the individual aspects. Hence the working hypothesis to explain these perceptions are
11
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
that the relationship between market orientation and performance is not as strong in Pakistani
firms as in US ones. Several reasons can be advanced for this.
First, Pakistan is a much smaller economy, and in many sectors concentration is extremely
high (e.g. retail, brewing, glass manufacture). Market orientation may be rendered less
important by market power.
Second, Pakistan has historically been a less open economy than the USA, and it may be that
this has protected local firms from market turbulence or competitive pressure. In either case,
the need for firms to stay close to their customers is reduced.
Replicating the Jaworski and Kohli study allows us to test not only the relationship between
market orientation and performance, but also investigate whether the same relationships exist
between the antecedents and the market orientation of the firm. In the remainder of work of
Jaworski and Kohli, the model of MO proposed by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) has been
discussed. Based on this model, relevant hypotheses have been discussed. The research
methodology adopted has been described. The results of the study will be examined, and
comparison made to the results of the Jaworski and Kohli (1993) study. Conclusion has been
drawn by identifying the implications of results and suggesting areas for future research.
The benefits of having a market orientation are noted in numerous scholarly papers,
textbooks, and speeches (Kotler, 1988; Webster, 1988). Market orientation has been theorized
to be the central construct behind successful modern marketing management and strategy.
Jaworski and Kohli (1993) and Narver and Slater (1990) linked high market orientation to
high business performance. Many studies have identified the development of a strong market
orientation as an important factor to the success of a business in firms in the U.S. and similar
countries because a strong market orientation in a company will increase its ability to adapt
to changing market conditions, will increase its ability to be innovative, and will generally
increase the performance of the company (Atuahene-Gima, 1996; Day, 1994; Jaworski &
Kohli, 1993; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990; Ruekert, 1992; Slater &
Narver, 1994b). orientation, including business performance and employee attitudes
(Deshpandé, Farley, & Webster, 1993; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Narver & Slater, 1990;
12
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Siguaw, Brown, & Widing, 1994). The last concerns the environmental moderators of the
relationship between market orientation and its consequences (Narver & Slater, 1990; Slater
& Narver, 1994a); however, empirical research has not supported the influence of
environmental moderators (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). Previous research has several
limitations. As the unit of analysis, most studies have used strategic business units (SBUs) of
a few select corporations, particularly for profit business corporations. Only one study
(Jaworski & Kohli, 1993) tested the influence of antecedents on market orientation. Many
researchers have indicated the need to investigate the role of additional influences on market
orientation within organizations (Hambrick, 1987; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Siguaw, Brown,
& Widing, 1994). Kohli, Jaworski, and Kumar (1993), Narver and Slater (1990) and
Deshpandé, Farely and Webster (1993) have attempted to systematically develop valid
measures of market orientation, but have produced limited results.
Business Performance
13
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
In the spirit of this multidimensional approach and in keeping with the tradition in the
literature (for a review see Varadarajan and Jayachandran, 1999), business performance in the
context of this study is assessed in terms of marketing effectiveness and financial
performance, although marketing effectiveness is defined in a broader manner to encompass
new product introductions in keeping with the innovation focus of the study. Therefore,
marketing effectiveness captures sales growth, gains in market share and successful product
introductions. Market share is deemed a powerful performance metric as it is also a strong
predictor of cash flow and profitability (Ambler and Putoni, 2003). The logic being that firms
benefiting from scale effects are able to lower costs and thereby earn higher profits than those
competitors with lower market shares (Jacobson, 1988). A gain in market share is perhaps an
even more appropriate and accurate measure as it reflects adaptation to a changing
environment. In a sense, it reflects well the firm’s ability to learn.
Both in terms of definition and measurement, performance is a difficult concept.
Organizational performance is central to the study of business strategy or policies
(Bourgeoise & Astley, 1979; Cheng & McKinley, 1983; White & Hamermesh, 1981).
Researchers frequently take the performance of organizations into account when
investigating such organizational phenomena as structure, strategy, and planning; however, in
the literature, researchers disagree on what creates effective performance of a firm and how
to measure performance. Various researchers have focused on modeling the antecedents and
consequences of market orientation and on developing a valid 48 measure of the construct to
test its effect on organizational performance (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Kohli, Jaworski, &
Kumar, 1993; Narver & Slater, 1990; Siguaw, Brown, & Widing, 1994; Slater & Narver,
1994a).
In chapter 1, the researcher has talked about the concept of market orientation. In chapter 2,
the researcher has reviewed the literature on the impact of market orientation on business
performance and has also discussed previous works and studies of other authors on this
particular subject. Further in chapter 3, the various models of market orientation, business
performance and its implementation on diverse organization in Pakistan have been discussed
by the researcher. This chapter also deals with the methodology used by the researcher to
14
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
conduct the research. Chapter 4 makes a comparative analysis on the subject of thesis. Lastly,
the author has summarized and concluded the research findings in chapter 5.
ISSUE
IDENTIFICATION
REVIEW ON
PREVIOUS
LITERATURE
METHODOLOGY
USED
15
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
CONCLUSION AND
RECOMMENDATION
Chapter 2
16
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Chapter 2
Much of the work on market orientation has focused on its performance implications (e.g.,
Slater and Narver, 1994; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Ruekert, 1992; Narver and Slater, 1990).
The association between market orientation and business performance is intuitively
compelling; that companies with a sound understanding of, and quick response to, customer
needs perform at high levels than their competitors. Nonetheless, despite the empirical rig
our devoted to it, the association between market orientation and performance remains
equivocal and the findings, discordant at best (Matsuno and Mentzer, 2000). Essentially, the
findings fall into three main categories those are outlined below.
Broadly, there are those studies that have found market orientation to be positively related to
performance albeit with some fundamental variations in measurement approaches (Slater and
Narver, 1994; Ruekert, 1992; Narver and Slater, 1990). While Slater and Narver (1994)
established a consistent and positive relationship between an organization’s market
orientation and performance, performance was conceptualized very precisely and narrowly,
only in terms of return-on-assets.
Another grouping of studies failed to establish a significant relationship between the two
constructs (Siguaw et al., 1998;) while another set of studies reports mixed results (Greenley,
1995; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). The Jaworski and Kohli (1993) mixed findings are
attributable to a construct operationalization issue. They found a significant association
between market orientation and business performance only when performance was measured
perceptually rather than using objective measures.
Despite such discordant findings, the interest in the relationship between market orientation
and performance has remained steadfast for its apparent strategic importance (Narver and
Slater, 1998). However, for this importance to be realized, it is contended that further work in
the area needs to shift in focus. From these tenuous findings, it has been concluded that this
“popular notion [that] a proper execution of market orientation brings about superior
17
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
performance] is invalid and “this assumption increasingly is met with skepticism” (Han et al.,
1998, p. 30). Consequently, Han et al. (1998), suggest the potential merits of broadening
market orientation models to include the innovation construct. This would allow for an
understanding of how innovation interplays with market orientation in the determination of
organizational performance. Innovation, within this proposed framework would, therefore,
assume a mediating role between market orientation and performance. Proponents of this
approach claim that our ability to understand the utility of market orientation is limited until
innovation is incorporated into market orientation-performance models.
Market orientation-business performance relationship: evidence from previous studies.
Previous studies on the market orientation-business performance relationship have shown a
positive association between the two constructs
The principal findings of Sinet al. (2003) suggest that the framework proposed earlier in US-
based work does generalize to Hong Kong and Mainland China; for example, market
orientation has significant and positive impact on the performance of organizations operating
in Mainland China and Hong Kong. Their findings provide further support for the notion that
a firm’s market orientation is related positively to business performance, irrespective of
cultural context and the level of economic development. Va´zquez et al. (2002, p. 1039)
concluded that the adoption of the market orientation concept by organizations has positive,
significant consequences on their results. Thus, an increase Market orientation and
performance in the degree of market orientation has direct, positive repercussions on the non-
profit results of the action that is undertaken. This will help meet the real needs of the
organizations’ beneficiaries, and the expectations created by resource donors with their
contributions. They further concluded that market orientation contributes directly and
indirectly to the success of the foundation itself in the accomplishment of its mission. It’s
important to note that market orientation and performance are two different concepts. The
premises are that these performance measures depend on market orientation, which, in turn,
depends on marketing culture. First, market share was selected because it is a customer-based
measure, an indicator which is important in evaluating food and beverages organizations’
performance. Second, sales growth and profitability were utilized because of their
significance in assessing organizations’ effectiveness and efficiency, respectively. Figure 1
shows the operational conceptual framework for this commentary. The framework assumes
18
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
that market orientation has a direct link with business performance and that the various
market orientation variables have a direct link with performance indices. In the following
section of this commentary, each of the findings is discussed and synthesized model of
market orientation-business performance is proposed.
Research into the relationship between market orientation and business performance has been
a fertile area over the past decade. The research output has been substantial, and can be
conceptually divided into two streams, depending on its analytical focus (Pulendran et al.,
2003, p. 477). The first key research stream examines the market orientation-business
performance relationship. From the outset (Pulendran et al., 2003,p. 477) “research
conducted in this area has generally supported the proposition that market-orientated
organizations achieve better outcomes than do less market-oriented ones”. More recently,
researchers within this stream have begun to explore the boundary conditions of the market
orientation-business performance relationship. Researchers have sought to examine the
relationship in economic environments substantially different from the original US-based
research (e.g. Eusebio et al., 2006, p. 145) and in business contexts substantially different
from the original commercial setting (e.g.Falshaw et al., 2006, p. 9). In addition, researchers
have sought to examine the market orientation-business performance relationship with more
stringent research designs and scaling practices (e.g. Slater and Narver, 2000), and also to
examine relative and interactive effects on the relationship of other organizations’
characteristics that might be considered performance enhancing, such as entrepreneurship
(e.g. Jang et al., 2006,p. 195). With the market orientation-business performance relationship
being central to the standard pedagogy of marketing management, this research stream
clearly has fundamental value for this discipline (Pulendran et al., 2003). Whilst the market
orientation-business performance relationship has justifiably attracted much attention, a
second stream of research has sought to identify more clearly the characteristics that might
distinguish market-oriented organizations from the norm. The initial Jaworski and Kohli
(1993) study, according to Pulendran et al. (2003, p. 477), identified a number of
organizational characteristics (top management emphasis, low interdepartmental conflict and
high connectedness, and control systems that reward employees for customer-oriented
behaviors) that may act as antecedents to a market orientation. Evidently, the demonstrable
impact of market orientation on organizational performance, profitability in particular, has
19
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
instigated deeper and wider research work aimed at exploring and fleshing out the issues that
are likely to determine and impact its implementation (Slater and Narver, 2000; Nwankwo et
al., 2004, p. 123). Strongly evident in this stream of research is the context in which the
implementation of market orientation takes place.
Performance has been operationalized in many ways including market share, profitability,
return on assets or on investment, change in market share or profitability, new product
success, and composite measures of these variables. Such measures can be classified as
objective, subjective, or combinations of the two. Subjective measures center on managers’
assessment of the performance of their business unit or firm, relative to expectations or
competitors.
In such cases, managers may account for competitive and environmental conditions when
producing subjective measures. For example, managers may rate their firms’ profitability
relative to major competitors’. Alternatively, managers may be asked to indicate how
satisfied they are with their firm’s performance, e.g. sales growth. Objective measures, in
contrast, assess the actual performance of the firm on absolute scales. Schlegelmilch and
Ram (2000) found that MO affected perceived, but not actual ROI. Jaworski and Kohli
(1993) found that MO had a positive impact on subjective performance, which is an
assessment of overall performance relative to competitors’. Yet, its impact disappeared when
an objective measure of performance (dollar share on the served market) was used. They
argued that judgmental performance assessments might be more accurate in MO studies as
subjective measures account for the particular strategies of a company. The existence of a
time lag between MO and objective performance also may be important (Jaworski and Kohli,
1993; Sargeant and Mohamad, 1999). Thus, cross-sectional research, the norm in MO
studies, may not capture the true strength of MO’s impact on performance. Thus, Jaworski
and Kohli (1993) concluded: “Based on these considerations, the authors tend to place more
confidence in the results obtained using judgmental measures of performance.”
20
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
The relationship between MO and performance will be strongest when subjective measures
are used, followed by combinations of objective and subjective measures, followed by
objective measure of performance.
21
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Performance Outcomes
The vast majority of previous literature uses subjective measures of performance when
measuring the effect of market orientation or strategy effects on performance (e.g., Pelham
and Wilson 1996; Atuahene-Gima and Murray 2004; Gatignon and Xuereb 1997; Gupta and
Govindarajan 1982; Matsuno and Mentzher 2000; Narver and Slater 1990; Noble and
Mokwa 1999; Zou and Cavusgil 2002). Additionally, Kirca, Jayachandran, and Bearden
(2005) find that the market orientation–performance relationship is stronger for subjective
than for objective measures of performance. Interestingly, Jaworski and Kohli (1993) use
both subjective and objective performance measures. They find market orientation related to
performance when using subjective performance measures but find it unrelated when using
the objective measure of market share.
In an effort to find how market orientation contributes to performance, Hult, Ketchen and
Slater, (2005) use managers’ perceptions of performance in their study and examine market
orientation from both cultural and information processing viewpoints. However, several
studies in the strategy and marketing literature have used objective performance measures.
For example, Harris (2001) and Han, Kim and Srivastava (1998) published studies examining
the link between market orientation and objective measures of financial performance.
However, neither study’s results showed a direct linkage between market orientation and
objective performance.
22
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
23
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Figure 1
Jaworski and Kohli Model (1993)
EMPLOYEES
INTERDEPARTMEN * Organizational commitment
TAL DYNAMICS * Espirit de Corps
* Conflict
* Connectedness
ORGANIZATIONAL
SYSTEMS
BUSINESS
* Formalisation PERFORMANCE
* Centralization
* Departmentalizations * Economic performance
* Reward System * Profitability
The aims of Jaworski and Kohli’s[2] research are threefold, complex and overlapping. First,
the authors wish to discover why some organizations are more market oriented than others.
Second, an aim of the study is to analyze the relationship between market orientation and
performance. Third, the authors aim to analyze the effect that the business environment has
on the link between market orientation and performance. Interestingly, the article expounds a
definition of market orientation which focuses on specific behaviors rather than on abstract
concepts. This definition greatly facilitates the operationalization of the market orientation
24
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
25
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
26
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
27
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Hypotheses
The hypotheses generated from the Jaworski and Kohli framework are presented below.
Underlying the research is the suggestion that if the Pakistani business culture is
significantly different from that of the USA, the results that emerge from testing these
hypotheses will be significantly different from the results found in the USA. As Jaworski
and Kohli (1993) provide a detailed discussion of the rationale underlying these
hypotheses, only a brief summary is provided here. The replication hypotheses and a list
of authors who have conducted such research are presented in table 1. To foreshadow the
measurement results, because factor analysis did not clearly distinguish between the
acquisition, dissemination and responsiveness dimensions, hypotheses has not been made
with regard to the dimensions of MO, but only MO overall. Moreover, the overall MO
results are of greatest interest and the clearest to interpret.
Market Orientation and Performance:
H1: The greater the market orientation of an organization the higher its business
performance.
Several empirical studies have found a strong positive relationship between MO and
performance, whether one looks at consumer products, new products, innovation or
services. There is however, a small body of evidence that does not support a strong
positive relationship between MO and business performance, whilst other research
examines alternative forms of market orientation and their impact on performance
(Oczkowski & Farrell 1998a & b).
There are at least three different types of consequences of market orientation that have
been identified from the market orientation literature including business performance,
employees’ organizational commitment and esprit de corps, and customer satisfaction and
repeat customer (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Raju et al. (1995)
purported that an increase in market orientation is expected to result in higher
performance in business because it facilitates clarity of focus and vision in an
organization’s strategy and generates pride in belonging to an organization that results in
higher employee morale and greater organizational commitment. The further
28
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
consequence is customer satisfaction that indicates repeat purchases and draws new
customers to the business.
Although, many studies have investigated the relationship between market orientation
and economic performance (business performance), very few of them have identified the
relationship between market orientation and non-economic performance (employees and
customer response).
Armstrong and Baron (1998) stated that defining performance is the prerequisite of
measuring or managing it. Hence, Otley (1999) argued that performance might be defined
in terms of doing the work, as well as in terms of the results achieved. Fitzgerald and
Moon (1996) postulated that performance is a multidimensional construct, the
measurement of which varies, depending on a variety of factors that comprise it. In this
connection, Rogers (1994) argued that performance should be defined as the outcomes of
work because they provide the strongest linkage to the strategic goals of the organization,
customer satisfaction, and economic contribution. Matsuno and Mentzer (2000)
suggested that performance should be viewed not only as economic performance
(business performance) but also as non-economic performance (customer satisfaction,
customer retention, social acceptance, corporate image, and employee satisfaction).
Earlier, Jaworski and Kohli (1993) considered employees’ organizational commitment
and esprit de corps as non-economic performance. Economic performance of an
organization can be defined as the function of some financial indicators such as return on
investment, profit, market share, sales volume, revenues, product quality, and overall
financial position, while non-economic performance is the function of other outcomes of
an organization rather than financial indicators such as customer satisfaction, customer
loyalty, employees’ organizational commitment and esprit de corps, company image and
social acceptance (Narver and Slater, 1990; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Matsuno and
Mentzer, 2000).
Economic Performance of Business:
H1: The greater the market orientation of an organization the higher its business
performance.
A significant number of studies of market orientation have focused on the relationship
between the market orientation and business performance and it has been widely assumed
29
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
for many years that market orientation is linked to better company performance (Dawes,
2000). Dawes (2000) also noted that the theoretical basis for this expected link was
elucidated earlier by McKitterick (1957) who highlighted that, in a competitive
environment, organizations must be highly cognizant and responsive to customer needs,
otherwise rivals will devise products more attuned to those needs and capture their
business. Narver and Slater (1990) augmented this view, debating that strong market
orientation within a business will enhance the effort to offer superior value to the buyers
which will lead to an advantage over competitors and to better profitability. Okoroafo and
Russow (1993) argued that sound marketing practice is an important contributor to
performance in economic reform economies. Walker and Ruekert (1987) added to this by
saying that organization performance can be measured on a variety of dimensions, and no
single business approach can be expected to have the same effect on all dimensions. In
this connection, Narver and Slater (1990) used subjective measures investigating the
market orientation and performance relationship among 140 strategic business units of a
major corporation’s forest product division (commodity and non-commodity business)
and found a significant positive relationship between market orientation and return on
investment (ROI). Hence, they proposed a potential explanation that the market
orientation-performance relationship might be contingent on some industry situations in
which firms operate, such as commodity versus non-commodity and/or competitive
versus non-competitive. The study suggested further research for testing the relationship
of market orientation to additional performance measures that may affect long-term
profitability such as customer retention, new product success, and sales growth.
Slater and Narver (1994a) also investigated the relationship between market orientation
and return on assets, sales growth, and new product success among 107 Strategic
business units (SBUs) in two corporations in USA and found a positive relationship. This
study used subjective measures of performance and suggested that objective measures of
performance be used for future research.
Slater and Narver (2000) tested their earlier findings (Narver and Slater, 1990) of the
positive relationship between market orientation and business profitability. For this
purpose data were collected from 53 single-business corporations of SBUs of multi
business corporations in three Western cities. Despite the relatively small sample, they
30
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
conducted a stepwise regression analysis and found market orientation and business
profitability positively and significantly related. This further supports their earlier
findings.
Pelham and Wilson (1996) also conducted a market orientation study based on Narver
and Slater (1990) among 68 small firms in the USA. The study was drawn to create links
between market environment, strategy, business position variables (marketing/sales
effectiveness and growth/share), and profitability. The study suggested a positive and
significant relationship between market orientation and sales growth/market share,
product quality, and profitability. In this connection, Pelham (2000) concluded that the
Pelham and Wilson’s (1996) model of performance augmented the earlier market
orientation models that considered both antecedents and consequences as variables.
Ngai and Ellis (1998) conducted a market orientation and business performance study in
Hong Kong among 73 textiles and garment companies, based on the culturally based
behavioral approach taken by Narver and Slater (1990). Their study used a multiple linear
regression analysis to test the relationship between market orientation and business
performance and found a positive relationship between the market orientation of
respondent firms and their performance (sales growth/market share growth and long term
profitability). Hence, Kotler and Armstrong (1996) argued that the positive relationship
between performance and market orientation supports a long-held proposition, which
states that the attainment of organizational goals is determined by satisfying the needs of
customers more effectively than rivals.
Ruekert (1992) conducted a market orientation study among five SBUs in one company,
where he focused on a strategic perspective and found a positive relationship between
market orientation and sales growth, and profitability. On the other hand, Jaworski and
Kohli (1993) conducted a market orientation study on the basis of intelligence
perspective developed by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) where they used two different
samples containing 222 companies for the first sample and 230 companies for the second.
Their study used a multiple regression analysis and identified a positive and significant
relationship between market orientation and market share, return on equity (ROE), and
overall performance in the presence of moderating environmental variables.
31
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
At the same time, Diamantopoulos and Hart (1993) conducted a study among 87
companies in the UK and found an association between market orientation and sales
growth, and profits relative to industry average. Similarly, Pitt et al. (1996) in their study
among 161 UK service firms and 200 Maltese firms of various industries adapted the
MARKOR (market orientation) scale developed by Kohli et al. (1993). Here, they
identified a positive relationship between market orientation and return on current equity
(ROCE), sales growth, and subjective impressions.
Raju et al. (1995) conducted a market orientation study among 176 hospitals in the USA
using the MARKOR scale developed by Kohli et al. (1993). The objective of the study
was to understand clearly the relationship between market orientation and return on
investment (ROI), service quality and morality. The performance factors were taken one
at a time and regressed against the market orientation factors, and stepwise regression
was performed using each performance factor as the dependent variable and market
orientation factors as independent variables. The results indicated that market orientation
has a significant effect on each of the performance dimensions. However, the study
suggested that the market orientation-performance relationship in several industries
should be explored in order to examine any inter-industry variances.
Selnes et al. (1996) conducted a study to examine the way in which a country context
affects the level of organizational antecedents that drive a market orientation including
focus on top management, interdepartmental relations and organizational systems. The
study also examined two other areas; level of market orientation and the strength of
linkage between market orientation and its antecedents and consequences. Using a
multiple-informant survey design, the study collected data from SBUs in USA and in
Scandinavia (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden). The findings suggested similar results in
both cultures (USA and Scandinavia) that showed a significant linkage between market
orientation and its antecedents and overall performance.
Caruana et al. (1998) further adapted the MARKOR scale developed by Kohli et al.
(1993) in order to identify the relationship between market-oriented universities and their
performance. The study used multiple regression analysis and identified a strong,
statistically significant relationship between market orientation and overall performance.
The study also suggested that the responsiveness dimension of market orientation
32
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
33
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
34
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
orientation and the relationship of market orientation and performance in large and small
consumer goods manufacturing firms, service firms, and retail firms.
Pelham (1997b) conducted another study on market orientation and performance among
160 small industrial manufacturing firms using market orientation measures developed by
Narver and Slater (1990) and Jaworski and Kohli (1993). The study used return on equity,
gross profit margin, and return on investment in order to measure the overall profitability
and found a strong market-orientation performance relationship. Pelham (1997b)
suggested that further studies should be undertaken to identify the market orientation-
performance relationship across a quadrant for large industrial firms and among
consumer goods manufacturing companies and service/retail firms. Recently, Pelham
(2000) conducted another study among 160 small and medium sized manufacturing
firms. The study used a market orientation scale adapted from both Narver and Slater
(1990) and Jaworski and Kohli (1993). The findings of the study suggested that total
market orientation was significantly correlated with marketing/sales effectiveness,
growth/share and profitability.
Hence, Pelham (2000) claimed that the results of this study are consistent with other
market orientation studies including Pelham and Wilson’s (1995; 1996), especially for the
higher associations of market orientation and performance variables relative to strategy
and industry involvement. Appiah-Adu (1997) conducted a market orientation and
performance study in the UK that examined whether the market orientation-performance
link established in large firm studies also holds for firms in the small business sector. The
possible effects of market growth, competitive industry, and market and technological
turbulence on any identified relationship were investigated. Pelham’s (1993) and Pelham
and Wilson’s (1996) market orientation scales were adapted for use in this study because
of their applicability to small business. Regression analysis was conducted in order to
identify the market orientation-performance link.
Findings suggested a positive and significant impact of market orientation upon small
business performance. The significant and positive impact of market orientation on new
product success identified in the study is consistent with the findings of studies
undertaken by Pelham and Wilson (1996) for US small business; Slater and Narver
(1994a) for SBUs of large US organizations; and
35
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Atuahene-Gima (1995). for large Australian firms. In addition, the significant and
positive effect of market orientation on sales growth reported by Appiah-Adu (1997) is
consistent with the findings of Slater and Narver (1994a) but inconsistent with those of
Greenley (1995b) and Pelham and Wilson (1996). Further, identification of a significant
and positive effect on the profitability levels (ROI) of small firms is consistent with the
findings of Pelham and Wilson (1996) but inconsistent with those of Greenley (1995b).
Later, Appiah-Adu and Sing (1998) conducted another study among manufacturing and
service firms in the UK where they identified a customer orientation and performance
relationship. They used regression analysis in order to identify the customer orientation’s
relationships with new product success, sales growth, and return on investment (ROI).
The study identified a positive and significant relationship between customer orientation
and all the three performance measures.
Thus, Appiah-Adu and Sing (1998) argued that it would be interesting to conduct further
research in this area using integrated models with additional organizational variables such
as firm structure, coordination, control systems, age, and management characteristics.
They also suggested that utilizing such an approach would facilitate the testing of
possible internal and external influences on customer orientation among organizations.
Matsuno and Mentzer (2000) conducted a study in which they empirically examined the
moderating role of strategy type on the relationship between market orientation and
economic performance. They measured business performance using market share,
relative sales growth, percentage of new product sales to total sales, and return on
investment (ROI) and found that strategy type had a moderating role on the relationship
between market orientation and those four performance measures. In addition, they
suggested that further research on the relationship between market orientation and non
economic aspects such as customer satisfaction, customer retention, social acceptance,
corporate image, and employee satisfaction should be undertaken.
Dawes (2000) conducted a study that examined the association between market
orientation and company profitability. In this study he incorporated two methodological
approaches that have generally not been used in previous research. Firstly, he used
‘lagged’ company and environmental control variables in the data analysis in order to
better discern their effects on profitability and to clarify any relationship between market
36
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
37
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Tse (1998) conducted a market orientation and performance study on large property
companies in Hong Kong, where he used a modified version of Kotler’s (1977)
questionnaire for measuring market orientation. The study identified no significant
relationship between market orientation and business performance, that is no significant
difference in the financial performance of companies that are market-oriented and those
that are not market-oriented.
Balabanis et al. (1997) conducted a study among 200 top British charity organizations in
order to identify the market orientation and its impact on performance. They used the
performance scales developed by Lamb and Crompton (1990) for measuring the
nonprofit performance (effectiveness and efficiency) and the MARKOR scale developed
by Kohli et al. (1993) for measuring market orientation. They used confirmatory factor
analysis and the findings revealed that the level of present donor-market orientation has
no impact on charities performance.
Fritz (1996), in a study on market orientation and corporate success among 144 industrial
firms in Germany stated corporate success as the degree to which the corporate goals of
‘competitiveness’, ‘customer satisfaction’, ‘securing the continuance of the firm’, and
‘long term profitability’ were achieved. Significant correlations between market
orientation and three external criteria of corporate success; the relative competitive
position of the firm; the economic success in terms of increased ROI and sales Volume,
and a decrease in employee fluctuation were identified in the study. Thus, Fritz (1996)
claimed that market orientation is the one and only significant factor in corporate success.
Chang and Chen (1998) developed a conceptual model of market orientation, service
quality and business profitability and empirically tested the applicability of that model for
retail stock brokerage firms in Taiwan. A linear regression model was used in order to
identify three relationships; market orientation and service quality relationship, service
quality and performance relationship, and market orientation and performance
relationship. The findings of the study suggested that market orientation has a positive
and significant effect on service quality as well as on business performance, and that
service quality also has a positive and significant effect on business performance.
Most recently, Kumar (2006) conducted a market orientation, organizational
competencies and performance study among 159 acute care hospitals where he used the
38
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
market orientation scale constructed and validated by Narver and Slater (1990) and which
was revised, refined, expanded and modified to suit the health care industry by Kumar,
Subramanian, and Yauger (1998). The findings of the study indicated that market
orientation makes a significant contribution to the creation of a number of organizational
competencies (market efficiency, employee education and efficiency, effective personnel
policies, and operating efficiency) which in turn lead to superior performance in the areas
of cost containment and success of new service.
Nakata (2005) conducted a study in a US based multinational pharmaceutical company,
which had 100 years of operation, has 40 international subsidiaries and is placed in the
Fortune 500 companies. The study involved 32 individuals, mostly country directors,
representing 22 cultures that include: ‘more and less developed Latin’, ‘more and less
developed Asian’, ‘near Eastern’, ‘Germanic’, ‘Anglo’, and ‘Nordic’. On the one hand,
the findings of the study suggested that greater implementation of the marketing concept
is strongly associated with higher organizational performance, which is consistent with
past research (Narver and Slater, 1990; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993).
On the other hand, in-depth interview findings suggested that none of the respondents
agreed upon the full implementation of the marketing concept, rather they argued that
reaching this state was difficult. Correlation analysis was used for the study to identify
the relationships among the variables. Further research was suggested which used a larger
sample and broader range of multinational firms, subsidiaries, and individual respondents
in order to conduct regression and other statistical techniques. Regression analysis was
suggested because most of the market orientation studies that had a larger sample used
regression analysis. Blankson and Omar (2006) conducted qualitative research on
marketing practices among African and Caribbean small businesses operating in London.
The study involved 26 small business owners and managers (20 male and 6 female) for
face-to-face in-depth interviews. The findings of the study indicated that 70% of the
owner managers reported an improvement in profits from the previous year although
there was an indication of a market share drop. It was suggested that further quantitative
research be undertaken using a large sample that might strengthen the findings of this
study. Matsuno et al. (2002) investigated the structural influences of entrepreneurial
proclivity and market orientation on business performance. The results of the study
39
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
indicated that entrepreneurial proclivity has not only a positive and direct relationship on
market orientation but also an indirect and positive effect on market orientation through
the reduction of departmentalization. The results also suggest that entrepreneurial
proclivity’s influence on performance is significantly positive when mediated by market
orientation but insignificant when not mediated by market orientation. Although, this
literature review suggests that market orientation contributes to the company’s economic
business performance, none of the studies examined the market orientation-performance
relationship considering the external environmental factors as antecedents of market
orientation; rather they investigated the market orientation performance relationship as an
effect of environmental mediating factors or just market orientation-performance
relationship without considering external environmental factors.
Thus, two valid questions can be raised from the above literature review: one relating to
the external environmental factors and the other relating to the measurement of economic
performance. Firstly, if the external factors are considered as antecedents of market
orientation of an organization and not as mediating factors, can market orientation be
directly related to business performance? Secondly, what indicators (items) should be
used for measuring economic performance? In order to clarify the first question, it can be
said that there is a gap in the literature for research that should consider the external
factors as antecedents of market orientation. If the market orientation-economic
performance relationship is determined by the degree of the presence or absence of
mediating variables (external factors), why not consider them earlier as antecedents in
order to determine the level of market orientation of a company? This inclusion of
external factors as antecedents can provide a better and comprehensive picture of the
market orientation of a company that may result in an even stronger and clearer
relationship between market orientation and business performance. Thus, this study of
market orientation investigated the direct relationship between market orientation and
economic performance considering the external factors/variables as antecedents of
marketing orientation along with internal antecedent variables.
In order to clarify the second question, it can be said that it would be difficult to identify
the economic performance of a company just by selecting two or three items. In this
connection, Uncles (2000) observed that the question of using performance measures has
40
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
not been resolved in the literature. Walker and Ruekert (1987) argued that no single
business expects to have the same effect on every dimension. Caruana et al. (1998)
argued that the return on capital employed (ROCE) and return on sales (ROS) were
inadequate for measuring business performance and further work must be undertaken to
develop more useful measures. Thus, it is necessary to include as many useful
indicators/items as possible, but considering the length of the questionnaire and the
effectiveness of the available indicators in a developing country a standard number of
scale items is justifiable. Bhuian (1998), Appiah-Adu (1998b) and Akimova (2000)
measured performance in developing countries using items including return on
investment, profit, sales growth, market share, sales volume, revenues, product quality,
and financial position. Thus, in order to measure business performance, the above items
were adapted in this study. Use of these items for measuring economic performance was
appropriate because this study of market orientation also explored a developing country
market.
In this section data collection and Sample Plan has been discussed. Survey instrument
and issues related to its validity and reliability have been discussed in brief.
41
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Jaworski and Kohli. In their study, companies were identified from Marketing Science
Institute (MSI) and American Marketing Association (AMA) membership rosters, and the
top 1000 US companies as listed in a Dunn and Bradstreet directory. Since Pakistani
professional marketing organizations cannot be directly compared with the MSI and
AMA, replicating this strategy was not possible. The sampling plan sought to ensure that
companies operating in FMCG industry settings were included. Organizations were
selected to cover both high and low technology environments.
The sample profile also showed that all Pakistani states were represented. Because Kohli
and Jaworski had focused one of their data sets on larger firms, it is sought to ensure that
substantially different firm demographics were not being gathered. Classified in terms of
size, 40% of the respondents employed by firms with 100 employees or less, 26%
employed between 100 and 400 employees and the remaining 34% had over 400
employees. Our sample therefore contained a significant proportion of larger firms of
Pakistan. Also, the sample showed good diversity in terms of geographic location and
firm size. The total sampling frame consisted of 150 Heads of (SBU). The overall
response was 77% (115 questionnaires), but the total useable number was 106 (70%).
Figure 2
Response Weight age
42
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Early respondents were compared with late respondents on variables such as overall
performance, MO level and commitment to MO, to determine non-response bias
(Armstrong & Overton 1977). No significant differences were found. Analysis of the
geographic distribution of responses to the initial and follow-up mail outs also showed no
significant differences. Accordingly, non-response bias was not a problem.
43
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
and objective performance measures. They found positive association for subjective
measure but not objective measures. Studies that used or included objective performance
measures, Ruekert (1992), Diamantopoulos and Hart (1993) found a significant
relationship, Esslemont and Lewis (1991) and Tse 1998a) found no relationship, and Au
and Tse (1995) only a weak relationship. Dawes (1999) observed that the substantive
implications of this body of research appear to depend heavily on the validity of
subjective performance measures. Dawes (1999) pointed out several reasons for using
subjective measures. The first is that managers may be hesitant to report actual
performance if they consider it to be commercially sensitive or confidential (Dess &
Robinson, 1984). Second, subjective measures may be more appropriate than objective
measures for comparing profit performance in cross-industry studies. Third, because
companies’ profit levels can vary considerably across industries, a subjective measure of
company performance may be more appropriate than an objective measure in cases where
research has not established the relationship between firm performance and other
variables pertinent to business operations. Managers can take the relative performance of
their industry into account when responding to subjective-measurement questions, such
as “rate the profit performance of your firm relative to others in your industry” (Dawes,
1999, p. 67). A fourth reason is that a company’s profitability may vary over time due to
variation in its level of investment in R&D or marketing activity, which might have long-
term effects and mean that profitability or other performance measures at one point in
time may not accurately reflect the underlying financial health of a company. And finally,
significant numbers of studies that have examined the relationship between these two
types of measures have shown a strong correlation between objective and subjective
measures (Covin, Slevin, & Schultz, 1994; Dess & Robinson, 1984; Hart & Banbury,
1994; Pearce, Robbins, & Robinson, 1987; Venkatraman & Ramanujam, 1985). On the
basis of the strong role that a market orientation theoretically plays in generating superior
customer value, market orientation would be expected to positively affect a firm’s total
profits by positively affecting both the firm’s sales growth and its return on investment.
Researchers gathered both objective and subjective data on multiple aspects of
performance, such as sales growth, market share, and profitability (Dess & Robinson,
1984; Hart & Banbury, 1994; Pearce, Robinns, & Robinson, 1987). They found
44
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
45
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
46
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Chapter 4
47
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Chapter 4
In the conceptual framework of market orientation it is proposed firstly that the market
orientation of the diverse companies in Pakistan is determined by a set of internal and
external factors, and secondly that market orientation affects a set of dependent variables
for economic performance of business. More specifically, in the proposed framework,
market orientation is identified as having two different roles. Firstly, it works as a
dependent variable, and secondly it becomes an independent variable affecting both
economic and non-economic performance of business. In order to test hypotheses,
identification of the internal and external variables that better determine the market
orientation components and overall market orientation of the diverse companies in
Pakistan was required.
This study utilized correlation analysis for two purposes, firstly to examine the presence
of multicollinearity, and secondly to explore the relationships between the variables.
Rowntree (1981) provided a guideline that interpreted the strength of the relationships
between the variables. He indicated that, when the correlation coefficient (r) ranges from
.00 to .20, the relationship is very weak and negligible; when the correlation coefficient
ranges from .20 to .40, the relationship is weak and low; when the correlation coefficient
ranges from .40 to .70, the relationship is moderate; when the correlation coefficient
ranges from .70 to .90, the relationship is strong, high and marked; and finally, when the
correlation coefficient ranges from .90 to 1.0, the relationship is very strong and very
high. As noted earlier in the chapter, in order to check the presence of multicollinearity,
this study applied the ceiling of .80 for the correlation coefficient as suggested by Berry
and Feldman (1985) and Hair et al. (1995).
In this study the bivariate Pearson product-moment correlation test was applied. The test
was subject to a one tailed test of statistical significance at two different levels: highly
significant (p < 0.01) and significant (p < 0.05).
48
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Table 1
Correlation Matrix for Business performance and
Variables (market orientation)
1. Business performance
and Intelligence .047
generation
2. Business performance
and Intelligence .309(**)
dissemination
3. Business performance
and MO (Response .490(**)
design)
4. Business performance
and MO (Response .294(**)
Implementation)
Table 2
Correlation Matrix for Overall Market Orientation with
Business Performance
VARIABLE 1 2
Business performance (1) --- .203(*)
Table shows the correlation between business performance and components of market
orientation (customer emphasis, intelligence/information generation, intelligence
dissemination or inter functional coordination, and intelligence responsiveness or taking
action. An analysis of the correlation matrix indicated that the market orientation of the
diverse companies in Pakistan was found to be significant and positively correlated to
business performance. Market orientation was found to be significant and positively
correlated to the business performance (r = .203(*), p < .01). This indicated that the
business performance (economic performance) was a positive function of the market
orientation of the diverse companies in Pakistan. Many researchers found a significant
relationship between market orientation and performance (Avlonitis & Gounair, 1997;
Appiah-Adu, 1998; Balakrishnan, 1996; Deng & Dart, 1994; Deshpande & Farley,
49
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
1998b; Deshpandé, Farley, & Webster, 1993; Greenly, 1995b; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993;
Narver & Slater, 1990; Pelham & Wilson, 1996; Pitt, Carvara, & Berthon, 1996Slater &
Narver, 1993). Appiah-Adu (1998) and Greenly (1995) that the environment moderated
the relationship.On the basis of the strong role that a market orientation theoretically
plays in generating superior customer value, market orientation would be expected to
positively affect a firm’s total profits by positively affecting both the firm’s sales growth
and its return on investment. Researchers gathered both objective and subjective data on
multiple aspects of performance, such as sales growth, market share, and profitability
(Dess & Robinson, 1984; Hart & Banbury, 1994; Pearce, Robinns, & Robinson, 1987).
They found significant relationships between the two types of performance measures.
Intelligence generation Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Jaworski and Kohli(1993)
suggested that market intelligence relates to observing customer needs and preferences
and that it also involves an analysis of how the needs and preferences might be affected
by such factors as government regulation, technology, competitors, and other
environmental forces. Market-intelligence generation refers to the collection and
assessment of both customer needs/preferences and the forces (task and macro
environments) that influence the development and refinement of those needs.
Importantly, multiple departments should engage in this activity because each has a
unique market lens (Kohli & Jaworski). Researchers have described market-intelligence
generation as including four distinct notions: (a) gathering, monitoring, and analyzing
information pertaining to the current and future needs of customers; (b) monitoring and
analyzing exogenous factors outside the industry that influence the current and future
needs of customers (e.g., government regulations, technology, the general economy, and
other environmental forces); (c) monitoring and analyzing competitive actions that
influence the current and future needs of customers; and (d) gathering and monitoring
market intelligence through both formal and informal means (Day & Wensley,
1983;Houston, 1986; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). Egeren and O’Connor (1998) proposed
that, although market development relates to consumer needs and preferences, it includes
an analysis of how external factors might affect technological changes, competitive
actions, government regulations, and other environmental forces. Market-intelligence
generation includes environmental scanning activities (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990).
50
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
51
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
of different variables. The statistical assumptions tested in this chapter have confirmed
the use of parametric techniques for data analysis in this study. The correlation analysis in
this chapter had not only shown correlations between the variables but has also supported
the use of parametric techniques, as multicollinearity was not a problem in this study.
Several areas are available for future research: The MARKOR scale in the Jaworski and
Kohli study needs additional work to improve reliability and validity in varied contexts.
Although cross sectional study was conducted, the dynamism of the constructs might
have been captured more precisely using a longitudinal approach. Cross sectional studies
do not reflect the uninterrupted transformations that may affect the interplay between
constructs. For example, a lack of market-oriented activity may lead top management to
emphasis the need for market-oriented activity which in turn, contributes to a higher level
of MO.
Much additional study of performance effects is needed. Despite a vast body of research
on performance, the impact of market-oriented activity on a broader spectrum of
performance measures is yet to be explored. In that process, research is needed to
determine how MO relates to aspects of performance such as self assessment
performance measures, quantitative performance measures, job satisfaction,
organizational commitment, role clarity, self esteem and the many other components
measuring an organization’s overall performance.
The findings from the field work suggest that only an internal perspective is insufficient
when considering the issues of developing a market orientation in a Developing economy
like Pakistan. In particular, two factors which are outside the control of management
emerged as significant influences on the development of market orientation. One of these
factors is genuinely external – government regulation and the other, ownership structure
is at least partly external, being a product of the types of ownership structures that
government will permit. Among the internal factors and in addition to more conventional
managerial influences, the availability of resources, including both financial and human
resources seems to be the most significant barrier inhibiting the development of a market
52
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
53
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
evaluations as part of a regular tracking mechanism. This allows for a more accurate
determination of the actual level of MO and prevents biases associated with self-
assessment. Examining these and other issues would contribute significantly to the
current body of evidence. Finally, MO has been discussed by researchers as a solitary
dimension; a guaranteed formula for enhanced performance. However, adopting such a
long term and narrow view of it can place limits on the enhancement of academic
knowledge. Future research could attempt to break the norm of current research by
identifying alternative market based practices that might be viable sources of competitive
advantage in the future.
54
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION
55
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
CONCLUSION
Throughout this study, attention has been concentrated on the impact of market
orientation on business performance of the diverse organizations in Pakistan More
specifically, we have analyzed the relationship among the component of market
orientation and business performance. After a rigorous process of refinement to obtain
valid measurement instruments, these scales were used to test the different hypotheses
concerning the possible causal relationships that might exist between them. The results
have made it possible to draw various conclusions. Firstly, with regard to market
orientation and business performance, it was observed that the development of a strong
market orientation as an important factor to the high business performance of the diverse
organization in Pakistan. Because a strong market orientation in a company will increase
its ability to adapt to changing market conditions, will increase its ability to be
innovative, and will generally increase the performance of the company.
Secondly, with regard to all components of market orientation those were found to be
significant Intelligence generation, Intelligence dissemination, MO (Response design),
MO (Response Implementation), Interdepartmental Conflict (Interdepartmental
Dynamics), and Connectedness (Interdepartmental Dynamics), Formalization.
Centralization, Top Management (Emphasis) and Top Management (Risk Aversion) were
all either significantly or marginally significantly related to business performance.
Overall, conclusions are clear; for researchers and commentators, it is concluded that the
business environment and consumer behavior that allows firms to claim superior rewards
from customers through market orientation in Developed countries is also in place in
Pakistan. For Pakistani managers, a strong message is there; that given the evidence in
this research and previous articles, developing a market orientation is likely to enhance
business performance.
56
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
REFERENCES
57
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
References
Aaker, D., & Jacobson, R. (1987). The role of risk in explaining differences in
profitability. Academy of Management Journal, 30, 277-296.
Akimova, I. 2000, “Development of Market Orientation and Competitiveness of
Ukraine Firms”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34, No. 9/10, pp. 1128-1148.
Ambler, T. and Putoni, S. (2003), “Measuring marketing performance”, in Hart, S.
(Ed.), Marketing Changes, Ch. 15, Thomson Learning, London.
Anderson, C., & Paine, F. (1975). Managerial perceptions and strategic behavior.
Academy of Management Journal, 18, 811-823.
Appiah-Adu, K. (1998). Market orientation and performance: Empirical tests in a
transition economy. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6, 25-45.
Armstrong, M. and Baron, A. 1998, Performance Management Handbook, IPM,
London
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995). An exploratory analysis of the impact of market
orientation
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Market orientation and innovation. Journal of Business
Research, 35, 93-103
Atuahene-Gima, Kwaku and Janet Y. Murray (2004), "Antecedents and Outcomes of
Marketing Strategy Comprehensiveness," Journal of Marketing, 68 (4), 33-46.
Au, A., & Tse, A. (1995). The effect of marketing orientation on company
performance in the service sector: A comparative study of the hotel industry in Hong
Kong and New Zealand. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8, 77-87.
Avlonitis, G. and Gounaris S. 1999, “Marketing Orientation and its Determinants: An
Empirical Analysis”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33, No. 11/12, pp. 1003-
1037
Avlonitis, G., & Gounairs, S. (1997). Marketing orientation and company
performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 26, 385-402.
Balakrishnan, S. (1996). Benefits of customer and competitive orientations in
industrial markets. Industrial Marketing Management, 25, 257-269.
Berry, L., Gresham, L., & Millikin, N. (1990). Marketing in retailing.: A research
agenda. The international Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research, 1,
5-16.
Berry, W. and Feldman, S. 1985, Multiple Regression in Practice, Sage Publications,
Newbury Park, California.
58
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Bhuian, S.N. and Abdul-Muhmin, A.G. 1997, “Job Satisfaction and Organizational
Commitment Among ‘Guest-Worker’ Salesforces: The Case of Saudi Arabia”,
Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 27-44.
Blainey, G. 1996, ‘Company prophets’, Good Weekend, 25 May, p. 3.
Blankson, C. and Omar, O.E. 2005, “Marketing Practices of Caribbean Small
Business in London, UK”, Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal,
Vol. 5, No
Boyd, H., Walker, O., & Larreche, J. (1995). Marketing management –A strategy
approach with a global orientation. Chicago, IL: Irwin.
Caruana, A., Morris, M., & Vella, A. (1998). The effect of centralization and
formalization on entrepreneurship in export firms. Journal of Small Business
Management, 36(1), 16-29.
Caruana, A., Pitt, L., & Berthon, P. (1999). Excellence-market orientation link: Some
consequences for service firms. Journal of Business Research, 44, 5-15.
Chakravarthy, B. (1986). Measuring strategies performance. Strategic Management
Journal, 7, 437-458.
Chandler, A. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American
business. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Chang, T.Z. and Chen, S.J. 1998, “Market Orientation, Service Quality and Business
Profitability: A Conceptual Model and Empirical Evidence”, The Journal of Service
Marketing, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 246-264.
Christopher, M. (1975). Rail freight marketing: Some UK perspectives. European
Journal of Marketing, 9, 178-187.
Covin, J., Slevin, D., & Schultz, R. (1994). Implementing strategic missions:
Effective strategic, structural and tactical choices. Journal of Management Studies,
31, 481-505.
Cunningham, J. (1977). Approaches to the evaluation of organizational effectiveness.
Academy of Management Review, 2, 463-474.
Davies, G. (1974). Marketing financial services: A review note. European Journal of
Marketing, 8, 83-88.
Dawes, J. (1999). The relationship between subjective and objective company
performance measures in market orientation research: Further empirical evidence.
Marketing Bulletin, 10, 65-75.
Dawes, J. (2000). Market orientation and company profitability: Further evidence
incorporating longitudinal data. Australian Journal of Management, 25, 173-197.
Day, G. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations. Journal of
59
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
60
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
61
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
62
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Mason, J., & Mayer, M. (1987). Modern retailing: Theory and practice (4th ed.).
Plano, TX: Business Publications
Massie, J. (1965). Management theory. In J. G. March (Ed.), Handbook of
organizations (pp. 387-422). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally,
Matsuno, K. and Mentzer, J.T. (2000), “The effects of strategy type on the market
orientation-performance relationship”, Journal of Marketing, October, pp. 1-16.
Matsuno, Ken and John T. Mentzer (2000), "The Effects of Strategy Type on the
Market Orientation-Performance Relationship," Journal of Marketing, 64 (4), 1.
Maydeu-Olivere, A. and Lado, N. (2003), “Market orientation and business
performance:
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
McKitterick, J.B. 1957, 'What is the marketing management concept?', in The
Frontiers of Marketing Thought and Science, ed. F.M. Bass, American Marketing
Association, Chicago
McNamara, Carlton P. (1972), "The Present Status of the Marketing Concept,"
Journal of Marketing, 36 (January), 50-57.
Meziou, F. (1991). Areas of strength and weakness in the adoption of the marketing
concept by small manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management,
29(4), 72-78
Mindak, W., & Baybee, H. (1971). Marketing’s application to fund raising. Journal of
Marketing, 35(3), 13-18
Nakata, C. 2005, “Activating the Marketing Concept in a Global Context – A MNC
Country Managers’ Perspective”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.
39-64.
Narver, J., & Slater, S. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business
profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20-35.
Ngai, J.C.H. and Ellis, P. 1998, “Market Orientation and Business Performance: Some
Evidence From Hong Kong”, International Marketing Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp.
119- 139
Noble, C. H., R. K. Sinha, et al. (2002), "Market Orientation and Alternative Strategic
Orientations: A Longitudinal Assessment of Performance Implications." Journal of
Marketing, 66 (4): 25.
Nolan Norton Institute, 1999, The Next Phase of Business Evolution, KPMG/Nolan
Norton Institute, Melbourne
Oczkowski, E. & Farrell, M.A. 1998b, ‘Discriminating between measurement scales
using non-nested tests and two-stage least squares estimators: The case of market
63
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
64
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Ruekert, R.W. and Walker, O.C. (1987), “Marketing’s interaction with other
functional units: a conceptual and empirical evidence”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51,
January, pp. 1-19
Schlegelmilch, B.B. and Ram, S. (2000), “The impact of organizational and
environmental variables on strategic market orientation: an empirical investigation”,
Journal of Global Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 111-27.
Selnes, F., Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. 2004, “Market Orientation in United States
and Scandinavian Companies: A Cross-Cultural Study”, Marketing Science Institute
Report Number 97-107, Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Shapiro, B. (1988). What the hell is “market oriented”? Harvard Business Review,
66(6), 119-125.
Siguaw, J. , Brown, G., & Widing, R. (1994). The influence of the market orientation
of the firm on sales force behavior and attitudes. Journal of Marketing Research, 31,
106-116.
Siguaw, J., Simpson, P., & Baker, T. (1998). Effects of supplier market orientation on
distributor market orientation and the channel relationship: The distributor
perspective. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 99-111.
Sin, L.J.M., Tse, A.C.B., Yau, O.H.M., Chow, R. and Lee, J.S.Y. (2003), “Market
orientation and business performance: a comparative study of firms in Mainland
China and Hong Kong”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 5/6, pp. 910-36.
Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E. and Noordewier, T. 1997, “A Framework for Market-
Based Organizational Learning: Linking Values, Knowledge and Behaviour”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 305-318.
Sisk, H., & Willams, J. (1981). Management and organization. Cincinnati, OH: South
Western.
Slater, S., & Narver, J. (1993). Product-market strategy and performance: An analysis
of the Miles and Snow strategy types. European Journal of Marketing, 27(10), 33-51.
Slater, S., & Narver, J. (1994a). Does competitive environment moderate the market
orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46-55.
Slater, S., & Narver, J. (1994b). Market orientation, customer value and superior
performance. Business Horizons, 37(2), 22-28.
Slater, S., & Narver, J. (1995). Market orientation and the learning organization.
Journal of Marketing, 59(3), 63-74.
Slater, S., & Narver, J. (1996). Competitive strategy in the market-focused business.
Journal of Market Focused Management, 1, 159-174.
Slater, S., & Narver, J. (1998). Customer-led and market-oriented: Let’s not confuse
the two. Strategic Management Journal, 19, 1001-1006.
65
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Socha, M. (1996, July 12). A new direction from the North; Canadian makers
becoming more marketing-oriented. Daily News Record, 26, pp. S4-S6.
Spillard, P. (1985). Organization and marketing. Kent, UK: Croom Helm.
Sriram, V., & Sapienza, J. (1991). An empirical investigation of the role of marketing
for small exporters. Journal of Small Business Management, 29, 33-43. Stampfl, R.
(1978). Structural constraints, consumerism, and the marketing concept. MSU
Business Topics, 26, 5-16. 257
Uncles, M. 2000, “Market Orientation”, Australian Journal of Management, Vol. 25,
No. 2, pp. 1-6.
Varadarajan, P.R. and Jayachandran, S. (1999), “Marketing strategy: an assessment of
the state of the field and outlook”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol.
27 No. 2, pp. 120-43.
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1987), “Measurement of business economic
performance: an examination of method convergence”, Journal of Management, Vol.
13 No. 1, pp. 109-22.
Venkatraman, N., & Ramanujam, V. (1985). Construct validation of business
economic performance measures: A structural equation modeling approach. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, CA.
Walker, O.C., and Ruekert, R.W. 1987, “Marketing’s Role in the Implementation of
Business Strategies: A Critical Review and Conceptual Framework”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 15-33.
Webster, F. Jr. (1988). The rediscovery of the market concept. Business Horizons,
31(3), 29-39.
Zaltman, G., & Vertinsky, I. (1971). Health service marketing: A suggested model.
Journal of Marketing, 35(3), 19-27.
Zou, Shaoming and S. Tamer Cavusgil (2002), "The GMS: A Broad
Conceptualization of Global Marketing Strategy and Its Effect on Firm Performance,"
Journal of Marketing, 66 (4), 40.
66
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
APPENDIX
67
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Pearson Correlations
Table 3
Business performance and Market orientation
Std.
Mean N
Deviation
Business performance 3.5396 .72094 106
Business Market
performance orientation
Pearson Correlation 1 .203(*)
Business
Sig. (1-tailed) .018
performance
N 106 106
Pearson Correlation .203(*) 1
Market orientation Sig. (1-tailed) .018
N 106 106
Business
MO_INT_G
performance
Pearson Correlation 1 .047
Business
Sig. (1-tailed) .315
performance
N 106 106
Pearson Correlation .047 1
intelligence
Sig. (1-tailed) .315
generation
N 106 106
68
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Business Intelligence
performance dissemination
Pearson Correlation 1 .309(**)
Sig. (1-tailed) .001
N 106 106
Pearson Correlation .309(**) 1
Sig. (1-tailed) .001
N 106 106
Business
performance Response design
Pearson Correlation
1 .490(**)
69
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Response
3.5377 .66439 106
Implementation
Business Response
performance Implementation
Pearson Correlation 1 .294(**)
N 106 106
Table 8
Means and Standard Deviations for all Questions
70
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Std.
Questions N Mean
Deviation
1 In this business unit, we meet with customers at least once
10
a year to find out what products or services they will need 4.10 1.352
6
in future.
2 In this business unit, we do a lot of in-house market 10
3.75 1.155
research 6
3 We are fast to detect changes in our customers' product 10
3.89 .979
preference 6
4 We poll end users at least once a year to assess the quality 10
3.55 1.122
of our products and services. 6
5 We periodically review the likely effect of changes in our 10
3.96 .861
business environment on our customers. 6
6 We have interdepartmental meetings at least once a quarter 10
4.15 1.067
to discuss market trends and developments. 6
7 Marketing personnel in our business unit spend time
10
discussing customers' future needs with other functional 3.80 1.037
6
departments
8 When something important happens to a major customer or
10
market, the business unit knows about it within a short 4.02 .946
6
period.
9 Data on customer satisfaction are disseminated at all levels 10
3.74 .862
in this business unit on a regular basis 6
10 For one reason or another, we tend to ignore changes in our 10
3.37 1.036
customer's product or service needs. 6
11 We periodically review our product development efforts to 10
3.89 .959
ensure that they are in line with what customers want 6
12 Several departments get together periodically to plan a
10
response to changes taking place in our business 3.87 .957
6
environment.
13 If a major competitor launched an intensive campaign
10
targeted at our customers, we would implement a response 3.80 1.174
6
immediately
14 The activities of the different departments in this business 10
3.84 1.015
unit are well coordinated. 6
15 Even if we came up with a great marketing plan, we 10 3.14 1.158
71
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Table 9
Research Questionnaire
72
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
The objectives of this research, as stated in Chapter 1, are to determine the impact of the
components of market orientation on business performance, to fulfill these objectives,
several research questions are addressed as follows.
Using the past year as a reference, think about the manner in which your business unit /
organization conducted its business practices in relation to the statements below. Please
consider your actual perception of the practices for your SBU / organization, not what
you would like them to be. Please describe them as they actually exist. Please remember:
an honest assessment will provide the most accurate and helpful information for the
research project.
Please read each question carefully and then respond to each of the statements by
marking the appropriate box with (√). It is important that you answer ALL
questions.
73
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
Part 4:
74
The impact of Market orientation on Business performance
In addition to the research objectives and questions, this study is guided by two
underlying propositions. The first underlying proposition is that relationships exist among
the market orientation and business performance. The second is that there are certain
relationships among business performance and the components of market orientation.
75