The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/0025-1747.htm

Speed leaders and Market

orientation and
quality champions technology
orientation
Analyzing the effect of market orientation
and technology orientation alignment 1247
on new product innovation Received 4 July 2013
Revised 12 February 2014
Zongyang Leng, Zhiying Liu and Min Tan 25 August 2014
School of Management, University of Science and Technology of China, 4 February 2015
Accepted 8 April 2015
Hefei, China, and
Jiangang Pang
School of Management, Southwest University of Science and Technology,
Mianyang, China

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a concept of an alignment between
market and technology orientations (MTs) and investigates the difference in new product
innovation activities and performance among the four groups of high-tech firms which are
classified into four categories labeled as MT, technology orientation (TO), market orientation
(MO) and conservative (CO) firms.
Design/methodology/approach – Data were collected from 360 high-tech firms in China. MANOVA
was used to identify whether or not new product innovation activities (i.e. timing of market entry and
product quality) and performance vary across the four groups.
Findings – The results indicate that the four groups of firms significantly differ with respect to
new product performance and with new product innovation activities pertaining to timing of
market-entry strategy and product quality. Further, the results show that first, MT firms have
highest new product performance; second, TO firms are speed leaders which have first-to-market
with new product; and third, MO firms are quality champions which are best for the perceived new
product quality.
Originality/value – This paper responds to call for synthetic studies of multiple orientations
and cross-disciplinary research, especially in the areas of marketing and strategic management.
This paper is the first to integrate MO and TO and examine the interactive effects of these two
orientations on new product innovation. Against prior study believing the combination of strategic
orientations play an important role in innovation management, the findings that TO firms are speed
leaders and MO firms are quality champions suggest that the combination of different strategic
orientations is not beneficial to all respects of new product innovation, such as timing of market-
entry strategy and product quality.
Keywords Innovation, Strategic alignment
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
As we know, achieving new product development (Avlonitis, 2002) is becoming
increasingly important to firms that survive in today’s competitive business climate.
However, some complicated challenges in new product development process may Management Decision
lead to the failure of new product performance (Cooper, 1979; Dursun-Kilic, 2005). Vol. 53 No. 6, 2015
pp. 1247-1267
Therefore, the factors that affect new product innovation have captured more and © Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0025-1747
more attentions. DOI 10.1108/MD-07-2013-0367
MD Market orientation (MO) and technology orientation (TO) have been used to explain
53,6 the achievement of superior new product performance. To our knowledge, current
research on market and technology orientations (MTs) runs in two different streams.
The marketing literature focusses on MO and holds that MO is beneficial for new
product success, among a number of performance outcomes (Atuahene-Gima, 1996a;
Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; Ruekert,
1248 1992; Slater and Narver, 1994), while the innovation management literature focusses on
TO and also suggests that a TO can improve business or new product performance
(Day, 1999; Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997; Hult et al., 2004).
Notably, firms have been facing high levels of market and technological
uncertainty due to the confluence of rapid technological changes and changing
demands of customers. The literature suggests that a new set of imperatives is
needed for firms, such as an alignment of MTs, if firms are to be successful in product
innovation in the turbulent times (Hamel and Prahalad, 1994). However, researches
on the interaction between MO and TO mainly focus on their interrelationships
(Appiah-Adu and Singh, 1998; Berthon et al., 2004; Jeong et al., 2006; Knotts et al.,
2008; Pearson, 1993; Salavou, 2005) and do not pay due attention to the effect of MO
and TO alignment on product innovation. As some examples, Berthon
et al. (2004) explore the contrast between marketing and innovation orientations
and develop a measurement scale (ICON) to assess the extent to which a firm
corresponds to the resulting archetypes. When Shaw (2000) researched German
companies in the UK, a strong product orientation combined with a high level of MO
was found to characterize successful firms.
Despite these studies, no empirical study examined the impact of potential
combinations of MO and TO on new product innovation. The present study aims to
address this gap. Against prior studies, which focus either their interrelationships
between MO and TO or bivariate relationship between each of MT and new product
innovation (e.g. Atuahene-Gima et al., 2005; Li et al., 2008; Jeong et al., 2006; Gao et al.,
2007), this paper is the first to integrate MO and TO and examine the interactive effects
of these two orientations on new product innovation. Thus, such an approach allows
a better understanding of the relationship between strategic choices of firms and
their innovation (Zahra, 1993; Covin, 1993). Given that a single orientation alone is
inadequate and balancing several orientations enable firms to perform better (Hakala,
2011), this study defines “multiple orientations” as a combination of several orientations.
Therefore, this paper responds to call for synthetic studies of multiple orientations
(Hakala, 2011) and cross-disciplinary research, especially in the areas of marketing and
strategic management.
Of late, innovations of high-tech firms have attracted the attention of researchers
(Bala-Subrahmanya, 2013; Wang and Rafiq, 2014; Zhang and Wu, 2013). The rapidly
changing environment in high-tech industries, coupled with the economic liberation in
emerging markets, makes it difficult for high-tech firms’ product innovation. In this
backdrop, the study focussed on high-tech firms.
This paper mainly focusses on the question: for high-tech firms, does new product
performance vary with different combinations of MTs and, if so, which combination is
associated with the highest level of new product performance in high-tech firms.
Further, this paper thus concerns the speed of new product introductions and the
perceived quality of new product, that is, timing of market entry and product quality.
Specifically, it investigates the difference in timing of market entry and product quality
between firms adopting a high or low degree of MO or a high or low degree of TO.
This allows us to further observe independent and interdependent effects of the two Market
orientations on high-tech firms’ new product innovation. orientation and
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. The following section follows
by a review of the MO and TO literature and proposes the alignment between MTs.
technology
Subsequently, we describe our research method and present the finding obtained from orientation
the empirical analysis carried out using a sample containing 360 Chinese firms. In the
final section, we conclude with a discussion of the results, implications, limitations and 1249
issues for future research.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 MO, TO and new product innovation
MO and TO are two different methods for attaining positive firm’s performance.
MO assesses the extent to which a firm is oriented toward the support and promotion for
the responsiveness to market information to meet customer needs (Kohli and Jaworski,
1990). According to Narver and Slater (1990) perspective, MO is composed of three
dimensions: customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination.
A market-oriented firm aims to create superior customer value relative to its competitors.
Hence, MO is viewed as the firms’ activities that can effectively create the behaviors
required for superior performance (Deshpandé et al., 1993; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990;
Narver and Slater, 1990). From the perspective of organizational learning (Cohen and
Levinthal, 1990; Levinthal and March, 1993; March, 1991), market-oriented firms which
are characterized by product improvements and line extensions that aim to serve existing
customers (Atuahene-Gima, 2005; Baker and Sinkula, 2007) pay more attentions to
exploitive learning.
An important point to stress is that Narver et al. distinguish between two
complementary forms of MO responsive and proactive, but some scholars (e.g. Grinstein,
2008; Vega-Väzquez et al., 2012) investigating MO still use Narver and Slater’s (1990)
definition which reflects only responsive MO. In this paper, we also adopt the definition
by Narver and Slater (1990) because MO behaviors toward customers’ potential needs are
seen to be the heart of TO (Hunt and Morgan, 1995; Hakala, 2011).
Some research suggests that MO is an important determinant of new product
innovation (Atuahene-Gima, 1996a, b; Slater and Narver, 1994; Kohli and Jaworski,
1990). For example, Han et al. (1998) believe that MO allows firms to learn from the
customers and enables them to anticipate their customers’ needs and to design truly
innovative products on a continuous basis. And Kohli and Jaworski (1990, p. 13)
assert that MO “[…] provides a unifying focus for the efforts and projects of
individuals and departments within the organization, thereby leading to superior
performance.” Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001) indicate that MO engenders product
innovation behaviors that focus on understanding the expressed needs of customers.
Therefore, MO takes advantage of firm’s current learning and experience and
supports the refinement and adaptations of current innovations to satisfy current
needs rather than the development of new products targeted at emerging new needs
(Christensen and Bower, 1996; March, 1991). Consistent with this argument,
Christensen and Bower (1996) argue that a market-oriented firm that listens too
carefully to their current customers is more adept at incremental innovations
demanded by existing markets but is more inclined to neglect innovative products
with more newness. Researches also show that MO may lead a firm to learning
myopia and stifle its creative response to emerging technologies (Levinthal and
March, 1993; Martin, 1995).
MD In contrast with MO, TO includes product, production and innovation orientations
53,6 and is “the ability and the will to acquire a substantial technological background
and use it in the development of new products” (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997, p. 78).
Some scholars (Slater et al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2005) describe a technology-oriented firm
as one that is committed to research and development (R&D) and is proactive in
adopting and integrating new and sophisticated technologies in the NPD process.
1250 From the perspective of organizational learning (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Levinthal
and March, 1993; March, 1991), technology-oriented firms which are characterized by
discovery, variation and innovation pay more attentions on exploratory learning.
TO suggests that the customer value and long-term performance of the firm are best
created through products with new technological solutions (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997;
Grinstein, 2008; Hamel and Prahalad, 1991). Gatignon and Xuereb (1997) indicate that
a firm inclined to develop and adapt new technologies may achieve the product
differentiation from the competition and cost advantages. Similarly, Hamel and Prahalad
(1994) assert that TO allows a firm to attain the position of technology leadership, which
can lead to superior innovation performance. Product innovation initiatives fostered by
TO promoting the technological diversity that is positive related to exploratory and
exploitative innovation competences (Quintana-Garcia and Benavides-Velasco, 2008).
Therefore, firms which are technology oriented are more inclined to achieve the success of
new product innovation (e.g. Day, 1999; Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997).

2.2 Alignment between MTs

Prior studies suggest that the combination of several orientations leads a firm to
perform better, particularly in product innovation (Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001;
Bhuian et al., 2005; Grinstein, 2008; Hakala and Kohtamäki, 2011; Paladino, 2009).
Atuahene-Gima (1996a, b) asserts that MO has significant relationships with
innovation-marketing fit but not with innovation-technology fit. To our knowledge,
a firm’s TO, which includes “the use of sophisticated technologies in new product
development, the rapidity of integration of new technologies, and proactively
developing new technologies and creating new product ideas” (Gatignon and Xuereb,
1997, p. 82), may foster the innovation-technology fit. Hence, many researches are
aligned in arguing that TO is needed to complement the MO (Appiah-Adu and Singh,
1998; Berthon et al., 1999, 2004; Shaw, 2000) and innovation requires that firms have
both capabilities related to technology and market (Danneels, 2002; Dougherty, 1992).
Similarly, Jeong et al. (2006) argue that focussing its efforts on customer needs and
satisfaction and investment in new technologies are important to product innovation.
The view that an appropriate balance between MT is a primary factor in a firm’s product
innovation is consistent with the organizational learning literature that also suggests the
need for firms to combine exploitation and exploratory learning to achieve effectiveness
(Burgelman, 1991; Lumpkin and Dess, 1996; March, 1991). Consequently, our thesis is
that MTs are synergistic; they combine positively to affect product innovation activities
and performance.
Practical supports for this thinking come from some scholars’ investigations. As an
example for the validity of this thinking, consider Shaw’s (2000) investigation on
German companies in the UK. Although both successful and less successful firms have
viewed the quality and reliability associated with German traditional markets as a key
factor, successful companies not only rely on the current markets, but also have
recognized the importance of seeking out new market and differentiated their products
and services to better meet customer needs (Shaw, 2000). Hence, the better performance
of these successful firms is ascribed to its strong product orientation combined with Market
a high level of MO (Shaw, 2000). orientation and
Innovation management literature has paid close attention to the effects of
exploitation/exploratation on firm’s innovation outcomes. Some studies support the
technology
positive effect of innovation ambidexterity which is defined as either simultaneously orientation
pursuing exploration and exploitation. Han et al. found that a firm’s pursuit of
innovation ambidexterity is positively related to market share and return on 1251
investment. He and Wong (2004) also found that firms’ innovation ambidexterity
achieved by the interaction of exploitative and exploratory innovation strategies are
positively associated to the average rate of sales growth over a three-year period.
Further, innovation ambidexterity has a positive effect on the satisfaction of
stakeholders (Simsek et al., 2009) and subjective ratings of performance (Schulze et al.,
2008). And the interaction of exploiting existing competencies and renewing and
replacing them with new competencies is positive associated with new product
development performance in general (Revilla et al., 2011) and radical innovation
performance (Atuahene-Gima, 2005).
Against this backdrop, we argue that an alignment of MTs enables the firm to
exploit its current market through devising new products on a continuous basis and
explore potential customer needs through new technologies. From the perspective of
the capability-based view, new product success results from the idiosyncratic internal
capabilities by which a firm translates its resources into superior customer value
(Atuahene-Gima, 2005). According to Danneels (2008), new product development
includes two major tasks: making a new product through product innovation
capabilities, commercializing a new product through marketing capabilities. In this
study, on one hand, product innovation capabilities are a bundle of inter-related
organizational routines and behaviors to create new products (Danneels, 2008) and
enable a firm to develop new products comprising new technologies (Atuahene-Gima,
2005; Danneels, 2008). Product innovation capabilities is closely linked to explorative
learning as defined by March (1991). On the other hand, marketing capabilities are a
bundle of inter-related organizational routines and behaviors to meet the existing
marketing-related needs (Danneels, 2008), that is, marketing capabilities is linked to
exploitative learning as defined by March (1991).
The principal argument, therefore, is that MO by which firms can effectively
respond to current customer needs reflects an exploitative learning. In contrast,
TO which is proactive in adopting and integrating new and sophisticated
technologies in the NPD process (Slater et al., 2007; Zhou et al., 2005) reflects an
explorative learning. Hence, a firm with an effective alignment of MTs may have
a better knowledge of its customer needs and the orientation of new technologies,
and thus greater overall marketing and product innovation capability in meet
customer needs. Thus, the level of marketing and product innovation capability to
meet customer needs inherent in the firm’s new product development process
underlies the alignment of the two orientations. Figure 1 presents the conceptual
framework of this paper.
To operationalize the alignment between MTs and to examine its effect on
new product innovation, the matching perspective of coalignment is adopted.
This approach has been used by some scholars (Berthon et al., 1999; Paladino, 2009).
The view of coalignment indicates that a high-high combination of any two
orientations may perform better than others (Hart, 1992; Venkataraman, 1989).
Hence, MTs are arrayed on a continuum from low to high, and firms are classified
MD into a 2 × 2 matrix resulting in four distinct groups. A graphic representation of the
53,6 theoretical typology of firms is presented in Figure 2.
In Figure 2, firms with high market and high TOs are labeled MT firms. Given their
high degree of emphasis on both orientations, MT firms are equipped with high
marketing capability and high product innovation capability in catering to customer
needs. The second group of firms is TO firms. TO firms have high degrees of
1252 TO combined with low degrees of MO and thus have high product innovation
capability and low marketing capability. Then, MO firms are those with high market
and low TOs. MO firms are posited to have high marketing capability and low product
innovation capability in meeting customer needs. Finally, firms that emphasize low
degrees of MTs are labeled conservative firms (CO). CO firms are likely to be the least
effective in new product innovation among the four groups because they have the low
marketing capability and product innovation capability.

3. Research hypotheses
Extant research suggests that firms balancing different strategic orientations are likely
to perform better than those that have only one single strategic orientation (Hart, 1992).
For example, Powell’s (1992) study also supports that an alignment of strategic

Organizational Organizational
Firm Foci Learning Capabilities
Market Exploitative Marketing
Orientation Learning Capabilities
Figure 1. New Product
The conceptual Development
Product
framework of Technology Exploratory Innovation
this paper Orientation Learning Capabilities

Market/Technology Firms Market-oriented Firms

(MT) (MO)

High High marketing capability High marketing capability

and high product and low product
Market Orientation

innovation capability innovation capability

Technology-oriented Firms Conservative Firms

(TO) (CO)

Low Low marketing capability Low marketing capability

and high product and low product
innovation capability innovation capability
Figure 2.
Market/technology
orientation Low
High
combination of firms
Technology Orientation
orientations is an important source of competitive strength. Consistent with this Market
argument, Prahalad and Bettis (1986) indicate that a single-mode orientation may orientation and
suffer from limitations and biases. Similarly, some scholars (Hart, 1992; Venkataraman,
1989) propose that a high-high combination of any two orientations may perform
technology
better than other combinations. Hence, we argue that firms that can align both MTs orientation
at a higher level should have higher marketing capability and higher product
innovation capability and should perform better than other combinations in new 1253
product innovation process.
The preceding discussion suggests that MT firms yield more performance outcomes
of new product development than MO and TO firms because of their high-high
combination of the two orientations. However, we expect that MO and TO firms
have different performance outcomes in new product development. As mentioned
previously, TO is asserted to foster new product performance (e.g. Day, 1999; Gatignon
and Xuereb, 1997). Nonetheless, the interest in new technologies that create superior
innovation performance, which is at the heart of TO (Hakala, 2011), is likely to lead to
introduce new products that are far in advance of customer needs and experiences, and
therefore less likely to achieve sales and profits. In support this argument, Gao et al.
(2007) find that TO, on occasion, has detrimental effects on new product performance.
In contrast to TO firms, MO firms, which are characterized by product improvements
and line extensions that aim to serve existing customers (Atuahene-Gima, 2005;
Baker and Sinkula, 2007), are relatively more likely to lead to the introduction of new
products that meet customer need and therefore more likely to generate sales and
profits because they have greater customer input into new product development
process. This discussion suggests that:
H1. There are significant differences in new product performance among the four
groups of firms; and that:
H1a. MT firms have higher new product performance than TO, MO and CO firms.
H1b. MO firms have higher new product performance than TO and CO firms.
H1c. TO firms have higher new product performance than CO firms.
Additionally, because strategic research literature suggests that different strategic
orientations have different activities (Conant et al., 1990; Miles and Snow, 1978; Zahra
and Covin, 1993), we expect that the different combinations of MTs have different new
product development process implications. The speed of new product introductions
and the quality of new product innovation are important aspects in new product
development process. Hence, we examine the differences among the four groups of
firms on these two critical aspects of new product innovation: timing of market entry
and product quality (Atuahene-Gima, 1996b; Zahra, 1993).
Timing of market entry, which refers to the strategic choice as to whether a firm is
“first to market,” “early follower,” “late follower” or “late entrant” with respect to new
product introductions (Ansoff and Stewart, 1967), is a representation of the aspect of
innovativeness with earlier entry. Extant research indicates that the timing of new
product introductions not just hinges on a firm’s market and competitive environments,
but also depends on its internal capabilities to handle market and technological
uncertainties associated with its entry strategy (Miles and Arnold, 1991; Olleros, 1986;
Zahra, 1993). Thus, we expect that the market-entry timing strategies significantly
differ between the four groups of firms. As mentioned above, TO firms are committed
MD to R&D and are proactive in adopting new and sophisticated technologies (Slater et al.,
53,6 2007; Zhou et al., 2005). It suggests that TO firms emphasize a risk-seeking and
exploratory approach to new product innovation because R&D activities generally are
filled with risks and need exploratory learning. For this reason, TO firms would be
first-to-market. In comparison, MT firms are posited to be slower than TO firms
because these firms simultaneously balance the speed of introducing new product to
1254 market with the need to address customer demands. According to this logic, we argue
that MT firms have a faster market-entry timing strategy than MO firms because they
have a higher attendant TO. Hence, this discussion suggests that:
H2. There are significant differences in the timing of market entry among the four
groups of firms and that:
H2a. TO firms have a faster market entry than MT, MO and CO firms.
H2b. MT firms have a faster market entry than MO and CO firms.
H2c. MO firms have a faster market entry than CO firms.
Product quality, which is viewed as the competitive strength of new products in
terms of cost saving and quality, refers to the perceived superiority of the firm’s new
product. MO is seen to be an intangible resource enables the firm to develop new
products that adapt to market needs by actively collecting and using market
information (Hunt and Morgan, 1995). According to the behavioral psychology
perspective of organizational orientations (Barney, 1991), MO promote innovation
because they culture firm-specific role behaviors, such as exploitive learning and
customer orientation, that are unique and difficult to imitate. These assertions mean
that MO firms’ new products are more likely to be perceived and accepted by the
market because these firms focus current customers’ needs and design new products
on a continuous basis (Han et al., 1998). In contrast, TO is associated with fast
market-entry timing strategy and with high-technical product (Gatignon and Xuereb,
1997), but their new products are likely to have new technologies that represent
departures from existing products and could pose adoption difficulties for customers.
Hence, we expect that the new products of MO firms is perceived to be of superior
quality than those of TO firms. In comparison, MT firms are posited to be lower than
MO firms because these firms simultaneously balance the new product quality
perceived by the market with the adoption of new technologies. For this reason, we
argue that MT firms have a higher product quality than TO firms because they have
a higher attendant MO. Hence:
H3. There are significant differences in product quality among the four groups of
firms and that:
H3a. MO firms have higher product quality than MT, TO and CO firms.
H3b. MT firms have higher product quality than TO and CO firms.
H3c. TO firms have higher product quality than CO firms.

4. Method
4.1 Sample and data collection procedure
The sample was drawn from a list of high-tech firms registered with the Science and
Technology Department of local governments in Anhui province. Of the responding
firms, 34.4 percent were from the sector of electronics, about 24 percent were from Market
the sector of auto components, 36.7 percent were from the sector of machine tool orientation and
manufacturing and the rest (4.9 percent) were from other sectors. The data arrayed by
each sector can be seen in Table I. The companies had an average of 304 employees
technology
(SD ¼ 346.6). The informants had an average firm age of 11.4 years (SD ¼ 7.2). orientation
Data for this study were drawn from a survey of innovation practices of high-tech firms
in China. The reason for choosing high-tech firms is that high-tech firms may wage on 1255
mighty innovation activities that it may be meaningful to represent innovation practices for
such firms. To collect the data, questionnaires were sent to the senior managers (e.g. R&D
managers, marketing manager and top manager) of 800 high-tech firms in China.
Responses with missing data as well as contradictory or doubtful answers that could not
be clarified by follow-up telephone calls were removed from the sample. A total of 360 valid
responses were collected at the end of the survey, yielding a response rate of 45 percent.

4.2 Measures
All original survey scales in this paper were from previous empirical studies. We first
used the translation-back-translation procedure to translate the questionnaire, and then
suitably modified the items in discussion with experts in order to be appropriate for
Chinese culture context. However, only few changes to the original survey scales were
needed other than some cuts of items so as to make the questionnaire more concise.
Table I shows the list of multi-item measures used in this study.
MO is measured with the scales originally developed by Narver and Slater (1990)
and purified by our research. All items used to measure this constructs are framed
around seven-point Likert scales (1 ¼ strongly disagree and 7 ¼ strongly agree).
The scale consists of six items measuring a firm’s MO behaviors. To measure TO, this
study uses the scales employed by Gatignon and Xuereb (1997). The scale consists of
four items measuring a firm’s ability and willingness to adopt new and sophisticated
technologies in new product development. All items are scored on a seven-point scale
(1 ¼ strongly disagree and 7 ¼ strongly agree).
New product performance represents the degree to which the firm has achieved its
goals for sales volume, revenue, market share, sales growth and profitability for selected
new product (Atuahene-Gima et al., 2005). Since multiple items create a better description
of product performance than a single item, this paper employs four items from Fang and
Zou (2009) to measure new product performance. All items are scored on a seven-point
scale, ranging from “strongly disagree ( ¼ 1)” to “strongly agree ( ¼ 7).”
Regarding timing of market entry and product quality, we use the same method to
Atuahene-Gima and Ko’s (2001) treatment. Timing of market entry was measured by asking
the respondents to indicate on a four-point scale whether the firm was first-to-market ( ¼ 4),
an early follower ( ¼ 3), a late follower ( ¼ 2) or a late entrant ( ¼ 1) with the new product.
Additionally, three items are scored on a seven-point scale (1 ¼ strongly disagree and
7 ¼ strongly agree) to measure product quality.

Sector Number of firms Proportion

Electronics 124 0.344

Auto components 86 0.240 Table I.
Machine tool manufacturing 37 0.367 The data arrayed
Others 18 0.049 by each sector
MD 5. Results
53,6 5.1 Reliability and validity of the scales
Table II shows the scale items and reliability estimates. Table III presents the descriptive
statistics, correlations, internal consistency reliabilities of the constructs and the square
root of average variance extracted (AVE). First, all items loaded at the 0.6 level or higher
on their respective constructs, meaning that item reliability is acceptable. And the
1256 Cronbach’s α’s for all the variables were greater than 0.9, meaning the high reliability of
the scales. Second, to verify the convergent validity, we calculated the AVE for each
construct. AVE values of all the constructs exceed 0.5, indicating the acceptable
convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Third, the square root of AVE was
calculated in this study to evaluate discriminant validity. As can be seen in Table III, the
elements in each row and column were smaller than the square root of AVE which was
represented on the corresponding diagonal, illustrating the acceptable discriminant
validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Component AVE

Market orientation (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.971)

In comparison with our competitors 0.800
1. We constantly monitor our level of commitment and orientation to serving
customers’ needs 0.919
2. Our business objectives are driven primarily by customer satisfaction 0.830
3. We rapidly respond to competitive actions that threaten us 0.907
4. Top management regularly discusses competitors’ strengths and strategies 0.904
5. Our top managers from every function regularly visit our current and 0.890
prospective customers
6. All of our business functions are integrated in serving the needs of our target
markets 0.909

Technology orientation (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.945)

1. We use sophisticated technologies in our new product development 0.914 0.821
2. Our new products are always at the state of the art of the technology 0.921
3. Technological innovation, based on research results, is readily accepted in our
organization 0.873
4. Technological innovation is readily accepted in our program/project
management 0.915

New product performance (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.983)

During the last three years
1. The sales volume of new products from our firm has been very successful 0.912 0.818
2. We are very satisfied with the market performance of our new products 0.908
3. The new products have provided our firm great competitive advantage 0.875
4. The financial return of our new products has been beyond our projection 0.923

Product quality (Cronbach’s α ¼ 0.989)

1. Products provided unique benefits superior to competitors 0.920 0.866
2. Customers perceived the product as giving superior performance outcomes
relative to the competition 0.948
3. Product provided higher quality than the competitors’ product 0.924

Table II. Timing of market entry

Scale items and Whether the firm was first-to-market, an early follower, a late follower, or a late – –
reliability estimates entrant with the new product
5.2 Assessing the potential of common-method-variance bias Market
We collected the data from a single informant in each firm, so the problem of common orientation and
method variance could potentially have influenced the results. Thus, following Podsakoff
et al.’s (2003) suggestion, we used the Harman’s one-factor test to assess the risk.
technology
An explorative factor analysis in which we insert all the variables was conducted. orientation
We considered the non-rotated factor solution so as to determine the number of factors
necessary to account for the variance among all the variables. Four distinct factors 1257
emerged from the analysis accounting for 91 percent and the largest factor that emerged
accounted for only 45 percent of the variance. Consequently, we can conclude that
common-method-variance bias is not a concern in interpreting the results of this study.

5.3 Analysis of variance

Following Venkataraman’s (1989) recommendation, firms were arrayed in ascending order of
MTs. We used a median split method to identify the four combinations of firms in Figure 1
so that the sample was split at the median on both orientations into low and high groups.
We used ANOVA to test whether the mean scores of the dependent variables differ
between different sectors. The null hypothesis was accepted (p W 0.05), suggesting that
the sectors are not significantly associated with variations in new product innovation
activities and performance. Table IV provides the results of ANOVA.
Then, MANOVA was used to test whether the mean scores of the dependent
variables differ between the four groups of firms. The null hypothesis was rejected
(F ¼ 172.72, p o 0.001), suggesting that the four groups of firms are significantly
associated with variations in new product innovation activities and performance. Then,
post hoc analyses could be conducted to further test H1-H3. Because the result of the

Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Market orientation 4.000 1.697 0.894

2. Technology orientation 4.154 1.874 −0.112* 0.906
3. New product performance 4.458 1.811 0.439** 0.356** 0.905 Table III.
4. Product quality 4.066 2.103 0.487** −0.045 0.417** 0.931 Means, standard
5. Timing of market entry 2.500 0.993 −0.016 0.607** 0.304** 0.157** – deviations and
Notes: n ¼ 360. The square root of the average variance extracted was represented on the diagonal. correlations among
*p o0.05; **p o0.01 constructs

Sum of squares Mean square F Sig.

NPP Between groups 19.754 6.585 2.023 0.110

Within groups 1,158.621 3.255
Total 1,178.375
QA Between groups 13.186 4.395 0.993 0.396
Within groups 1,575.880 4.427
Total 1,589.067
Timing Between groups 1.325 0.442 0.446 0.720 Table IV.
Within groups 352.675 0.991 The results
Total 354.000 of ANOVA
MD Box’s M test (F ¼ 10.46, p o0.001) suggest that the assumption of homogeneity of
53,6 variance was rejected, we used Tamhane’s comparison procedure to further investigate
the differences among the four groups of firms. Table V provides the descriptive
statistics and Table VI lists the results of post hoc tests.
As indicated in Table VI, H1a which states that MT firms have higher new product
performance than TO, MO and CO firms is supported because MT firms have
1258 significantly higher means than MO, TO and CO firms. H1b is also supported, with MO
firms having significantly higher means than TO and CO firms. H1c is supported as
TO firms have significantly higher means than CO firms. In brief, the results of new

Dependent variable Groups Mean SD Number of firms

New product performance MT 6.472 0.674 108

MO 4.792 0.598 72
TO 3.688 1.011 96
CO 2.464 1.432 84
Total 4.458 1.812 360
Timing of market entry MT 2.778 0.631 108
MO 2.167 0.375 72
TO 3.500 0.711 96
CO 1.286 0.454 84
Total 2.500 0.993 360
Product quality MT 4.814 2.157 108
MO 5.833 1.768 72
Table V. TO 3.354 1.379 96
Descriptive statistics CO 2.405 1.217 84
of different groups Total 4.067 2.104 360

Dependent variable Group (I) Group ( J) Mean difference (I-J) Tamhane’s test

New product performance MT MO 1.681* MTWMO

TO 2.785* MTWTO
CO 4.001* MTWCO
MO TO 1.104* MOWTO
CO 2.327* MOWCO
TO CO 1.223* TO WCO
Timing of market entry MT MO 0.611* MTWMO
TO −0.722* TO WMT
CO 1.492* MTWCO
MO TO −1.333* TO WMO
CO 0.881* MOWCO
TO CO 2.214* TO WCO
Product quality MT MO −1.019* MOWMT
TO 1.461* MTWTO
CO 2.410* MTWCO
MO TO 2.479* MOWTO
Table VI. CO 3.429* MOWCO
The results of TO CO 0.949* TO WCO
post hoc tests Notes: Multiple comparisons. *p o0.05; **p o0.01
product performance support the validity of the arguments for the alignment between Market
MTs for high-tech firms, that is, there are significant differences in new product orientation and
performance among the four groups of firms.
Next, we look at timing of market entry. We argued in H2a that TO firms
technology
would have fastest market entry among the four groups of firms because they orientation
emphasize a risk-seeking and exploratory approach to new product innovation. From
the results in Table VI, TO firms have significantly higher means on timing of 1259
market entry than do MT, MO and CO firms, in support of H2a. H2b is also
supported by the data, as MT firms have significantly higher mean scores than MO
and CO firms. Further, MO firms have significantly higher mean scores than CO
firms, which is in support of H2c. In short, the results of timing of market-entry
support that there are significant differences in the timing of market entry among the
four groups of firms.
The data in Table VI provide strong supports for H3, which considers product
quality. With respect to H3a, it is supported as MO firms have significantly higher
mean scores than MT, TO and CO firms. H3b is also supported, with MT firms having
significantly higher means than TO and CO firms. H3c which suggests that TO firms
have higher product quality than CO firms is supported because TO firms have
significantly higher means than CO firms. In short, the results of product quality
support that there are significant differences in the product quality among the four
groups of firms.
In order to prove the validity of the hypothesis for each sector. MANOVA was used
to prove the hypothesis by the each sector. The results can be seen from Tables VII-IX.
In summary, the findings of this paper indicate a discernible pattern of new product
innovation activities and performance among the four groups of firms in support
of our arguments about the need to align market and TOs. Figure 3 summarizes
the results.

Dependent variable Group (I) Group ( J) Mean difference (I-J) Tamhane’s test

New product performance MT MO 1.681* MT WMO

TO 2.785* MT WTO
CO 3.886* MT WCO
MO TO 1.104* MO WTO
CO 2.206* MO WCO
TO CO 1.102* TO W CO
Timing of market entry MT MO 0.611* MT WMO
TO −0.722* TO W MT
CO 1.465* MT WCO
MO TO −1.333* TO W MO
CO 0.854* MO WCO
TO CO 2.188* TO W CO
Product quality MT MO −1.019* MO WMT
TO 1.461* MT WTO
CO 2.336* MT WCO
MO TO 2.479* MO WTO
CO 3.354* MO WCO Table VII.
TO CO 0.875* TO W CO The results of
Notes: n ¼ 124. Sector ¼ electronics. *p o 0.05; **p o0.01 post hoc tests
MD Dependent variable Group (I) Group ( J) Mean difference (I-J) Tamhane’s test
53,6
New product performance MT MO 1.667* MTWMO
TO 2.785* MTWTO
CO 4.237* MTWCO
MO TO 1.118* MOWTO
CO 2.570* MOWCO
1260 TO CO 1.452* TO WCO
Timing of market entry MT MO 0.611* MTWMO
TO −0.722* TO WMT
CO 1.542* MTWCO
MO TO −1.333* TO WMO
CO 0.931* MOWCO
TO CO 2.265* TO WCO
Product quality MT MO −1.037* MOWMT
TO 1.412* MTWTO
CO 2.599* MTWCO
MO TO 2.449* MOWTO
Table VIII. CO 3.636* MOWCO
The results of TO CO 1.187* TO WCO
post hoc tests Notes: n ¼ 86. Sector ¼ Auto components. *p o0.05; **p o0.01

Dependent variable Group (I) Group ( J) Mean difference (I-J) Tamhane’s test

New product performance MT MO 1.681* MTWMO

TO 2.783* MTWTO
CO 4.008* MTWCO
MO TO 1.102* MOWTO
CO 2.327* MOWCO
TO CO 1.225* TO WCO
Timing of market entry MT MO 0.611* MTWMO
TO −0.708* TO WMT
CO 1.492* MTWCO
MO TO −1.320* TO WMO
CO 0.881* MOWCO
TO CO 2.201* TO WCO
Product quality MT MO −1.019* MOWMT
TO 1.472* MTWTO
CO 2.386* MTWCO
MO TO 2.491* MOWTO
Table IX. CO 3.405* MOWCO
The results of TO CO 0.914* TO WCO
post hoc tests Notes: n ¼ 37. Sector ¼ Machine tool manufacturing. *p o0.05; **p o0.01

6. Discussion
6.1 Theoretical and managerial implications
Prior study did not focus on the effect of MO and TO alignment on new product
innovation. This paper was to shed more light on this issue. The findings in the
preceding sections suggest that the interaction between these two orientations
plays the influential role in new product innovation activities and performance.
 MO Firms Market
MT Firms
(Quality Champions) orientation and
• Highest new product performance • High new product performance technology
High
• Late-to-market with new product orientation
• Early-to-market with new product
Market Orientation

• Highest perceived new product

• High perceived new product quality quality 1261
TO Firms
CO Firms
(Speed Leaders)

• Highest new product performance • Lowest new product performance

Low
• First-to-market with new product • Very late to market with new product

• Low perceived new product • Lowest perceived new product Figure 3.

quality quality Market/
entrepreneurship
High Low orientations and new
Technology Orientation product innovation

MT firms which have high degree of emphasis on both orientations have highest
new product performance. Further, the results illustrated the emergence of two
organizational types: speed leaders and quality champions. From these, speed
leaders which are market-oriented firms emerged as having first-to-market with new
product, while quality champions which are technology-oriented firms are best for
the perceived new product quality. Additionally, the results also demonstrate that
CO firms which pursue a low degree of MTs perform worst among the four groups
of firms.
This paper makes two contributions to the fields of MO and TO literature. First,
prior studies focus either their interrelationships between MO and TO or bivariate
relationship between each of MT and new product innovation (e.g. Atuahene-Gima
et al., 2005; Li et al., 2008; Jeong et al., 2006; Gao et al., 2007). This paper, calling for
synthetic studies of multiple orientations (Hakala, 2011), is the first to examine
the interactive effects of these two orientations on new product innovation.
The finding that MT firms have highest new product performance is consistent with
the strategic management and product innovation literatures which state that the
combination of different orientations leads a firm to perform better in new product
innovation (Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001, Bhuian et al., 2005, Grinstein, 2008;
Paladino, 2009).
Second, given that the speed of new product introductions and the perceived
quality of new product are two important aspects of new product innovation
management, this paper also investigates the difference in timing of market entry
and product quality between the four groups of firms. Against prior study believing
the combination of strategic orientations plays an important role in innovation
management, the findings that TO firms are speed leaders and MO firms are quality
champions suggest that the combination of different strategic orientations is not
beneficial to all respects of new product innovation, such as timing of market-entry
strategy and product quality.
MD Potentially, these findings provide two managerial implications. First, if a firm
53,6 needs to elevate their new product performance, it is essential to balance MT
behaviors. While the firm adopt a MO by attempting to understand and satisfy
customers’ expressed needs, it also need to be committed to R&D and proactive in
adopting and integrating new and sophisticated technologies in the NPD process.
Second, because the findings show that MT firms does not have first-to-market with
1262 new product and the perceived new product quality, managers need to choose a single
strategic orientation for specific new product innovation activities. Specially, if a firm
aims to be first-to-market with new product compared to the competitors, it needs only to
be technology oriented. On the contrary, if it aims to have the highest perceived new
product quality compared to the competitors, it needs only to be market oriented.

6.2 Study limitations and suggestions for future research

As with all research, our study is not without limitations. First, making use of
a cross-sectional survey, this study does not fully capture the dynamics of the
relationship between strategic orientation and new product innovation. To improve
this limitation, future research can use different methods, such as field experiments
or longitudinal designs, instead of the method in our study. Second, the sample of this
study contains only SMEs in China. Potential cultural limitations should be noted,
and it is important to replicate this study in other countries. Third, common method
bias may exist in our findings due to using subjective perceptual scales to measure
our constructs. This was statistically controlled for in this paper and was not
a concern. However, future study can use multiple respondents and objective data to
create a matched data set.

7. Conclusion
Prior studies have argued that firms should use multiple orientations for new product
innovation, yet the effect of MO and TO alignment on new product innovation has not
received attention as it deserves. The present study attempts to examine the impact of
potential combinations of MO and TO on new product innovation for high-tech firms.
This study establish a conceptual framework (Figure 1) by connecting MO/TO to
exploitation/exploration and organizational capabilities in order to explain MO and TO
alignment on new product development. Specially, firms which focus on both MO and
TO could perform the best when developing new product because they can balance
exploitation and exploration. Furthermore, firms which focus on TO could have fastest
market entry in the process of new product development because they are inclined to
engage in exploration and take risks. Firms which focus on MO could have higher new
product quality because they are inclined to engage in exploitation and pay attention to
consumer demands.
Then, we use the sample of high-tech firms in China to explain the hypotheses, and
the empirical results reveal that new product innovation activities (i.e. timing of market
entry and product quality) and performance vary among the four groups of firms
which have different combinations of MTs. In particular, the findings suggest that the
combination of different strategic orientations is not beneficial to all respects of new
product innovation. Specifically, MO firms have first-to-market with new product,
while TO firms are best for the perceived new product quality. Additionally, CO firms
which pursue a low degree of market and TOs perform worst among the four groups of
firms, while MT firms have highest new product performance.
References Market
Ansoff, H.I. and Stewart, J.M. (1967), “Strategies for technology-based business”, Harvard orientation and
Business Review, Vol. 45 No. 6, pp. 71-83. technology
Appiah-Adu, K. and Singh, S. (1998), “Customer orientation and performance: a study of SMEs”, orientation
Management Decision, Vol. 36 No. 6, pp. 385-394.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996a), “Market orientation and innovation”, Journal of Business Research, 1263
Vol. 35 No. 2, pp. 93-103.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996b), “The influence of innovation orientation in human resource
management on new product development: the moderating role of innovation type”,
Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 87-107.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005), “Resolving the capability-rigidity paradox in new product innovation”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 61-63.
Atuahene-Gima, K. and Ko, A. (2001), “An empirical investigation of the effect of market
orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation”,
Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 54-74.
Atuahene-Gima, K., Slater, S.F. and Olson, E.M. (2005), “The contingent value of responsive and
proactive market orientations for new product program performance”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 464-482.
Avlonitis, G.J. (2002), “Leading product innovation: accelerating growth in a product-based
business”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 7/8, pp. 950-951.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2007), “Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation
programs? An organizational learning perspective”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 316-334.
Bala-Subrahmanya, M.H. (2013), “External support, innovation and economic performance: what
firm level factors matter for high-tech SMEs? How?”, International Journal of Innovation
Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 1-26.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Berthon, P., Hulbert, J. and Pitt, L. (2004), “Innovation or customer orientation? An empirical
investigation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10, pp. 1065-1090.
Berthon, P., Hulbert, J. and Pitt, L.F. (1999), “To serve or create? Strategic orientations towards
customers and innovation”, California Management Review, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 37-58.
Bhuian, S.N., Menguc, B. and Bell, S.J. (2005), “Just entrepreneurial enough: the moderating effect
of entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Burgelman, R.A. (1991), “Intraorganizational ecology of strategy making and organizational
adaptation: theory and field research”, Organization Science, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 239-262.
Christensen, C.M. and Bower, J.L. (1996), “Customer power, strategic investment, and the failure
of leading firms”, Strategic Management J., Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 197-218.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 125-152.
Conant, J.S., Mokwa, M.P. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1990), “Strategic types, distinctive marketing
competencies and organizational performance: a multiple measures-based study”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 365-383.
MD Cooper, R.G. (1979), “The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 93-103.
53,6
Covin, J.G. (1993), “Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 451-478.
Danneels, E. (2002), “The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1095-1121.
1264 Danneels, E. (2008), “Organizational antecedents of second-order competences”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 519-543.
Day, G.S. (1999), “Misconceptions about market orientation”, Journal of Market Focused
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 5-16.
Deshpandé, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. Jr (1993), “Corporate culture, customer orientation
and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57
No. 1, pp. 23-37.
Dougherty, D. (1992), “A practice-centered model of organizational renewal through product
innovation”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 13 No. S1, pp. 77-92.
Dursun-Kilic, T. (2005), “An empirical investigation of the link between market orientation
and new product performance: the mediating effects of organizational capabilities”,
PhD dissertation, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA.
Fang, E. and Zou, S. (2009), “Antecedents and consequences of marketing dynamic capabilities
in international joint ventures”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40 No. 5,
pp. 742-761.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18
No. 3, pp. 39-50.
Gao, G.Y., Zhou, K.Z. and Yim, C.K.B. (2007), “On what should firms focus in transitional
economies? A study of the contingent value of strategic orientations in China”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-15.
Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.M. (1997), “Strategic orientation of the firm and new product
performance”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 77-90.
Grinstein, A. (2008), “The relationships between market orientation and alternative
strategic orientations: a metaanalysis”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Nos 1/2,
pp. 115-134.
Hakala, H. (2011), “Strategic orientations in management literature: three approaches
to understanding the interaction between market, technology, entrepreneurial and
learning orientations”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 199-217.
Hakala, H. and Kohtamäki, M. (2011), “Configurations of entrepreneurial-, customer- and
technology orientation: differences in learning and performance of software
companies”, International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research, Vol. 17
No. 1, pp. 64-81.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1991), “Corporate imagination and expeditionary marketing”,
Harvard Business Review, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 81-92.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, R.K. (1998), “Market orientation and organizational
performance: is innovation the missing link?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 30-45.
Hart, S.L. (1992), “An integrative framework for strategy-making processes”, Academy of Market
Management Review, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 327-351.
orientation and
He, Z.L. and Wong, P.K. (2004), “Exploration vs exploitation: an empirical test of the technology
ambidexterity hypothesis”, Organization Science, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 481-495.
orientation
Hult, G.T.M., Hurley, R.F. and Knight, G.A. (2004), “Innovativeness: its antecedents
and impact on business performance”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33 No. 5,
pp. 429-438. 1265
Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1995), “The comparative advantage theory of competition”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, pp. 1-15.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 53-70.
Jeong, I., Pae, J.H. and Zhou, D. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of the strategic
orientations in new product development: the case of Chinese manufacturers”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 35 No. 3, pp. 348-358.
Knotts, T.L., Jones, S.C. and Brown, K.L. (2008), “The effect of strategic orientation and gender on
survival: a study of potential mass merchandising suppliers”, Journal of Developmental
Entrepreneurship, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 99-113.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and
managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993), “The myopia of learning”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 14 No. S2, pp. 95-112.
Li, C.R., Lin, C.J. and Chu, C.P. (2008), “The nature of market orientation and the ambidexterity of
innovations”, Management Decision, Vol. 46 No. 7, pp. 1002-1026.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), “Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct
and linking it to performance”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1,
pp. 135-172.
March, J.G. (1991), “Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning”, Organization
Science, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 71-87.
Martin, J. (1995), “Ignore your customers”, Fortune, May 1, pp. 87-90.
Miles, M.P. and Arnold, D.R. (1991), “The relationship between marketing orientation and
entrepreneurial orientation”, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 49-65.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.
Olleros, F.J. (1986), “Emerging industries and the burnout pioneers”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 5-18.
Paladino, A. (2009), “Financial champions and masters of innovation: analyzing the effects of
balancing strategic orientations”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 6,
pp. 616-626.
Pearson, G.J. (1993), “Business orientation: cliché or substance?”, Journal of Marketing Management,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 233-243.
Podsakoff, P.M., MacKenzie, S.B. and Lee, J.Y. (2003), “Common method biases in behavioral
research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies”, The Journal of
Applied Psychology, Vol. 88 No. 5, pp. 879-903.
MD Powell, T. (1992), “Organizational alignment as competitive advantage”, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 119-134.
53,6
Prahalad, C.K. and Bettis, R. (1986), “The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and
performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 485-501.
Quintana-Garcia, C. and Benavides-Velasco, C.A. (2008), “Innovative competence, exploration and
exploitation: the influence of technological diversification”, Research Policy, Vol. 37 No. 3,
1266 pp. 492-507.
Revilla, E., Prieto, I.M. and Rodríguez, B. (2011), “Information technology and the ambidexterity
hypotheses: an analysis in product development”, Journal of Operations and Supply Chain
Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 1-18.
Ruekert, R.W. (1992), “Developing a market orientation: a organizational strategy perspective”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-245.
Salavou, H. (2005), “Do customer and technology orientations influence product innovativeness in
SMEs? Some new evidence from Greece”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 21
Nos 3/4, pp. 307-338.
Schulze, P., Heinemann, F. and Abedin, A. (2008), “Balancing exploitation and exploration”,
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.
Shaw, V. (2000), “The successful marketing strategies of German companies in the UK”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 1/2, pp. 91-106.
Simsek, Z., Heavey, C., Veiga, J.F. and Souder, D. (2009), “A typology for aligning organizational
ambidexterity’s conceptualizations, antecedents, and outcomes”, Journal of Management
Studies, Vol. 46 No. 5, pp. 864-894.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1994), “Does competitive environment moderate the
market orientation-performance relationship?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1,
pp. 46-55.
Slater, S.F., Hult, G., Tomas, M. and Olson, E.M. (2007), “On the importance of matching strategic
behavior and target market selection to business strategy in high-tech markets”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 5-17.
Vega-Väzquez, M., Cossio-Silva, F.J. and Martin-Ruiz, D. (2012), “Does the firm’s market
orientation behaviour influence innovation’s success”, Management Decision, Vol. 50 No. 8,
pp. 1445-1464.
Venkataraman, N. (1989), “The concept of fit in strategy research: toward a verbal and statistical
correspondence”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 423-444.
Wang, C.L. and Rafiq, M. (2014), “Ambidextrous organizational culture, contextual ambidexterity
and new product innovation: a comparative study of UK and chinese high-tech firms”,
British Journal of Management, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 58-76.
Zahra, S.A. (1993), “Environment, corporate entrepreneurship and company performance:
a taxonomic approach”, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 319-340.
Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. (1993), “Business strategy, technology policy and firm performance”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 6, pp. 451-478.
Zhang, J. and Wu, W. (2013), “Social capital and new product development outcomes:
the mediating role of sensing capability in Chinese high-tech firms”, Journal of World
Business, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 539-548.
Zhou, K.Z., Yim, C.K. and Tse, D.K. (2005), “The effects of strategic orientations on
technology- and market-based breakthrough innovations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69
No. 2, pp. 42-60.
Further reading Market
Bennett, R.C. and Robert, C.C. (1981), “The misuse of marketing: an American tragedy”, Business orientation and
Horizons, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 51-61.
technology
Covin, J. G. and Dennis, P.S. (1988), “The influence of organizational structure on the utility of an
entrepreneurial top management style”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 23 No. 3,
orientation
pp. 217-234.
Hauser, J., Tellis, G. and Griffin, A. (2006), “Research on innovation: a review and agenda for 1267
marketing science”, Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 687-717.

Corresponding author
Professor Zhiying Liu can be contacted at: liuzhiy@ustc.edu.cn

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.