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

www.emeraldinsight.com/0263-4503.htm

MIP
24,6 Market orientation emphases:
an exploration of macro, meso
and micro drivers
552
Katy J. Mason and Lloyd C. Harris
Cardiff Business School, Cardiff, UK
Received April 2005
Revised June 2006
Accepted June 2006
Abstract
Purpose – Although much has been written about the antecedents and consequences of market
orientation, and previous studies have generated useful insights into different “forms” of market
orientation, little is known of the emphases placed on different dimensions of market orientation, and
no published research to date has explicitly focused on the environmental factors that may contribute
to the development of particular orientation emphases. Accordingly, the study reported here aims to
explore the divergent varieties of emphasis in practice, and to identify the environmental factors that
contribute to that variation.
Design/methodology/approach – This paper begins with a comprehensive review of the literature
of market orientation. The study it then reports adopted a realist perspective and used techniques
usually associated with qualitative research and “grounded theory”, a departure from the positivist
approach and survey methodology typically found in published studies of market orientation. Data
were collected in 114 face-to-face, in-depth, semi-structured interviews in more than 50 UK-based
firms.
Findings – Results uncover four variations of market orientation, each of which exhibits a different
emphasis, linked to environmental factors at the micro, meso and macro levels. The emphasis placed
on the different dimensions of market orientation appears to be dynamic, and driven by changing
environmental factors.
Practical implications – Marketing planners need to consider which emphasis of market
orientation is most suited to stated strategic objectives. After instituting strategic change, managers
need to ensure that the form of market orientation developed continues to reflect and respond to
environmental conditions.
Originality/value – This paper offers interesting insights to practitioners concerned with the wider
implications of market orientation.
Keywords Market orientation, Marketing strategy
Paper type Research paper

Marketing Intelligence & Planning
Vol. 24 No. 6, 2006
pp. 552-571
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0263-4503
DOI 10.1108/02634500610701654
Introduction
Since the conceptualisation of market orientation in the 1990s (Kohli and Jaworski,
1990; Narver and Slater, 1990), the tenet has continued to be a central focus of attention
in the marketing and management literature (Perry and Shao, 2002; Pulendran et al.,
2003; Verhees and Meulenberg, 2004). Much of that interest can be attributed to the link
between market orientation, sales growth and profitability (Greenley, 1995b; Harris,
2001; Hooley et al., 2003). These findings have ensured that the construct remains of
significant interest to marketing scholars and commentators, from both a strategic and
operational perspective.
More recently, a range of studies has found that different firms adopt different
“forms” of market orientation (Siguaw et al., 1998). However, despite a number of
useful contributions to our understanding of market orientation, it is perhaps Market
surprising that the emphases placed on different dimensions of market orientation orientation
have yet to be systematically studied, according to Narver and Slater (1990).
Specifically, little attention has been paid to the environmental factors that may emphases
contribute to the development of particular orientation emphases (Harris and Piercy,
1999). One notable exception is the work of Greenley (1995b) who’s quantitative study,
identified performance differences between five market orientation forms but no 553
significant difference between the market environments that they were associated
with. However, as Day (1999), observes, there are practical limitations to this
quantitative approach. This, together with the increasing recognition of the complex
nature of market orientation, suggests that there may well be value in re-visiting the
field from a qualitative perspective.
This paper seeks to address these limitations by concentrating on differentiation in
market orientation forms, taking a qualitative approach. Its aim is to contribute
practical and conceptual insights by identifying and describing the environmental
factors that lead to this variance in market orientation emphasis. The paper elucidates
the strategic development and implementation of market orientation for theorists and
practitioners across a range of fields including general management, strategic
management and organizational behaviour.
It begins with a review of the market orientation literature, describes the
methodology for the study, presents the findings, and closes with conclusions and
implications relevant to both theorists and practitioners.

The market orientation construct

The market orientation construct emerged in two seminal papers published in the same
year over a decade ago: Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990).
Previously, varied terminology had been used in the marketing literature to reflect the
marketing concept – for example, “market driven”, “market focused”, “market
oriented”, and “customer oriented” (Day, 1994). After 1990, “market orientation”
became the widely accepted term to refer specifically to implementation of the
marketing concept.
Notwithstanding the shift towards a shared conceptualisation, the two seminal
papers also marked an important divide in the marketing literature. Kohli and Jaworski
(1990) take an information-based perspective on market orientation, and conceptualise
a three-component “construct” comprising market information generation and
dissemination, and responsiveness to market intelligence. This, it has been argued,
represents a purely behavioural perspective. In contrast, Narver and Slater (1990)
present market orientation as a form of organizational culture that manifests itself
through measurable behaviours and activities. They argue that market orientation is
the culture that “creates the necessary behaviours” for generating value, and conclude
that market orientation is a three-dimensional construct consisting of inter-functional
co-ordination, customer orientation and competitor orientation.
Despite the differences, the similarities between these two conceptualisations are
also noteworthy. For example, each focuses on the customer as the core component of
the definition; both entail an external orientation (a focus outside organizational
boundaries); each acknowledges the importance of being responsive to customers; both
acknowledge that market orientation is more than a focus on just the customer.
MIP Moreover, in a later review of the market orientation literature, Jaworski and Kohli
24,6 (1996) suggest a shift towards the Narver and Slater definition. Recently, Hooley et al.
(2000) observe that the conceptualization and measure of the Narver and Slater (1990,
p. 274) scale:
. . . is both conceptually and operationally appealing because it encapsulates the main aspects
of the Kohli and Jaworski’s intelligence gathering, dissemination, and responsiveness
554 constructs while at the same time assessing cultural factors.
This, it is argued, marks a shift towards a conciliation and integration of the two
conceptualisations.

Forms of market orientation

Those advances in defining the market orientation construct in the early 1990s were
followed by a small number of studies exploring different forms of market orientation.
One of the earliest, by Hooley et al. (1990), explores marketing typologies. In contrast to
many of the studies in this field, it adopted a grounded approach to elucidate “what
marketing means to practitioners”. The researchers identified four clusters, and found
significant differences between the organisational systems, strategies and performance
among them. In a survey of the UK manufacturing sector, Lui (1996) found that just
over a third of companies considered themselves to be market oriented. Other
orientations reported included production, selling, product and competitor. These
findings lead Lui to suggest that a significant proportion of UK firms unduly
emphasise short-term cost cutting at the expense of long-term business performance
(Doyle, 1987). Likewise, Wong and Saunders (1993) investigated different forms of
“business orientation” and identified six described in conventional texts. Significantly,
they also found correlations between these forms and the country or culture from
which they emerged. This is in contrast to other studies in this area, such as those by
Narver and Slater (1990) and Greenley (1995a), in which market orientation was found
to be advantageous to firms regardless of environmental conditions.
While these authors offer some valuable insights, their studies do not represent an
in-depth analysis of patterns of market orientation. Research in that specific area includes
the work of Dunn et al. (1994), who identify three forms of marketing effort and conclude
that different types of marketing firm are characterised by differing organizational values,
goals and climate (Hooley et al., 2000). In contrast, Greenley (1995a) finds similar clusters of
market orientation forms, but concludes that environmental conditions do influence the
effectiveness of market orientation (Harris and Piercy, 1999).
Despite the clear contribution of this research, a number of important limitations
can be identified. First, the extant literature on market orientation forms explores
neither the drivers nor the emphasis of the different dimensions within these forms.
Second, the uni-dimensional perspective of market-orientation focuses on a single
differentiation characteristic. In each of these studies, market orientation is
conceptualized as a continuum (not just a dichotomous concept). This leads to
challenges in the interpretation of findings. Third, as with the Harris and Piercy (1999)
study, many of these studies have focused on a single industry.
Finally, the conceptualisations have been developed out of a single literature. This
appears particularly limiting, considering the contributions made in the organisational
culture and strategy literature.
 Thus, existing studies fail to provide a comprehensive analysis of potential Market
distinguishing behaviours, cultures, structures, strategies or environment orientation
characteristics related to different market orientation forms. Therefore, any new
findings that can improve our understanding and application of the marketing emphases
philosophy would be both valuable and useful. Such insights should be drawn from a
holistic perspective.
555
Insights into potential influences on market orientation forms
Given that the concept of market orientation is deeply embedded in the strategic intent
of the organisation, the strategic management literature has much to contribute to our
understanding of the potential influences on market orientation forms. It identifies two
categories of environmental influences that appear pertinent, intra- and extra-firms,
which have important implications for the likely manifestation of the marketing
philosophy. The former are concerned with the internal environment of the firm and
are generally regarded as manageable; the latter emerge from beyond the boundaries of
the firm.
The general marketing literature recognises culture as being fundamental to
the conceptualisation of market orientation (Deshpandé and Webster, 1989). In the
strategic management literature, corporate culture represents an intra-firm perspective
of environmental influencers. For example, Whipp et al. (1989) consider how corporate
culture might be altered, and examine the links between corporate culture, strategic
change and competitive performance. Recognising the pluralistic nature of culture,
they suggest it to be correspondingly difficult to change. They conclude that core
beliefs and values held by members of an organisation, which lend meaning to their
environment, have a number of distinctive characteristics. In this way, multiple
manifestations of culture are likely to result in multiple manifestations of market
orientation, dependent on the micro-level influencers within the firm (Barney, 1986;
Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Garvin, 2004).
An alternative approach to intra-organizational environmental influencers was
adopted where the relationship between the vision and strategy of an organization’s
founder and the strategy of subsequent managements was examined. They concluded
that the strategic legacy created by founders plays a critical role in the development of
organizational culture and strategy. Thus, environmental factors appear to influence
corporate cultures and, in this way, multiple manifestations of strategic
implementation.
As market orientation is concerned with the collection and dissemination of
market information to inform strategy development, the implications is that these
extra-firm factors are likely to influence future manifestations of market orientation. An
extra-firm perspective of environmental influencers can be found in the strategic
management literature at the industry level, through the phenomenon of strategic legacy
(Abrahamson and Fombrun, 1994; Scherer and Ross, 1990; Spender, 1989). For example,
Abrahamson and Fombrun conclude that business networks both induce and reflect the
existence and persistence of more or less homogeneous, industry-level macrocultures
(Dutton and Jackson, 1987; Van de Ven and Garud, 1992). In turn, those increase the level
of inertia these organizations experience. That is, industry-level macrocultures influence
the inventiveness of organizations and the diffusion of innovations among them. In this
way, they increase the similarity of member organizations’ strategic profiles. We suggest
MIP that the industry sector to which a firm belongs is likely to influence the emphasis that
24,6 industry places on any single dimension of market orientation (Gordon, 1991; Sparrow
and Gaston, 1996; Weber, 1996).
The existence of a common industry culture suggests the possibility that market
orientation forms will vary by industry sector. Chatman and Jehn (1994) found that
stable organizational cultural dimensions existed, and varied more across industries
556 than within them. They explain that firms in similar industries may face constraints on
how distinct their cultures can actually be, and thus on the extent to which culture can
be used as a source of competitive advantage.
In their discussion of corporate culture Whipp et al. (1989) suggest that a powerful
agent of change affecting company culture is the sector within which a firm
operates. Yet:
. . . in spite of its potency, an industry culture is even less amenable to change than a
corporate culture. Since the sector culture is so often a collective expression of the dominant
beliefs of its constituent’s cultures, the difficulties are multiplied (p. 582).
It therefore appears likely that an industry sector that does not have a typically market
oriented culture is likely to spawn a specific form of market-oriented firm.
The extant literature presents empirical evidence to support the theory that both
intra- and extra-firm factors influence organisation ideologies and their consequent
manifestation. Therefore, we suggest that market orientation will emphasise different
dimensions, dependent on specific intra- and extra-firm influencers.

Research methodology
Owing to the poorly understood nature of some of the issues involved in the study plan,
a largely exploratory research design was considered appropriate (Strauss and Corbin,
1998). Specifically, the aim was to explore, investigate, and examine the dynamics and
dimensions of market orientation. Consequently, in order to explore differentiation in
market orientation emphasis and the factors associated with such variance, this
study’s research design employed semi-structured interviews as the primary means of
collecting data. The structure of the interviews was broadly based around the Narver
and Slater (1990) Likert-type scale of market orientation. Respondents were
encouraged to explain and justify their response to each of the items and to cite
illustrative examples of the behaviour under discussion. This semi-structured
approach facilitated the measurement of market orientation dimensions, as well as the
exploration of environmental dimensions associated with each market orientation
form. It is consistent with a “realist epistemology” (Bhaskar, 1979; Outhwaite, 1987).
Thus, data were collected in an appropriately scientific manner.
This research design and methodology has previously been argued to provide a
means through which data-driven theory can emerge. The use of in-depth interview
methods was also based on the grounds that such methods enable informants to describe
phenomena using their own terminology while allowing the researcher to
seek clarifications, to question arguments and to probe interesting avenues or issues.
Miller (1991) argues that such adaptability and interactivity reduces the likelihood
of misinterpretations on the part of either the interviewer or the informant. Furthermore,
the adaptable nature of in-depth interviewing also facilitates discovery of what has been
described as “real”, “rich”, and “deep” data (Stainback and Stainback, 1988).
 In order to generate interesting insights for theory and practice, a very broad Market
cross-section of industries and sectors was included in the study. The majority of firms orientation
interviewed could be categorised as “large organizations”, although medium-sized and
smaller companies were included in the sample, typically in the professional services emphases
sector. This study concentrated (but not exclusively) on larger firms because those not
only have a more developed marketing approach and a more considered strategy, but
also are sufficiently large for organizational cultural influences to be ingrained and 557
manifest. Over a 100 interviews (114) were conducted in more than 50 organizations.
Informants were, in general, at the middle or top level of general and marketing
management. Just over three quarters (77 per cent) were male, the average age was
almost exactly 40, and the average length of company service was eight years.
Typically, interviews lasted for 60 minutes, although some were considerably longer.
To improve the reliability and validity of subsequent analysis, each interview was
recorded, transcribed and supplemented with interviewer notes. Data collection stopped
when the criterion of “theoretical saturation” was met, defined in the grounded-theory
literature as the point beyond which no new themes or insights are emerging. Following
the procedure recommended by Strauss and Corbin (1998), three types of coding were
used to analyze the data. First, “open coding” uncovered and identified the properties
and dimensions of concepts in the data. Second, “axial coding” linked the core categories
together at the level of properties and dimensions. Third, “selective coding” provided the
means of integrating and refining theory. To organize this process, a systematic
approach to the analysis of transcripts was adopted in a procedure akin to that explained
by Turner (1981). In order to gauge the reliability of the analysis, the authors undertook
coding separately, then compared results. Differences between the two outcomes were
resolved in discussion. Finally, to verify and validate the findings, four ex-post
interviews were held with informants, and the results discussed.

Findings
This study explores how the emphases in market orientation vary between
organizations. Data analysis found evidence to suggest that different firms place
different emphasis on the different dimensions and that these differentiated forms of
market orientation were associated with a range of what could be labelled “micro”,
“meso” and “macro” environmental influences. The remainder of this section of the
paper details first the emphases on market orientation identified and then the range of
environmental influences found.

Market orientation emphases

Taxonomic analysis (Table I) suggests that eight possible forms of market orientation
exist. Our analysis identified only six types of market orientation. Neither the
externally focused nor the dynamic customer focused forms was found in the study.
The first two categories identified were the highly and weakly market-oriented
variants, placing equal emphasis on all dimensions. In line with previous research
(Greenley, 1995a; Harris and Piercy, 1999) the former was found to be strongly
associated with business performance and the latter to be negatively associated.
Therefore, we do not dwell on these findings in this paper. Three of the market
orientation forms placed an emphasis on one of the dimensions: customer focused,
competitor focused and highly co-ordinated. The remaining form, labelled dynamic
MIP competitor focused, emphasised two dimensions of market orientation and appeared to
24,6 be a subset of the competitor focused form. These four, each associated with a specific
dimension of emphasis, are the focus of the remainder of this paper.
Customer focus. The customer-focused market orientation was the first form found.
It was characterised by firms’ adoption of a particularly strong customer orientation
(relative to their scores on competitor orientation and inter-functional co-ordination),
558 and dealing directly with the customer and consumer. Their focus on customers was
reflected in the comments such as:
If you listen carefully to what customers are telling . . . , you don’t have to worry too much
about what your competitors are doing because if you really get it right, all they [the
competitors] do is try and copy.
This observation reflects the priority that organization placed on the collection and
interpretation of customer information and the emphasis on this information within the
strategic development and planning processes. Similarly, another manager described
how customer interaction and input into product development were encouraged:
We’ve had many instances where customers have come to us and said, why don’t you
do a range of products X, Y or Z? . . . and our guys have gone out and done it.
About 38 per cent of firms that emphasised a single dimension of market orientation
placed customer orientation significantly above competitor orientation and
inter-functional co-ordination.
This group of companies interpreted market orientation in terms of customer
expectations. When these firms asked their customers what they thought of the
company, customers respond in terms of their experience of service excellence.
One executive observed that:
Customers know what they want; it’s our job to deliver it as effectively as possible. We’ve got
excellent customer complaint procedures in place so we know if and when we get it wrong . . .
but it is true, we do rely on them telling us.
These firms invested significant resources in gathering and interpreting customer
satisfaction data. One firm boasted that it dedicated as much as 20 per cent of its
marketing budget to this activity. The customer satisfaction perspective has important
implications for how firms interpret market orientation in practice, and appears to
result in an emphasis that dominates all other dimensions of the market orientation
construct.

Customer Competitor Inter-functional

Market orientation type orientation orientation co-ordination

Highly market-oriented High High High

Weakly market-oriented Low Low Low
Customer focused High Low Low
Competitor focused Low High Low
Co-ordination focused Low Low High
Table I. Externally focused High High Low
Taxonomy of market Dynamic customer focused High Low High
orientation emphases Dynamic competitor focused Low High High
Competitor focus. Competitor focused market orientation was the second form to be Market
found. In contrast to the customer focused variant, informants in this group paid little orientation
attention to their customers, but instead dedicated significant resources to tracking,
charting, and predicting competitor actions. This took different forms; for example, one emphases
executive explained that:
The competition game is about balance . . . the competences that give you the edge are your
products, then manufacturing at lowest cost . . . then the highest possible quality – that’s why 559
we sell more. But unless we keep an eye on the competition, it’s difficult to know what your
benchmark is . . .
Another manager put it thus:
. . . some of our competitors see themselves as breakfast [cereal manufacturing]
companies, but it’s not just cereal based, it’s healthy eating – we need to be careful how
we define and then monitor our competitors so that we don’t miss out.
Competitor focused firms developed and planned their business strategy in accordance to
the perceived level of their competitiveness, defined in terms of efficiency, price, service
offerings, added value and flexibility. A manager of a consultancy explained that:
This is a fast moving business. You need to be on the ball. If your competitors can offer
something you can’t, you can miss the boat . . . in this game, our customers know their
problems all too well, they just don’t have a clue about the solutions – that’s why we all
watch each other like hawks to see who’s offering what.
Approaching half of all firms (42 per cent) emphasised the competitor orientation
dimension of market orientation; a further 5 per cent emphasised both that and
inter-functional co-ordination. These firms were almost exclusively in the professional
services sector (legal practices, business consultants and financial service providers).
The services they offered were homogeneous and difficult to differentiate. Often, they
were one-off purchases with no need to canvass for customer retention. In this regard,
the third market orientation form identified, dynamic competitor focused (emphasising
competitor orientation and co-ordination) appeared to be a subgroup of this one.
This focus on competitor actions sometimes came across as an unhealthy
professional envy and something of a self-fulfilling prophecy. For example, one
interviewee from a financial services provider suggested that:
. . . the internet is changing things. We know customers say they want to do things
face-to-face but it’s just not cost effective – our competitors are all going electronic . . .
internet banking is definitely the way forward.
As firms focused increasingly on their competitors’ actions, a perceived need for
secrecy appeared to be amplified, resulting in an increasingly “paranoid” focus on
competitor actions. Managers and executives also reported a consequent and
simultaneous increase in demand for resources to track and interpret competitor
behaviour. One manager observed that:
. . . the trick is to offer the service without revealing to your competitors exactly what it is
you’re doing.
As we have suggested, competitor focused firms exhibit characteristics similar to those
in the “dynamic competitive focused” category. However, the latter appeared to be
MIP more effective, by virtue of being better at sharing, reacting to and generating
24,6 appropriate strategies from competitive behaviour. This is a valuable observation, as it
appears to suggest that a single dimension focus may not be sufficient to maximise
performance leverage.
Co-ordination focus. The fourth type of market orientation identified (two having
been subsumed into the previous category) was the co-ordination focused variant.
560 It emphasises the inter-functional co-ordination dimension, which is viewed by the
traditional market orientation literature as the “co-ordinated utilization of company
resources in creating superior value for target customers” (Narver and Slater, 1990, p. 22).
An emphasis on this dimension was reflected in the way firms adopted a perspective
focused particularly on operations and efficiency. They were distinctly inward looking.
About 15 per cent of firms emphasising a single market orientation dimension
concentrated on this one. All firms in this category were manufacturers of products.
Informants typically found the systematic gathering and analysis of customer and
competitor intelligence difficult. Such data were frequently referred to by managers as
“scarce”, “inaccessible”, with the accuracy and validity of the intelligence being
described as “often questionable”. This perspective is illustrated by the comment of a
Marketing and Sales Director:
It’s never easy to get good market intelligence. It’s also very expensive [to collect]. That’s why
it’s vital that we maximise the use of the information we do have. We’ve got an excellent
web-based system that key personnel can access and contribute to. This way we all know
what’s going on.
This approach to market orientation categorically places the emphasis of market
orientation on internal functions and operations. These organizations appeared to be
restricted by their own competencies and capabilities (Hamel and Prahalad, 1995). That
is, where firms lacked the resources to develop systems to capture or buy-in market
intelligence, the focus became influenced by existing core competencies. In the
manufacturing sector, there appeared to be a focus on internal operations and in this
way, the efficiency philosophy is subsequently applied to their interpretation of market
orientation.
Table II collects together an illustrative selection of further verbatim extracts from
the transcripts, each allocated to one of the six forms of market orientation defined.

Factors linked to market orientation emphases

Our findings reveal a number of factors that appear to be important in determining the
particular emphasis placed on the dimensions of market orientation. Data analysis
demonstrates that environmental influences are best examined through the
identification of three distinct categories; “micro”, “meso” and “macro”, as shown in
Table III. Consistent with the work of Srnka (2004), we define the micro level as
intra-firm factors, the meso level as professional and industrial norms and the macro
level as national, political and economic factors (Abrahamson and Fombrun, 1994;
Gordon, 1991). In this way, the analysis reflects the different levels of environmental
influences on the strategic orientation of the organisation. The remainder of the paper
describes these factors and explores how they influence the market orientation
emphasis identified.
Micro factors. Micro environmental factors are intra-firm environmental influences,
typically including the culture of the firm and the management plus strategic issues
Market orientation form Market orientation dimension Illustrative quotes from firms found to be adopting one of the market orientation
identified emphasised forms identified

Customer focused Customer orientation “. . . customer perception is seven tenths of the law”; “our customer demand increases
at the same rate as we improve what we offer”, “customer-focus is everything . . . it
seems to matter over and above everything else”
Dynamic customer focus Customer orientation and “you have to constantly track and react to what customers say . . . and how they
inter-functional co-ordination behave”; “it’s key to know the value of a supplier so, you need to know their value to
our customer . . . these guys [sales employees] actually know what happens at the
front end of the business”; “you say jump, and I’ll say how high?”; “. . . we’re trying to
make shoes in response to someone wanting them . . . this has more to do with
survival of the fittest than beating the competition”; “we have all sorts of schemes,
we have schemes where we subscribe to databases of new born babies and then we
send them a card to come for a free fitting . . . ”
Competitor focused Competitor orientation “we’re just not good at monitoring how we service our customers’ needs”; “because of
our competitors . . . we rated ourselves a serious disaster”; “we specialise in selling
today, what our competitors can get tomorrow . . . ”
Dynamic competitor focus Competitor orientation and “I have a data-base here that tells me their [the competitors] every move, every week
inter-functional co-ordination . . . some people [employees] say they spend longer looking at their competitors than
at their own business.” “we share info. on competitor strategy and we can react
quickly because we’re lean”
Co-ordination focused Inter-functional co-ordination “we don’t really know what our competitors are up to . . . customers don’t get to give
as much input as they should . . . we’re very good at talking to each other though and
this is where most of the [product] improvement come from.” “There’s certainly a lot
of information available [internally], but we don’t share it with our customers”
Externally focused Customer and competitor orientation “we have to create products that consumers buy in preference to our competition”;
“we have a lot of customer and competitor information but we’re just not very good
at making use of it”; “one of our strategic thrusts is to correct this, we’re not very
good at sharing customer experience between functions . . . it tends to get stuck in
marketing”; “. . . you should talk to our marketers, but I don’t think we share much
information with them”

of six market orientation

A selection of illustrative
orientation
emphases
Market

forms
identified as adopting one
quotes from firms
561

Table II.
MIP
Market
24,6 orientation Environmental factors
dimensions Micro Meso Macro

Customer Supply chain positioning, Low perceived Economic slow down;

orientation structure, culture, climate, competitor threat, this may force leadership
562 leadership style market-leaders style to change
Competitor Regulation and codes of
Table III. orientation practice industry sector:
Environmental factors typically professional
associated with different services
market orientation Inter-functional Leadership style Industry norms and National culture
dimension emphases co-ordination industry sector culture

that influence the internal environment through organizational cultures, processes and
systems. In this study, the key micro factors identified were supply chain position,
structure, cultural climate, customer contact and leadership style.
Our analysis indicated that, while these micro level factors were recognised as
impacting upon the full range of market orientation types, there appeared a
particularly strong association between customer focused and competitor focused
firms. For example, an informant from one identified as a customer focused
organization averred that:
It’s the way this firm thinks that effects what we do at the front-line.
A manager from a competitor focused counterpart asserted that:
It’s how we operate. We all know that and so, we all know what kind of competitor
information we need to be collecting . . .
Further, the position of a firm in the supply chain also appeared to influence the form of
market-orientation form. More than three quarters of the firms in this group were
traditional retailers with a high street presence. When asked to describe the
environmental factors that they identified as “significantly affecting the way their firm
developed its market orientation”, fully 95 percent of managers from customer-focused
firms acknowledged that their downstream position in the supply chain was a
significant driver of market orientation emphasis. It afforded them direct contact and
feedback from consumers. One manager explained that:
. . . because we have that immediate interface with customers on a day to day basis, we’re
used to listening to them . . . Ignoring them just isn’t an option.
This finding is concordant with the work of Homburg et al. (2002), who recognise the
need for both organizational and individual level service orientation. They observed
that micro factors, including the structure, culture and climate, have an impact on the
success of retail strategy implementation. These micro factors were identified by our
respondents. One retailer considered that:
. . . we’re getting better at developing quite sophisticated incentive programmes to make
sure that we actually deliver the levels of service that we know our customers value and
expect . . .
This has important implications for market orientation, as it seems to suggest that a Market
customer focused market orientation may be a more appropriate form in a highly
competitive retail sector, where differentiation between firms can be difficult to
orientation
establish (Borucki and Burke, 1999; Homburg et al., 2002). A second retailer felt that: emphases
. . . it’s our interaction with customer that makes the difference really – everything else is
window dressing.
563
In this regard, the micro influence of customer contact appears to drive a
customer-focused form of market orientation.
Another noteworthy micro factor to emerge from analysis of the customer focused
informants’ responses was the association made with leadership style. Whilst the firms
in this group scored relatively poorly on the inter-functional co-ordination dimension,
their leaders either came across in interviews, or were portrayed by interviewees, as
controlling and authoritative. In these cases, inter-functional co-ordination was less
systematic and routinized than would be typically expected and tended to be
centralised and controlled by the dissemination of market intelligence under the
leader’s discretion. Managers explained, “we just ask the boss”, “we are told what to
do” and “that’s not within our remit – that’s decided at board level”. In this group,
there was no sense of inter-functional development and interpretation of market
intelligence. The approach to strategic development and implementation was
prescriptive and suggests an association with organizational leadership.
Our finding are in keeping with the work of Martin and Bush (2003), who found
leadership style to be significant in leveraging customer-oriented behaviour and
ultimately business performance (Dubinsky et al., 1995; Maccoby, 2000). Leadership
style has further been found to motivate and enhance the efficacy of salespeople by
increasing decision-making capabilities, boosting perceptions of empowerment and
encouraging a focus on long-term customer satisfaction (Martin and Bush, 2003; Stock
and Hoyer, 2002). An example of this cause and effect is provided by a comment from
one front-line employee:
It’s really great when you can pass that little snippet of information [from the customer] up
the chain [to management] and you know it’s going to make a difference in how we do things
[for the customer].
Thus, in the same way that leadership style impacts on salesperson behaviour, it can
be argued that leadership style is likely to affect the emphasis placed on market
orientation dimensions.
Meso factors. Meso environmental factors are extra-firm factors that relate to
industries and industry sectors. They describe the middle layer of environmental
factors that provide the professional and industry norms (Abrahamson and Fombrun,
1994; Srnka, 2004). In this study, the key meso factors associated with the emphasis of
market-orientation dimensions were competitive intensity, market positioning and
industry sector. Those were closely associated with virtually all competitor focused
and dynamic competitor focused firms (97 per cent) and more than a third of customer
focused firms (37 per cent).
Customer focused firms demonstrated a low level of competitive intensity; they had
few competitors. Further, informants appeared to be confident and satisfied with their
firm’s market position, and did not seem to feel threatened by competitor activity.
In trying to explain why they were so customer focused, one informant said:
MIP Competitors can be a distraction. We know we’re doing OK because our figures tell us that.
And we’re the market-leaders in what is really not a very big market place.
24,6
All firms in this category saw themselves as key players in their sector, and four in
every five considered themselves to be market leaders. In line with the findings of Day
and Wensley (1988), customer-focused assessments started with a detailed analysis of
customer benefits within consumer segments and worked backwards from the
564 customer to identify the appropriate strategic direction and action required of
management and employees. One informant was adamant that:
. . . you’ve got to get to grips with what your customers are telling you. This is really the key
and everything else comes out of this.
The competitor focused group were the most obviously influenced by meso level
factors, which were defined in terms of the industry and profession influences that
brought about behaviours affecting the forms of market orientation adopted. In this
regard, we found a clear distinction within organizations offering professional services:
lawyers, business consultants and financial service providers. Interviewees argued
that professional guidelines often prevented them from employing sales and
advertising techniques typically associated with the retail and manufacturing sectors.
One services provider noted that:
. . . we have to proceed with extreme caution in this area. There are guidelines to stick to, and
then there are the unwritten rules of the game. Some things one just does not do.
This observation reflects a finding of Avlonitis and Gounaris (1997). In their
comparative study of the market orientation and performance relationships in
industrial and consumer goods companies, they observed the distinctions and benefits
of market orientation in the two sectors. While it did not include an investigation of
professional services, it seems arguable that market orientation would manifest itself
differently in that environment. For example, it is against the UK Bar Council’s rules
for barristers (advocates) to approach solicitors for business, a practice described as
“touting”, and they are thus obliged to focus on competition rather than customers.
In such specialist fields, competitors are few in number and differentiation must be
developed through the quality of the services provided and the specialisation and
expertise of the individuals offering them. These considerations are reflected in the
business consultancy and financial services sectors. For example, one practitioner
commented that:
. . . most of what we sell could be pulled directly out of text books – it’s not unique. What is
unique is the way we make it work for our customers and for that, we need to do what we do
better and faster and more cost effectively than our competitors – word of mouth does the
rest.
This finding echoes Day and Wensley (1988), who suggested that companies identify
values which distinguish their firm, and consequently adopt either a customer-focused
or competitor-centred orientation. The latter closely resembles the competitor focused
form of market orientation found in the legal profession by the current study. The
regulated environment appears to drive lawyers to adopt a competitor focused
perspective. One solicitor put it thus:
 This game’s all about competition. Clients don’t really know what to expect from you – most of Market
them are in a daze. It’s all about being seen to be better than the competition. It all comes down
to basic maths; there are too few clients and too damn many of us – it’s a cut-throat business. orientation
emphases
This perspective is thus based on direct management comparisons with a few target
competitors, and the focus of the core organization resides on issues surrounding the
identification and comparison of capabilities and offerings.
Macro factors. Macro environmental factors were defined for our study as the 565
political, economic, social, legal and technological factors associated with influencing
industries and industry sectors. This definition differs from that adopted by
Abrahamson and Fombrun (1994), in that the factors they identify as macroculture are
framed in terms that we define as the meso level influences defined and discussed
above. The additional level of analysis applied here is a response, in part, to the
observations of Greenley (1995a, p. 27), who concludes that the lack of association
between meso environmental factors and market orientation in his study is arguably
due to data being generated from “a country in the middle of a recession”. That is to
say, the economic climate in which firms operated was thought to affect market
orientation. Thus, it is arguable that economic, regulatory, political and cultural macro
environmental factors affect the type of market orientation a firm adopts.
Equally, firms dealing with an economic slow-down in a highly market-sensitive
industry sector may alter their market orientation accordingly. For example, several
managers explained that when, in the past, their organization had experienced such
pressures, there had been a general shift towards a customer focused market orientation.
Managers described their organizations as becoming “customer obsessed”, “too
customer-oriented” and “jumping on the customers’ every word”. Martin and Bush
(2003) suggest that, when economic pressures increase, leadership style can change,
shifting the entire focus of the organization through the directed behaviour of the sales
team. The implications of this observation are twofold. First, it suggests that market
orientation may emphasise different dimensions. Second, it presents market orientation
as a dynamic construct with the emphasis on different dimensions changing in
accordance with macro economic environments. As one informant explained:
Sometimes our competitors do something, the time is right and it works. Then all our
attention is channelled towards what this and other competitors are doing . . . other
times, the same happens with customers and our focus has to shift.
Finally, our findings suggest that national culture is likely to affect the form of market
orientation adopted. While the concept of psychic distance is not new to the field of
marketing, the recognition that individual cultural differences affect buying behaviour
has generally been associated with the field of consumer research (Davies and Fitchett,
2004; McCracken, 1990; Pressey and Selassie, 2003). Yet the impact of national culture
is arguably just as applicable to organizational theory and strategy development
(Mehta et al., 2003). These findings are consistent with those of other commentators
who observe that, while the standardization of products and services continues across
the globe, national cultures are seemingly somewhat resistant to change. Hence,
cultural differences require adaptation of management practices (Barkema and
Vermeulen, 1997; Hofstede, 1991, 1980; Morris and Pavett, 1992).
The research design applied in this study restricted the data collection to the UK, but
informants in multinational corporations were asked how their firm’s market-oriented
MIP behaviour compared with those of their international counterparts involved in overseas
24,6 operations. They generally responded dismissively to suggestions of comparability.
A manager from a highly market-oriented firm, commenting on the way market
intelligence was gathered in a continental European subsidiary, added that “. . . you’d
never get away with that here”. Similarly, a manager describing how market intelligence
was disseminated throughout the UK branch commented that in “that just wouldn’t fly
566 [work] over there”, in the Dubai subsidiary.
One executive summarised the national cultural differences manifest in market
orientation forms as, “different strokes for different folks”, implying that market
orientation behaviours took a very different emphasis within the different countries the
firm operated in. While such evidence can at best be considered exploratory and at
worst purely anecdotal, there do appear to be some grounds for further investigation
into the effect of national culture as an environmental influence on the form of market
orientation practised.

Conclusions and implications

The first contribution of this paper is to uncover different market orientation
emphases. This suggests that, when organizations develop a market orientation they
focus on and emphasise different dimensions. The original conceptualisation of market
orientation by Narver and Slater (1990) suggest that different dimension emphases,
dependent on environmental influences, are likely to be observable and in some
circumstances preferable (Greenley, 1995a, b; Miles and Snow, 1978). This research
study has presented some of the first empirical evidence in support of that proposition
(Day and Wensley, 1988; Greenley, 1995a; Narver and Slater, 1990; Siguaw et al., 1998).
It differs from previous research in offering insights into the complex and varied
nature of market orientation. Whereas other studies have focused on the strength of
market orientation as a whole, this has examined the levels and strengths of the
different market orientation dimensions. A central implication of our findings is that a
more complete understanding of market focus can be achieved only through the
exploration of a wide range of diverse intra-organizational functions. It could be argued
that many conceptualizations of market orientation are weakened by their limited
attention to the emphases of the dimensions exhibited by firms.
The second contribution of the study reported here relates to the environmental
influences identified. Their variety suggests that the effective development of a
market-orientation style requires a detailed understanding of micro, meso and macro
environmental influences. This study thus contributes novel empirical evidence of the
range, nature and dynamics of environmental influences and the links with the form of
market orientation adopted. It also generates implications for wider theory. Previous
research has found market orientation to be linked to performance, regardless of
environmental conditions (Agarwal et al., 2003; Atuahene-Gima and Ko, 2001; Bigné
et al., 2000; Cadogan et al., 2001; Cervera et al., 2001). Hence, numerous conceptual and
empirical studies extol the need to develop higher levels of market orientation
regardless of the contingencies facing the firm. In contrast, we suggest that the very
nature of the market orientation developed is contingent on the peculiarities and
idiosyncrasies of individual context. Therefore, an important implication of our study
is that the market orientation emphasis exhibited by each firm (whether highly or
poorly market focused) is likely to reflect environmental conditions. In essence, what is
market oriented for one firm is not for another. Market orientation is not, and was Market
never intended to be, a universal panacea. orientation
Our study also generates practical insights into how market orientation can be
developed – that is, how the extent of market orientation can be improved. It should be emphases
noted that the focus is on development and not implementation, since the latter implies
the creation of market orientation, something a number of commentators have argued
to be absurd, as all organizations that continue to exist exhibit some degree of market 567
focus (Harris, 2000). While it is recognized that market orientation does not offer a
universal solution for all the challenges and threats facing a firm, the recognition of
market orientation emphases and their links to environmental conditions may prove
useful to some organizations.
First, given the limited resources available to most organizations, an understanding
of the most appropriate emphasis of market orientation may prove useful when
allocating restricted resources and assets. For example, a customer-focused market
orientation may be a more appropriate for firms operating in the retail sector where
hyper-competition is an issue and differentiation between firms can be difficult to
establish. Second, the findings suggest that firms wishing to develop or improve their
market orientation should undertake a comprehensive and inclusive audit of not only
the current and past market orientation exhibited by the firm but also the wide array of
micro, meso and macro influences either currently prevailing or likely to be present in
the immediate future. In this regard, the development of a genuine understanding of
the current position is crucial, prior to initiation of any change. For example, one
informant explained how, after the introduction of takeaway bags into the supermarket
sector, directors of his chain of takeaway stores became very competitor oriented for
about eight months before returning to a more balance market orientation form. Thus,
organizations should consider which market orientation emphasis is most suitable and
undertake a basic and then comprehensive gap analysis, as a means of identifying and
prioritising avenues of market-led strategic change.
This study also offers interesting insights to practitioners concerned with the wider
implications of market orientation. Indeed, distinguishing the range of market
orientation emphases that can be manifested by firms is useful to a broad range of
managers concerned with inter-organizational dynamics. First, auditing of the market
focus of competitors is improved through explicitly recognising that market
orientation emphases exist and are likely to differ from firm to firm. Second,
analysis of such emphases is likely to prove useful when developing and managing
associations with collaborators (such as suppliers, agencies and distributors), which a
number of studies have found to influence one others’ market orientation (Baker et al.,
1999). A key implication is thus that the concept of market orientation should be
acknowledged as broader, and arguably more important, than merely the marketing
function. Indeed, without this greater understanding, developing genuinely innovative
market orientation is likely to prove elusive.
While the current study has generated a number of important insights and
contributions to both theory and practice, the limitations of the research design highlight
two potentially fruitful avenues for future research in particular. First, the exploratory,
qualitative approach could be supplemented by a more descriptive, broader survey type
of design, which might link orientation emphases and performance metrics. Second,
future work might set out to gauge the generalisability of the conclusions drawn here,
MIP which could be significantly enhanced by studying emphases and environmental factors
24,6 in a wider range of business and national contexts. It is hoped that the current study will
provide a useful point of departure for such future developments.

References
568 Abrahamson, E. and Fombrun, C.J. (1994), “Macrocultures: determinants and consequences”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 728-55.
Agarwal, S., Erramilli, M.K. and Chekitan, S.D. (2003), “Market orientation and performance in
service firms: role of innovation”, The Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 17 No. 1, p. 68.
Atuahene-Gima, K. and Ko, A. (2001), “An empirical investigation of the effect of market
orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation”,
Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, p. 54.
Avlonitis, G.J. and Gounaris, S.P. (1997), “Marketing orientation and company performance:
industrial vs. consumer goods companies”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26
No. 5, p. 385.
Baker, T.L., Simpson, P.M. and Siguaw, J.A. (1999), “The impact of suppliers’ perceptions of
reseller market orientation on key relationship constructs”, Academy of Marketing Science.
Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1, p. 50.
Barkema, H.G. and Vermeulen, F. (1997), “What differences in the cultural backgrounds of
partners are detrimental for international joint ventures?”, Journal of International
Business Studies, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 854-64.
Barney, J. (1986), “Organizational culture: can it be a source of sustained competitive
advantage?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 791-800.
Bhaskar, R. (1979), The Possibility of Naturalism: A Philisophical Critique of the Contemporary
Human Sciences, Harvester, Brighton.
Bigné, E., Vila-Lopez, N. and Kuster-Boluda, I. (2000), “Competitive positioning and market
orientation: two interrelated constructs”, European Journal of Innovation Management,
Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 190.
Borucki, C.C. and Burke, M.J. (1999), “An examination of service-related antecedents to retail
store performance”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 6, p. 943.
Cadogan, J.W., Paul, N.J., Salminen, R.T., Puumalainen, K. and Sundqvist, S. (2001), “Key
antecedents to export market-oriented behaviors: a cross-national empirical examination”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 18 No. 3, p. 261.
Cervera, A., Molla, A. and Sanchez, M. (2001), “Antecedents and consequences of market
orientation in public organisations”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 11/12,
p. 1259.
Chatman, J.A. and Jehn, K.A. (1994), “Assessing the relationship between industry characteristics
and organizational culture: how different can you be?”, Academy of Management Journal,
Vol. 37 No. 3, p. 522.
Davies, A. and Fitchett, J.A. (2004), “‘Crossing culture’: a multi-method enquiry into consumer
behaviour and the experience of cultural transition”, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 3
No. 4, p. 315.
Day, G.S. (1994), “The capabilities of market-driven organizations”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58
No. 4, p. 37.
Day, G.S. (1999), “Misconceptions about market orientation”, Journal of Market – Focused
Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 5.
Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), “Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing Market
competitive”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 2, p. 1.
orientation
Deal, T. and Kennedy, A. (1982), Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA. emphases
Deshpandé, R. and Webster, F.E. (1989), “Organizational culture and marketing: defining the
research agenda”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 3-15.
Doyle, P. (1987), “Marketing and the British chief executive”, British Journal of Management, 569
Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 121-32.
Dubinsky, A.J., Yammarino, F.J., Jolson, M.A. and Spangler, W.D. (1995), “Transformational
leadership: an initial investignation in sales management”, Journal of Personal Selling &
Sales Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 17-29.
Dunn, M.G., Norburn, D. and Birley, S. (1994), “The impact of organizational values, goals and
climate on marketing effectiveness”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 30, pp. 131-41.
Dutton, J.E. and Jackson, S. (1987), “Categorizing strategic issues: linking to organizational
action”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 12, pp. 76-90.
Garvin, D.A. (2004), “What every CEO should know about creating new businesses”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 82 Nos 7/8, p. 18.
Gordon, G.G. (1991), “Industry determinants of organizational culture”, Academy of
Management. The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 16 No. 2, p. 396.
Greenley, G.E. (1995a), “Forms of market orientation in UK companies”, The Journal of
Management Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 47.
Greenley, G.E. (1995b), “Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from
UK companies”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, p. 1.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1995), “Competing for the future”, Success, Vol. 42 No. 9, p. 36.
Harris, L.C. (2000), “The organizational barriers to developing market orientation”, European
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 Nos 5/6, p. 598.
Harris, L.C. (2001), “Market orientation and performance: objective and subjective empirical
evidence from UK companies”, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1, p. 17.
Harris, L.C. and Piercy, N.F. (1999), “A contingency approach to market orientation:
distinguishing behaviours, systems, structures, strategies and performance
characteristics”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 15, pp. 617-46.
Hofstede, G. (1980), “Motivation, leadership and organization: do American theories apply
abroad?”, Organizational Dynamics, Summer, pp. 42-63.
Hofstede, G. (1991), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill,
Maidenhead.
Homburg, C., Hoyer, W.D. and Fassnacht, M. (2002), “Service orientation of a retailer’s business
strategy: dimensions, antecedents, and performance outcomes”, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 66 No. 4, p. 86.
Hooley, G., Cox, T., Fahy, J. and Shipley, D. (2000), “Market orientation in the transition
economies of central Europe: tests of the Narver and Slater market orientation scales”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50 No. 3, p. 273.
Hooley, G., Fahy, J., Greenley, J. and Beracs, J. (2003), “Market orientation in the service sector of
the transition economies of central Europe”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37
Nos 1/2, p. 86.
Hooley, G.J., Lynch, J.E. and Shepherd, J. (1990), “The marketing concept: putting theory into
practice”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 7-24.
MIP Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1996), “Market orientation: review, refinement and roadmap”,
Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 1, pp. 119-35.
24,6
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,
and managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2, p. 1.
Lui, H. (1996), “Patterns of market orientation in UK manufacturing companies”, Journal of
Euromarketing, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 77-100.
570 Maccoby, M. (2000), “Narcissistic leaders: the incredible pros and inevitable cons”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 78 No. 1, pp. 68-77.
Martin, C.A. and Bush, A.J. (2003), “The potential influence of organizational and personal
variables on customer-oriented selling”, Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, Vol. 18
Nos 2/3, p. 114.
McCracken, G. (1990), “Culture and consumer behaviour: an anthropological perspective”,
Market Research Society. Journal of the Market Research Society, Vol. 32 No. 1, p. 3.
Mehta, R., Dubinsky, A.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2003), “Leadership style, motivation and
performance in international marketing channels: an empirical investigation of the USA,
Finland and Poland”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 1/2, p. 50.
Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C. (1978), Organizational Strategy, Structure and Process, McGraw-Hill,
New York, NY.
Miller, D.C. (1991), Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement, 5th ed., Sage,
Newbury Park, CA.
Morris, T. and Pavett, C.M. (1992), “Management style and productivity in two cultures”, Journal
of International Business Studies, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 169-79.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, p. 20.
Outhwaite, W. (1987), New Philosophies of Social Science: Realism, Hermeneutics and Critical
Theory, Macmillan, London.
Perry, M.L. and Shao, A.T. (2002), “Market orientation and incumbent performance in dynamic
market”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 Nos 9/10, p. 1140.
Pressey, A.D. and Selassie, H.G. (2003), “Are cultural differences overrated? Examining the
influence of national culture on international buyer-seller relationships”, Journal of
Consumer Behaviour, Vol. 2 No. 4, p. 354.
Pulendran, S., Speed, S. and Widing, R.E. (2003), “Marketing planning, market orientation and
business performance”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37 Nos 3/4, p. 476.
Scherer, F.M. and Ross, D. (1990), Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance,
Houghtn Mifflin, Boston, MA.
Siguaw, J.A., Simpson, P.M. and Baker, T.L. (1998), “Effects of supplier market orientation on
distributor market orientation and the channel relationship: the distributor perspective”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, p. 99.
Sparrow, P.R. and Gaston, K. (1996), “Generic climate maps: a strategic application of climate
survey data?”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 17 No. 6, p. 679.
Spender, J.C. (1989), Industry Recipes: The Nature and Source of Managerial Judgement,
Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Srnka, K.J. (2004), “Culture’s role in marketers’ ethical decision making: an integrated theoretical
framework”, Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2004, p. 1.
Stainback, S. and Stainback, W. (1988), Understanding and Conducting Qualitative Research,
Kendall/Hunt, Dubuque, IA.
Stock, R.M. and Hoyer, W.D. (2002), “Leadership style as driver of salespeoples’ customer Market
orientation”, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 5 No. 4, p. 355.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, C. (1998), Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for
orientation
Developing Grounded Theory, 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. emphases
Turner, B. (1981), “Some practical aspects of qualitative data analysis”, Quality & Quantity,
Vol. 15, pp. 225-47.
Van de Ven, A.H. and Garud, R. (1992), “The co-evolution of technological and institutional 571
innovations”, working paper, University of Minnesota Strategic Management Research
Center, Minneapolis.
Verhees, F.J.H.M. and Meulenberg, M.T.G. (2004), “Market orientation, innovativeness, product
innovation, and performance in small firms”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 42 No. 2, p. 134.
Weber, Y. (1996), “Corporate cultural fit and performance in mergers and acquisitions”, Human
Relations, Vol. 49 No. 9, p. 1181.
Whipp, R., Rosenfeld, R. and Pettigrew, A. (1989), “Culture and competitiveness: evidence from
two mature UK industries”, The Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 26 No. 6, p. 561.
Wong, V. and Saunders, J. (1993), “Business orientations and corporate success”, Journal of
Strategic Marketing, Vol. 1, pp. 20-40.

Further reading
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999), “Learning orientation, market orientation, and innovation:
integrating and extending models of organizational performance”, Journal of
Market-Focused Management, Vol. 4 No. 4, p. 295.
Harris, L.C. (1999), “The strategic legacy of company founders”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 32
No. 3, p. 333.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.