Individual Assignment Marketing Strategy Benjamin J.

Teeuwsen University of Wollongong Spring Session 2004 Coordinator: Elias Kyriazis

MARKET-ORIENTATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 2 2. STRATEGIC ORIENTATIONS ........................................................................................................................ 2 3. CORPORATE STRATEGY ............................................................................................................................... 3 4. KOHLI AND JAWORSKI A BEHAVIOURAL GUIDE .............................................................................. 4 5. NARVER AND SLATER A CULTURAL APPROACH .............................................................................. 5 6. CONCLUSION CULTURE SUPPLEMENTS IMPLEMENTATION ........................................................ 6 7. MARKET-DRIVING PIONEERING CONCEPTS ...................................................................................... 7 8. LEARNING ORGANIZATIONS THEORETICAL EXPLANATION ....................................................... 8 9. MEASURING MARKET ORIENTATION IMPACT ON PERFORMANCE ........................................... 9 9.1 MAJOR RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................. 9 9.2 ANTECEDENTS AND MODERATOR EFFECTS ................................................................................................... 10 9.3 INTERNAL LEVERAGE: ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING .................................................................................... 11 10. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................................. 11 LITERATURE ....................................................................................................................................................... 13

APPENDIX

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

1 | 18

1. Introduction
Market orientation focuses the entire organization on the market as the fundamental basis for business strategy development. 1

The purpose of this paper is to discuss Market-Orientation (MO) and its implications in the context of corporate strategy development. Todays businesses face the enormous challenges of rapid change, increasing complexity and inter-dependencies in global competition. (App. 1) The increasing environmental turbulence, and massive transformations have caused a fundamental review of the paradigms which were underlying the strategy concepts of the 70s and 80s. 2 Focusing on efforts regarding operational effectiveness, time-based competition, industry-based strategy, reengineering, benchmarking, etc. missed its contribution to create unique customer value and strong market positions. 3 Does the seeking for new strategic paradigms ring for the market-driven era? Authors such as David Cravens, Gordon Greenley, Nigel F. Piercy and Stanley F. Slater say yes. 4 2. Strategic Orientations
Strategic orientations are the guiding principles that influence a firm's marketing and strategy-making activities.5

Strategic orientations can be conceptualized as strategic fit, strategic predisposition, strategic thrust, and strategic choice. Noble offers a framework of internal priorities and processes and external actions to classify strategic orientations. 6 Several orientations have been considered, such as a product orientation, production orientation or sales orientation and customer orientation. 7 Latter focuses on a better understanding of the customers, their needs and preferences. It is often referred to as listen to the customer using tools such as customer surveys, focus groups, customer days, conjoint analysis and activities, that integrate customers into the NPD process. 8 Sometimes also activities such as relationship marketing or one-twoone marketing are associated with this orientation. 9 Similar, there is no definitive view on the nature of MO. 10 However the main contributions has been considered the work of Kohli and Jaworski on the one hand and Narver and Slater in combination with Deshpande and Farely on
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Cravens (1997:199) Prahalat (1994:5-10) Cravens (1998a:197-198) Porter (1996:61-64) Collins (1995:121) Dickson (1996:102) Prahalat (1994:5-6) Porter (1996:61-64) Cravens (1998:29) Noble (2002:25) Noble (2002:26 Kotler (2001:15) Kumar (2000:132) Noble (2002:29) Piercy (2000:69) Slater (1998:1002) Kumar (2000:132) / NPD New Product Development Kumar (2000:131) Compare Appendix

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

2 | 18

the other hand. 11 At this stage one important issue should be given away: Market-Orientation is not a Marketing-Orientation, though departments play an important role in sensitizing for a MO. 12 (App. 2 - 4) 3. Corporate Strategy
Competitive strategy is about being different. It means deliberately choosing a different set of activities to deliver a unique mix of value. 13

At the heart, contemporary business strategy deals with the interplay of the strategic three Cs and involves questioning in which markets (market segmentation, time frame) and with which competitive advantages to compete (value propositions, sustainable competitive advantages. 14 The need for strategy goes back to finite resources, uncertainty about demand and competition, long-term and broad scope of decision-taking etc. . 15 Modern strategy bases on the insights of Andrews K. R. et al. that a company needs to match internal resources and skills (strength, weaknesses) with external opportunities and threats. Since, various strategic paradigms evolved, such as industry-based, resource-based, and competence-based strategy. 16 (App. 5-8) In deed, the hallmark of contemporary resource-based strategy concepts are core competences and the alignment of distinctive capabilities to create superior customer value and achieve sustainable competitive advantages. 17 Day G. took the discussion a step further to the marketdriven approach. 18 Capabilities are defined as complex bundle skills and accumulated knowledge, exercised through organizational processes, that enable firms to coordinate activities and make use of their asset. 19 A selected set of unique capabilities (distincitve capabilities) are deeply embedded within the firm, thus hardly to identify but also hardly to imitate. Market-oriented firms foster mainly their market sensing and market relating capabilities. 20 Modern theories of competition, such as the R-A theory, reflect this perspective. (App. 8 25) Recent paradigms also increasingly address the necessity to proactively shape the market environment in contrast to long-held beliefs of a solely responsiveness. 21 That traces back to the extension of the industrial organization paradigm by considering the feedback

11 12 13 14 15 16

17 18 19 20 21

Gray (2002:980) Hunt (2002:273) Day (1994:43) Slater (1994:24) Shapiro (1988:119) Jaworski (1990:16) Porter (1996:64) Jain (2004:25-26) (Customer, Competitor, Competition) Jain (2002:9) Hunt (2002:268-271) Collins (1995:121) / view Andrews K. R. (1971) The Concept of Corporate Strategy Day (1994:37-40) Collis (1995:118-121) Hunt (1995:1) Cravens (1998b:202) Day (1994:38) Day (1999:x) Kumar (2000:129) Jaworski (2000:45) Prahalat (1996:196) Dickson (1996:103) Senge 1992:13)

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

3 | 18

effects of firm conduct on industry structure. 22 These days strategists explain flux and transformation 23 of markets and the environment (economy, competition, political situation, technology) through tools of systems thinking addressed to the logic of mutual causality (e.g. understanding customer satisfaction as cause and effect of employee satisfaction 24 ) and explain companies self-reflection and decision-relevant paradigms with mental models. 25 Finally moderns strategy addresses the crucial role of corporate culture to influence the necessary behaviours. 26 Contemporary methods to link the long-term success with short-term goals, such as the balanced scorecard, broaden the focus on performance by including elements of learning, internal processes and customer information. 27 The following chapters will now introduce the roots and the construct of MO. 4. Kohli and Jaworski A Behavioural Guide
Market orientation is the organizationwide generation of market intelligence pertaining to current and future customer needs, dissemination of the intelligence across departments, and organizationwide responsiveness to it.28

In 1990 Kohli and Jaworski published their results of an extensive literature review in combination with field studies to offer a foundation, definition, and research agenda aiming at the clarification of the construct of MO, which the authors view as the implementation of the marketing concept. 29 The marketing concept has been considered a marketing cornerstone 30 since its formulation in the 1950s and 1960s and is about achieving organizational goals by satisfying needs and wants more efficient and effective than competitors do. 31 Traditional the marketing concept has been considered a philosophy. 32 From the literature review the authors sum up three core themes underlying, which are a 1) customer focus (paramount), 2) coordinated (i.e. integrated) marketing and 3) profitability. The new construct broadens the traditional philosophical view by considering rather the required activities (guide to action), various market forces and interfunctional aspects than effects

22 23 24 25

26

27 28 29 30 31 32

Porter (1981:616) Morgan (1997:251) Day (1994:41) Morgan (1997:274) Senge (1994:87) Senge (1990:8) Baker (2002:9) Prahalat (1986:7-8) Day (1994b:31) Day (1999:59) Kumar (2000:139) Locander (2002:151) / Culture is what is created from the messages that are received about how people are expected to behave in your organization. (Barker 2004:6) Kaplan (1996:85) Kohli (1990:6) Kohli (1990:1,16) Hunt (2002:272) Kotler (2001:18) Slater (1998:1006) Kohli, Jaworski (1990:1) Hunt (1996:11) Webster (1994:16)

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

4 | 18

namely profitability. 33 The implementation is best approached on the level of SBUs34 . The implementation might take its time and importantly the efforts of all departments. Finally the authors particularly stress that a successful MO depends on the quality of its execution rather than the purely quantitative implementation. 35 The authors include thoughts about levers such as e.g. senior management factors, interdepartmental dynamics and the organizational system, which will be discussed later in this paper. 36 Since the formulation of the MO construct the authors have not deviated from its early definition. Recent empirical work covered the specific question, how to design competitive intelligence generation most effectively. The starting point 1) organizing for competitive intelligence requires the establishment of a central and responsible position within the company. 2) Searching for information requires an analyst proactively developing and expanding a mainly informal network of information sources. 3) Sense-making most effectively managed, involves several parties contributing with different backgrounds and perspectives to enrich the quality of interpretations and conclusions. Sense making is seen as an evolving and iterative process. 37 (App. 26-28) 5. Narver and Slater A Cultural Approach
Market orientation it the organization culture that most effectively and efficient creates the necessary behaviours for the creation of superior value 38 for buyers and, thus, continuous superior value for buyers and, thus, continuous superior performance for the business. 39

At the same time as Jaworski and Kohli (K&W), Narver and Slater published their conceptualization of MO, which is theoretically based on a literature review while additional supported by empirical results suggesting the relation between MO and profitability. The understanding and priority of culture refers to prior work of Deshpande and Webster, who define organizational culture as the pattern of shared values and beliefs that help individuals understand organizational functioning and thus provide them norms for behaviour in the organization. 40 These authors consider the marketing concept a distinct organizational culture, a fundamental shared set of beliefs and values that put the customer in the center of

33 34

35 36 37 38 39 40

Kohli (1990:3) (1993:468) Kohli (1990:6) /A strategic business units, or SBU, is any organizational unit that has (or should have) a defined business strategy and a manager with sales and profit responsibility. Aaker (2001:8) Kohli (1990:15) Kohli (1990:7) Jaworski (2002:301) Difference between perceived benefits and total acquisition and use costs, also compare Kotler (App.) Narver (1990:21) Deshpande (1989:4)

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

5 | 18

the firms thinking . 41 The cultural construct is supplemented by the behavioural dimension, customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination. 42 These elements are completed by two decision-criteria, which constitute a long-term focus and profitability. 43 The very heart of customer orientation is value creation. This orientation affects the entire value chain. Particularly the aspect of anticipating (which is identical with K&Js construct) customer value broadens the scope by including all dynamics which can give cues about customer needs and value perception. 44 It is the paradigm that customers might be so accustomed to current condition they dont think to ask for a new solution that contrasts Customer-led approaches. 45 The same future perspective, regarding their strength, weaknesses, capabilities and strategies , applies to competitor orientation. 46 Interfunctional coordination reflects aligned value-creating activities and also stresses the contribution of each single function in the value chain. 47 Finally, a basic law of economics applies: for every business, at some point the incremental costs to increase its market orientation will exceed the incremental benefits. 48 (App. 29-32) 6. Conclusion Culture Supplements Implementation
An absence of these shared beliefs and values would surely compromise the activity patterns advocated by the behavioural perspective. 49

The major contribution has been considered the broadening of the marketing concept, by a customer focus AND a focus on competitor actions as well as environmental forces. Anticipating change is another key element. 50 While Jaworski and Kohli developed a clear guide which actions are required to implement a MO, Narver and Slater supplement the implementation with the cultural aspect to guide the marketing implementation. (App. 33)

41 42 43 44 45

46 47 48 49 50

Deshpande (1989:3) Narver (1990:23) Narver (1990:20-22) Narver (1990:21) Also referred to as expressed and latent needs, Slater (1998:1003) Hamel (1996:108) Kumar (2000:132) / What customers cant tell you might be just what you need to develop successful new products. Leonard (1997:104) Narver (1990:22) Narver (1990:22) Narver (1990:33) Day (1994:43) Gray (2002:981) Slater (1998:1003)

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

6 | 18

7. Market-driving Pioneering Concepts

There are three kinds of companies, those who watch things happen, those who make things happen, and those who wander what happened. 51

Last recent publications distinguish two complementary concepts of a MO, namely a) Marketdriven and b) Market-driving companies. 52 (App. 34) Jaworski, Kohli and Sahays framework to shape the market environment includes 1) shaping the structure and 2) shaping behaviour. 53 Market-driving is a matter of degree 54 depending on the rate and extend of the changes, regardless the time to the market. In deed it is very challenging to be both market-driven and driving markets at the same time 55 - particularly over time. The high potential on the one hand, entails a high risk on the other hand. (App. 35-38) The framework offered by Kumar, Scheer and Kotler explains the phenomenon slightly different; it is the product/service experience that overwhelms customer expectations and existing alternatives. As a result, the landscape of the industry is substantially altered. 56 The authors indicate two dimensions of innovation. There is 1) the value proposition (what is offered to the customer?) and 2) the business system (how the company creates and delivers its value proposition). Market-driving firms per definition engage in both, radical innovation and unique business system, hence also competing on both, benefits-acquisition costs and price.57 Due to the less tangible business system these companies are more difficult to copy, which reasons a degree of SCA. 58 (App. 39) Based on their field study among 25 pioneering firms, the authors present common elements of market driving firms. (App. 40-41) For instance, a shared vision seems to play a central role. Interestingly, the idea generation often goes back to a combination of serendipity, inexperience, and persistence, which can occur anywhere in the firm in and outside the industry. The authors draw on the example of Howard Schult founder of Starbucks in 1983 - after a trip to Europe he was inspired to carry the charming Italian coffee culture of Verona and Milan to America. 59 It is the maverick nature of radical ideas, which often question and rebel against the prevailing industry and incumbent wisdom which countervails market driving innovations. 60 Many obstacles are deeply ingrained in companys internal policies, processes and culture
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60

Anonymus Jaworski (2000:45) Kumar (2000:129) Jaworski (2000:46) Jaworski (2000:47) Jaworski (2000:53) Kumar (2000:130) Kumar (2000:141) Kumar (2000:130) Also compare R-A Theory by Hunt and Competing on Capabilities by Day Kumar (2000:130) Kumar (2000:135)

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

7 | 18

(risk-aversion of senior management, intolerance of failures). It is common practice in NPD to favour projects that are triable, reversible, divisible, tangible, familiar, serve current customers, fit with the organizations direction while most radical innovative ideas do not fit within these categories. 61 Again, this shows the view beyond customer-led. 62 It has been considered that innovations such as the word processor (replacing typewriters) or the microwave oven simply need more than customer feedback. 63 Finally, at a certain point market-driving firms loose momentum over time. Breakthrough innovations shape an industry once and are than followed by a phase of incremental improvements. 64 Meanwhile, successful innovations and business systems attract competitors to copy them. So do market driving companies transform over time into market driven companies. Simply put, there are two major challenges: the vision and environment to generate breakthrough ideas and () the capital, fortitude, and risk tolerance to preserve and allow the radical idea to have a fair chance to succeed. 65 Sony is one of the few companies recognized to be continually evolving and developing market-driving product innovations. 66 (App. 39-43) Beyond, Hamel recently argues market-driving strategies cannot be developed outside the firm. 67 8. Learning Organizations Theoretical Explanation
Market orientation must be complemented by entrepreneurship and appropriate organizational structures and processes for higher-order learning. 68

Organizational learning relates to disciplines as sociology, psychology and anthropology and plays a vital role in modern strategy through given firms the ability to change continuously, identify latent needs and thus create superior customer value, while the sustainability depends on the degree of competitors activities in this domain. 69 The concept of learning organizations is closely related to MO. 70 Learning is a process and occurs while firms interact with their environment and update their beliefs due to the environmental feedback.71 Learning is important for market-driven/-driving firms in terms of ensuring open-minded information acquisition, wide-spread distribution, mutually informed mental models (shared
61 62

63
64

65 66

67
68 69 70 71

Kumar (2000:136) Also compare the Sony example in App. 42 escaping the Myopia of the served market Hamel (1990:90) Sinkula (1999a:297) revolutionary periods of generative learning may provide a window of competitive advantage that can be kept open only through continuous improvement. Slater (1995:64) upstream creative challenge and downstream implementation challenge Kumar (2000:136) Kumar (2000:139) That has to come from the sweat, blood and imagination of the people in that organization.'' Hamel (2004:5) Slater (1995:63) Slater (1995:71) Dickson (1996:104) Baker (1999:295) Cravens (1998b:200) Day (1994a:9) Sinkula (1994:35) Lee (1992:23)

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

8 | 18

interpretation and assumptions about the fundamentals) and finally accessible memory, which is the experience and knowledge-base of a firm. 72 (App. 44-46) For instance, Americans car manufactures shared the belief, that the key drivers in their industry were power and style instead of realizing that the buying pattern was shifting to factors as economy and reliability. As a result of their inappropriate mental model they got caught by Japanese companies entering the market. 73 According to the theory of learning it is generative learning (higherorder learning), which enables firms to question long-held beliefs and shared assumptions about the business environment. 74 (App. 47-48) It seems to be the ability to sort noise from truth that helps companies to retrieve the fundamental cues about whats going on in the industry. 75 However the question how the internal structures and processes need to be designed goes beyond the scope of this paper. Finally, the organizational hierarchy relates the theoretical concepts underlying organizational learning to market-driven and market-driving firms. As MO is seen to be a continuum, this applies also to learning organizations. 76 (App. 49-57) 9. Measuring Market Orientation Impact On Performance This chapter presents major results about the relation between MO and performance, antecedents and environmental moderator effects. An extensive set of scales is included in the appendix for both reasons, the questions which are to ask are probably a good way to convey the nature of the construct. The scales should guide for practical application. Different scales might work for different purposes.
9.1 Major Results

Since the formulation of the construct in 1990 much research has been conducted to examine the underlying relationships. 77 (App. 58) A large body of studies indicate the positive relationship of a MO on business performance. 78 The early researches found evidence in the U.S. which was later extended to Canada, Japan, European countries, New Zealand and Australia. 79 Evolving measurements vary. Researchers found the original Narver/Slater scale outperforming MARKOR (Kohli/Jaworski) in terms of validity in cross-sector-cultural

72 73 74 75 76 77 78

79

Day (1994:10) Slater (1995:64-66) (Baker 2002:15) Slater (1995:64) Sinkula (2002:264) Senge (1994:5) Sinkula (1999:411) Gray (1999:238) Narver 1990, Jaworski 1993a, Deshpande 1993, Lado 1996, Gray 1998, Gray 1999, Baker 1999, Hooley 2003, Verhees 2004 Gray (1999:231)

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

9 | 18

comparison. 80 Others scales range from customer orientation scales (customer, competitor, coordination, profit, and environment / strategy, leadership combinations). 81 Beyond the use for empirical research on marketing constructs the scales should also help managers to pinpoint areas of weakness and enable them to take corrective action. 82 Deshpande and Piercy stress the potential of extend self-reporting procedures (including customers, suppliers, etc. into the assessment). 83 Criticism has been raised demanding for panel data to examine cultural effects, which are likely to evolve over time. 84 Also Gray cautions that most studies evaluate rather market-oriented behaviours than cultural phenomenon. Moreover the fact, that corporate cultures often are complex constructs 85 , including multi dimensions, complicates investigation. 86 It seems also useful to extend research to examination to different strategic orientations than MO (selling, national brand), which might lead to success under certain conditions. 87 However this extends the scope of this paper. Finally one might consider analysing public speeches, annual reports, etc. for cues about a MO/cultural orientation. 88
9.2 Antecedents And Moderator Effects

In 1993 Kohli and Jaworski identified antecedents, such as senior management factors, organization system and interfunctional coordination. More studies of the relations between MO and various management systems (HRM, IT, etx.) to better understand the antecedents and moderator effects has been suggested. 89 (App. 59) In 1999 Gray published results of an extensive literature review and his own research. The results from New Zealand, indicate moderating effects of competitive intensity, market growth, buying power and entry barriers, but no influence of market turbulence. Latter is considered to be country specific. Referring to findings from prior research Gray concludes, that market-oriented companies may actually thrive on turbulence, so long as the level of uncertainty and competition is not too extreme. 90 It could be explained, that managers need to be more sensitive to changes. 91 In total,

80 81 82 83 84 85

86 87 88 89 90 91

Cuarana 1999, Mavondo 2000, Hooley 2003, Verhees 2004 Deshpande 1993, 1998, Lado 1996, Gray 1998/1999, Cravens 1998b Gray (1998:893) Deshpande (1997:33) Piercy (2000:54) Noble (2002:36) Deshpande and Webster (1989:7) Organizational Paradigms: comparative, contingency, cognition, symbolism, psychodynamic aspects Gray (1999:233) Noble (2002:37) Lado (1996:35) Becker (1999:32) Gray (1999:253) Gray (1999:249)

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

10 | 18

moderating effects can contribute to the MO/performance relationship. Companies with strong MOs win over less-oriented firms particularly in turbulent markets.92
9.3 Internal Leverage: Organizational Learning
.. market-oriented processes are necessary but not sufficient to maintain sustainable competitive advantage..
93

In 1999, empirical results of Baker and Sinkula suggest that MO and especially LO positive and independently influence performance. 94 (App. 60 65) LO improves the quality of market information processes (interpretation, memory, mental models), which levers MO (indirect effect). 95 In contrast to MO, LO can accelerate performance gains in terms of relative market share (directly), even without the other force. For instance, the effect of MO was low without a strong LO. Apparently firms without strong MO can still significantly engage in new product development which can occasionally be. However the danger is that those firms are likely to engage in costly experimentation due to their lack of market information. Strong MOs (in absence of LO) are likely to lead to incremental innovations, however with limited potential to drive market share. In sum, in the absence of one or the other, it would be better for a firm to have a strong market orientation. 96 Beyond, a LO has the potential to outperform a MO through significant influence on other factors such as production efficiency, use of information technology, use of capital markets, communication channels, innovative trainings, etc. The results also support the strategic importance of product innovation in many industries to gain advantages over competition. Promotion and distribution activities are likely outside the firm than under its control. Also, pricing might be rather dictated by the market than by the firm. 97 10. Conclusion Contemporary strategy paradigms base on internal capabilities rather than industry structure. Strategy formulation needs to relate to the market. MO broadens the perspective to a variety of forces current and anticipated. MO seems helpful to provide the necessary organization-wide information acquisition and distribution and to guide the implementation of the marketing concept. Results support the impact on firms performance, but also show the necessity for organizational learning for innovation and continuous organizational change and the quality of

92 93 94

95 96 97

Gray (1999:253) Baker (1999:425) Slater (1995:77) Baker (1999:425) Baker (1999a:301) Also compare the significant role of innovation in Deshpande (1993:31) Baker (1999:419) Baker (1999:421) Baker (1999a:300)

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

11 | 18

MO activities. Strategy also requires a long-term vision and the culture to evoke the required actions and entrepreneurial drive. Besides, coordinated activities and senior management factors play a vital role. Both MO and LO processes provide comparative advantages which are more difficult to imitate. However the sustainability depends on the degree of competitors MO and LO processes.

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

12 | 18

Presented by
Chiligum Strategies, Benjamin Teeuwsen
At chiligum strategies we are dedicated to advance and inspire marketing strategies based on sound reason -and a fresh breeze of creative thinking. Any question or suggestion? Please dont hesitate to get in touch. benjamin@chiligum.com www.chiligum.com twitter: chiligum

Further readings:
slideshare.com/strategyandmarketing scribd.com/strategyandmarketing

Chiligum Strategies, chiligum.com, 2010

Share the inspiration: chiligum clothing -for creatives, by creatives

http://shop.chiligum.com

Chiligum Strategies, chiligum.com, 2010

Literature Aaker David A. (2001) Strategic Market Management (6th ed.) John Wiley&Sons, New York Aaker David A. (1992) Strategic Market Management (3th ed.) John Wiley&Sons, New York Argyris C. and Schon D.A. (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA in: Lee S., J.F. Courtney, Jr., and R.M. O'Keefe (1992), A System for Organizational Learning Using Cognitive Maps OMEGA International Journal of Management Science, No. 20, pp. 23-36. Argyris, Chris and Donald A. Schon (1978) Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA Addison-Wesley in: Baker (2002:9) Baker W. E., Sinkula J. M. (2002) Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and Product Innovation: Deving into the Organizations Black Box, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 5, No. 1 pp. 5-22 Baker W. E., Sinkula J. M. (1999a) Learning Orientation, Market Orientation, and Innovation and Extending Models of Organizational Performance, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 295-308 Baker W. E., Sinkula J. M. (1999) The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning on organizational performance Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 411427 Baker Michael J. (1992) Strategic Marketing Management (2nd ed.) The Macmillan Press, London Barker Carolyn, Coy Robyn (2004) The power of culture : driving today's organisation, McGraw-Hill, Sydney Becker J., Homburg C. (1999) Market-Oriented Management: A Systems-Based Perspective, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 4, No. 1, pg. 17-61 Burke W. Warner (2002) Organization change: theory and practice, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif. Collins D., Montgomery C. (1995) Competing on Resources: Strategy in the 1990s Harvard Business Review, Jul.-Aug., pp. 118-120 Crainer S. (2004) Interview: Philip Kotler, Business Strategy Review, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 2528 Cravens D. W., Piercy N. F., Prentice A. (2000) Developing market-driven product strategies Journal of Product and Brand Management Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 369-388

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

13 | 18

Cravens D. W., Greenley G., Piercy N. F., Slater S. F. (1998) Mapping the path to market leadership: Effectively combining various dimensions of strategy into an integrated process of strategic analysis and action maps the path to market leadership Marketing Management. Chicago, Vol. 7, No. 3; pp. 29-39 Cravens D. W. (1998a) Implementation strategies in the market-driven strategy era Academy of Marketing Science Journal Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 237-243 Cravens D. W. (1998b) Examining the impact of market-based strategy paradigms on marketing strategy Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 197-208 Cravens D. W., Greenley G., Piercy N. F., Slater S. (1997) Integrating contemporary strategic management perspectives, Long range planning, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 493-506 Cuarana (1999) An Assessment of the Dimensions and the Stability of the Items in the MARKOR Scale Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 17, No.5, pp. 248 - 253 Day G. S. (1999), The market driven organization, The Free Press, New York Day G. S. (1994) The capabilities of market-driven organizations, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, No. 4, pp. 37-52 Day G. D. (1994a) Continuous learning about markets, California Management Review, Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 9-31 Day, G.S., Nedungadi, P., (1994b) Managerial representations of competitive advantage Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 31-44. Deshpande R., Farley J. U. (1998) Measuring Market Orientation: Generalization and Synthesis Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 2, pp. 213-232 Deshpande R., Farley J. U., Webster F. E. Jr. (1993) Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 1, pp. 23-37 Deshpande R., Webster F. E. Jr. (1989) Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 3-15 Dickson P. R. (1996) The static and dynamic mechanics of competition: A comment on Hunt and Morgan, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 60, No. 4, pp. 102-106 Gray B., Matear S., Boshoff C., Matheson P. (1998) Developing a better measure of market orientation European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32, No. 9/10, pp. 884-895 Gray B., Greenley G. E., MATEAR S. M., Matheson P. K. (1999) Thriving on turbulence Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 4, pp. 231257 Gray B. J., Hooley G. H. (2002) Market orientation and service firm performance - a research agenda European Journal of Marketing, Vol.36, No. 9/10; pp. 980-989 Hamel G., Prahalad C.K. (1996) Competing for the future, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass.

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

14 | 18

Hamel G. (2001) Leading the revolution: an interview with Gary Hamel Strategy and Leadership; Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.1-7 Helfert G., Ritter T., Achim W. (2002) Redefining market orientation from a relationship perspective: Theoretical considerations and empirical results, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36, No. 9/10, pg. 1119-1140 Hooley G., Fahy J., Greenley G., et al. (2003) Market orientation in the service sector of the transition economies of central European Journal of Marketing ,Vol. 37, No. 1/2, pp. 86-107 Hunt S. D. (2002) Foundations of Marketing Theory, Armonk, New York Hunt S. D., Morgan R. M. (1995) The comparative advantage theory of competition Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 2, pp. 1-16 Jain S. C. (2004) Marketing Planning & Strategy (7th.ed.) Thomson Jaworski B. J., Kohli A. K. (1993) Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, No. 3, pp. 53-71 Jaworski B., Kohli A. K., Sahay A. (2000) Market-driven versus driving markets, Academy of Marketing Science Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1, pp. 45-55 Jaworski B., Macinnis D. J., Kohli A. K. (2002) Generating Competitive Intelligence in Organizations, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 5, No. 4, pg. 279-307 Kaplan R. S., Norton D. P. (1996) Using the Balanced Scorecard as a Strategic Management System Harvard Business Review, Vol. Jan-Feb, pp. 75-85 Kohli A. K., Jaworski B. J., Kumar A. (1993) MARKOR: A measure of market orientation, Journal of Marketing Research Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, No. 4, pg. 467-477 Kohli A. K., Jaworski B. J. (1990) Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 2, pp. 1-18 Kotler P., Brown L., Adam S., et al. (2001), Marketing (5th ed.), Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest Kumar N., Scheer L., Kotler P. (2002) From market driven to market driving, European Management Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 129-142 Lado N., Maydeu-Olivares A., Rivera J. (1996) Measuring Market Orientation in several polulations A structural equations model European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32, No. 1/2 , pp. 23-39 Lee S., J.F. Courtney, Jr., and R.M. O'Keefe (1992), "A System for Organizational Learning Using Cognitive Maps," OMEGA International Journal of Management Science, Vol. 20 (Spring), pp. 23-36. Leonard D., Rayport J. (1997) Spark Innovation Through Empathic Design Harvard Business Review, Nov.- Dec., pp.102-113
Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

15 | 18

Locander W. B., Hamilton F., Ladik D., (et. al) (2002) Developing a Leadership-Rich Culture: The Missing Link to Creating a Market-Focused Organization, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, p. 149-163 Mavondo F. T., Farrell M. A. (2000) Measuring market orientation: Are there differences between business marketers and consumer marketers? Australian Journal of Management Vol.25, No. 2; pp. 223-245 McGahan A. M., Porter M. E. (1997) How much does industry really matter? Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18, p. 15-30 Morgan, Gareth (1996) Images of Organization (2nd ed.), SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks, California Narver J. C., Slater S. F. (1990) The effect of a market orientation on business profitability, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp. 20-36 Hoffman N. P. (2000) An Examination of the "Sustainable Competitive Advantage" Concept: Past, Present, and Future Academy of Marketing Science Review, Vol. 2000, pp. 1-16 Mohammed R., Fisher R., Jaworski B. (2004) Internet marketing: building advantage in the networked economy, McGraw-Hill, Boston, Mass. Noble C. H., Sinha R. K., Kumar A. (2002) Market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: A longitudinal assessment of performance implications Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, No. 4, pp. 25-40 Nystrom P. C., Starbuck W. H. (1984) To Avoid Organizational Crisis, Unlearn Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 13. pp. 53-65 in Baker (2002) Piercy, Nigel (2000) Market-led strategic change : making marketing happen in your organization, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford Porter Michael E. (1985) Competitive Advantage, Free Press, New York Porter, Michael E. (1981)The Contributions of Industrial Organization to Strategic Management Academy of Management The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 6, No. 4 pp. 609-621 Porter M. E. (1996) What is Strategy?, Harvard Business Review, No. 6, Nov-Dec., pp. 61-78 Porter M. E. (1979) How competitive forces shape strategy Harvard Business Review, Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 137-145 Prahalad C. K., Hamel G. (1994) Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15, No. SPECIAL ISSUE; pp. 5-17 Prahalad, C.K., Bettis, R.A. (1986) The dominant logic: a new linkage between diversity and performance Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 7, pp. 485-501.
Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

16 | 18

Ruekert, Robert W. (1992) "Developing a Market Orientation: An Organizational Strategy Perspective," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 225-45. Senge P. M., Kleiner A., Roberts C., et al. (1994) The fifth discipline fieldbook, Doubleday, New York Senge P. M. (1990) The fifth discipline, Doubleday, New York Shapiro (1988) What the hell is market oriented? Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec., pp.119-125 Sinkula J. M. (2002) Market-based success, organizational routines, and unlearning The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 253-270 Sinkula J. M. (1994) Market information processing and organizational learning, Journal of Marketing Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 35-46

Slater S. F. (2001) Market orientation at the beginning of a new millennium Managing Service Quality, Vol. 11, No. 4, pp. 230-233 Slater S. F., Narver J. C. (1998) Research Notes and Communications Customer-Led and Market-Oriented: Lets not Confuse the Two Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 10, pp. 1001-1006 Slater S. F., Narver J. C. (1995) Market orientation and the learning organization Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, No. 3, pp. 63-75 Slater S. F., Narver J. C. (1994) Market orientation, customer value, and superior performance Journal of Marketing, Vol. 37, No. 2, pg. 22-29 Slater S. F., Narver J. C. (1994a) Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship? Vol. 58, No. 1, pg. 46-55 The Australian concise Oxford dictionary (2004) edited by Bruce Moore, South Melbourne, Vic. Tuominen M., Rajala A., Mller K. (2002) Market-driving versus market-driven: Divergent roles of market orientation in business relationships Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 207-217 Verhees J.H.M, Meulenberg M. (2004) 'Market orientation, innovativeness, product innovation, and performance in small firms Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 134-155 Webster F. E. Jr. (1994) Executing the new marketing concept Marketing Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 8-17

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

17 | 18

Images Cover: Gareth Morgan (1997) Images of Organization (2nd ed.), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Ca.(pg. 257) Systems that look at themselves.

Market-Orientation, Benjamin Teeuwsen (2004)

18 | 18