y291Εz
Market orientation and Company Performance:
A study of Selected Japanese and Sri Lankan Companies
Kajendra Kanagasabai
There have
been a few empirical studies on the relationship between market orientation and
business performance of companies in
Introduction
At present
all most all the companies, irrespective of developed or developing countries,
consider market orientation as a pivotal point in their decision making
process. Literature on this concept suggests that environmental factors such as
technology turbulence, competition, market turbulence, create the need of
market orientation (Malhotra, 2001). Therefore,
companies now adopt market orientation either as a culture or philosophy or
behavior (Kohli and Jaworski,
1990, Narver and Slater, 1990).
In relation
to defining market orientation, researchers have proposed varying definition of
market orientation in the literature. However, although the thinking of market
orientation occurred more than four decades ago, the importance of the concept
started from Kohili and Jawarski
(1990).
The strong
argument is that there is a relationship between market orientation and company
performance (Narver and Slater (1990), Ruekert (1992), Despande et al.
1993, Pelham and Wilson, 1996, Deng and Dart, 1994, Pelham and Wilson, 1996).
Although
there are several studies related to market orientation and its link with
company performance in many countries, very few studies conducted in
Defining Market Orientation
A number of
views of market orientation are apparent. In early 1990s Kohli
and Jaworski (1990) have offered a formal definition
of emarket orientation, as a set of behaviours
and activities in an organisation. Specifically the organisation-wide generation of market intelligence
pertaining to current and future customer needs, dissemination of the
intelligence across departments, and the organisation-wide
responsiveness y292Εzto
it. In other words, it is a process of generating and disseminating market
intelligence for the purpose of creating superior buyer value. Narver and Slater (1990) reinforce Kohli
and Jaworskifs (1990) conceptualisation by defining market orientation as gthe organisational culture that most effectively and
efficiently creates the necessary behaviours for the
creation of superior value for buyers and thus continuous superior performance
for the businessh. Based on this, they identified three behavioural components: customer orientation, competitor
orientation, and inter functional orientation.
According to
Slater and Narver (1995), market orientation provides
strong norms for learning from customers and competitors; it must be
complemented by entrepreneurship and appropriate organizational structures and
processes for high order learning. In general market orientation is concerned
with the processes and activities associated with creating and satisfying
customers by continually assessing their needs and wants (Uncles, 2000).
Market Orientation and Company Performance
Several
studies have been conducted to understand the market orientation and its impact
on company performance. Many of the empirical findings provide support for the
proposition that market orientation positively related to its company
performance (Table 1). Traditionally, company performance is measured by
business efficiency: it can be improved either by increasing the output for the
same input or by decreasing the input required to produce a given output.
However, in marketing for the purpose of performance or efficiency measures can
take different forms, such as objective measurement and subjective measurement.
The term gsubjectiveh is used to
mean that the companyfs performance score is derived using a scale with
anchors such as gvery poorh to gvery goodh, or gmuch lowerh to gmuch higherh as compared
to that of competitors. The term gobjectiveh measure is
based on the actual percentage figure for sales or profit or other financial
activities. One common feature of research into the effect of market
orientation on company performance is that studies generally incorporate
subjective measures of performance as the dependent variables. (Dawes, 1999)
Generally,
there is an impression that subjective measures are inappropriate. There are,
however, several good reasons for using them. The reasons in this regard are:
(1) managers may be reluctant to disclose actual performance data if they
consider it commercially sensitive or confidential, (2) subjective measures may
be more appropriate than objective measures for comparing profit performance in
cross-industry studies (Dawes, 1999). This is because profit levels can vary
considerably across industries, obscuring any relationship between the independent
variables and company performance. Subjective measures might be more
appropriate in this situation because managers can take the relative
performance of their industry into account when providing a response (i.e. rate
the profit performance of the company in relation to that of other companies);
(3) performance measures such as profitability may not accurately indicate the
underlying financial health of a company. Profitability may vary due to reasons
such as the level of investment in R&D or marketing activity that might
have long-term effects; and (4) there have been several studies that show a
strong correlation between objective and subjective measures (Dess and Robinson 1984). A number of previous studies have
found positive associations using subjective measures.
y293ΕzMost of the studies on market -orientation and organisational performance have incorporated objective
measures as well as subjective measures. Organisational
performance measures were assessed on sales growth, profitability, return on
investment/assets/, market share, profit, profitability, overall financial
performance, and product success.
The major
findings of selected studies on nature of the relationship between market
-orientation and company performance are summarised
in the Table 1.
y294Εz
Antecedents to a Market Orientation
A market
orientation will not develop by itself. Literature identified several
antecedentsf factors to market orientation. It include top
management emphasis (Felton, 1959; Webster, 1988; Kohli
and Jaworski, 1990; Jaworski
and Kohli, 1993); top management risk taking (Despande and Webster, 1989; Kohli
and Jaworski, 1990; Jaworski
and Kohli, 1993); interdepartmental conflict (Dutton
and Walton, 1966; Kohli and Jaworski,
1990; Jaworski and Kohli,
1993); interdepartmental connectedness (Blake and Mouton, 1964; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Despande and Zeltman, 1982; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993); formalization, centralization, and Reward
system (Webster (1988); Sigauw, Brown and Widing (1994); Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993).
Conceptual Model
On the basis
of the operational definition of Kohili and Jaworski, (1990), the following determinant factors of
market orientation under the three components were considered: Intelligence
generation, Intelligence dissemination and Response Implementation.
y295Εz
Objectives and Hypotheses
Objectives of the Study
The broad
objective of this study is to evaluate the market oriented practices adopted by
Japanese and Sri Lankan companies and to examine the relationship between
market orientation and company performance.
The study has
the following specific objectives in terms of
@−To measure
the extent of market orientation;
@−To examine
the relationship between market orientation and company performance;
@−To measure
the impact of market orientation on company performance; and
@−To ascertain
the influence of antecedence factors on market orientation.
Hypotheses
On the basis
of the literature review on concept of market orientation, the following
hypotheses were developed.
Market Orientation and Company Performance
Several
empirical studies have found a strong positive relationship between market
orientation and performance (Diamantopoios and Hart,
1993; Greenly, 1995b; Narver and Slater, 1990; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993).
Therefore, the hypothesis that:
H1: The greater the market orientation
of a company, the higher its company performance.
Top Management Emphasis on
Market Orientation
The top
management must give clear signals and establish clear values and beliefs about
serving the customer. Market orientation is achievable only if the board of
directors and chief managers realize the need to develop positive attitude
towards market orientation. Continuous reinforcement by senior management y296Εzis required if individuals within the organizations
are to be encouraged to generate, disseminate and respond to market
intelligence (Levitt, 1969). Therefore the hypothesis
is that:
H2: The greater the top management
emphasis on market orientation, the greater the market orientation of the
company.
Top Management Risk Taking
Willingness
to take risks will encourage and facilitate organization wide commitment to
innovation and responsiveness (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990, Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). If top managers show a willingness to take
risks and accept failures as being natural, junior managers are more likely to
prepare and introduce offerings in response to market needs. Therefore, the
hypothesis is that:
H3: The greater the top management risk
taking, the greater the overall market orientation of the company.
Interdepartmental Connectedness
Connectedness
between departments facilitates interaction and the exchange of information (Ruekert & Walker, 1987). Interdepartmental
connectedness fosters interdependency within the company and encourages
employees to act in a concerted manner in the processes of knowledge generation
and knowledge utilization (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Therefore, the following is the formal
testable hypothesis:
H5: The greater the interdepartmental
connectedness, the greater the market orientation of the company.
Formalization
It is the
design parameter by which the work processes of an organization are
standardized. Formalization tends to hinder the generation and dissemination of
information and the response implementation (Jaworski
and Kohli, 1993).
Numerous
studies to argue that the formalization may have opposite effect on market
orientation (Zaltman et al., 1973; Despande & Zaltman, 1982).
Therefore, the hypothesis is developed as:
H6: The greater the formalization, the
lower the market orientation of the company.
Centralization
Centralization
represents a situation in which all the power for decision-making rests at a
single point within the organization. Numerous studies to argue that the
centralization may have opposite effect on market orientation (Zaltman et al., 1973; Despande
& Zaltman, 1982). Therefore, the expectation is
the following:
H7: The greater the centralization, the
lower the market orientation of the company.
Market Based Reward Systems
Rewards based
on customer satisfaction and service levels which encourage the active
generation and dissemination of market intelligence and responsiveness to
market needs. A basic requirement for the development of a market oriented firm
is the creation of market based measures of performance (Webster, y297Εz1988). Therefore, the hyphothesis
that:
H8: The greater the market based reward
system, the greater the market orientation of the company
Research Methodology
The Sample
The Hand Book
of Japanese and Sri Lankan Companies, published by stock exchange, were used to
draw sample for
Data Collection
The survey
method was adopted for the collection of data. The instrument used for the
purpose was a pre-tested structured questionnaire. Questionnaires were mailed
to the selected
The Questionnaire and Measures
To measure
the degree of market orientation, Kohli et al`s (1993) market orientation scale was adopted.
Specifically, a 34-item scale was used in this study, comprising four items
relating to intelligence generation, five items for information dissemination
and three items for response implementation. In addition to measuring the
extent of market orientation, the study also measured some of its antecedents,
using 22 items. Company performance was measured by using three subjective
measurement variables and one objective measurement variables. The respondents
were asked to indicate their level of agreement and disagreement with each
statement on a 5 point likert scale (1 strongly
disagree; 5 strongly agree).
All the
statements, representing the market orientation and its major antecedents, were
tested for reliability by computing Cronbachfs alpha
values for both countries. (Table 3 and 4). The minimum value taken as
acceptable was 0.5 (Nunnally, 1967). As the
reliability coefficient values for the Japanese companies are well above the
acceptable value of 0.5, and the data can be taken as reliable and fit for the
further analysis. However, alpha values of reward system (0.4849), and
formalization (0.4946) are lower but very near to the acceptable value of 0.5.
The same situation occurred for Sri Lankan companies.
y298Εz
The extent of
market orientation was measured according to the methodology of Jaworski and Kohli (1993). Scores
of components of market orientation and other antecedentsf factors were
computed as simple arithmetic means of the corresponding items score.
Findings and Discussion
Market Orientation of Selected
Japanese Companies.
The extent of
market orientation was measured by summing the scaled value of responses to all
three-y299Εzcomponent
measurements: intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination, and response
implementation of the company.
Intelligence
Generation
Japanese
companies in this sample think that collection of intelligence is very
important (Mean score- 4.26) and these company very much concern of meeting
their customers. Also, these companies highly concern of assessing quality of
the products/services (mean score- 4.26) and they put sincere effort to detect
the changes in customer preferences.
In case of Sri
Lankan companies, generation of intelligence by several departments and
assessing quality of the products/services seem to be poor (mean score, 3.06,
and 3.47 respectively). The overall mean score of intelligence generation
(3.46) fall in between 3 and 4 on a five point scale. It indicates that the Sri
Lankan companies do not put high effort to generate intelligence
Intelligence Dissemination
Participation
of all departments is required for an effective response to market needs.
Intelligence must be communicated, disseminated and even sold to relevant
departments in the companies. The relatively high mean score (3.62) of
intelligence generation of Japanese
companies show that these companies gave due importance to the dissemination of
intelligence throughout the company. Particularly, these companies show their
interest on discussing market trends and development (mean, 4.03), and spending
time for discussing future needs with other departments (mean score, 3.79).
There was a positive perception that market information spread quickly through
all levels in the company.
The mean
score (3.35) of intelligence dissemination of Sri Lankan companies which is
just above the average mean, indicates that the respondent companies are not
much serious to disseminate the information throughout the company.
Particularly, these companies lack on disseminating data on customer
satisfaction (mean score, 3.00), slow to disseminate information on competitors
to other departments (3.13), and employees are slowly informed about market
changes (mean score, 3.19). But there was a high concern on discussing market
trends and developments (mean Score, 4.00).
y300Εz
Response
Implementation
Responsiveness
is the action taken in response to intelligence that is generated and
disseminated. In fact all departments, not just marketing, participate in
responding to market trends in a market oriented company. The research findings
show that respondent companies were weaker on this front than with regard to
the generation and dissemination of intelligence. In relation to well
coordination of different departments (mean, 3.06) and implementing marketing
plan in a timely fashion (mean, 3.06) in these company point to a relatively
low degree of real responsiveness. However, the different departments in these
companies put more effort to modify their product or service (mean, 4.26).
The mean
score of response implementation (mean, 3.27) of Sri Lankan companies suggests
that the respondent companies were weaker in this aspect as generation and
dissemination of intelligence. Particularly, implementing marketing plan in a
timely fashion (mean, 2.69), and coordination of different departments (mean,
3.41) in these company are having low degree of real responsiveness.
The Adoption of Market Orientation
The mean
scores of market-orientation for the 34 sample companies from Japan and 32
companies y301Εzfrom
Sri Lanka were 3.74 with a standard deviation of 0.45 and 3.36 with a standard
deviation of 0.0.78 (on a 5- point scale) respectively. The extent of market
orientation of Japanese companies suggests that these companies had moved
towards market-orientation significantly. The Sri Lankan companies take middle
level in practicing market orientation on this front.
Market Orientation and Company Performance.
The
performance of the sample companies was measured using subjective and objective
approaches. The potential effects of market orientation on performance of
Japanese and Sri Lankan companies were investigated with multiple regression
analysis. Five performance measures such as overall performance of the company
(DV1), overall performance of the company relative to major competitors last
year (DV2), return on investment of the company relative to competitors last
year (DV3), sales of the company relative to competitors last year (DV4), and
return on asset (DV5) were used.
Table 8
contains the results of the correlation which indicate that market orientation
is significantly positively related to overall performance of the Japanese
company (r= 0.467, at 0.01 level). Other rest of the performance measures
including objective measures become no significance. Interestingly, for the Sri
Lankan companies, all the performance measures were significantly related to
market orientation. Based on this finding, it is accepted in both countries
that there is a positive significant relationship between market orientation
and overall company performance.
Results of
the multiple regression analysis are given in Table 9. These results show the
impact of market orientation on company performance. According to the outcome
of the regression model, only one variable (overall performance of the company)
was become significant to the Japanese companies but for
On the basis
of the results, 21.8% of the total variation (R2) in the Japanese
companiesf performance is explained by the market orientation.
In other words, 78.2% of the total variance in the company performance is
unexplained by the multiple regression equation. According to R value, the
percentage of association between dependent and independent variables are 46.7%
and it implies that market orientation directly associate with company
performance.
In relation
to Sri Lankan companies, the measurement of overall performance of the company
relative to major competitors last year, gives high value. Therefore, on the basis
of this result, 33.3% of the total y302Εzvariation (R2) in the company performance
is explained by the market orientation. In other words, 66.7% of the total
variance in the company performance is unexplained by the multiple regression
equation. According to R value, the percentage of association between dependent
and independent variables is 57.7% and it implies that market orientation
directly associate with company performance. It implies that market orientation
influence on company performance. Therefore, the hypothesis 1, that is egreater the
market orientation of a company, the higher its company performancef is accepted.
In relation
to Sri Lankan companies, the measurement of overall performance of the company
relative to major competitors last year, gives high value. Therefore, on the
basis of this result, 33.3% of the total variation (R2) in the
company performance is explained by the market orientation. In other words,
66.7% of the total variance in the company performance is unexplained by the
multiple regression equation. According to R value, the percentage of
association between dependent and independent variables is 57.7% and it implies
that market orientation directly associate with company performance. It implies
that market orientation influence on company performance. Therefore, the
hypothesis 1, that is egreater the market orientation of a company, the
higher its company performancef is accepted.
y303Εz
Antecedents Factors to Market Orientation
Table 10
indicates the mean score of antecedentsf factors
which support to market orientation. The mean scores both countries show that
all the factors of antecedents generally support to market orientation.
Specifically top managers in both countries were evidently fully devoted to
serving their customers in the most effective and efficient manner. Top
management risk taking in both countries is around the mid-point value of 3
which indicate that top management in both countries were preferred to follow a
middle path, neither taking big risks nor wanting to be left behind due to lack
of innovation. Also, the study reveals that the market-based reward system in
the both countries is not sufficiently exclusive and this will lead to a
reduction in the level of market orientation.
In relation
to formalization, the finding means score for both countries suggest that the
work processes and order of respondent companies are not strongly formalized.
This situation support market orientation in both nations. The nature of the
centralization of the Japanese companies implies that the respondents companyfs employees
were generally permitted to take decisions on their own even for small matters
and were encouraged. This is in fact likely to favor market orientation. The
mean value of Sri Lankan companies on this aspect indicate that the employees
were not given freedom very much to take decisions on their own. The extent of
inter-departmental conflict in both countries was less which encourages market
orientation. In the same manner, interdepartmental connectedness of the
companies in both countries was stronger. However, only the following factors
were found statistically significant difference between
The Strength and Impacts of
Antecedents on Market Orientation
The impact of
antecedentsf factors on market orientation is shown in Table 11.
On the basis of outcome of regression analysis, only two factors such as top
management emphasis and interdepartmental connectedness have been identified as
significant factors on market orientation of Japanese companies. y304ΕzThe rest of the factors are non significant in this
data set. On the investigation of the Sri Lankan companies, three factors such
as top management emphasis, interdepartmental connectedness and centralization
have been found as significant factors on market orientation.
The result
Japanese companies of regression analysis explain that 51.3% of the total
variation (R2) in market orientation is explained by the top management
emphasis, and departmental connectedness. In other words, 48.7% of the total
variance in the market orientation is unexplained by the multiple regression
equation and the percentage of association between dependent and independent
variables is 71.7 % (R value). It implies that these factors directly
associated with market orientation. Therefore, the two independent variables
that top management and departmental connectedness jointly affect the market
orientation. The conclusion in this regard that the Japanese companies should
be more concern of top management and departmental connectedness which is
fostering market orientation.
The
regression coefficients suggest that the top management emphasis,
centralization and departmental connectedness have the impact on market
orientation of Sri Lankan companies. The negative coefficient of centralization
suggests that there is a negative relationship between centralization and
market orientation that the higher the centralization of the company may leads
to the lower of the market orientation.
Based on the
above analysis, hypotheses 1 and 2 were accepted in both countries. In addition
to this, hypothesis 7 was accepted only by Sri Lankan companies. All other
hypotheses were rejected due to non significant.
Conclusion and Future for Further Research
The empirical
data on the market orientation and its organizational performance of Japanese
companies y305Εzsuggest
that these companies give high priority for market intelligence generation, to
meet customers, and to asses the quality of the products/services very often,
to emphasis the dissemination of Intelligence and having interaction of
marketing personnel with other departments to discuss the market trends and
developments. However, there are comparatively weaknesses in company
responsiveness, reluctant to take big financial risk by top management, and not
adapting market-based reward system.
Sri Lankan
companies do not put high effort to generate intelligence and not much serious
to disseminate the information throughout the company. Although top managers in
the respondent companies were relatively shown their intention to serving their
customers, the intention of risk taking is week and no encouragement for market
based reward system, employees were not given freedom to take own decisions. In
general, the responded Sri Lankan Companies give less priority to market
orientation.
Limitations and Direction for Further Research
There are
several other important factors may influence on market orientation such as environmental
factors and suppliers which are not considered in this study. Also our sample
size is relatively small.
It is more
appropriate, if the evaluation of market orientation would have come from both
company and customer point of view. We leave this for future investigation. The
role of market based reward system was not clear in promoting the market
orientation and calls for deeper insights through additional research in to the
linkage involved.
References
Au, A. K. M.,
and A. C. B. Tse (1995), gThe Effect of
Market-orientation on Company Performance in the Service Sector: A comparative
Study of the Hotel Industry in Hong Kong and New Zealand, h in J. Dawes
(1999), gThe Relationship Between Subjective and Objective
Company Performance Measures in Market-orientation Research: Further Empirical
Evidence, h Marketing Bulletin, Vol.10, pp. 65-75.
Avlonitis, G.J., and S. P. Gounariis
(1997), gMarketing-orientation and Company Performance:
Industrial vs. Consumer Goods Companies, h Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 26, pp.385-402.
Balakrishnan, S. (1996), gBenefits of
Customer and Competitive Orientations in Industrial Marketsh, in J. Dawes
(1999), gThe Relationship Between Subjective and Objective
Company Performance Measures in Market-orientation Research: Further Empirical
Evidence, h Marketing Bulletin, Vol.10, pp.65-75.
Dawes, J.
(1999), gThe Relationship Between Subjective and Objective
Company Performance Measures in Market-orientation Research: Further Empirical
Evidence, h Marketing Bulletin, Vol.10, pp. 65-75 (Accessed through Internet).
Deng, S., and
J. Dart (1994), gMeasuring Market-orientation: A Multi Factor,
Multi-item Approach, h in J.Dawes (1999), g The
Relationship between Subjective and Objective Company Performance Measures in
Market-orientation Research: Further Empirical Evidence, h Marketing Bulletin, Vol.10, pp. 65-75.
y306Εz
Dess, G. G., and R. B. Robinson, Jr. (1984), gMeasuring Organisational Performance in the Absence of Objectives
Measures: The Case of the Privately- held Firms and Conglomerate Business Unit,
h Strategic
Management Journal, Vol.5 (July-September), pp.
265-273.
Deshpande, R., and F. E. Webster (1989), g Organisational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research
Agenda, h Journal of
Marketing, Vol.53 (January), pp.3-15.
Deshpande, R., J. U. Farley, and F. E. Webster Jr. (1993), hCorporate
Culture, Customer-orientation and Innovativeness in Japanese firms: A Quadrad Analysis, h Journal of Marketing,
Vol.57 (January), pp. 23-27.
Deshpande, R., and J.U.Farley (1998),
gMeasuring Market-orientation: Generalization and
Synthesis, h Journal of Market
Focused Management, Vol. 2 (3), pp. 213-232.
Deshpande, R., and Z. Zaltman (1982),
g Factors Affecting the Use of Market Research
Information: A Path Analysish, Journal of Marketing Research, 19
(February), pp. 14-31.
Diamantopoulos,
A., and S. Hart (1993), gLinking Market-orientation Company
Performance: Preliminary Evidence on Kohli and Jaworskifs Frame Work, h Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol.1, pp.93-121.
Esslemont, D., and T. Lewis (1991), gSome
Empirical Tests of the Marketing Concept, h in J. Dawes (1999),
gThe Relationship Between Subjective and Objective
Company Performance Measures in Market-orientation Research: Further Empirical
Evidence, h Marketing Bulletin, Vol.10, pp.65-75.
Felton, P. A.
(1959), gMaking the Marketing Concept Work, h Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37 (July-August), pp. 55-65.
Greenly, G.E.
(1995), gMarket-orientation and Company Performance: Empirical
Evidence from UK Companies, in J. Dawes (1999), gThe
Relationship between Subjective and Objective Company Performance Measures in
Market-orientation Research: Further Empirical Evidence, h Marketing Bulletin, Vol.10, pp. 65-75.
Han, J.K., N.Kim, and R.K. Srivastawa
(1998), hMarket-orientation and Organisational
Performance: Is Innovation a Missing, Link?, gJournal of Marketing,
Vol.62 (October), pp. 30.45.
Jaworski, B. J., and A. K. Kohli
(1993), gMarket-orientation: Antecedents and Consequences, h Journal of Marketing, Vol.57 (3), pp. 53-70.
y307ΕzKohli,
A. K., and B. J. Jaworski (1990), h
Market-orientation: The Construct Research Propositions, and Managerial
Implicationsh, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 54, No. (2), pp. 01-18.
Levitt, T. (1960), gMarketing
Myopia, h Harvard Business
Review, Vol.38 (July-August), pp.45-56.
Lawrence,
P.R. and Lorsch, J.W. (1967), g Differenciation and Integration in complex Organisationsh,
Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 12, (June) pp. 1-47.
Malhotra, N.K. (2004), Marketing Research: An Applied
Orientation, 4th ed., Pearson Education, Inc.,
Narver, J. C., and S.F.Slater
(1990), gThe Effect of a Market-orientation on Business
Profitability, h Journal of
Marketing, Vol 57,
pp.20-35.
Nunnally, J. (1967), Psychometric Theory,
Pelham, A.M.,
and Wilson, D.T. (1996), gA Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Market
Structure, Firm Structure, Strategy, and Market-orientation Culture on
Dimensions of Small-firm Performance, h Journal of the Academy of marketing Science, Vol. 24, pp.27-443.
Pitt, L., A. Caruana, and P.R. Berthon (1996),
gMarket-orientation and Business Performance: Some
European Evidence, h International
Marketing Review, Vol.13, No.1, pp.5-18.
Ruekert, R.W (1992), g Developing a
Marketing-orientation: An Organisational Strategy
Perspective, h International
Journal of Marketing, Vol.9 (August), pp.225-245.
Ruekert, R. W., O.C. Walker, Jr. (1987), Marketingfs Interaction
with other Functional Units: A Conceptual Frame Work and Empirical Evidence, h Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51 (January), pp. 1-19.
Slater, S.F.,
and J. C.Narver (1994), gDoes
Competitive Environment Moderates the Market-orientation-performance
Relationship?h Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 58, No.1, pp.46-55.
Slater, S.
F., and J.C. Narver (1995), gMarket-orientation
and the Learning Organisation, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59 (July), pp. 63-74.
Slater, S.F.,
and J.C. Narver (1996), gCompetitive
Strategy in the Market-focused Business, h in M. J.
Baker (edi.) (2001), Marketing: Critical Perspectives on Business and Management, (
Siguaw, J. A., G. Brown., and R. E. Widing
(1994), g The Influence of the Market-orientation of the y308ΕzFirm on Sales Force Behaviour
and Attitudes, h Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 31 (February), pp.106
-116.
Tse, A. C. B. (1998), Market-orientation and Performance
of Large Property Companies, in J. Dawes (1999), g The
Relationship Between Subjective and Objective Company Performance Measures in
Market-orientation Research: Further Empirical Evidence, h Marketing Bulletin, Vol.10, pp. 65-75.
Uncles, M
(2000), g Market Orientationh, Australian Journal of Management,
Vol.25, (September), pp.1-9.
Webster, F.E.
Jr., (1988), gRediscovering the Marketing Concept, h Vol.31
(May/June), pp.29-39.
Webster, F.E.
Jr., (1988), gRediscovering the Marketing Concept, h Vol.31
(May/June), pp.29-39.
Zeithaml, V. A., A. Parasuraman, and
L. L. Berry (1985), gProblems and Strategies in Service Marketing, h Journal of Marketing, Vol.49 (Spring), pp.33-46.
About
the Author
Dr. K. Kajendra
Senior
Lecturer, Faculty of Management and Finance
Coordinator,
MBA in Marketing Programe, Faculty of Management and
Finance,
kk4ssrr@hotmail.com
This research
is funded by Japan Foundation under the Japan Foundation Fellowship programe.