Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797 – 829

Cultural vs. operational market orientation and objective vs. subjective performance: Perspective of production and operations
´ scar Gonza O ´ lez-BenitoT, Javier Gonza ´ lez-Benito1
Departamento de.Administracio ´ n y Economı ´a de la Empresa, Universidad de Salamanca, Campus Miguel de Unamuno, 37007-Salamanca, Spain Received 30 April 2004; received in revised form 15 November 2004; accepted 10 January 2005 Available online 2 March 2005

Abstract The relationship between market orientation and organizational performance has been the focus of many studies for the last few years. The conclusions reported are very diverse and even contradictory. This ambiguity is reinforced to some extent by the high degree of methodological heterogeneity in the definition and measure of market orientation and organizational performance and the empirical formalization of the relationship between both concepts. This study tackles this question by comparing different methodological approaches. Three key aspects are considered: (1) cultural and operational approaches for measuring market orientation; (2) objective and subjective measures of performance; and (3) the source of information in the organization, specifically the perspective of production and operations. The results obtained from a sample of Spanish industrial firms show a stronger positive relationship for operational market orientation and subjective performance. Moreover, the adoption of doperational recipesT of market orientation by the production and operations function seems to improve organizational performance regardless of the existence of any cultural support for market orientation. D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Cultural/attitudinal market orientation; Operational/behavioural market orientation; Objective performance; Subjective performance; Production and operations perspective

1. Introduction Recent literature in business management has devoted special attention to the growing implantation of different practices and approaches such as organizational culture management, strategic human resource management, quality management, or environmental management. These trends have even been referred to as fashions and fads rather than as organizational necessities (Ogbonna & Harris, 2002). Their adoption is usually justified by the positive consequences they have on performance. A specially relevant management approach is market orientation, broadly defined as the adoption of the marketing concept as the business philosophy guiding the competitive strategies of the organization. AlT Corresponding author. Tel.: +34 923 294 500x3508; fax: +34 923 294 715. E-mail addresses: oscargb@usal.es (O. Gonza ´ lez-Benito)8 javiergb@usal.es (J. Gonza ´ lez-Benito). 1 Tel.: +34 923 294 500x3502; fax: +34 923 294 715. 0019-8501/$ - see front matter D 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.01.002

though a positive relationship between market orientation and performance has been claimed for several decades now, the interest in providing empirical evidence is relatively recent. During the last fifteen years, a plethora of studies has empirically analysed the effects of market orientation on organizational performance. Nevertheless, the reported results are not conclusive. Although many studies argue and find a positive relationship, some others find a nonsignificant or negative relationship. While the meta-analysis reported by Rodriguez-Cano, Carrillat, and y Jaramillo (2004) supports a positive relationship between market orientation and performance, the reviews of Langerak (2003a), Sin et al. (2000) or Tse, Sin, Yau, Lee, and Chow (2003) point out that the existence of such a relationship and the circumstances in which it takes place are still open questions without unequivocal response. In this respect, Slater and Narver (2000) point out the importance of replicating studies with substantive modifications of the conceptual and methodological methods for increasing the confidence in previous findings. However, this methodolog-

798

´ . Gonza O ´ lez-Benito, J. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829

ical heterogeneity implies an additional challenge to provide conclusive answers (Noble, Sinha, & Kumar, 2002). The variety of approaches to the empirical formalization of the relationship between marketing orientation and performance constitutes a possible cause of the diversity, and inconsistency, in the conclusions reported. This paper focuses on the different approaches to defining and measuring market orientation and organizational performance. The underlying argument is that different definitions and measures capture different nuances of these constructs and, as a consequence, the relationship between them might vary across the approaches. In other words, market orientation and performance are broad concepts whose relationship depends on the specific way in which they are interpreted and empirically studied. In particular, the focus is on three key aspects: (1) The distinction between cultural and operational approaches to market orientation—the definition and measurement of market orientation can focus on the attitudes, values and beliefs of managers (Slater & Narver, 1994), or on the processes, activities and behaviours within the organization (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). In this respect, Griffiths and Grover (1998) point out that both approaches to market orientation are compatible and complementary because behaviour is the basis for the formation of beliefs and values, and culture provides the rules of behaviour. However, the duality between culture and behaviour within the concept of market orientation also implies that both approaches can be separately implemented in the sense that organizations can emphasize market-oriented culture while neglecting its conversion into market-oriented activities, or vice versa. This possibility leads us to wonder whether cultural and operational market orientations have different consequences on performance. (2) The distinction between objective and subjective measures of organizational performance—the measurement of organizational performance can focus on objectively quantifiable accounting or operative indicators or on the subjective assessment of performance in comparison to objectives and competitors (Dawes, 1999). Some studies have reported different conclusions about the relationship between market orientation and organizational performance depending on the objective or subjective measurement of the latter variable. For example, the seminal study of Jaworski and Kohli (1993) only found a positive relationship for subjective performance. This circumstance leads us to wonder whether there are differences in the potential of objective or subjective measurement of performance to capture the consequences of market orientation. (3) The role of the source of information within the organization—although market orientation should underlie the whole organization, the cultural and operational adoption of market orientation might differ

across functional areas, presumably being less intense for those functional areas most removed from customers. Some studies have found modest congruence between market orientation reported by different managers within the same organization. For example, the study of Jaworski and Kohli (1993) found modest correlations between marketing and non-marketing informants. This kind of result leads us to wonder whether the relationship between market orientation and performance prevails when the former is measured in the production and operations functional area. The aim of this paper is to provide additional evidence of the relationship between market orientation and organizational performance by the explicit comparison of these different approaches to the empirical formalization of the constructs. Two key questions synthesise the main contribution of the paper. On the one hand, the paper analyses whether the benefits derived from market orientation require the cultural conversion of the organization or simply the implementation of some processes and activities. In other words, the question is to what extent organizations can learn fruitful market orientation behaviours without prioritizing their essential values. On the other hand, the paper analyses whether the benefits derived from market orientation are reflected by objective indicators of performance, or whether they imply more complex and long-term consequences only captured by subjective performance measurement. In addition, contrary to most of the previous studies, all these questions are analysed from the perspective of production and operations managers. Therefore, the paper deals with the market orientation that goes beyond the marketing function or top management and is perceived from internal functional areas. The subsequent contents are divided into four more sections. First, a theoretical framework is developed through a review of the literature. That leads to the enunciation of the research hypotheses. Next, the methodology for testing the empirical hypotheses is described. After that, the results are presented, interpreted and discussed. Finally, the main conclusions and implications are summarised.

2. Literature review and working hypotheses As mentioned above, many empirical studies have provided empirical evidence of the relationship between market orientation and performance over the last few years. This growing research interest has been inspired in some pioneering studies such as Deshpande, Farley, and Webster (1993), Jaworski and Kohli (1993), Lusch and Laczniak (1987), Narver and Slater (1990), or Ruekert (1992). Appendix 1 presents an extensive sample of published papers in this research field. Although most of them use the term dmarket orientationT, others use terms such as dmarketing orientationT, dcustomer orientationT, dmarket drivenT, or simply dimplementation of the marketing

´ . Gonza O ´ lez-Benito, J. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829

799

conceptT with almost similar meanings. Sometimes the relationship between market orientation and performance constitutes the main objective, while other times it is a complementary result of the achievement of other objectives. In any case, as reflected in the section of Appendix 1 devoted to the population analysed, a broad spectrum of contexts has been studied. Different geographical scenarios characterised by different economic and political situations have been analysed; industrial markets, consumer markets, and export markets have been distinguished; different activities such as products, services and specific sectors (machinery, biotechnology, textile, distribution, hotel industry, health, financial and insurance services, etc.) have been considered, and even different sizes, competitive strategies or competitive environment situations. The relationship has also been assessed in the field of not for profit organizations, such as public administrations, educational centres or charity institutions. Any study dealing with the relationship between market orientation and performance requires the empirical formalization of (1) the measure of market orientation, (2) the measure of organizational performance, and (3) the nature of the relationship between both measures. Appendix 1 also describes the revised studies according to these three questions. The section devoted to market orientation measures describes the scales used, their cultural or operational emphasis, and the source of information. The section devoted to performance measures describes the kind of variables used, their objective or subjective character, and the source of information. Finally, the section devoted to results describes the reported conclusions with respect to the market orientation–performance relationship and the moderating circumstances. The observed differences in measurement approaches and results motivate the hypotheses of this study. 2.1. Cultural vs. operative market orientation The notion of market orientation is related to the adoption of the marketing concept as a business philosophy. In this respect, market orientation can be defined as an organizational culture (Slater & Narver, 1994). Specifically, it comprises the set of beliefs that puts the customer’s interest first in order to develop a long-term profitable organization (Deshpande et al., 1993). Alternatively, market orientation can be defined as the set of activities, processes and behaviours derived from the implementation of the marketing concept (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). Some authors only recognize this latter operative/behavioural meaning and use the term dmarketing orientationT, or simply dadoption of the marketing conceptT, to refer to the cultural / attitudinal approach (e.g. Deng & Dart, 1994; Diamantopoulos & Hart, 1993; Gray, Matear, Boshoff, & Mathesonet, 1998). From a methodological point of view, the operational approach predominates over the cultural approach when the

effect on organizational performance is analysed. Almost 95% of the studies described in Appendix 1 used market orientation scales with operative emphasis, while only 9% analysed the relationship between some kind of cultural scale and performance. Two circumstances should be borne in mind in this respect. First, the operational conceptualisation proposed by Kohli and Jaworski (1990)—empirically formalised in the MARKOR scale (Kohli, Jaworski, & Kumar, 1993)—has been widely accepted. Second, other scales developed from the cultural perspective and also widely accepted in the literature—such as the MKTOR of Narver and Slater (1990) and the DFW of Deshpande et al. (1993)—have focused on the measurement of operational aspects [see the discussion in this respect in Deshpande and Farley (1998a,b) and Narver and Slater (1998)]. About 40% and 35% of the studies described in Appendix 1 used or adapted the MARKOR and MKTOR scales, respectively. Less than 5% of the studies revised in Appendix 1 have simultaneously considered cultural and operational meas´ lvarez, Santos, ures and their relationship to performance (A & Va ´ zquez, 2000; Avlonitis & Gounaris, 1997; Diamantopoulos & Hart, 1993; Gray et al., 1998; Homburg & Pflesser, 2000). All of them have found congruence between both approaches. In fact, the congruence between both measures has been used as proof of convergent validity in the assessment of several operational scales of market orientation (e.g. Deng & Dart, 1994; Deshpande & Farley, 1998a; Kohli et al., 1993). This evidence suggests that the cultural adoption and the operational implementation of market orientation are closely related. Cultural market orientation has been interpreted as an ´ lvarez et antecedent of operational market orientation (e.g. A al., 2000; Gray, Greenley, Matear, & Matheson, 1999; Homburg & Pflesser, 2000). Narver and Slater (1998) indicate that when market orientation is measured through certain specific activities and manifestations, the underlying belief system is being measured. In other words, the belief that customer satisfaction is the best way to achieve a longterm positional advantage enhances the implementation of activities and processes for reaching this objective. Another argument in this respect is the fact that the top management emphasis constitutes a determinant of operational market orientation (e.g. Bhuian, 1998; Cervera, Mola, & Sanchez, 2001; Horng & Chen, 1998; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Puledran, Speed, & Widing, 2000; Selnes, Jaworski, & Kohli, 1996; Shoham & Rose, 2001). These arguments lead us to think that organizations adopt first a cultural orientation and then develop consistent behaviours. However, the opposite line of reasoning has also been contemplated in the literature. As pointed out by Griffiths and Grover (1998), behaviour constitutes the basis for the progressive development of the beliefs, values and attitudes that make up the organizational culture. That is, operational market orientation might be an antecedent of cultural market orientation. Moreover, the research emphasis on demarcating the activities that characterise a market-oriented firm has

Cultural market orientation is not necessarily an antecedent of operational market orientation in the production and operations function. A theoretical justification of the relationship is proposed in Fig. Kohli et al. & Gupta.. which suggests that the two informants were keying in on different perspectives in providing their responsesQ. In particular. balthough the two reports were positively correlated. & A (2) Sustainability (2 in Fig. 1). Jaworski & Kohli. Some of these studies report moderate correlations across respondents (e. J. Market orientation–performance relationship. Lado. Soehadi. PERFORMANCE . 1995). Hayes & Weelwright. 2003. & Dacin. the correlations were not perfect. the perspective of the production and operations function stresses the claim that the adoption of the cultural dimension is not a necessary condition for the implementation of the operational dimension. Relationship between market orientation and performance The interest in market orientation is based on how it affects organizational performance. Jones. 1997a. 1992). 1995. About 20% of the studies revised in Appendix 1 used more than one informant within each organization in the sample. Pelham. 2001). Busch. There is a positive relationship between the cultural and operational market orientation of the production and operations function. 1996. Deng & Dart. Hamel & Prahalad. Langerak. Hart. These arguments are summarised in the following two hypotheses: H1. At least three kinds of positive consequences of market orientation have been identified in the literature review summarised in Appendix 1: (1) Effectiveness (1 in Fig. Its achievement is primarily based on a differentiation strategy (Kumar. instead of the conviction of production and operations managers. Submaranian. The adoption of market-oriented activities and practices might be a consequence of the development of corporate policies or a consequence of an interest in following management trends.800 ´ . 1990.2. Ruekert. Lonial.. 2000. In short. Santos. Market Market orientation Differentiation strategy Adaptative and proactive innovation Organizational competence 1 Effectiveness Effective. Raju. 2003b.g. specially in the cultural sense. 1998. 2001). at least in relation to proactive innovation as compared to adaptive innovation (e. Pelham & Wilson. & Strandholm. The effect has even been used to argue criterion-related validity in several measurement scales of market orientation (e.b. The incongruence between cultural and operational market orientation may become stronger when functional areas other than sales or marketing are considered. 1998a. 1993. 1984).g. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. For example. it seems reasonable to assume that in functional areas such as production and operations. 1994. & Tagg. 1999. 1998. 1999a. the implementation of market orientation is weaker. 1999. Narver & Slater. Va ´ zquez. However. Connor. Narver and Slater (1990) consider profitability as a decision criteria in market-oriented firms. 1996. 1. 1992). Christensen & Bower. 1. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 facilitated the adoption of doperational recipesT that are not based on a cultural transformation. In general. Maydeu-Olivares. 2. 2002. The sustainability of superior value has been criticised because the emphasis on consumer needs obviates the role of innovation. which are dless close to customersT and immersed in the achievement of specific effectiveness and efficiency objectives. & Rivera. Hooley et ´ lvarez. These arguments lead us to think that there might be firms which have implemented market-oriented behaviour without having embraced market orientation beliefs and values. 1998. some studies that have measured market orientation using multiple respondents with different managing roles within the organization have reported some kind of disagreement between them. Although market orientation should involve the whole organization (Webster. 1994. Gray et al. efficient and sustainable superior value for / satisfaction of consumers Competitive advantage Entrepreneurship orientation Learning orientation 2 Sustainability 3 Efficiency CULTURAL CAPABILITIES STRATEGIC ACTIONS Fig. 1). 1993.b. The source of competitive advantage is the creation of superior value for consumers. Market orientation is an organizational resource that might lead to competitive advantage through the understanding of consumer needs and what competitors offer and the development of coordinated and adapted competing strategies (Hunt & Morgan. in their own words.g. H2. a positive effect on market position. al. Jaworski and Kohli (1993) interviewed marketing and non-marketing managers and. longterm viability and performance has been claimed. Deshpande & Farley.. such a dtyranny of the market servedT has been rejected because it implies a quite simple conception of market orientation.

These arguments are summarised in the following three hypotheses: H3. 2003a.g. Caruana. J. 2003. market orientation has been related to learning orientation (e. 1997. 1996. it is necessary to provide more empirical evidence while monitoring the influence of different methodological approaches. Narver and Slater (1990) point out that market orientation is the organizational culture that most effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviour for the creation of superior value for customers and. 2002. In particular. Erramilli. only a strong culture can produce such consistent behaviour and performance. market orientation has been associated with a more efficient resource allocation (Chang & Chen. and Kandemir (2003). and positive effects on employee commitment and satisfaction have been found (e. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 801 orientation is not only about the understanding of current customersT needs. 2001) and entrepreneurship orientation (e. Hult. training and compensation (e. the practices and processes should constitute the trigger for superior performance. Tse et al. 1999). 2000. even though it is not based on a cultural market orientation. and consequently. 1998. Becherer & Maurer. Horng & Chen.. Liu. In any case. 2001).. Jones et al. & Ewing. This impedes an unequivocal conclusion about the existence and nature of the relationship (Langerak. 1996). mainly in functional areas more removed from customers.´ . 2000. 2000. Farrelly & Quester. Han. & O & Kiecker. . and Shi (2003) or Slater and Narver (1995) state that the combination of market. Matsuno. Jaworski & Kohli. 1). continuous superior performance for the organization. 1998. As pointed out by Narver and Slater (1998). Homburg and Pflesser (2000) suggest that market-oriented values lead to market-oriented norms. A ´ zquez. 2002. but also about anticipating their latent needs (Slater & Narver. Deshpande et al. However. Nearly 88% of the studies revised in Appendix 1 found a positive relationship between measures of market orientation and measures of performance. Hult and Ketchen (2001). greater efficiency also requires some control over the costs involved in the achievement of effectiveness. 1994). However. Matear. Ramaseshan. If the sequence culture–strategy–performance is assumed. Bherthon. thus. There is a positive relationship between the market orientation of the production and operations function and performance. In sum. 1999. Snow.. Empirical evidence to a great extent supports the relationship between market orientation and performance. many studies have found a close relationship between market orientation and innovation (e.. 1998. it is reasonable to assume that the effectiveness and efficiency of an operational market orientation is related to the managing team’s belief in the importance of the marketing concept. by providing discipline.g. Ruekert. Atuahene-Gima & Ko. 2003). such as production and operations. 1993. Baker & Sinkula. 1999a. a competitive advantage is reached by transforming market orientation culture into specific actions. Shoham & Rose. 1998. Deshpande & Farley. & Widing. Luo.g. They are thought of as complementary concepts underlying the achievement of innovation orientation. 2003.b. Farrell. 2001. learning. Siguaw. & Gray.. Kim. and market-oriented norms lead to market-oriented behaviours. & Va Sanzo. entrepreneurship and innovation orientation leads organizations to positional advantage. 2003). The inconsistencies found between market orientation perceived within the organization and market orientation perceived externally by customers or other agents of the environment supports this argument (e. sales. Mentzer. Garrett. Brown. & Dev. the adoption of market-oriented practices might have similar effects. 1999. the relationship for marketing managers being stronger than for production or R and D managers. market orientation has been related to greater emphasis on employee recruitment. 1996. & Pitt. 2001. it is reasonable to expect that the relationship between market orientation and performance is stronger for the operational approach than for the cultural approach. Webb. especially because some degree of incongruence between both approaches has been argued above. it is relevant to study the role of cultural and operational approaches in measuring market orientation. However. In particular. 1998. cohesion and internal coordination (Pelham & Wilson. Moreover. the measurement of an operational market orientation quantifies the degree of implementation and development of a set of practices and activities.. Barret & Weinstein. Bhuian. 2000). Hurley & Hule. Wood. Krepapa. Horng & Chen. Osborne. Moreover. 1998. Kahn (2001) found different conclusions depending on the role of the respondent within the organization. market share. Therefore. Agarwal. 1993. 1992. Another 6% only found positive relationships under specific circumstances determined by moderating variables. 2003. Therefore. ´ lvarez. etc. & Srivastava. although sometimes subject to specific circumstances of the competitive environment. Puledran et al. Noble et al. Sin et al. Appiah-Adu & Singh. In this respect. reputation. (3) Efficiency (3 in Fig. More specifically.g. circumstances and situations considered. Slater & Narver.. sustainable superior performance. 1998). Maydeu-Olivares & Lado. Therefore. In fact. Jaworski & Kohli.g. Va ´ zquez et al. 2001). Santos. 2003). Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. 2002.. Selnes et al. Previous arguments imply greater and sustainable effectiveness and better market position in terms of image.. Selnes et al. 2003. there are empirical contributions that did not find any relationship or reported the opposite conclusions concerning the situations in which the relationship takes place. Shoham & Rose. ¨ zsomer. It not only affects the formulation of the strategy but also its implementation (Dobni & Luffman. 1993. 1998. but not the quality and rigour of this implementation. In particular. many of these studies did not find positive relationships for all performance measures. 1996.g.

1987.b) distinguish between the effectiveness dimension of performance—related to success in comparison to competitors—and adaptability measures—related to the success in responding over time to changing conditions and opportunities in the environment. Slevin. An additional interesting classification distinguishes between objective and subjective measures. Jaworski & Kohli. Pitt. 1984. 2001. Conlon. Pearce. 1998. they differentiate between financial and operational indicators. A distinction between situation measures—related to current performance—and trend measures—related to the change in performance—can also be made. they also recognize the existence of some divergences and the convenience of both approaches. while information for secondary measures is collected from external databases. Dawes. 1997. and the difficulty of obtaining such data directly from organizations because of both the refusal to divulge such information or the lack of interest and time on the part of managers (e. image and reputation. Martin & Grbac.. Farrelly & Quester. Gray et al. 2000) and outside the organization (Deshpande & Farley. . & Ewing. Financial measures are related to accounting measures and economic performance—for example. They usually cover both financial and operational/commercial indicators. Hart & Banbury. 1997a.. 2000. Almost 50% of these studies reported a stronger relationship for subjective performance than for objective performance (Agarwal et al. both within the organization (Pelham. 2000). Subjective measurement also facilitates cross-sectional analysis through sectors and markets because performance can be quantified in comparison to objectives or competitors (Hooley et al. 1993. Judgmental assessments also make it easier to take into account lagged effects and the particular strategy of the organization (Jaworski & Kohli. profit or sales. such as brand equity or customer satisfaction. On the one hand. Dess & Robinson. Baker and Sinkula (1999a. 1990. Nearly 12% of the studies revised in Appendix 1 used both approaches to measure performance. 1980. 1994.. Several classification criteria have been proposed. customer satisfaction. 1998. The cultural and operational market orientations of the production and operations function have a synergic effect on organizational performance. Deshpande et al. The positive relationship between the market orientation of the production and operations function and performance is stronger for operational market orientation than for cultural market orientation. Lynch. J. Data for primary measures is collected directly from the organization. The latter refer to the judgmental assessment of internal or external respondents.g. profitability or ROI. & Shepherd. 1993. the measurement of organizational performance has been a traditional research field in strategic management (Connolly. Moreover. Some authors have pointed out the poor reliability of secondary sources. On the contrary. Objective measures of performance are difficult to obtain or insufficiently reliable. quality. market share or new product development. only 20% reported a stronger relationship for objective than for subjective performance (Atuahene-Gima & Ko. 1999a. customer satisfaction. benefit. & Deutsch.802 ´ .. 1999. several studies centred on the relationship between market orientation and performance have reached different conclusions depending on the consideration of objective or subjective measures of performance. Voss & Voss. This circumstance would falsely reinforce the estimated relationship between market orientation and subjective performance. & Trommsdorffet. Hooley. Salomo. Han et al. & Schultz. 1999. Venkatraman & Ramanujam.b). The diversity of performance measures used in the literature constitutes an additional source of methodological heterogeneity. Some studies have solved this limitation by considering different respondents for measuring market orientation and performance. Steinhoff. Some studies have found consistency between objective and subjective measures (e. 1999. The response style or the interest in communicating a positive image can lead to a false correlation between both concepts when a single respondent is used. 2003. Venkatraman & Ramanujam. Objective vs. the subjective approach facilitates the measurement of complex dimensions of performance. they distinguish between primary and secondary sources of information. 2003. 1987). Selnes et al. Caruana. and on the other hand. Ramaseshan. 2.g.3. 1986). 2003. 2003. The former refer to performance indicators impartially quantified. Balabanis. The former refer to the consolidation of a strong market position—for example. In this line. Jones et al. Operational measures refer to the operational success factors that might lead to financial performance— for example. In particular. Stables. the analysis of the relationship between market orientation and subjective performance might be biased by the dhalo effectT. & Phillips. Robbins. it is possible to distinguish between effectiveness and efficiency measures. subjective performance Another relevant question in the analysis of the relationship between market orientation and performance is the definition and measurement of the latter concept. On the contrary. This leads us to think that subjective performance is more adequate for capturing the consequences of market orientation than objective performance. & Robinson. market share. In order to shed light on this matter. 1994. sales. 1993). The latter refer to optimal resource allocation—for example. 1998a. In general. 1999. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. or new product success. Marr & Schiuma. 1996).. & Berthon.b. Covin. Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986) suggest a two-dimensional classification scheme. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 H4. Caruana. 1996). H5. Nevertheless. Slater & Narver. They are generally financial indicators obtained directly from organizations or through secondary sources. Schlegelmilch & Ram... 2003. 2003.

´ . and longterm and profitability emphasis. 61 chemical firms. The reliability analysis is reported in Table 1. Specifically. Three questions are specially relevant with respect to the methodology: (1) data collection. managers were asked to score the degree of implementation of 9 practices on a sixpoint Likert-type scale ranging from dnot at allT to dto a great extentT. The questionnaire was previously tested over a small number of firms to refine contents. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito.6% for the chemical. An even number of possible responses was considered to force respondents to position themselves in relation to the items. Measures Market orientation. managers were asked to score the degree of agreement or disagreement with 8 statements on a six-point Likert-type scale ranging from dcompletely disagreeT to dcompletely agreeT. which in turn corresponds to rates of 39. The possibility of completing the questionnaire electronically and returning it by e-mail was also available. Two analyses were conducted to assess whether there were systematic patterns for non-response.2% and 42. and 26 furniture firms. They were written in such a way as to oppose the values of market orientation to the emphasis on productive capabilities and objectives of production efficiency. No significant relationships were found in any of the cases. Specifically. 1998). The operative scale sought to reflect the degree of implementation of specific activities linked to market orientation.000 largest Spanish companies were considered. The data used in this study only constitutes a part of the whole questionnaire. Methodology The proposed hypotheses have been empirically tested in a sample of Spanish industrial firms. structure and wording. firms with over 100 employees from the 2002 Dun and Bradstreet census of the 50. and (3) furniture and fixtures.6%. However. These sectors were selected according to a more extensive objective than that considered in this paper. Cultural and operational market orientation were measured with multi-item scales based on previous literature and exploratory interviews with managers. There were 428 firms.1. the results reported here should not be generalised to the whole Spanish industry. The response rate was 40. 211 in the electronic and electrical equipment sector. The selection of items was based on the structure proposed by Narver and Slater (1990): customer orientation. intelligence dissemination and responsiveness. The cultural scale tried to capture the beliefs and values of production and operations managers in relation to the importance attached to customers and competitors.1%. The questionnaire was designed to cover a more extensive objective than that considered in this study. The selection of items was based on the structure proposed by Kohli and Jaworski (1990): intelligence generation. and 61 in the furniture sector. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 803 Siguaw. specifically. The cultural and opera- . Data The approached population consisted of the medium and large Spanish firms in three industrial sectors: (1) chemical (except pharmaceutical firms). competitor orientation. 87 electronic and electrical equipment firms. 41. No more follow up calls were made to avoid excessive pressure on the managers in question. Relevant data in addition to the financial data contained in the census were collected through postal survey. (2) electronic and electrical equipment. J. Although they are relevant sectors in the Spanish industry. electronic equipment and furniture industries. Both arguments in favour and arguments against the subjective approach lead us to expect that the relationship between market orientation and performance is stronger than the relationship between market orientation and objective performance. On the other hand. respondents and nonrespondents were compared in relation to size and performance variables available from the Dun and Bradstreet census. This procedure yielded 174 valid questionnaires with respect to the data required for this study. these methodological approaches noticeably increase the costs and effort involved in the field work. A presentation letter and a postage paid return envelope were attached to each questionnaire. Either owing to the versatility for quantifying long-term relative performance or to the biases derived from data collection based on single respondent. interfunctional coordination. These arguments are summarised in the following hypothesis: H6. The results allow us assume one-dimensionality according to the usual standards of internal consistency. On the one hand. 3. 156 of which were in the chemical sector. a second phone call was made to those firms that had not replied. respectively. 3. The previous test of the questionnaire allowed us to refine the configuration and writing of both scales. A previous phone call to the firms allowed us to identify the production and operations manager and to announce the sending of the questionnaire. it is logical to think that subjective measures of performance are more correlated with market orientation. Between 15 and 30 days after the mailing. and (3) analysis methods. & Baker. It should be taken into account that the length of the questionnaire discouraged many potential respondents from collaborating. The positive relationship between the market orientation of the production and operations function and performance is stronger for subjective measures of performance than for objective measures of performance. Specifically. the relationship between the order in which the questionnaires were received and the requested variables was assessed. 3. Simpson. (2) construct measurement.2.

7103 0.7032 0.2428 1. Item-to-total correlation Alpha if item deleted 0.9168 0.5977 0.4953 0.2247 1. .2989 4.D.1941 1.1437 0.5309 0.1724 4.6012 0.8448 3.4467 0.4266 0.4383 0.8587 0.7069 5.5884 0.1149 4.4886 0.2439 1.9166 1.4425 5.term as opposed to the achievement of yearly objectives Strengthening customers’ trust is a top priority.1264 4.804 ´ .8676 0.8709 4.7463 3.4922 0. distribution.7446 0.1378 0.0630 0.) Mean S.9086 0.8530 0. .7095 0. Item-to-total correlation Alpha if item deleted 3.5197 0.8645 Mean S. production.6149 3.6173 0.6609 0.6513 0.8510 0.6437 0.5115 4. market performance and operational performance.7414 3.7075 0.2654 0. instead of taking advantage of our productive capabilities Attitudinal/cultural market orientation It is necessary to understand consumers’ needs to optimise productive capabilities Customer satisfaction is more important than productivity Customer satisfaction requires the knowledge of competitors’ offer Improving productive efficiency is less important than outperforming our competitors in creating value for consumers Successful decision making in operations requires permanent contact with marketing/sales managers Inter-departmental coordination is a key factor in successfully meeting consumers’ needs Production plans should give priority to the long. Cronbach alpha Profitability Profitability over the last three years Market performance Company reputation and image Alignment between company’s offer and market expectations Success of new product launches Operational performance Pace of new product launching and range of products in catalogue Time needed for designing and/or manufacturing products Flexibility to adapt production to different volumes of demand Product Quality (degree of conformity to specifications) Capacity to meet customers’ requirements in time Operational costs (supply.1954 5.8264 0.6985 0. namely profitability.8576 0.1904 0.5666 0.4598 4.7414 3.4577 0.9328 0.D.9307 3.6941 0.0938 1.9583 0.6954 0.5783 0.8218 1.2356 0.9776 0.5402 4. .6940 0.6140 1. Three subjective measures of performance were considered. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito.0167 1.7152 0.7989 5.8464 0.9023 3. J. Table 2 Reliability of subjective performance measures (compared to competitors) Subjective organizational performance.6859 0.6488 0.5460 5.6978 0.8642 0.6899 tional market orientation variables used in the subsequent analysis are the sum of item scores across their respective scales.6667 4.2540 1.6207 4.7033 0. even when it implies continuous adjustments of production plans 0.7767 3.0287 0.7239 5.4932 0.0871 0.7638 0.6437 0.7255 0.1954 4.9772 1.4197 0.5211 0.7176 .6691 0.0517 3. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Table 1 Reliability of market orientation measures Cronbach alpha Behavioural/operational market orientation We continuously gather information about the trends of our target market We assess our environment and our competitors’ strategies We collect information about our customers’ satisfaction We use internal reports about the structure and trends of the market We regularly contact with marketing/sales managers to discuss the trends in the market We are promptly informed about any complaint or suggestion from our customers We frequently meet other functional units in order to anticipate a response to the changing environment Our strategies are based on market knowledge rather than on productive capabilities Our premise for new product development is customer satisfaction.8966 3.6631 5.9023 3.7502 0.7395 0.2382 1.8482 0.5175 0.4413 0.4003 0.

The measurement was based on data available in the 2002 Dun and Bradstreet census. mentioned residual.0) 805 Profitability centres on economic performance. namely sales. An additional model considered the effect of both approaches to market orientation simultaneously (model 3). each of the three objective performance variables and each of the three subjective performance constructs. 169 and 168 for sales. The analysis of internal consistency is summarised in Table 2. Analysis The test of H1.9) 43 (41. profit and ROA. profit and ROA. the last model analysed the existence of synergic effects by adding the interaction of both approaches to market orientation (model 4).032 (0. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. 4. the behaviour of the organization. Managers mark on a five-point Likert-type scale whether they considered their companies (1) very inferior. Profit depicts efficiency in this respect by taking into account the operating profit margin.680) Whole sample Row percentages in parentheses. There is a positive relationship between the attitudes and values of managers and the processes. each performance measure was related to market orientation measures using multiple regression analysis (OLS estimation). . Due to data missing for some firms. As pointed out by Griffiths and Grover (1998). Results: interpretation and discussion Table 3 shows a positive correlation between cultural and operational market orientation. respectively. sample sizes were 174. In order to isolate the effect of size and activity. both measures of market orientation were dichotomised by discriminating between firms above or below the mean.7) 87 (100. Chambers. Harland. that is to say. (3) equivalent. if cultural orientation is a necessary condition for operative orientation. The models are not complete in the sense that they obviate many other determinants of performance. two models where only one of the approaches to market orientation was included as an explanatory variable (models 1 and 2). and Johnston (1998): cost. which refers to the relationship between cultural and operational market orientation. H2 requires a significant number of firms with a high degree of operational market orientation but a low degree of cultural market orientation.´ . Sales centred on the firmTs effectiveness in attracting demand. Five different models were estimated for each dependent variable. ROA. respectively. was based on the correlation between the former and the absolute residual of regressing both constructs (OLS estimation). As a complementary test. the development of an organizational culture leads to consistent behaviour. which refers to the role of cultural market orientation as a necessary antecedent of operational orientation. On the one hand. An odd number of possible responses was considered to allow respondents to reflect a level of performance similar to competitors. a reference model where only control variables were included as explanatory variables (model 0). Next. Profitability was a single-item measure while market and operational performance were composite measures based on 3 and 6 items. This can be an indicator of market position.0) 87 (100. The result is also presented in Table 3. That implies a positive correlation between cultural orientation and the Table 3 Correlations between cultural and operational market orientation Operational market orientation Cultural market orientation 0. The result is presented in Table 4. In this case. the development of norms. respectively. This justifies the limited. The result is presented in Table 3.3) Low 26 (37. The test of H2. the variance of the latter will be higher when the former increases. And operational performance brings together the achievement of the five competitive objectives of the production and operations function proposed by Slack.000) Residual (absolute value) (regression between cultural and operational market orientation) À0.3. This result lends support for H1. or (5) very superior to their competitors. Tables 5 and 6 report the results of subjective and objective measures of organizational performance. The underlying reasoning is that. furthermore. flexibility. 3. (2) somewhat inferior.318 (0. (4) somewhat superior. Market performance focuses on success with respect to the satisfaction of the target market. Harrison. On the other hand. but significant. First. J. but it does not reflect how efficiently such a position has been reached. Significance in parentheses. the number of employees and the industrial sector were included as control independent variables. quality. Three objective measures of financial performance were used. The variables of market and operational performance used in the subsequent analysis are the sum of item scores across their respective scales. Finally. Objective organizational performance.1) 61 (58. In order to test hypotheses H3 H4 H5 H6. activities and practices of the organization with respect to marketing orientation. removes size effects by comparing profit against the resources involved. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Table 4 High/low relative cultural/operational market orientation Relative operational market orientation High Relative cultural market orientation High Low 44 (62. was based on the correlation coefficient between both constructs. reliability and speed. and the implementation of practices foster the formation of beliefs and values within the organization. goodness-offit of the models. the causality might be reciprocal.

022 0.194 8.006 0.104 3.131TTT À0. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Table 5 Relationship between market orientation and subjective performance Dependent variable Model 0 Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Profitability Market Operational Profitability Market Operational Profitability Market Operational Profitability Market Operational Profitability Market Operational Performance Performance Performance Performance Performance Performance Performance Performance Performance Performance Constant Industrial sector— chemistry Industrial sector— electronics Size (number of employees) Cultural market orientation Operational market orientation Interaction R2 F *p =0.004TTT 0.001 0.779TTT – 0.003 0.487TTT 0.382 0.268 À0.015 0.001 – 0.511TTT 0.195 6.000 0.087 4.000 0.427 – 0.009 0.023 À0.193 10.207 15.050TTT – 0.155 7. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito.266TTT À0.127TTT À0.226TTT 0.204 7.588 0.209TTT À0. J.259 6.030 0.248TTT 0.089TT – À0.039 1.558TTT À0.000 – – 0.199TTT À0.219 À0.000 À0.662TTT 0.074 0.076 0.000 – – À0.104TTT – 0.199TTT – 0.194 7.000 0.173TT – À0.302 5.401TTT 0.040TTT À0.455 À0.806 ´ .248 0.334 À0.912TTT À0.196TTT À0.021TTT 0.034 11.482TTT À0.010 0.275TTT 0. 3.020 0.000 – – 0.128TTT À0.000 – 0.005 – 0.229 2.528TTT 0.353 0.066 0.708 – 0.092 3.195 11.269 5.10. TTT p =0.039TTT À0.422TTT – 0.034 1.072 À0.182 2.344 0.000 – 0.048 À0.000 0.418TTT 0.05.735TTT .016 0.01.538 – 0.036TTT À0.104 10.069 – 0.120TTT 0.187 3.185 22.046 13.509 – 0.000 0.680TTT 0.160 6.001 0.179 – 0.297 À0.143 2. TT p =0.001 0.148TTT 0.003 0.107TTT – 0.000 À0.110 À0.

01.78 À543.78TTT 1423.733.419 40.188TTT 0.008 À908.06TT 0.16TTT ROA 0. J.30TTT ROA 0.66T Sales À15.828.791TTT – 0.002T 0.006 À610.72 4373.10.66T Sales À15.624TTT – 0.000 À0.0TT 83.024 1.25 0.05.23 4434.12 166.3 83.324 19.13TTT 15. TT p =0.076 À0.07 À0.52 4131.50 – 0.301 – 0.876.007 0.686TTT À58.107 164.000 À0.371.09TTT À411.62TT ROA 0.007 0.338 13.652. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Table 6 Relationship between market orientation and objective performance (absolute) Dependent variable Model 0 Profit Constant Industrial sector— chemistry Industrial sector— electronics Size (number of employees) Cultural market orientation Operational market orientation Interaction 2 R F À148. 174 and 168 for profit.43 4139.439 26.79 À0.07 0.453 3659.006 10.00TT ROA 0.004 Model 2 Profit À6014.36T Sales À141.123 167.321TTT – 0.076TTT – 0.001 0.229.818.31 À0.4 À0.332 20.001 0. sales and ROA.002T 153.17TTT – 3503.54 – – 177.420 30.389 – 0.807TTT 339.11 16.000 -0.063TTT À0.439 33.881.028 0.515.002T 9.12TT 0.998. 807 .008 À1021.59TTT – – 0.96 15.004 Model 4 Profit À5026.196.´ .575 167.85TT 0.000 0.215TTT – 0.7 87.000 À0.92 À0.66TTT À70.565TTT – 0.722.337TTT – 0.000 – – 9.12 76.577.000 10.444 22.83 11.68 4696.324 26. TTT p =0.321TTT – 0.039 0.901.520 0.781 Sample size is 169.96 13.394.20T Sales À72.001 – 0.009 À1063.930 26.96 3608. respectively.004 Model 1 Profit À768.71TTT – 144.041 À0.58 20.73 76. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito.62TT Sales À155.003 Model 3 Profit À3781.000 À1038.332 16.000 9.13TTT – – – – 177.028 0. T p =0.08TTT ROA 0.

. although more moderately. Thus H5 receives no support except for this case. reinforcing variable only when operational performance is considered. operational performance. the optimisation of processes. only one of the interaction effects considered in model 4 was found to be significant. Apart from the dominant role of the operational market orientation in the improvement of organizational performance. operational orientation is related to a higher number of performance measures than cultural orientation. Therefore. even though many firms’ classifications agree in both dimensions. The pragmatic approach to market orientation seems to make a significant contribution to the improvement of attractiveness and commercial success. at least in a relative sense and as far as the production and operations function is concerned. This lends support for H6. the results lead us to think that the adoption of doperational recipesT of market orientation might lead to positive effects of performance regardless of the cultural conversion of production and operations managers. and in relative terms. This result implies that cultural market orientation enhances performance dimensions such as reputation. Cultural orientation constitutes a moderating. Second. when the effects of both approaches to market orientation are simultaneously considered in model 3. Therefore. the degree of reported cultural and operational market orientation is quite high. That implies the existence of firms for which there is no correspondence between the degree of cultural and operational implementation of market orientation. sales and ROA. the next key question refers to their effect on organizational performance. This leads us to think that the effect of cultural market orientation is given by its relationship with operational market orientation. Second. None of these arguments supports the rejection of H2. Although the behaviour could initially be thought of as the consequence of the organizational culture. This circumstance becomes evident when Table 4 is observed. etc. Two clarifications must be taken into account at this point. Nevertheless. new product success. model 1 lends support for H3 in relation to market and operational performance. it is the actions and procedures. but it does not seem to be relevant to the accomplishment of better market position and profitability. The distinction between more and less oriented firms shows that. Table 4 is also consistent with the reciprocal causality mentioned above. The variance in operational market orientation seems to be independent of the degree of cultural market orientation. This not only results in higher sales but also more efficiency in terms of profitability over the last few years and. In short. Tables 5 and 6 show that the relationship between market orientation and organizational performance differs according to the type of market orientation and the measure of performance. model 2 lends support for H3 in relation to profitability. it is important to point out that the relationship is not significant for profitability when it is measured with secondary objective sources. approaches to market orientation. flexibility. 1998). and to the achievement of objectives linked to the production and operations function. These firms seem to adopt market orientation more as an doperational recipeT than as a management philosophy. the existence of a relevant number of market-oriented firms in the operational sense but not in the cultural sense sustains the inverse reasoning. On the other hand. the results imply that such a culture does not necessarily prioritise the marketing concept. As shown in Table 1. And third. there are firms with market-oriented practices whose managers do not prioritise the values of market orientation. The comparison of Tables 5 and 6 shows that the relationship is stronger for subjective measures than for objective measures. activities and outcomes of the production function. Cultural orientation is key in the achievement of objectives directly linked to the production function. cost control. The results presented in Tables 5 and 6 also imply that the effect of operational market orientation is higher than the effect of cultural market orientation. image.. the measures of cultural and operational market orientation do not necessarily reflect the situation at the corporate level. time to market. the implementation of activities and processes to create superior value for customers seems to play a fundamental role in the improvement of performance. On the contrary. when some firms are referred to as bmarketorientedQ. not the beliefs and attitudes. The last question concerns the distinction between objective and subjective approaches to the measurement of organizational performance. provides additional support for such a conclusion. in terms of ROA. Although it has been posed that the relationship between market-oriented behaviour and performance is necessarily based on a strong culture (Slater & Narver. which enforce organizational performance. All these arguments provide support for H4. The nonsignificant correlation found between cultural orientation and the residual of regressing it with operational orientation. any mention of the degree of market orientation is made in relative terms.808 ´ . quality. On the one hand. Subjective measures are more flexible than objective measures in capturing complex dimensions of performance. market performance. that means that they are more market oriented than other competing firms in the population studied. reported in Table 3. but these outputs do not seem to lead to better financial performance. Therefore. The absence of cultural support for market orientation practices might merely be confined to the production field owing to cultural and perceptual divergences within managing teams. that is. there is an important proportion of firms characterised by opposing levels. Therefore. the relationship is moderated even though significant. First. the role of cultural orientation is absorbed by the role of operational orientation. significance levels are always higher for the effects of operational orientation. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. data collection focused on the production and operations functional area. Given the existence of two related. but not coincident. Cultural market orientation is not necessarily an antecedent of operational market orientation. J. First. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Nevertheless.

2000). And third. the cultural orientation does not seem to be a necessary antecedent of the operational orientation. First. The assessment of favourable and contrary arguments is out of the scope of this paper.. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. This study has tried to gain an insight into some relevant questions about the conceptualisation and measurement of the relationship between market orientation and performance. J. The diversity of conceptual and methodological approaches to the definition and measurement of market orientation. 2000. 2000). Finally. 1999. and consequently. others do not find any relationship. 2001a. the relationship between market orientation and performance might appear falsely reinforced in the data. behaviour might be the basis for the formation of beliefs and values. Two managerial implications can be drawn from these results. 1997a. Although most of them justify and find some kind of positive relationship. Jones et al. the adoption of doperational recipesT of market orientation seems to improve performance independently of the cultural conversion of the organization to the marketing concept philosophy. the perspective from functional areas further removed from the customer than the sales and marketing function. Conclusions Previous studies on the relationship between market orientation and organizational performance show some incoherence in the conclusions reported. Salomo et al.´ .. Market orientation contributes to the long-term viability of the firm by improving market and operational performance. 2003). First. Second. the distinction between the objective and subjective approaches to the measurement of organizational performance. The output of market orientation is better reflected by reputation. although the cultural market orientation could be thought of as a quality warranty of the operational implementation. Furthermore. The results based on a sample of Spanish industrial firms show a moderate. image. Finally. Second. time-to-market. and the relationship between both of them enriches the field of research but also contributes additional confusion. The results are consistent with the existence of a reciprocal causality between them. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 809 considering lagged effects. Second. and facilitating comparison between firms. Deshpande et al.b. subjective measures obtained from a single respondent might involve biases as a consequence of the response style or the interest in communicating a favourable and coherent corporate image. Moreover. the results provide evidence of a positive relationship between operational market orientation and performance. significant relationship between the cultural and operational measures of the market orientation of the production and operations function. However. the empirical study has been circumscribed to three Spanish industrial sectors. Pelham. at least in the short-term. the study does not explain whether the stronger relationship between market orientation and subjective performance is due to the superiority of this measurement approach or to the measurement bias that this approach could entail. Besides. More attention should be paid to promoting behaviour than to promoting culture. In addition. 1998. the distinction between the cultural/attitudinal and operational/behavioural approaches to market orientation. cost-efficiency. 2003. but uncovers some other questions in this respect. However. new product success. . Siguaw et al. cultural and operational approaches to market orientation constitute the opposite ends of a continuum. Langerak. the results show that the relationship between market orientation and organizational performance becomes stronger when the latter is subjectively measured. customer satisfaction. the benefits derived from market orientation are not completely captured by objective financial measures. There is also some discrepancy about the circumstances of the competitive environment in which the relationship takes place or is stronger. The comparison between studies becomes harder. Many of these multiple-respondent studies still reported a positive relationship between market orientation and subjective performance (e. the results do not explain whether the relationship between market orientation and performance and the predominant role of operational implementation is only attributable to the production function or independent of it. Deshpande & Farley. Apparently contradictory results can turn out to be complementary when their theoretical and methodological frameworks are borne in mind. This raises some doubts in this respect. Moreover. specifically the production and operations function. 1993. A more complete approach should consider a more detailed partition of this continuum (Homburg & Pflesser. product quality. at least in the operations and production functional area. It only constitutes a moderating variable of the relationship between operational market orientation and the effectiveness and efficiency of the production function. the organizational culture. This supports the fact that the relationship is not a consequence of the dhalo effectT. Farrelly & Quester. 2003. it does not enhance the relationship with commercial effectiveness and profitability. In this respect. First. In this respect. some other multiple-respondent studies did not find a relationship (e.b. Additional evidence from different settings and business activities is required. the literature review summarised in Appendix 1 does not shed light on this question. This study has dealt with the relationship between market orientation and operational performance while taking into account three key conceptual and methodological aspects of the empirical development.g.g. The former case implies cultural heterogeneity within the organization. organizational performance. Slater & Narver. Third.. etc. Less than 10% of papers revised used different respondents for market orientation and performance measurement. 5.. subjective performance seems to be a more reliable measure of performance and the relationship between market orientation and performance gains credibility.

closeness to the breakeven point. integrated marketing organization. (1990) UK businesses. and interfunctional coordination—. adequate marketing information. (1993) Positive relationship for customer orientation reported by customers. Cultural scales referred to as marketing concept and extended marketing concept. Five components— marketing philosophy. and two decision criteria—long. Averaged responses of members of the top management team Operative scale based on Kotler (1977). strategic orientation. Single respondent Operative scale based on Kotler (1977). competitive intensity and technological turbulence . Averaged responses of two marketing executives—self-reported customer orientation— and averaged responses of two purchasing executives of a customer firm—customer orientation reported by customers (1) Cultural scale referred to as marketing concept. J. (2) Operative scale based on MARKOR structure. and implementation of strategy Operative scale DFW referred to as customer orientation. analysers and defenders Esslemont and Lewis (1991) New Zealand firms Retailers from Palmerston North. No relationship for self-reported customer orientation Diamantopoulos and Hart (1993) UK manufacturing companies Objective secondary composite measure based on sales growth and profit margin Jaworski and Kohli (1993). No moderating effects of market turbulence. Response of chief marketing executive Operative scale MKTOR. Moderating effects of market turbulence. Averaged responses of two marketing executives Positive relationship Positive relationship Deshpande ´ et al. corporate liquidity and ROE. competitor orientation. Response of vice president of marketing and planning Cultural scale to classify approaches to marketing. intensity of competition and demand conditions Positive relationship for subjective performance. over the past year No clear relationship. Three components—intelligence generation. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Appendix A Some published empirical studies related to the market orientation–performance relationship Empirical study Lusch and Laczniak (1987) Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship Large US firms. Kohli et al.term focus and profitability. Response of hospital administrator Operative scale. Moderating effects of type of business—commodity and noncommodity—and the strategy types of Miles and Snow (1978)—prospectors. ROA. Three components—use of information. intelligence dissemination and responsiveness. Slater and Narver (1993) SBUs in the forest products division of a major western corporation Subjective composite measure based on overall financial performance. Three behavioural components— customer orientation. New Zealand New Zealand firms Objective measures of state and growth of ROI and profit margin No clear relationship Naidu and Narayana (1991) Ruekert (1992) US hospitals in Midwestern states Managers and sales representatives from the five SBUs of a large high technology company based in the US SBUs of Japanese firms traded on the Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo Objective measure of occupancy rate Objective composite measure based on SBU’s profitability and sales growth over the five preceding years Subjective composite measure based on profitability. (2) Subjective single measure of performance relative to major competitors Subjective single measure of ROA in principal served market segment over the past year in relation to all other competitors Positive relationship Positive relationship. Narver and Slater (1990).810 ´ . development of strategy. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. size. as expected in the future (1) Objective primary measure of ROI. (2) Subjective composite measure based on overall performance and overall performance relative to major competitors. market share and growth rate in comparison with the largest competitor. (1993) SBUs of the top US companies (in sales revenue) and companies of the Marketing Science Institute American Marketing Association membership roster (1) Objective measure of share of the served market. and operational efficiency. Response of managing directors or equivalents Operative scale MARKOR based on Kohli and Jaworski (1990). Averaged responses of two senior executives (one marketing and the other non-marketing) for the first sample Hooley et al. No relationship for objective performance.

proprietary advantage. margin. Response of general manager or marketing manager Objective primary measure of operating margin Slater and Narver (1994) SBUs in a forest product company and a diversified manufacturing company Australian service and manufacturing single firms and SBUs of large multisite firms Operative scale MKTOR. product innovations. and responsiveness to competitors. and new market opportunities—in relation to one new product introduced in the last 5 years Objective primary (New Zealand) and secondary (Hong Kong) measure of occupancy rate Positive relationship Positive relationship. customer satisfaction. Moderating effect of environment hostility. and Ziegler (2000) US Hospitals in Midwestern states Operative scale based on MARKOR. Averaged responses of members of the top management team Atuahene-Gima (1995. mortality and cost per adjusted discharge Golden. Response of chief marketing officer Operative scale. Franzak. Four components—customer. and Smith. Moderating effects of market turbulence and technological change.b) UK companies with more than 500 employees Operative scale based on Kotler (1977). penetration. market share. and Little. interfunctional coordination. sales growth. liquidity. responsiveness to competition and customer satisfaction.´ . Financial performance related to responsiveness to competition and customers. Market/product performance and internal quality related to intelligence generation. J. market/product development—based on new product and market development and R and D—and internal quality—based on service quality. responsiveness to customers. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study McDermott. productivity. market share. quality. Stronger for market intelligence and interfunctional coordination than for strategy and tactical responsiveness Large US general hospitals Deng and Dart (1994) Canadian companies Operative scale based on MKTOR. and profit orientations. market share growth and profitability in relation to competitors Subjective composite measures of financial performance—based on profit. sales. and new product success relative to all other competitors in the principal served market over the past year Subjective composite measures of new product market performance—based on market share. Response of the marketing manager Au and Tse (1995) Hotels and motor lodges in Hong Kong Hotels and motor lodges in New Zealand Greenley (1995a. (1995) Russian firms Operative scale. export. Doney. stage of the product life cycle. Single responses of managing director/CEOs Subjective composite measure based on overall performance. Johnson. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. Lonial. new product success and sales growth over the last 3 years. development of new products and new markets. No moderating effect of market growth Positive relationship through product attributes. No relationship through promotion activities and price Positive relationship. No moderating effect of country— related to size and complexity Subjective measures of ROI. ROI and cash flow—. employee turnover. No moderating effects of market turbulence. Response of general manager. 1996) Operative scale based on Ruekert (1992). relative to those of major competitors Subjective composite measure based on sales. Response of primary manager or owner No overall relationship. MARKOR and prior health care research. sales. growth and profit objectives-and new product project performance—based on cost efficiencies. Four resulting components—intelligence generation. and expectations over the previous three years Subjective single measures of ROA. Raju. competitive hostility and market growth Positive relationship. competitor. and service vs. Raju et al. Averaged responses of top executives . Raju and Lonial (2001). sales and profitability of other products. Moderating effect of size and environmental uncertainty (continued on next page) Lonial and Raju (2001). Four components—market intelligence. (1993) Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure 811 Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship. No moderating effect of degree of product newness No relationship. (1995). technological turbulence. Complemented with objective number of employees responsible for public relations and expenditure on public relations Operative scale based on MKTOR. interfunctional coordination and responsiveness (strategic and tactical). Gupta.

cash flow. Response of chief executive Pelham and Wilson (1996) Michigan firms (US) Operative scale based on MKTOR. and profitability—based on profits.812 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Balakrishnan (1996) ´ . margin. No relationship for objective performance. Response of chief executive Cultural scale. in relation to objectives Subjective composite measure based on ROCE. (2) Subjective composite measure based on overall performance and overall performance relative to major competitors. Response of corporate executive Subjective composite measures of satisfaction with profit and profit relative to competition—both based on profit and ROA—and subjective single measures of customer retention and repeat business generated from customers Subjective composite measure based on competitiveness. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship for basic market orientation. (1996) Largest UK based service firms Malta firms Operative scale MARKOR. customer satisfaction. industrial sector and foreign property Positive relationship except for growth/share performance US manufacturers of machine tools Operative scale referred as customer and competitive orientation. Moderating effects of position of the top marketing executive. Four resulting components—basic market orientation. Moderating effects of market turbulence. ROI and ROA—. No moderating effect of technological turbulence . competitive benchmarking. growth/share— based on sales and employment growth and market share—. sales growth and overall performance relative to other companies in the industry over the last 5 years (1) Objective measure of share of the served market. Response of marketing director Positive relationship. No moderating effect of country— related to cultural context and economic performance Positive relationship for subjective performance. new product success rate and return on investment over the previous 3 year period in relation to all other competitors Positive relationship for sales growth rate. No moderating effect of country —related to national culture and political economy Selnes et al. International orientation related to satisfaction with profit and profit relative to competitors Positive relationship. Caruana. production and R and D Positive relationship mainly based on competitor orientation. Moderating effects of size. over the past year Fritz (1996) Industrial firms in West Germany Llonch and Walin ˜ o (1996) Industrial firms based in Catalonia (Spain) Operative scale based on MKTOR. and Berthon. Customisation related to repeat business. Denmark and Sweden US manufacturers in a Midwestern state Operative scale MARKOR. customisation and international orientation. continuance of the firm. ROS. Averaged responses of two senior executives (one marketing and the other non-marketing) Operative scale MKTOR. Response of managing director Subjective single measures of ROA and sales growth rate relative to all other competitors in the principal served market over the past year Subjective single measures of sales growth. sales growth and overall performance in relation to competitors over the last 3 years Subjective composite measures of new product success—based on product/service and market development—. Response of president or general manager Appiah-Adu (1997) Small UK firms Operative scale based on MKTOR. J. Response of firm president Pitt. No relationship for ROA Positive relationship. and subjective single measure of relative product quality. and long-term profitability in relation to objectives within the last 3 years Subjective single measures of ROI. (1996) Slater and Narver (1996) SBUs of the top US companies (in sales revenues) and companies of the Marketing Science Institute Largest firms (in sales revenues) in Norway. and co-operation of marketing. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. Competitive benchmarking related to profit relative to competitors. competitive intensity and market growth. influence of the marketing sector.

Three components— customer and competitor. ROI and market share in relation to objectives and competitors over a 4 year period (1) Objective measures of situation and change in donor contribution ratio and number of volunteers. Response of marketing manager Operative scale based on MARKOR. new product success and customer retention. growth rate and target market share. No moderating effect of environment turbulence No relationship Operative scale of strategic orientation. Response of managing director/CEO Operative scale based on MKTOR. Response of the firm’s president Subjective single measures of sales growth and ROI in relation to expectations over the previous 3 years Positive relationship. Three dimensions— research. annual turnover. Moderating effects of competitive intensity and market dynamism. Operative scale. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Avlonitis and Gounaris (1997) Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure 813 Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship. (2) Subjective single measures of achievement of longterm and short-term objectives Objective primary measure of change in profit over the last 3 years Objective measures of banks’ ROA. Kumar. Moderating effects of competitive hostility.´ . Different associations between profiles of market orientation and measures of performance. success in retaining patients and success in controlling expenses Small US industrial manufacturing firms. Moderating effect of type of business—industrial vs. Single respondent Balabanis et al. growth/share—based on sales level. management judgement. (2) Operative scale MARKOR. Response of managing director Subjective composite measures of firm effectiveness—based on relative product quality. Subramanian. market growth and market turbulence Kumar and Subramanian (2000). Operative scale of interfunctional coordination based on MKTOR Operative scale of stakeholder orientation. Three components-customer understanding. Kumar et al. based on MKTOR. shareholders and unions. Moderating effect of environment hostility. competitors and objectives Bhuian (1997) Gatignon and Xuareb (1997) Managerial level personnel in bank branches in Saudi Arabia Marketing executives US firms Operative scale based on MARKOR No relationship. 1999. No moderating effect of product differentiation No overall relationship.b. return on capital. customer satisfaction and competitive orientation. Moderating effect of customer differentiation. and technological orientation. consumer goods Positive relationship for subjective performance. Moderating effect of demand uncertainty. 1998) UK companies with more than 500 employees Subjective single measures of ROI. sales growth. No relationship for customer and competitor orientation. in their principal market Positive relationship for interfunctional coordination. Response of business president Subjective composite measures based on profit. market turbulence. supplier power and emphasis on differentiation strategy Positive relationship. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. Response of chief administrator Greenley and Foxall (1997. No moderating effect of market growth (continued on next page) . Moderating effects of competitive hostility. 1998). (2002) Pelham (1997a. success of new services. 2000) US hospitals Subjective single measures of satisfaction with growth in revenue. market share and new product success rate compared to that of the competitors. (1997) Top British charities Becherer and Maurer (1997) Small entrepreneur US business Operative scale. and profitability— based on ROE. gross margin and ROI. employees. and Yauger (1997. No relationship for objective performance Industrial and consumer goods Greek companies (1) Cultural scale to classify approaches to marketing. Response of sales manager and president Appiah-Adu (1998) Large firms operating in Ghana Operative scale. J. ROE and sales per employee Subjective composite measure of innovation performance based on ROI of the last new product introduced in the market in relation to other products of the firm. planning and corporate culture and mission-in relation to five stakeholder groups-competitors. consumers. No moderating effects of market growth and competition intensity Positive relationship between different types of stakeholder orientation and different measures of performance.

market share. revenues. Positive relationship when innovations are accounted for (mediating role of innovativeness) based on customer orientation Positive relationship based on intelligence generation . MKTOR and Deng and Dart (1994). Response of the person in charge of the marketing function at the senior management level Operative scale based on MARKOR structure. accountant/financial. Western European industrial countries Positive relationship (1) Objective measures of ROI. (2) Subjective single measures of growth and profitability Subjective single measure of performance for the last year Horng and Chen (1998) Small and medium firms of Taiwan Positive relationship except for relative ROI. Service quality as intermediate variable in the market orientation– business performance relationship Positive relationship. and overall performance relative to the main competition in the past 3 years Subjective single measures of new product success rate. 1999) Senior managers in New Zealand companies Han et al. entry barriers and buyer power. Stronger relationship for subjective than for objective performance. responsiveness and profit emphasis Operative scale MKTOR. (1998. interfunctional coordination. size. Averaged responses of marketing/sales. cost effectiveness and overall performance in the last 3 years Subjective single measure of ROA in relation to major direct competitors over the past year. sales growth and ROI relative to the main competition over the previous 3 year period Subjective composite measure based on quality of products. sales growth. (2) Operative scale based on MARKOR. sales growth and profitability relative to nearest competitor (1) Objective primary measures of net income growth and ROA. market share and growth Subjective composite measure based on ROC.814 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Appiah-Adu and Ranchhod (1998) ´ . market share. DFW and the resulting summary scale Doyle and Wong (1998) Gray et al. service to customers. (1998) US banks in a Midwestern state Operative scale based on MARKOR structure. No moderating effects of market and technological turbulence No direct relationship. Moderating effects of competitive intensity. Response of managing director Appiah-Adu and Singh (1998) Small and medium UK enterprises Operative scale based on DFW. Five resulting components— customer and competitor orientation. 1999) Public sector organizations in Australia Departments in Australian and New Zealand universities Operative scale based on MARKOR. Response of CEO or top manager Subjective single measures of new products/services success. customer satisfaction and overall performance over the last 3 years Subjective single measures of overall performance and ability to attract non-government funding during the last 5 years Subjective composite measure based on improvements achieved. and manufacturing/operations managers (1) Cultural scale of business philosophy. ROI and ROS. customer satisfaction and loyalty.b. Response of head of public sector organization or university department Chang and Chen (1998) Retail stock brokerage firms in Taiwan Operative scale extending MKTOR with performance anticipation. and subjective composite measure of service quality based on SERVQUAL Subjective composite measures of performance. one based on cus tomer retention. Response of CEO Caruana et al. the other based on profit ability. profit margin. sales growth and overall performance in relation to excellent competitors Positive relationship Positive relationship. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship except for new products/services success UK firms in the biotechnology industry Operative scale based on MKTOR. MKTOR. (1998a. members of the Marketing Science Institute SBUs of large UK firms Operative scales MARKOR. (2) Subjective single measures of brand awareness. financial position. Moderating effects of competitive intensity and technological turbulence Positive relationship based on responsiveness Positive relationship. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. Response of marketing executive Bhuian (1998) Manufacturing companies in Saudi Arabia Operative scale based on MARKOR and performance anticipation. No moderating effect of country—US vs. market growth. market share growth. relative ROI and pretax profit. Response of the head of retail brokerage operations Deshpande and Farley (1998a) Marketing executives from US and European major firms. J.

private owned Supplier market orientation positively related to commitment. competitors and environment. ROE and profit margin Composite measure based on (1) objective primary measures of financial performance. sales. Moderating effect of structure of ownership—publicly listed vs. ROI. distributors. Three components—customer focus. expenses and number of activities Positive relationship No relationship Positive relationship Positive relationship for number of activities (continued on next page) . new product success. Response of the distributor’s employee most knowledgeable about the relationship with primary supplier—distributor market orientation—and the supplier’s employee most knowledgeable about the relationship—supplier market orientation Operative scale. (1998) US distributors and their primary suppliers Thirkell and Dau (1998) New Zealand manufacturing firms Operative scale MARKOR. and strategic actions on consumers. market diversification and customer satisfaction. Response of distributor’s employee most knowledgeable about the relationship with primary supplier Positive relationship Positive relationship. Response of CEO/general manager Siguaw et al. J. net income. and profitability—based on operating profits. commitment and satisfaction with financial performance. competitors and macroenvironment. Single respondent Subjective composite measures of business position—based on sales growth. cash-flow. distributor. sales growth. and (2) subjective assessment of export market share. ROI and ROA. Distributor market orientation positively related to trust and cooperation Tse (1998) Large property developers in Hong Kong Large and independent US service firms in an upper Midwestern state Operative scale based on Kotler (1977) and other operative single measures. (1998) Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure 815 Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship Large private insurance companies in Spain Large private insurance companies in Belgium Ngai and Ellis (1998) Textile and garment companies in Hong Kong Operative scale. profitability. profit/ sales. ROI and overall performance relative to competitors in the principal served segment over the past year Subjective composite measures of trust. Response of a manager Operative scale MKTOR. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Lado et al. and Santos (1999) Non for profit organizations in Asturias (Spain) Operative scale based on MARKOR structure. market share and market share growth rate. and (2) subjective single assessment of performance Objective primary measures of number of associates. Response of managing director Objective secondary measure of market share Oczkowski and Farrell (1998) Large publicly listed companies in Australia Large private owned companies in Australia Operative scales MKTOR y MARKOR. integration and goal directed behaviour. Nine components— analysis of final client. and overall performance Objective secondary measures of total asset. Averaged responses of marketing and non-marketing managers Operative scale based on MKTOR. interfunctional coordination. total equity. cooperative norms. Averaged responses of top management team Van Egeren and O’Connor (1998) ´ lvarez. Single respondent Composite measure of export performance based on (1) objective export intensity and sales. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito.´ . in relation to competition over a five year period and in relation to expectations for the most recent year Subjective composite measure based on customer retention. A Vasquez.

Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship US distributors Baker and Sinkula (1999a. margin. new product success—based on new products over the last 3 years—. and overall performance Positive relationship Positive relationship Positive relationship for ROI. Cervera et al. and composite measures of performance—based on sales revenue. 2001) Deshpande and Farley (1999) Largest UK based service firms Local governments in Valencia (Spain) SBUs of Japanese firms traded on the Nikkei stock exchange in Tokyo SBUs of Indian firms traded on the Bombay stock exchange No relationship Positive relationship Positive relationship for both self-reported and reportedby-customers market orientation. Positive effect with performance through new product success. Simpson. Poland and Slovenia Llonch and Lo ´ pez (1999) Large Spanish industrial companies Operative scale based on MKTOR. market share and profit in relation to competitors—. value and attraction in relation to competitors—. and averaged responses of two purchasing executives of a customer firm—customer orientation reported by customers Operative scale MARKOR Operative scale based on MKTOR. Moderating effect of country Harris and Piercy (1999) Hooley et al. (1999.b) SBUs of firms Operative scale DFW to measure distributor market orientation as perceived by the primary supplier. (1999) Cervera (1999). flexibility. in relation to main competitors. Response of chief executive Subjective composite measures of company and store performance Subjective composite measures based on financial—profit and ROI—and market— sales volume and market share—criteria.816 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Baker. Response of marketing or non-marketing executive Subjective composite measures of trust. Moderating effect of learning orientation Barret and Weinstein (1999) Diverse businesses in Tennessee (US) Operative scale MARKOR. Response of marketing director Operative scale based on MARKOR. Response of executive director Positive relationship. and overall performance . and overall performance—based on overall performance and overall performance relative to competitors over the last year Subjective composite measure based on overall performance and overall performance relative to leading competitors over the last year (1) Objective measure of ROI. new product success and overall performance. J. commitment and satisfaction with financial performance of primary supplier Subjective single measure of market share in relation to competition over the past year. cooperative norms. size. sales growth. Five components— organization. Response of senior level manager at the firm’s headquarter Becker and Homburg (1999) SBUs across different industries in Germany Operative scale based on management systems. controlling and human resource management systems. margin. pace of new product launching. Response of supplier’s employee most knowledgeable about the relationship Operative scale MARKOR. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. Averaged responses of two marketing executives— self-reported customer orientation. Moderating effect of size and. Response of general manager Operative scale MARKOR. and Siguaw (1998) ´ . to a lesser extent. No moderating effect of corporate entrepreneurship Positive relationship for financial performance through market performance Caruana et al. information. (2) subjective composite measures of market performance—based on customer satisfaction.b) Store managers in large UK retail organizations Firms in Hungary. (1999a. market share and growth rate in comparison with the largest competitor. and financial performance relative to the industry’s average Subjective single measure Subjective single measures of global performance and citizen participation Subjective composite measure based on profitability. planning. Averaged responses of two marketing executives Positive relationship for market share. budget and last year Subjective single measures of ROI. Response of chief secretary and mayor Operative scale DFW.

Response of firm’s director Objective single measure of ROA and composite measure of marketing effectiveness based on sales growth. profitability and market share. Response of senior level accounting/finance or marketing executive Operative scale based on MKTOR. customer responsiveness. profits. especially for ROI and new product success. size. market share and growth rate in comparison with the largest competitor Subjective composite measure based on profitability. customer relationship performance—based on customer satisfaction and retention. size. Four components— customer orientation. Only relationship with customer orientation remains significant when other influences are controlled Operative scale DFW. No moderating effect of country-related to cultural environment (continued on next page) . Single respondent Moorman and Rust (1999) Managers from different functions from US business organizations Operative scales MARKOR and MKTOR Sargeant and Mohamad (1999) Vorhies. Va ´ zquez et al. creativity and financial performance of new product/service development. and Rao (1999) Alvarez et al. Mavondo and Farrell (2003) Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure 817 Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship for marketing effectiveness Food manufacturing business in Zimbabwe Not specified. market share and growth rate in comparison with the largest competitor. sales and new product success relative to objectives and competitors in the last period Positive relationship except for customer relationship satisfaction No relationship Large manufacturing and service firms with Australian operations Industrial firms in Asturias (Spain) Positive relationship Cravens and Guilding (2000) Dawes (2000) US companies with strong brands Firms in South Australia Deshpande and Farley (2000) Deshpande et al. Response of CEO Positive relationship.´ . competitive intensity and technological turbulence Positive relationship Positive relationship except for market information sharing. MARKOR. and new product performance—based on speed. adaptability and customer satisfaction relative to that of major competitors Subjective single measure of ROI. (2) Operative scale based on MARKOR structure. changes in market share and number of successful new products in the last three years Subjective composite measures of financial performance—based on costs. J. sales. and quality. (2001) Hotel groups in the UK Operative scale. No moderating effect of dynamism. (2000) Senior managers of Chinese companies headquartered in Shanghai Japanese firms US firms UK firms German firms French firms Operative scale based on MKTOR. (2000). Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Mavondo (1999). and averaged responses of two purchasing executives of a customer firmmarket orientation reported by customers Subjective composite measure based on profitability. competitor orientation and market information sharing. Average of responses of CEO and other senior managers Operative scale DFW Subjective composite measure based on customer satisfaction. Harper. Moderating effect of uncertainty. Averaged responses of two marketing executives Positive relationship No relationship. sales growth and profits relative to expectation Subjective composite measure of performance. DFW and Deng and Dart (1994). sales volume. growth. Response of top marketing executive (1) Cultural scale based on MKTOR structure. Response of marketing director Operative scale MARKOR. relative to objectives. Averaged responses of two marketing executives-self-reported market orientation. Objective primary measures of turnover and profit after tax Subjective single measures of profitability. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito.

products/ services dynamism and environmental unpredictability US telephone companies Farrell (2000) Large Australian companies Operative scale. Multilayer model of market orientation based on values. Three components—business philosophy. overall performance relative to competitors and expectations. Moderating effect of Miles and Snow (1978)’s strategy types Schlegelmilch and Ram (2000) US firms Cultural scale of strategic market orientation. growth and market share. (2) Subjective composite measure of market performance based on value generation. relative sales growth. equity and sales. customer retention. (2000. (2000. No moderating effect of technological turbulence and competitive intensity Positive relationship for subjective ROI Shoham (2000) SBUs of Israeli exporters Operative scale of marketorientation strategy. confirmation of expectations and dynamic sales Sin et al. satisfaction and confirmationof-expectation. Extension of MARKOR to include supplier relationships. relative to competitors during the last three years Subjective single measures of growth in market capitalisation. Response of SBU’s manager Subjective composite measure based on customer retention. ROI. Cultural and operative scales. Moderating effect of market turbulence. 2003) ´ . in relation to export activity. and PSI factor. Moderating effects of competitive pressure. percentage of new product sales to total sales. Response of marketing manager Positive relationship for managerial expectations. and ROI and sales relative to competitors (1) Objective measures of profitability and ROI. Response of marketing or non-marketing manager Operative scale MKTOR.818 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Dobni and Luffman (2000. and overall performance relative to competitors in the principal served market over the last year (1) Objective primary measure of ROS during the last three years. based on objective and subjective items Subjective composite measure based on sales growth. sales growth. and ROI relative to those of relevant competition Subjective composite measure based on overall performance. artefacts and behaviours. Matsuno et al. ROA. regulatory aspects. and price earnings Subjective single measures of market share. Business behaviour related to ROE and growth in total assets Positive relationship. new product success. profit orientation. and marketing director/manager in Hong Kong companies Positive relationship. customer satisfaction. and the macroenvironment. intelligence dissemination. 2003) SBUs in Australian companies Operative scale. total assets. market orientation and business behaviour. response design and implementation. Sequence values–norms–artefacts– behaviours–market performance–financial performance. Response of marketing executive (vice president or director level) Operative scale MARKOR. (2002) US manufacturing companies Pulendran et al. customer orientation. ROI and market share Positive relationship Positive relationship. Single respondent Operative scale. Based on customer orientation and sales growth and customer retention in China. social and cultural trends. Moderating effect of country-related to economic context . 2003) Firms in mainland China Firms in Hong Kong Operative scale MKTOR. (2) Subjective single measures of profitability and ROI relative to objectives in the last year Composite measures of static and dynamic sales and profitability. Response of manager (general. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. norms. marketing or non-marketing) Loubser (2000) South African companies Matsuno and Mentzer (2000). attraction and retention. ROE. Response of top administrator in Chinese companies. Response of the CEO/ marketing director Objective measure of ROI Homburg and Pflesser (2000) SBUs from five different industries in Germany. Moderating effect of market dynamism Market orientation related to ROE. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship. Response of chief marketing executive officer Positive relationship. Seven components— formal and informal intelligence generation. J.

Response of the main contact person in each of the client firms Operative scale based on MARKOR structure. (2003) New product development projects for high technology industrial products in US New Zealand Scandinavia (Norway and Sweden) Korea Belgium Medium and large companies located in Hong Kong and with operations in Hong Kong and China Positive relationship except for customer orientation in Korea Operative scale MKTOR. Response by consensus of chief marketing and chief R & D officers Subjective single measure of ROI relative to primary competitors over the past 3 years. Webster. (2000). contact with important persons and employee motivation relative to major competitors (1) Objective measures of percent age of profits and sales. Moderating effect of interfunctional coordination Positive relationship Positive relationship Wren. revenues. Response of general manager (1) Objective measures of attendance attributable to subscription and single tickets. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. J. Averaged response of senior editors Grewal and Tansuhaj (2001) Small and midsized Thai firms Operative scale MARKOR. respectively. Moderating effects of competitive intensity. financial position and patient satisfaction over the last 3 years Subjective single measure of the degree of commercial success for the new product in relation to expectations Positive relationship between objective performance and competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Slater and Narver (2000) Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure 819 Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship Voss and Voss (2000) US single business corporations or SBUs of multi-business corporations US nonprofit professional theatre industry Operative scale MKTOR. Moderating effect of entrepreneurship orientation Positive relationship only between intelligence dissemination and change in household penetration Positive and negative relationship for performance before and after crisis. Tse et al. (2) Subjective single measures of season subscription sales. and demand and technological uncertainty (continued on next page) . better terms in loans and government approval. retail and wholesale. market share. ROI. (2000) Corporate bank and their client firms US not-for-profit hospitals Operative scale based on MKTOR. and current rate and change in home-county household penetration Subjective composite measure based on satisfaction with ROI. Response of middle managers and owners Subjective composite measures of current and future performance based on sales growth. (2) Subjective composite measure based on market share. Response of senior manager most knowledgeable about the firm and its recent new product project to complete Beam (2001) US daily newspaper companies Operative scale based on MARKOR. total income and net surplus/deficit. ability to get valuable information. and Krepapa (2000) Wood et al. Souder. customer retention. and Berkowitz (2000) Yau et al. loans. No moderating effect of industry— manufacturing. Two components—customer orientation and marketing intelligence. Response of managing director Webb. sales and profit derived from the recent new product in relation to objectives Objective secondary measures of total and home-county circulation. profit and growth before and after crisis Positive relationship. Response of marketing director/manager Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001) Australian firms Operative scale MARKOR. single ticket sales and overall financial performance compared with peer organizations Subjective composite measures of customer satisfaction and service quality Subjective composite measure based on quality of care.´ . Response of chief marketing officer Operative scales of strategic orientation and interfunctional coordination based on Gatignon and Xuareb (1997). Response of chief executive Operative scale. stronger for objective performance. sales. and others Positive relationship. and average profits over the last 3 years derived from new products.

Ranamurthy. income. Response of manager Subjective composite measure based on ROI. Response of general manager or marketing manager Operative scale MARKOR. Response of managing director/chief executive officer Operative scale MKTOR. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. competitive advantage and sales volume pertaining to long and short-term Subjective composite measures of financial performance—based on sales.b) Dutch manufacturers. Scales of customer orientation of salespersons and of supplier orientation of purchasers. Ogbonna and Harris (2002) Harrison-Walker (2001) Medium and large UK firms SBUs of US organizations in hospitality and beverage manufacturing industries Operative scale. Response of head of marketing Harris and Ogbonna (2001). Moderating effects of competitive intensity. (2001) Medium and large industrial firms in Spain Israeli firms from four industries Shoham and Rose (2001) Operative scale based on MARKOR structure. Subjective composite measures of trust. R & D and manufacturing managers Hult and Ketchen (2001) Kahn (2001) SBUs of large multinational corporations US apparel and textile manufacturers (1) Objective secondary measures of sales growth and ROI. size and degree of export dependence Positive relationship Langerak (2001a. Response of general manager. sharing and shared interpretation. Response of contact with knowledge about the relationship in a customer and a supplier firm. profit. willingness and perception of superiority-and innovation performance-based on new product success and time to market Objective measures of change in ROI. Response of marketing. customer response performance-based on propensity. cooperative norms and satisfaction. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship No relationship. profitability and growth in profitability based on objective and subjective items Positive relationship except for sales . Moderating effect of market turbulence and competitive hostility. Two components—customers and competitors—and four stages—information acquisition. and Naidu (2001) US manufacturing firms involved in exporting in a large Midwestern state Subjective composite measure of financial performance—based on sales growth. respectively Operative scale MKTOR. No moderating effect of technological turbulence Positive relationship Medium and large UK firms Operative scale MKTOR. and developing and implementation of strategies. and for product management performance based on marketing and manufacturing perceptions Positive relationship between downstream market orientation and financial performance through customer orientation and trust. Positive relationship between upstream market orientation and financial performance through supplier orientation and trust and cooperative norms Positive relationship through marketing competencies.820 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Harris (2001) ´ . Response of general manager. integration of the internet. sales. sales growth. ROI and market share—. market share. (2) Subjective single measures of sales growth and ROI relative to competitors Subjective composite measure based on customer satisfaction. new product success and ROI. Response of contact with knowledge about the relationship in a customer and a supplier firm Subjective composite measure based on economic/financial and strategic outcomes of exporting and satisfaction with them Santos et al. Response of senior executive Operative scale based on MKTOR and distinguishing interaction and collaboration from interfunctional coordination. growth in sales. Averaged responses of senior level marketing executives Operative scale MKTOR. and stock price over the past 5 years Subjective single measures of product development (pre-launch) and product management (launch and post-launch) performance Positive relationship for customer orientation Positive relationship through positional advantage Positive relationship for product development performance based on marketing managers’ perceptions. Operative scales of downstream and upstream market orientation. Response of chief executive officer Prasad. new product success and profit Composite measures of sales. profit. J. sales growth. cooperative norms and satisfaction.

No moderating effect of competitive intensity and specialty competition Subjective composite measures of qualitative and quantitative performance based on the extent to which Internet-based services increase new and existing client revenue. service exporters Positive relationship. and market performance—based on customer satisfaction and loyalty. market share and new market entry. brand equity. size. brand awareness. and Kyriazopoulos (2001) Cadogan. competitor and profit orientation. Response of managing director Operative scale of export market orientation based on MARKOR. Moderating effect of the complexity of the export environment and product vs. (1998). Sundqvist. profitability. Four components—customer. Carter. interfunctional coordination. and interfunctional coordination. Seven components— customer and competitor orientation. Diamantopoulos. Negative relationship for private label brand focus. Response of the person who was most knowledgeable about the business strategy Operative scale based on MKTOR. new product success. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. and Siguaw (2002a) Small manufacturing enterprises in Greece Operative scale based on MKTOR and MARKOR. (2002) Senior managers of Chinese companies headquartered in six cities New Zealand service firms Operative scale DFW Operative scale developed by Gray et al. responsiveness and attraction (continued on next page) . both directly and through innovation. profit and adoption of innovations and subjective ability to respond to changes in the market Subjective composite measure of achievement of export objectives— based on sales volume. market turbulence and supplier power Positive relationship. Moderating effect of traditional competition. No moderating effect of market turbulence Positive relationship. Moderating effect of entrepreneurial orientation Positive relationship except for export sales growth. Response of senior marketing executives Subjective composite measure of performance Tzokas. (3) Subjective composite measure of profit performance based on satisfaction with export profits Subjective composite measure based on profitability. and single measure of global export success. No moderating effect of innovation Positive relationship for customer orientation and national brand focus. private label brand and national brand focus Operative scale based on MARKOR. long-term. reputation/ image and new product success Objective measures of ROA and ROS Positive relationship. ROC. change in profitability and revenue—. Response of upper-level executive US exporters Cadogan. customer retention and control of expenses based on their importance and satisfaction with them Composite measure based on objective sales. No moderating effect of competitive hostility. and profit. and Puumalainen (2002b) Finnish exporting firms Operative scale of export market orientation based on MARKOR. Composite measure of growth in export sales based on objective and subjective items (1) Objective composite measure of efficiency performance based on export sales.´ . Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Soehadi et al. profits. image. (2) Composite measure of sales performance based on objective and subjective sales. Salminen. Moderating effects of learning and innovation No relationship. market share and growth rate in comparison with the largest competitor Subjective composite measures of financial performance—based on profitability. (2002) Mass merchandiser and discount sector of the retailing industry Perry and Shao (2002) Foreign affiliates of US-based advertising agencies Measure based on cognitive mapping of the letter to share holders in corporate annual reports. Response of marketing manager or CEO Noble et al. J. Response of managing directors Subjective composite measures of growth in overall revenue. Response of export manager Deshpande and Farley (2002) Matear et al. No moderating effect of city Positive relationship. (2001) Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure 821 Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship Indonesian retail firms Subramanian and Gopalakrishna (2001) Indian firms located in Chennai Operative scale.

development of strategy for project performance. and Grover (2003) Medium and large US firms in diverse industries Firms engaged in e-commerce Farrelly and Quester (2003) Australian Football League and its protected sponsors Operative scale based on MARKOR. etc. and both of them for overall performance Singaporean firms Operative scale of Ruekert (1992). Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. No moderating effects of market turbulence. firm awareness. Response of head of marketing Va ´ zquez et al. and Dro ¨ ge (2003) Chang. in relation to other similar organizations. sales and profitability of other products. and new market opportunities. (2002) Private non-profit Spanish organizations Operative scale based on MARKOR structure. ROI. and degree of fulfilment of the mission (1) Objective composite measure based on occupancy rate. Caruana. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship based on collection of marketing information for market performance. Jackson. Measure of overall performance by combining both Composite measures of export sales and profitability. sales and market share relative to objectives in the last year Objective measures of gross profit margin and company profit growth Positive effect for profit and change in sales and profit based on intelligence generation and responsiveness. Garcia. environmental complexity and competitive hostility Positive relationship Positive relationship. No moderating effects of market dynamism. proprietary advantage. Response of manager responsible for the relationship in the sponsor firm Positive relationship for property market orientation perceived by the sponsor and sponsor market orientation. competitive intensity and technological turbulence Positive relationship. and new product project performancebased on cost efficiencies. and Pang (2002) ´ . in relation to one new product introduced in the last 5 years. relative to competitors. relative to competitors Subjective single measures of number of activities addressed to beneficiaries. No relationship for property market orientation . and ratio of donors contribution to non-profit expenditure. Response of marketing. Two components—customer and competitor orientation-in relation to e-commerce Operative scale based on MARKOR structure. Response of managers responsible for the relationship in the club—property market orientation—and the sponsor firm —sponsor market orientation and property market orientation perceived by the sponsor Subjective composite measures of business performance—based on market share. etc. volume of obtained income from donors. sales. (2) Subjective composite measure based on service quality and customer and employee satisfaction in relation to competitors Subjective measure of new product development performance based on profit. and marketing performance—based on customer satisfaction. Response of individual with full knowledge of the foundation’s internal operation and sector of activity Agarwal et al. Response of product development manager Rose and Shoham (2002) Israeli exporters Operative scale MARKOR. both directly and through innovation Positive relationship through new product development speed and corporate strategic planning Positive relationship Subjective composite measures of trust and commitment. gross operating profit and market share. engineering or new product manager Measure based on content analysis of the letter to shareholders in corporate annual reports. J. and change in export sales and profitability based on objective and subjective items Tay and Morgan (2002) UK general practice chartered surveying firms Operative scale MARKOR. new services. (2003) International hotels Operative scale based on MKTOR. Response of general manager Calantone. growth and profit objectives. Single respondent Subjective composite measures of new product market performancebased on market share.822 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Ramaseshan.

Response of management or marketing executive Jones et al. Negative relationship for the gap between customers’ and providers’ perceptions of market orientation Positive relationship Liu et al. Responses of marketing and IT managers Subjective composite measure of marketing program dynamism Subjective composite measures of internet-bank attractiveness. satisfaction and security. profitability. Six components—customer and competitor oriented information. wholesalers and industrial service firms from Ohio (US) Operative scale. growth. Response of CEO/President Positive relationship for customer-oriented information and cross-functional sharing of information. profit and size relative to the largest competitor in the last year—. sales performance. (2003) Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure 823 Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship. and financial performance relative to competitors. market share and ROI relative to competitors over the last year Positive relationship for market orientation perceived by customers. and composite measures of profitability—based on comparison with objectives and competitors— and customer loyalty—based on customer satisfaction and retention Positive relationship through differentiation advantage based on customer and competitor orientation. (2) Subjective single measure of relative sales growth. Response of relationship manager and customers Subjective composite measures of competitor-based performance— based on market share. Response of customer No relationship Lai (2003) Operative scale MARKOR. Response of sales manager and salesperson Operative scale based on MKTOR. competitive price and customer satisfaction. new product success. Response of general manager or member of the management team Subjective composite measures of motivation performance—based on employee training. cross-functional information. expansion and employment opportunities Subjective composite measure based on sales growth. (2003) US consumer goods manufacturer’s sales force and retail trade customers Relationship managers from different SBUs of a major international bank and their respective industrial customers Quality oriented firms in Hong Kong Operative scale based on MKTOR.´ . and response to competitor price change and campaign. and overall performancebased on performance and performance relative to competitors in the last year Subjective single measures of overall service quality and propensity to switch. No moderating effects of market and technological turbulence and competitive intensity Positive relationship Positive relationship for attractiveness and relationship marketing performance. Moderating effect of size Martin and Grbac (2003) Manufacturers. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Hult et al. J. Positive relationship between competitor oriented information and profitability and relative sales growth. Response of quality manager or personnel responsible for quality management Langerak (2003b) Manufacturing firms in the Netherlands Operative scale based on MKTOR. Moderating effects of strategy type. relationship marketing performance. and societal performance-based on consumer rights. (2003) State-owned enterprises in China Scandinavian banks Lu ¨ neborg and Nielsen (2003) Operative scale developed by Deshpande and Farley (1998a. customer responsiveness. Positive relationship between responsiveness to customer and profitability and customer loyalty (continued on next page) . new product sales. market performance— based on new product success. (2003) Krepapa et al. Moderating effects of size and age SBUs Operative scale based on MKTOR.b). productivity performance—based on materials usage. environmental concern. Responses of marketing and IT managers (1) Objective primary measure of sales growth. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. Response contact in retail trade customer Subjective single measure of overall satisfaction with the business relationship. Single respondent Operative scale MARKOR. labour and capital utilization.

Resultados de la Orientacio ´ n al Mercado: Evidencias Empı ´ricas de las Organizaciones no Lucrativas. 385 – 394. 197 – 210. – MARKOR. & Va A ´ zquez. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Analysed population Market Orientation Measure Performance measure Relevant results in relation to market orientation– performance relationship Positive relationship through degree of innovation and innovation performance Insurance companies operating in the European Union Morgan and Turnell (2003) UK firms marketing financial services Operative scale developed by Lado et al. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Only two components—customer and competitor orientation. I. Response of executive of marketing and business development Objective primary measures of domestic market share. distributors.. (1998). Va A ´ zquez. Market orientation and performance in the biotechnology industry: An exploratory empirical analysis.. distributor. ROE and industry— specific performance measures. 7 – 41. 10(2). Studies based on the same sample have been described together. Market orientation and performance: Do the findings established in large firms hold in the small business sector? Journal of Euromarketing. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. Three components— intelligence generation (market research activities and customer orientation). 12.. Revista Espan ˜ ola de Investigacio ´ n de Marketing ESIC. 6(3). Management Decision. and customer retention. & Ranchhod. Moderating effect of sector Positive relationship between dissemination activities and technical success. 5(3). 36(6). S. 275 – 293. MKTOR and DFW refers to the scales developed by Deshpande et al. (1995). Journal of Strategic Marketing. Atuahene-Gima. Santos. R. M. An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product performance: A contingency approach.824 Appendix A (continued ) Empirical study Maydeu-Olivares and Lado (2003) ´ . References Agarwal. K. (1993) and Narver and Slater (1990). They have been subjectively classified by authors according to the predominance of operative or cultural items. L.. Efectos Moderadores en la Relacio ´ n O. R. customer retention and sales growth relative to major direct competitors over the last year Subjective composite measures of performance—based on sales growth. and single measure of technical success. Response of CEO or proxy executive from marketing/sales department Subjective composite measure based on market share. Kohli et al. Response of project manager Positive relationship Positive relationship. K. interfunctional coordination. – Respondent for subjective measures of performance is not mentioned when it is the same as for market orientation measure. . 1 – 26. Investigaciones Europeas de Direccio ´ n y Economı ´a de la Empresa. Ana ´ lisis Cultural y Operativo de la Orientacio ´ n al Mercado. K. 25 – 45.. Market orientation and performance in service firms: Role of innovation. 4. and strategic actions on consumers.. respectively. Response of marketing manager Operative scale MKTOR. – Some market orientation scales include both cultural and operative items. market share. and single measure of customer satisfaction Subjective composite measure of overall project success—based on technical and financial success. A. (1998). (2003) Innovation projects in five German industries Singh (2003) Indian firms Operative scale based on MARKOR. (1993). S. Customer orientation and performance: A study of SMEs. & Singh. 68 – 82. competence. competitors and environment. & Santos. L. Appiah-Adu. Nine components—analysis of final client. Market orientation and performance: Empirical tests in a transition economy. competitors and macro-environment. (1998). J. Journal of Services Marketing. competitive position.-Resultados. Moderating effects of competitive intensity and market dynamism Notes: – The contributions have been ordered firstly by year and secondly by alphabetical order. I. premium growth and profitability per year averaged over the last three years Qu and Ennew (2003) Hotels in China Operative scale MARKOR. K. Appiah-Adu. (2000). intelligence dissemination (customer integration and customer orientation) and responsiveness (market preparation. Moderating effect of product innovativeness Subjective single measures of ROI. ´ lvarez. Erramilli. M. costs. customer retention and foreign market presence in relation to competitors since the economic reform Positive relationship except for foreign market presence.. M. (2003). Technology Analysis and Strategic Management. 17(1).M. (1998). Response of general manager Salomo et al. 6.. L. launch activities and customer orientation). K. (1999). K. Response of senior executives Operative scale based on MKTOR. Appiah-Adu. 19 – 40. & Dev. (1997). customer satisfaction. S. meet regulatory requirements and image. ´ lvarez. L. Appiah-Adu. C.

7(4). A. R.. 5. (1999). 265 – 273. strategic investment. D.. J. The moderating effect of environmental variables on the entrepreneurial and marketing orientation of entrepreneur-led firms. The market orientation—performance link: Some evidence from the public sector and universities. market orientation.. 17 – 41. E. P.. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing. 55 – 81.. J.. 7 – 35. (1984). A. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.. Corporate culture. Atuahene-Gima. (1997). R. Journal of Business Research. J. R. Dess. 5 – 15. J. R. 43. G. Deshpande. (1995). The synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. & Dart.. 207 – 229. & Hombugh. Calantone. S. (1999a). J. 12(3). Sundqvist. U. Deshpande. Chang.. Journal of Marketing Management. R. K. K. Information and Management. Journal of Global Marketing. Cervera. F.. and innovativenes in Japanese firms: A quadrad analysis. 26. -C. (1999). Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice. & Siguaw. Caruana. J. Corporate culture and market orientation: Comparing Indian and Japanese firms.. & Robinson Jr. & Gounaris. 725 – 742. International Journal of Research in Marketing. R. 57 – 70. Simpson. 3(2). J. M. A. consumer goods companies. (2000). 4. Export market-oriented activities: Their antecedents and performance consequences. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Atuahene-Gima. (1994). U. Linking market orientation and company performance: Preliminary evidence on Kohli and Jaworski’s framework. U. Farley.. A. & Farley. Journal of Strategic Marketing. B. 31(4). U.. N. Market orientation and performance in the Australian public sector: The role of organizational commitment. Garcı ´a. Becker.. 10. E. S. J. 55 – 70. S. & Sinkula. L... Antecedents and consequences of market orientation in public organisations. Journal of International Marketing. 257 – 269. C. Measuring organizational performance in the absence of objective measures: The case of the privately-held firm and conglomerate business unit. 13 – 25. Market-oriented management: A systems-based perspective. I. Connor. J. Measuring customer focus: An examination of the relationship between market orientation and brand valuation.. J. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. C. 1076 – 1102. 50 – 57. (1998). B. & Weinstein. 57. Industrial Marketing Management. U. 8(2). H.. & Guilding.. The effect of market orientation and organizational flexibility on corporate entrepreneurship. 35. & Berthon. (1998). 33(3). (1998b). Cravens. & Phillips. U. Industrial vs. & Farley. structural and tactical choices. (1980). J. & Gil. Journal of Global Marketing. Au.. Implementing strategic missions: Effective strategic. H. (1996). & Sa ´ nchez.. U. & Puumalainen. Farley. P. C. 246 – 264. B. P. Exploring market orientation in banks: An empirical examination in Saudi Arabia. & Farley. Journal of Market Focused Management. J. R. C. European Journal of Marketing. M. Market orientation. Measuring market orientation: Generalization and synthesis. Diamantopoulos. T. Australian Journal of Marketing Research. Market-oriented behavior: Comparing service with product exporters.. G. 78(3). M. 481 – 505. 197 – 218. S. (2002). 59 – 79. W. M.. Journal of Market Focused Management. Desarrollo de una Escala de ´ mbito de las Administraciones Pu Orientacio ´ n al Mercado en el A ´ blicas. Y.. M.. & Grover. 22(1). Caruana.. An empirical investigation of the effect of market orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation. M. & Chen.. & Webster Jr. Becherer. & Farley. Bhuian. The relationship between subjective and objective company performance measures in market orientation research: Further empirical evidence. E. & Maurer. J. Industrial Marketing Management. R. (2003). & Siguaw. (1997).. 17. G. (1998b). 411 – 427. 77 – 87. (2001). 10. Market orientation in the top 200 British Charity Organizations and its impact on their performance. 111 – 127. Learning orientation. S. C. Christensen. Deshpande. J. Deshpande. A. & Farley. 12(4). Slevin. 295 – 308. (1997). J. 353 – 362. Covin. & Tse. 25(2). Journal of International Consumer Marketing. 54 – 74. 317 – 328. Cadogan. 31(8). 20. C. G. F. multi-item approach. Deshpande.. A. The market orientation construct: Correlations. Cervera. Measuring market orientation: A multi-factor. 11(5). Strategic Management Journal. 211 – 217. R. J. J. Dawes. (1993). Journal of Management Studies. Baker. Jackson. (1996)... (2002). J. W. (1997). J. S. 93 – 121. 63 – 82. 5. A. Marketing Bulletin. Pitt. Do universities that are more market oriented perform better? International Journal of Public Sector Management. A. Connolly. 27 – 45. T. (1999).. Benefits of customer and competitive orientation in industrial marketing. 1. (2002). L. S. 385 – 402. J. Molla. Ramaseshan. 65 – 75. -J. 6(1). 825 Caruana. Organizational effectiveness: A multiple-constituency approach. S. V. Salminen. 27(4). The impact of suppliers’ perceptions of reseller market orientation on key relationship constructs. T. G. 173 – 199. K.. 41 – 62.. 466 – 483. 93 – 103. 25. W. (1997). K. Strategic Management Journal. Journal of Market Focused Management. Journal of Marketing. Market orientation and company profitability: Further evidence incorporating longitudinal data.. 5(3). 16(1/2). & Ewing. J. 2(3). Customer power. A. A. R. M.. R. J. The effect of marketing orientation on company performance in the service sector: A comparative study of the hotel industry in Hong Kong and New Zeland. T. European Journal of Marketing. (1999). An empirical examination of market orientation in Saudi Arabian manufacturing companies. 44. (2000). Market orientation and innovation. (1998a).. (1999). C. E. Barret. (2000). E. Journal of Market Focused Management. 12(1). Investigaciones Europeas de Direccio ´ n y Economı ´a de la Empresa.. .´ . service quality and business profitability: A conceptual model and empirical evidence. Ramaseshan. & Sinkula. 36(9/10). and innovation: Integrating and extending models of organizational performance. Ramaseshan. Conlon. E. and the failure of leading firms. 23(1). 4. (2001). (2000). R. Journal of Product Innovation Management. Balakrishnan. Cervera. -Z.. A. A.. 40. Stables. (1994). 583 – 603. 615 – 626. & Ewing. & Schultz. S. Excellence—market orientation link: Some consequences for service firms. 1157 – 1163. & Ewing. Academy of Management Review. Journal of Business Research. Organization Science. Chang. 8. G. K.. The Journal of Services Marketing. B. Caruana. Bhuian. culture and comprehensiveness. 47 – 58. (1998). 23 – 27. Beam. Revista Espan ˜ ola de Investigacio ´ n de Marketing ESIC. Journal of Business Research. (1998a). (1999). & Deutsch. A. Sa ´ nchez. Journal of Global Marketing. Deshpande.. K. customer orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice.. N.. E-commerce and corporate strategy: An executive perspective. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito.. 35(11/12). Deshpande. High performance firms in a complex New China: A tale of six cities. W. Construccio ´ n de un Modelo de Orientacio ´ n al Mercado en las Administraciones Pu ´ blicas. T.. Balabanis. A.. J. Journal of International Business Studies. Avlonitis. R. (1999b).. (1993 January). & Webster Jr. & Ko. Market-focused organizational transformation in China. A. Baker. 20. J. Strategic Management Journal. R. 2(3). A. S.. Journal of Strategic Marketing. Does it pay to be a market-oriented daily newspaper? Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. 213 – 232. Baker. R. (2001). J. 237 – 239. 1259 – 1286. M. P. & Hart. M. T. T.. The Journal of Services Marketing. Diamantopoulos. 17(3).. 663 – 675. 90 – 103. Marketing orientation and company performance. 27(1). B.. Corporate culture and market orientation: Comparing Indian and Japanese firms. (2003).. Cadogan. Deng. T. & Bower. & Dro ¨ ge.. L. 11(1). The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning. (1998). European Journal of Marketing. Dawes. (1999). (1999). A.. Customer-led and market-oriented: A matter of balance. 14(1/2).

R. C. K. E. Snow. & Prahalad. M. Lynch. 24. C. Building organizational capabilities for managing economic crisis: The role of market orientation and strategic flexibility. British Journal of Management. European Journal of Marketing. 65(1). market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research. A. Journal of Quality Management. 38(8). & Xuareb. Doyle. Griffiths. S. (1998). 67 – 80. 2. 24(2). 77 – 90. & Matheson. J. Hooley. & C.. and organizational performance.826 ´ . B. & Lewis. & Foxall. 197 – 218. 18(1). & Grover. D. Kumar. New York7 John Wiley and Sons. Kumar.. 231 – 257. (2002). Marketing Health Services. R. J. Strategic Management Journal.. Performanceoriented: Toward a successful strategy. G. G. B. interdepartmental integration. Journal of Marketing. Gray. (1998). K. Hooley. Marketing capabilities and firm performance: A hierarchical model. Doney. (2001). . N.A. July). Journal of Management. P. S. J. L. Mind the gap: An analysis of service provider versus customer perceptions of market orientation and the impact on satisfaction. Strategic Management Journal. & Pflesser. Kotler. G.. F.. Shipley. G. 139 – 172. 17 – 43.. Hooley. Cox. Jaworski. (1996). 22. M. (1997). Gray. 56.. 15 – 30. C. Multiple stakeholder orientation in UK companies and the implications for company performance. April). Strategic Management Journal. A. Kim. 884 – 903. Hamel. C. G. J... (2003). G. & Dacin.. November). H. S. From sales obsession to marketing effectiveness.. A. P. C. 323 – 340.. Market orientation: The construct. M. 449 – 462. A... E. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. A. Nov–Dec). Subramanian.. The dynamics of a marketing orientation in transition economies: A study of Russian firms.. Firm market orientation and salesperson customer orientation: Interpersonal and intrapersonal influences on customer service and retention in business-to-business buyer–seller relationships. Australian Journal of Management. R.. E. (1995a). B. (1998). (2003). J. Strategic human resource management. Journal of Business Research. Harrison-Walker. Boshoff. 4. 259 – 278. European Journal of Marketing.. (1990). vol. K. (1999). (1994).. Boston7 Harvard Business School Press. Subramanian. International Journal of Research in Marketing. Market orientation and market strategy profiling an empirical test on environment–behaviour–action coalignment and its performance implications. (2003). (1997.. D. J. 30.). (2001). & Shepherd. Determining the scope and impact of market orientation profiles on strategy implementation and performance. 36(3). (2000). M. and managerial implications. & Yauger. Kohli. 259 – 284. (1991. D. November). M. (1990. F. 311 – 320). S.. J. 62. 503 – 510. Busch. G. Fahy. Kahn. systems. S. 37 – 50. (1999). T. J. The Journal of Product Innovation Management. Marketing Theory and Applications. 51. 9 (pp... Innovation. European Journal of Marketing. N. R. Fritz. 530 – 553. 401 – 426.. A. 6. & Wong. 29(3)..M. Greenley. L. 6. & Srivastava. (1995). (2000). G. The comparative advantage theory of competition. R. Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. (1998... Golden. P. & Yauger. M. 577 – 585. P. & Kandemir.. Hayes. R. Journal of International Marketing. The measurement of a market orientation and its impact on business performance. 37(1/2). Navigating the external environment through a market orientation. (1999). Some empirical tests of the marketing concept. 17(2). How strategy-making processes can make a difference. Greenley. C. Greenley. G. Johnson. M. Harris. (1999).. Competing for the future . 38(1). The effects of market orientation on trust and commitment: The case of the sponsorship business-to-business relationship. and product development performance. & Weelwright. structures. B. G.. 59.. 15. 37. 57. B. M. 18. (2003). Journal of Management Studies. Webb. Hult. K. Journal of Marketing Research. P. (1984). 201 – 222. 30(8). May).. (2001. J. G.. J. (1998). Hunt. J. Restoring our competitive edge: Competing through manufacturing . Market orientation and performance: Objective and subjective empirical evidence from UK companies. Esslemont. A framework for understanding market orientation: The behavior and the culture. 7 – 24. D. Journal of Marketing. Market orientation and organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing. K. R. C. & Chen. T. Marketing and competitive performance: An empirical study. E.. Developing a better measure of market orientation. Thriving on turbulence. F. Forms of market orientation in UK companies. Farrell. (1997). Market orientation and corporate success: Findings from Germany. S. 1 – 13. Homburg. Journal of Marketing Research. R. (1993. & Jaworski. 62. Harris. (2000). (1998. G. Journal of Marketing. -H. Developing a market-oriented learning organisation. 24(9). V. Greenley.. & Morgan.. 53 – 70. C.. 1 – 18. (2001). & Kohli. Grewal. & Subramanian.. and organizational learning: An integration and empirical examination. Journal of Small Business Management. T. E.. April). & Strandholm. & Tansuhaj. & Quester. Beracs. J... B. Examining the market orientation–performance relationship: A context specific study. & Snoj. MARKOR: A measure of marketing orientation. 54. R. research propositions. Journal of Management Studies. Jaworski.. Matear. (2001). et al. 1 – 15... 79 – 85.. E. 617 – 646.. (2000. Gatignon. C. 251 – 269. In D. Marketing Bulletin. K. Pechman (Eds. European Journal of Marketing. Journal of Business Research. L. 65. 34(2). 273 – 285. B.. (1998). Market orientation of small and medium sized firms in Taiwan. External moderation of associations among stakeholder orientations and company performance. -M. S. & Hule. D.. 67 – 75. Journal of Business Research. Fonfara. 4. C. (1994). Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Hart. Journal of Marketing. Journal of Market Focused Management. 59 – 74. A multiple-layer model of market oriented organizational culture: Measurement issues and performance outcomes. W.. Market orientation. K. 157 – 166. Harris. July). C. B. Han. 51 – 69. P. Kumar. G. & Ketchen Jr. Kumar. K.. R. Jones. 37(3/4). K. T. (1995. K. 32(5/6). Grewal. & Piercy. (1993. Hult. Journal of Management Studies. 25(2).. T. K. (2001). Journal of Marketing. C. K. P. R. 32(1). L. Advanced Management Journal. 899 – 906. 47 – 66. E. Harvard Business Review.. L. 467 – 477. P. (1998). P. G.. & Kumar. E. market orientation. Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. K. strategies and performance characteristics.. & Foxall. Journal of Marketing Management. Dobni. 32(9/10). European Journal of Marketing. R. Management Decision. & Matheson. 314 – 323. 1 – 7. 30 – 45. The marketing concept: Putting theory into practice. C. 15. (1995b). Dobni. A contingency approach to market orientation: Distinguishing behaviours. J. Chicago7 American Marketing Association. Does market orientation matter?: A test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. October). Bherthon. (2003). Hurley. P. G. 514 – 535. T. 34. & Banbury. & Smith. The role of entrepreneurship in building cultural competitiveness in different organizational types... Greenley. February). Cox. Inc. 201 – 233. Kohli. 10 – 20. K. 3(2). H. D. April). Market orientation and performance: Does organizational strategy matter? Journal of Applied Business Research. European Journal of Marketing. Krepapa. Journal of Management. Fonfara. J. Subramanian.. A. Matear.. C. (1977. J. 50. S-C. C. K. Horng. A. 29 – 49. & Luffman. J. Farrelly... C. R.. J. Fahy. Journal of Market Focused Management. & Luffman.. 15. B. Beracs. Market orientation and company performance: Empirical evidence from UK companies. 42 – 54. P. & Pitt. G. Market orientation in the transition economies of Central Europe: Test of the Narver and Slater market orientation scales. & Ogbonna. D..

(1996. K. (1999). 48 – 67. Journal of Strategic Marketing. C. 9(4). F. Perry. & Narayana. 63. (1996). B. J. 64. L. (2003). & Rivera. 5 – 27. Mavondo. A. International Journal of Service Industry Management.. Management Decision. & Farrell. Market orientation and business economic performance: A mediated model. 221 – 234. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science.. (2003). 21(4). NY7 McGraw-Hill. & Slater. Pelham. channel relationships. Ogbonna. J.. 45. 43(1). & Schiuma. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. 11. & Harris. M. M. The performance implications of management fads and fashions: An empirical study. 255 – 274. (2002. (1998). Lu ¨ neborg. 93 – 115. C. C. & Shi. (2002). 2(3). Industrial Marketing Management. 5 – 18. J. -H. Journal of Market Focused Management. 237 – 250. 41(3). (2001b). & Widing II. 18 – 25. The effects of Matsuno.. Puledran. Franzak. Orientacio ´n Estrate ´ gica y Organizacio ´ n de las Actividades de Marketing: Una Investigacio ´ n Empı ´rica. An appraisal of research on the predictive power of market orientation. Market orientation and business performance: Some European evidence. C. McDermott. E. D. Garrett. (1998). 119 – 143. 17 – 34. Oczkowski. European Journal of Marketing. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Lado. European Management Journal. T. & Robinson Jr. (2003).. & Kumar. Market-oriented organizations in an emerging economy: A study of missing links. Speed. A. 23 – 39. Langerak. (2002. Lonial. 13(1). & Snow. (1990. 8. F. K. 276 – 296.. Journal of Business Research. D. T. L. International Journal of Market Research. Naidu. British Journal of Management. International Journal of Research in Marketing. & Lado. 14. D. M. How does market orientation contribute to service firm peformance? An examination of alternative mechanisms. Sinha. A. The relationship between market orientation and financial peformance in South African organizations. 233 – 236. T. How marketing oriented are hospital in a declining market? Journal of Health Care Marketing... 11(1). The role of marketing. A. (1996). Enero–Marzo). ¨ zsomer.. 1 – 23. Marketing planning. B. Journal of Strategic Management. P. J. 201 – 214. F. F. Luo.. Morgan. H. A. P. 43 – 62. M. Pelham. Langerak. (2003). Langerak. 27 – 43.. G. strategy. (1999). K. Pitt.. Maydeu-Olivares. Narver. (2003). Pelham. F. structure and process . G.. Y. (2003). 680 – 687. (1978). M. 7. 36(9/10). H. 11. & Ennew. L. Llonch. J. M. (1991). October). Market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: A longitudinal assessment of peformance implications. C. International Marketing Review. A. (1997a). S. 25 – 38. Llonch.. J. Ngai. Market orientation and performance: The moderating effects of product and customer differentiation.. Langerak. and performance of manufacturers. Environment and strategy as antecedents for marketing effectiveness and organizational performance. J. A. H. ESIC Market. (1997b). R. July). (1999). Discriminating between measurement scales using non-nested test and two-stage least squares estimators: The case of market orientation. 25 – 39. Liu. 1 – 11. 119 – 139. & Shao. E. Pearce. The influence of internet-marketing integration on marketing competences and export performance. and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm performance. Strategic Management Journal. R. Effects of market orientation on the behaviors of salespersons and purchasers... N.´ . S. 447 – 464.. C. 13(2). P. 15. F. Loubser. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice. P. Journal of Small Business Management . K. 349 – 366. J. M. K.. C. J. 5(3). R. & Slater. and market orientation on performance in small manufacturing firms. 18 – 32. C. S. South African Journal of Business Management.. 33 – 46. V. M. Market-based organizational learning and market performance gains. C.. (2003). F. Mentzer. Pelham. A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure. M. L. Journal of Strategic Marketing. W. Measuring market orientation in several populations: A structural equations model. (2003). Qu. F. 3(1). 481 – 491. R. competitive intensity and organizational performance. Pelham. (2001).. J. M. Influence of environment. European Journal of Marketing. S. Journal of Marketing. R. & Berthon. R. The effects of strategy type on the market orientacion–performance relationship. The relationship between customer and supplier perceptions of the manufacture’s market orientation and its business peformance. T. 47 – 68. European Journal of Marketing. 77 – 94. Caruana. Efectos de la Orientacio ´ n al Mercado en los Resultados de la Empresa. Ranamurthy. R. Journal of Marketing. & Lo ´ pez. Robbins. 241 – 249. Journal of Marketing. & Turnell. F. 12(5). E. (1987). Journal of Marketing.. Journal of Marketing. 15(3). B. The evolving marketing concept. Marketing Health Services. G. October). 21(2). The impact of environmental uncertainty on the market orientation–performance relationship: A study of the hospital industry. Additional thoughts on the measurement of market orientation: A comment on Deshpande and Farley. 1058 – 1075.. M. Business performance measurement: Past present and future. Puledran. International Journal of Production Economics. 37(3/4). Matsuno. Market orientation and business performance: Some evidence from Hong Kong. 41(8). 180 – 197. S. strategy. J. International Marketing Review. Mavondo. S. 24(1). Investigaciones Europeas de Direccio ´n y Economı ´a de la Empresa. (2003a). & O entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance... Does marketing relate to hospital profitability. 18.. Market orientation and other potential influences on performance in small and medium-sized manufacturing firms. Journal of Strategic Marketing. 125 – 134. K.. & Rust. Australian Journal of Management.. International Journal of Research in Marketing. C. K. J. October). & Walin ˜ o.. R. The effect of market orientation on positional advantage and organizational performance. (2000).. (2003). Marr.. T. 54. (2000. X.. 827 Miles. (1998). S. J. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. 36(9/10). (1998). Using supply chain management to leverage a firm’s market orientation. A. Narver. Market orientation and incumbent performance in dynamic markets. R. 1 – 16. E. N. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. (2003). Osborne. F. Noble... & Laczniak. & Naidu. Organizational strategy. A. S. R. & Farrell. & Gray. G. market orientation and business performance. January). R. 56. New York. T. (2001). . firm structure. Journal of Economic and Social Research. The antecedents and consequences of market orientation in Australia.. 91. 10. (1987).. C. The impact of grand strategy and planning formality on financial peformance. 84. 15(2). R. B.. & Raju. Cultural orientation: Its relationship with market orientation innovation and organizational performance. An examination of the consequences of market orientation in China. & Nielsen. Moorman. 32. 258 – 269. E. 82 – 110. R.. 66. Management Decision. European Journal of Marketing. Lai. & Wilson. 84 – 89. S. (1993).. 476 – 497. 20 – 35.. (2000. The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. 284 – 309. & Widing II. Speed. J. F. A. S. Journal of Business Research. 14(3). -Z. A. Orientacio ´ n al Mercado.. A. (2002). J. & Ellis. Matear.. & Mentzer. & Little. (1999). L.. I. (2002). R. Martin. Prasad. (2003b). (2001a). 32(1/2). (2000). S. 23 – 30. 31(2). E. 65. S. T. Maydeu-Olivares. 25(2). C.. A. & Grbac. 5(2). Mediating influences on the relationship between market orientation and profitability in small industrial firms. Lusch. Journal of International Marketing. R. 1140 – 1153. European Management Journal. Customer focused technology and performance in small and large banks. P. 9 – 39.. T. Market orientation in quality-oriented organizations and its impact on their performance.

The influence of the market orientation of the firms on sales force behavior and attitudes. 225 – 245. 33(11/12). S. Journal of Strategic Marketing. Market orientation and business performance: An empirical study in Mainland China. (2002). J. (2003). 910 – 936. Tse. & Pang. B. L.. L. S. Market orientation in United States and Scandinavian companies. 14(4). F. S. Venkatraman. 37(5/6). C. Raju. ´ lvarez. 59. (1995). 7 – 33. N. L. A. 99 – 111.. 36(9/10). 109 – 122. 32(9/10). B.. 20. Santos. A. Journal of Global Marketing. & Widing II. 1001 – 1006. M. B. Vorhies.. R. B. Webster. F. The impact of organizational and environmental variables on strategic market orientation: An empirical investigation. 159 – 174. Journal of Business Research. (2002). Y. S.. L. O. & Va Santos. 139 – 157.. 31. S. Effects of supplier market orientation and the channel relationship: The distributor perspective. F. J. & Narver. S. 8(1). (2001). & O’Connor. S. M. G. & Narver.. (1998.. F. 14(3). Raju. Market orientation and business performance: A comparative study of firms in Mainland China and Hong Kong. G. Market-oriented is more than being customer led.. Brown. Operations management (2nd ed. E. 39 – 58. 237 – 247. 140 – 154. Measurement of business economic performance: An examination of method congruence. S. Yau.. H. The impact of quality context and market orientation on organizational performance in a service environment. Subramanian. Sin. 1 – 13.. W. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito.828 ´ .. (2000). cross-national comparison and extension. Schlegelmilch. 5 – 29... 55. T. K. & Narver. (2002). Va ´ zquez. P. & Voss. A. Siguaw. P. Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation performance relationship? Journal of Marketing. C. 813 – 819. S. Market orientation and performance in the hospital industry. 11(6). International Journal of Commerce and Management. 58. Measurement of business performance in strategy research: A comparison of approaches. M. & Johnston. (1999). & Santos. J.. 73 – 96. Rose.. Sin.. Siguaw. Van Egeren. 15(4). London7 Pitman Publishing. International Journal of Research in Marketing. R. N. Selnes. A cross cultural study. & Ramanujam. C. & Narver. & Rose. Antecedents and consequences of market orientation in chartered surveying firms. & Gopalakrishna. 42 – 59.. Y... (2002). I. L. C. S. L. Salomo. Marsha. 19(3). 33 – 51. S. Strategic orientation and firm performance in an artistic environment. January). 13(1). 12(1). Developing a market orientation: An organisational strategy perspective. Market orientation and performance of large property companies in Hong Kong. D. Journal of Marketing.. Simpson.. Competitive strategy in the market-focused business.... & Ram. F.. I. S. H.. (2000. M. Strategic Management Journal. & Ramanujam. A. A. El Aprendizaje Organizativo y la Orientacio ´ n al Mercado como Recursos Empresariales: Interacciones y Efectos sobre la Competitividad. H. R. & y Jaramillo. Rameseshan. Journal of Marketing. C. Firm orientations: Do the five orientations affect performance? Journal of Global Marketing. Slack. (2003). W. 31 – 47. Journal of Global Marketing. 69 – 73. Journal of Services Marketing. 69 – 90. Journal of Global Marketing. Sin. C. 9. Effects of transition economy on the market orientation–business performance link: The empirical evidence from Indian industrial firms. A. 9. An exploration of the meaning and outcomes of a customer-defined market orientation. P. . 27(10). The relationship between market orientation and performance in the hospital industry: A structural equations modelling approach. P. 48. Journal of Business Research. G.. European Journal of Marketing. & Trommsdorff. July). 1171 – 1202. 1165 – 1168. Market orientation. Lee. O. 1022 – 1046. & Kyriazopoulos. M. A. M. 63 – 74. A. J. Soehadi. R. A. Y. Rodriguez-Cano. 56. (1996). L. 19 – 33. S. Journal of Business Research. Ruekert. J. P. J. 56. Market orientation and the learning organization. The positive effect of a market orientation on business profitability: A balanced replication. J. 13(3). (1998).. R. (2001). 9. Voss. & Tagg. & Dau. C. Marketing and entrepreneurial orientation in small firms. C. European Journal of Marketing. J. 4(2). Journal of Market Focused Management. M. Scandinavian Journal of Management. J. European Journal of Marketing.. Harland. R. Journal of Marketing Research. Yau. Sargeant. 20. (1993). 179 – 200.. Journal of Product and Brand Management. (2003). (2000). Y. J. F... Z. & Chow. L. 64. ´ lvarez. Journal of Health Care Marketing. M.. Market orientation: A replication. R. (2000).. L. (2004). G. (1992). B. M. 285 – 299. & Baker. F. Strategic Management Journal. S.. (1998). M. & A innovation and competitive strategies in industrial firms.. 5 – 25. & Narver. J.. J. (1998). & Mohamad. Slater. 1.. Product market strategy and performance: An analysis of the miles and snow strategy types. & Kohli. & Narver. A. Slater. Slater. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Slater. Raju. A. February). Export performance and market orientation: Establishing an empirical link. P.. 16(4). Enterprise and Innovation Management Studies. P. V... (1987). S.. European Journal of Marketing. (1998). (2000). S. & Shoham. A ´ zquez.. Venkatraman. E. Shoham. S. Journal of Business Research. B. N. D. (1996). S. (2001). J. 442 – 463. Jaworski. Construction Management & Economics. 6. Journal of Business Research. A metaanalysis of the relationship between market orientation and business performance: Evidence form five continents. Export peformance: Success determinants for New Zealand manufacturing exporters. (2001). International Journal of Research in Marketing. Customer-led and market-oriented: Let’s not confuse the two. Sanzo. Journal of Marketing. 106 – 116. A. Tzokas. C. 111 – 127. S. B. R. A. V. R... Carter. 26(5/6). C. B. (1999). Chow. Customer orientation in innovation projects and new product development success—The moderating effect of product innovativeness.. C. Market orientation and business performance in a Chinese business environment. 217 – 225. 19.. & Gupta. Y. F. Drivers of market orientation and performance in service firms. Steinhoff. P. Revista Espan ˜ ola de Investigacio ´ n de Marketing ESIC. Y. (2003). & Krepapa. S. (1995. Slater. J. 3(3)... Harrison. The changing role of marketing in the corporation. O. A. & Narver. C. C. V. & Lonial. (1999). Measuring market orientation in the Indonesian retail context. C. Lonial. Carrillat. G. A social services in private non-profit organisations. Caruana. Chow. (2000). L. F. Singh. L. S. Slater. (2001). International Journal of Technology Management. M. 21(2). Journal of Service Research. 34 – 41. F. Harper. (1994. Lee. S. 227 – 239.. (1992). C. P. F. S. (1986). M. 331 – 341. 399 – 409.. & Lau. L.. 48.. 1 – 17. The market-orientation— Performance relationship in the context of a developing economy: An empirical analysis. 801 – 808. (2001).. 53.. I. 67 – 83.. Chambers. Slater. Y. Journal of Management.. Academy of Management Review.. 46 – 55. Webster Jr. Y. Hart. ´ lvarez.. January). July). & Lee. 14(3). Tse. & Rao. M. B. A. European Journal of Marketing. S. Webb.. C. N. C. Journal of Strategic Marketing. & Ziegler. Health Care Management Science. S. (1994. (1998). 62. Lonial. Business performance in the UK hotel sector—does it pay to be market oriented? Service Industries Journal. J. 12(2). 1(4). C. 101 – 112. Gupta. C. B. N. (2001). A.. C.. L. M. Yau. F.... Tse. Tay. The effect of market orientation on new product performance: A study among Singaporean firms. (2000). Shoham. Journal of Marketing. R. Tse. 2(1). & Morgan. M. A. 57 – 69. Y.). The capabilities and performance advantages of market-driven firms. Journal of Global Marketing... Thirkell. R. Market orientation and Va ´ zquez. P.

M. S. Wren. (2000). and a PhD degree in Economics and Management Sciences from the Universidad de Salamanca (1999).. V. Lee. B. A. R. Market orientation and organizational peformance in not-for-profit hospitals. 29. J.. C. . Industrial Marketing Management. S. where he joined as an Assistant Professor of Management after taking the MPhil degree in Management Studies of the University of Cambridge (UK) (1997) and the MSc degree in Operations Management of UMIST (UK) (1998).. OMEGA. O.. He has published articles in journals such as: International Journal of Production Economics. Is relationship marketing for everyone? European Journal of Marketing. 829 Dr.´ . He is currently Assistant Professor of Marketing at the University of Salamanca. R. R. Souder. Chow. International Journal of Production Research. International Journal of Operations and Production Management. Sin. Y. International Journal of Market Research. 48. & Tse. O ´ lez-Benito has a degree in Mathematics from the Universidad de Salamanca (1995). he has published articles in international journals such as Journal of Retailing. Yau. J. European Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management. P. Industrial Marketing Management. Wm.. Bhuian. Gonza ´ lez-Benito / Industrial Marketing Management 34 (2005) 797–829 Wood. L. a MSc degree in Marketing at UMIST (UK) (1997). M. 213 – 226. Y. In addition to several published papers in some of the most recognised Spanish marketing and management academic journals. ´ . 601 – 611. P. Journal of Business Research. D. 34(9/10). and Management Decision. M... P. Market orientation and new product development in global industrial firms. (2000). OMEGA. M. Gonza Dr. & Kiecker. H. Journal of Business Research. B. McFetridge. International Journal of Market Research. Gonza O ´ lez-Benito. British Journal of Management. Gonza ´ lez-Benito has a degree in Mathematics (1995) and a PhD in Economics and Management Sciences (1999) from the Universidad de Salamanca. J. & Berkowitz.. British Journal of Management. or Small Business Economics. E.. Industrial Marketing Management. 1111 – 1127. (2000).