THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A MARKET ORIENTATION:

A REVIEW AND INTEGRATION OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO DATE

Erik M. van Raaij

RSM Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, and

J.W. Stoelhorst

Amsterdam Business School, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Abstract

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to review the market orientation literature from a

managerial perspective and to discuss and integrate the implementation lessons that can be

drawn from it.

Approach – The paper starts with a review of the managerial implications of the market

orientation literature. It then provides an overview of nine implementation approaches. It

draws on an integrative model of marketing orientation to organize the implementation

lessons from the literature into an actionable approach to implementing a market orientation.

Findings – The paper finds that the literature offers a rich, yet fragmented, picture of what

market orientation is, and how it can be improved.

Research implications – The paper identifies a conceptual gap in the literature between

market orientation and customer value generation and offers a model to bridge this gap that

can serve as a guide for future theory development and empirical research.

Practical implications – The paper identifies four design enablers and three development

enablers that can guide managerial action to improve market orientation and offers

practitioners a structured way to go about the implementation of a market orientation.

1
Value of the paper – Despite significant advances in the development of market orientation

theory, there is still a void in the literature with respect to the implementation of a market

orientation. This paper is the first to review the market orientation literature from a

managerial perspective, to provide an overview of the implementation approaches published

to date, and to integrate the managerial implications of the market orientation literature.

Keywords Market orientation, Implementation, Marketing management

Paper type Literature review

2
 INTRODUCTION

It is almost twenty years ago that Benson P. Shapiro introduced us to Wolverine, an industrial

company that manufactures control equipment. Its CEO had called together his management

team for a crisis meeting. Sales were off, market share was down in all product lines, and

earnings were suffering. A review of the company’s problems led the CEO to conclude:

“The only way we can get out of this mess is for us to become customer driven or market

oriented. I’m not even sure what that means, but I’m damn sure that we want to be there.”

(Shapiro, 1988, p.119).

This quote suggests two things. The Wolverine CEO clearly believed that improving the

market orientation of his company would improve its performance. But despite his belief in

the importance of being market oriented, he was not exactly sure what the concept meant, nor

did he know how to implement it.

Shapiro’s discussion of the plight of Wolverine coincided with the birth of contemporary

market orientation research (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; Webster,

1988). This paper asks how the substantial literature that this research has spurred can inform

managers that face similar problems as the Wolverine CEO. A recent study has shown that

many practitioners still encounter difficulties in interpreting the market orientation concept

and implementing it in their organizations (Mason and Harris, 2005). We review the

contemporary market orientation literature from a managerial perspective and discuss the

implementation lessons that can be drawn from it. We show that the contemporary market

orientation literature has resulted in a rich but fragmented picture of what market orientation

3
is and how it can be improved, and offer suggestions towards integrating the diversity of

perspectives in a way that can both inform managers and help focus future academic

research.

The market orientation concept has its origin in a management philosophy known as ‘the

marketing concept’. This philosophy has been a cornerstone of the marketing discipline since

Drucker (1954) described marketing as “the whole business seen from the point of view of its

final result, that is, from the customer’s point of view” (p. 39), and argued that “[t]here is

only one valid definition of business purpose: to create a customer” (p. 37). Over the years

the marketing concept has served as marketing’s implicit theory of the firm by relating

performance differentials between firms to their degree of market orientation (Stoelhorst and

Van Raaij, 2004). The concept has appealed to generations of managers and has been one of

marketing’s most influential ideas. Yet, formal research into the concept was not undertaken

until the academic ‘rediscovery’ of the concept (Webster, 1988). This contemporary

academic interest has led to stream of research that deals with four issues:

1. The definition issue: Here the focus is on the conceptualization of the construct. This

literature addresses the question: what is a market orientation? (e.g., Day, 1994b; Kohli

and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; for an overview see Jaworski and Kohli,

1996).

2. The measurement issue: Here the focus is on the development of scales. This literature is

concerned with how the market orientation construct can be operationalized and assessed

(e.g., Deshpandé et al., 1993; Kohli et al., 1993; Narver and Slater, 1990; for a discussion

see Deshpandé and Farley, 1998; Wrenn, 1997).

4
3. The model issue: Here the focus is on the causes and effects of a market orientation. This

literature deals with the antecedents and consequences of a market orientation, as well as

with possible moderating or mediating variables (e.g., Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Narver

and Slater, 1990; for an overview see Kirca et al., 2005).

4. The implementation issue: Here the focus is on managerial actions to implement a market

orientation. This literature addresses the question: how can firms become more market

oriented? (e.g., Day, 1999; Gebhardt et al., 2006; Harris and Ogbonna, 2001a; Narver, et

al., 1998).

Unfortunately, it is difficult to draw straightforward conclusions from this literature to inform

managers about the steps they should take to improve their companies’ market orientation.

There are two reasons for this. The first is that while academics as well as practitioners can

easily connect to the market orientation theme, they often tend to talk about concepts that

deviate from what has been defined as a ‘market orientation’ in the scholarly literature

(Ottesen and Grønhaug, 2002). As the review below will show, this definitional problem is

compounded by the fact that the literature contains different conceptualizations and

measurements of market orientation, and that these different views also lead to different

normative implications (Mason and Harris, 2005). The resulting problem was already noted

more than forty years ago, when one of the seminal statements of the marketing concept

noted that if we can use the term market orientation so loosely, we can say a lot about market

orientation while in fact doing quite different things (Lear, 1963).

The second reason that limits the possible managerial impact of the contemporary market

orientation literature is that of the four issues defined above, the implementation issue has not

been given the same attention as the definition, measurement and model issues. Day (1994b)

5
observed that “[l]ittle is known […] about the characteristics of successful programs for

building market orientation” (p. 37). His call for research that would lead to better practical

suggestions for enhancing market orientation was followed by similar calls from other

leading scholars in the field (Jaworski and Kohli, 1996, p.131; Slater and Narver, 1995, p.72).

But unfortunately, even today Harris’ evaluation of the market orientation literature still

holds: “[C]omparatively few studies have examined the processes and dynamics of

developing market orientation. […] Indeed, until these issues are more fully understood, it

seems likely that the topic of ‘market orientation’ will remain perplexing to theorists and

continue to be elusive for practitioners” (Harris, 2000, p. 619).

This paper tackles the ‘elusive’ phenomenon of implementing a market orientation in three

steps. We first review the literature with respect to the definition, measurement and model

issues. While these issues have been reviewed before, we specifically ask what the different

views in the literature on these three issues suggest about ways to improve the market

orientation of a firm. We then turn to the implementation issue and offer the first review of

the different implementation approaches published to date. Our third and last step is to

discuss the managerial implications of these reviews and draw them together in an integrative

model. This model helps managers diagnose and improve the market orientation of their

company by informing them about the suitability of different actions for improvement, and

suggests how academic research can be related to the different dimensions of being market

oriented.

THE DEFINITION, MEASUREMENT AND MODEL ISSUES

AND THEIR MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

6
The definition issue

In this section, we focus on definitions of market orientation, and leave out definitions and

descriptions of the marketing concept before 1988. Table 1 lists what are arguably the most

influential definitions.

[ Take in Table 1 ]

All definitions in Table 1 entail an external focus with the customer as the primary focal

point. All, except for the definition of Deshpandé et al. have a clear action component, i.e.,

being responsive to customers. The major differences lie in the organizational elements that

are emphasized in the definitions: Shapiro emphasizes the decision-making processes, Kohli

and Jaworski the information processing activities, Narver and Slater the business culture as a

set of behavioral components, Ruekert the organizational strategy process, Deshpandé et al,

the business culture as a set of beliefs, and Day emphasizes organizational skills.

Over the years, the majority of market orientation studies have used either Kohli and

Jaworski’s (1990) or Narver and Slater’s (1990) definition. Two main perspectives on market

orientation have emerged as a result: a behavioral perspective based on Kohli and Jaworski,

and a cultural perspective based on Narver and Slater (Griffiths and Grover, 1998). Homburg

and Pflesser (2000) have proposed a third, integrationist perspective. Using a multi-layer

model of organizational culture, these authors show that market oriented behaviors can be

modeled as one of four layers of a market oriented culture. Regardless of perspective

(behavioral, cultural, or integrationist), most authors on the subject seem to agree that market

orientation contains elements of market intelligence generation, dissemination and use, with

the aim to create value for customers (cf. Lafferty and Hult, 2001). Market oriented

organizations are organizations that are well-informed about the market and that have the

7
ability to use that information advantage to create superior value for their target customers.

Recognizing this common ground may help counter some of the unjust criticism on the

normative implications of the concept (Christensen and Bower, 1996). But at the same time,

we should acknowledge that it is not entirely clear what the actionable managerial

implications of this literature are. When it comes to the implementation of a market

orientation, the different definitions of market orientation suggest very different levers for

improving the market orientation of a firm. These levers include certain organizational

behaviors, such as information processing, decision-making, and strategy formation (Kohli

and Jaworski, 1990; Ruekert, 1992), specific skills to enable those behaviors, such as market

sensing and customer linking (Day, 1994b), and elements of culture to drive the desired

behaviors, such as beliefs, values, and norms (Homburg and Pflesser, 2000; Narver, et al.,

1998). Depending on the authors they consult, managers who want to improve the market

orientation of their firm would be given very different ideas about where to focus their

attention.

The measurement issue

With the variety of definitions of market orientation come a multitude of scales for measuring

the construct. The measurement scales of Narver and Slater (the MKTOR scale, see

Deshpandé and Farley (1996) for the full scale) and Kohli and Jaworski (the MARKOR

scale, see Kohli et al. (1993)) have been widely used, either in their original form or as the

basis for adapted scales. Underlying MKTOR’s fifteen items are three components of market

orientation: customer orientation, competitor orientation, and interfunctional co-ordination. A

business’s market orientation score is the simple average of the scores of the three

components (Narver and Slater, 1990, p. 24). Underlying MARKOR’s twenty items are three

components: intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination, and responsiveness. The

8
third component is composed of two sets of activities: response design and response

implementation (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993, p. 54). Similar to MKTOR, the market

orientation score is an unweighted sum of the three components.

Both scales have been criticized from a methodological perspective: for their process of scale

development (Gabel, 1995), for their single informant strategy (e.g., Wensley, 1995), and for

their common reliance on the focal organization only (Gabel, 1995; Steinman et al., 2000).

More important for our review in light of the implementation issue is the critique on the

usefulness of the scales as a diagnostic tool for managers (Van Bruggen and Smidts, 1995).

MKTOR and MARKOR were designed to assess differences in the level of market

orientation across companies. In order to be useful as a diagnostic tool in a single

organization, however, a measurement scale needs to meet a number of criteria that MKTOR

and MARKOR do not. First, the items in the scale must be actionable, second, the scale as a

whole should cover all important dimensions of market-oriented behavior, and third, there

should be a reference point for managers to decide whether a particular score is good or bad

(cf. Van Bruggen and Smidts, 1995). Because MKTOR and MARKOR were developed to

measure differences between firms, they do not offer much help to set benchmarks and

prioritize actions when applied within a firm.

The model issue

The third issue in market orientation research is the model issue. The model issue focuses on

the antecedents and consequences of a market orientation, as well as variables that might

moderate or mediate the relationships between market orientation and its consequences.

Consequences of a market orientation

9
Although the positive effect of a market orientation on performance had long been accepted

as an article of faith, a vast amount of studies have now empirically tested the relationship

between the degree of market orientation and different aspects of business performance. This

relationship has been studied for large firms and small firms, for manufacturers as well as

service suppliers, industrial firms and consumer goods companies, for profit and not-for-

profit organizations, in industrialized economies and in transition economies (for recent

overviews of such studies, see González-Benito and González-Benito, 2005; Kirca et al.,

2005; Rodriguez Cano et al., 2004). Despite the existence of ‘anomalies’ (see e.g., Appiah-

Adu, 1998; Greenley, 1995a; Langerak, 2003), the dominant finding is that a firm’s degree of

market orientation has a positive effect on (financial) business performance, more specifically

on sales, market share, and profitability (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Kirca et al., 2005;

Pelham and Wilson, 1996; Slater and Narver, 1994).

While the effect of a market orientation on financial performance has been studied most

frequently, it has also been linked, both conceptually and empirically, to customer outcomes

and employee outcomes (Jaworski and Kohli, 1996, Slater and Narver, 2000). Market

orientation theory posits that market oriented organizations are able to translate their

information advantage in products and services that are evaluated more positively by

customers (Woodruff, 1997). Recent studies have provided empirical support for the positive

effects of market orientation on customer perceived quality, customer satisfaction, and

customer loyalty (Becker and Homburg, 1999; Homburg and Pflesser, 2000; Kirca et al.,

2005). Market orientation has also been shown to have positive consequences for employees

(Jaworski and Kohli, 1996; Kirca et al., 2005). Ruekert (1992) found a positive effect on job

satisfaction, trust in leadership and organizational commitment, Jaworski and Kohli (1993)

found a positive effect on employees’ esprit de corps and organizational commitment, and

10
Siguaw et al. (1994) found a negative effect on role stress, as well as positive effects on job

satisfaction and organizational commitment of sales people.

Moderators and mediators

A number of variables have been introduced as potential moderators in the market orientation

– performance relationship, such as market turbulence, technological turbulence, competitive

intensity, market growth, and buyer power (Appiah-Adu, 1998; Greenley, 1995b; Harris,

2001; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Slater and Narver, 1994). The results from these moderator

studies are equivocal. Wrenn (1997) has reviewed the extant literature and concludes that

these moderators have little effect on the positive impact of market orientation on firm

performance. The recent review by Kirca et al. (2005) of twenty-one empirical studies that

included moderating variables concludes that there is insufficient empirical evidence

supporting the view that market turbulence, technological turbulence or competitive intensity

moderate the market orientation - performance relationship.

Other studies have focused on variables that mediate the market orientation – performance

relationship. A strong case has been built for innovativeness as a mediating variable. The

underlying rationale is that market oriented organizations have a knowledge advantage over

their competitors, and that this knowledge helps them become more proficient in their new

product development activities (Cooper, 1979; Han et al., 1998; Langerak et al., 2004). The

success in new product development subsequently drives positive outcomes for employees,

customers, and the organization as a whole. Empirical studies have substantiated this

mediating role of innovation: Atuahene-Gima (1996) has found positive effects of a market

orientation on various measures of innovation characteristics and innovation performance.

Han et al. (1998) find that a market orientation affects performance only through

11
innovativeness, and not directly. Studies by Vázquez et al. (2001) and Langerak et al. (2004)

mirror these findings with no direct relationship between market orientation and performance,

but only an effect mediated by new product development proficiency and innovativeness. The

mediating role of innovativeness is confirmed in the meta-analytic study of Kirca et al.

(2005), who find empirical evidence for a path from market orientation to innovativeness to

customer outcomes (loyalty and perceived quality) to performance. These findings have

obvious implications for efforts to implement a market orientation, to which we will return

below. Conceptual work has suggested that other mediating factors in addition to innovation

and new product development may be proficiency in customer relationship management and

supply chain management (Day, 1994a; Martin and Grbac, 2003; Srivastava et al., 1999).

Antecedents of a market orientation

In addition to consequences, mediators and moderators, the antecedents of a market

orientation have also been studied. These antecedents are also particularly interesting from an

implementation perspective, as they may provide clues about how to develop a market

orientation in an organization (Kennedy et al., 2003). We here distinguish between external

antecedents, i.e., environmental factors that stimulate a firm’s adoption of a market

orientation, and internal antecedents, i.e., organizational factors that enable the adoption of

the market orientation concept. External antecedents that have been proposed in the literature

are market dynamism and competitive intensity (Avlonitis and Gounaris, 1999; Kohli and

Jaworski, 1990; Pelham and Wilson, 1996). Kohli and Jaworski (1990) argue that in a stable

environment few adjustments to the marketing mix are needed, requiring a low level of

market orientation. Furthermore, the lower competitive intensity, the more a firm can ‘get

away with’ a low level of market orientation (Pelham and Wilson, 1996, p. 31).

12
Various internal antecedents to market orientation have also been proposed and empirically

tested. Ruekert (1992) has identified three organizational processes that foster a market

orientation: recruiting and selecting customer focused individuals; market oriented training;

and market oriented reward and compensation systems. All three factors were found to be

positively correlated with market orientation. Jaworski and Kohli (1993) advanced eight

antecedents: top management emphasis on market orientation; top management risk aversion;

interdepartmental conflict; interdepartmental connectedness; degree of formalization; degree

of centralization; degree of departmentalization; reliance on market-based factors for

evaluations and rewards. Not all hypothesized relationships are empirically supported by

Jaworski and Kohli's (1993) study: top management emphasis, interdepartmental conflict and

connectedness, and reward systems appear to be the most important antecedents. The recent

meta-analytic study of Kirca et al. (2005) confirms the important role of these three

antecedents. The effects of centralization and formalization as barriers to market orientation

appear to be weak. Strategies, an antecedent mentioned by Pelham and Wilson (1996), seem

to play a specific role because they do not so much enable market oriented behaviors, but

because specific strategies (e.g., a differentiation strategy) necessitate such behaviors (cf.

Homburg et al., 2004). Strategies are, in that sense, more like the external antecedents that

increase the need to adopt more market oriented behaviors. Figure 1 summarizes the

relationships between a market orientation, its antecedents and its consequences.

[ Take in Figure 1 ]

Two important conclusions with respect to implementation can be drawn from this literature.

First, the antecedents of market orientation represent important levers for increasing market

orientation within a firm. A better understanding of these antecedents would certainly help

13
managers in their efforts to implement a market orientation. For instance, studies that focus

on barriers to the implementation of a market orientation (Bisp, 1999; Harris, 2000) are an

important step towards more practitioner-oriented models of market orientation, as are studies

on the relationship between human resource practices and market orientation (Conduit and

Mavondo, 2001; Harris and Ogbonna, 2001b). Second, the mediating role of product

development and innovation suggest that improving market orientation as such may not be

enough to improve a firm’s performance (cf. Hult et al., 2005). The performance effect of

implementing a market orientation seems to depend on the ways in which it improves core

business processes. These points will be further discussed below.

THE IMPLEMENTATION ISSUE

The fourth issue in market orientation research is the implementation issue. In contrast to the

literature on definitions, measurements and models, the literature on implementation takes an

explicitly managerial view of market orientation and asks what firms can do to improve their

market orientation. Although the implementation issue has not been studied as intensively as

the other three issues, since 1990, nine different implementation approaches have

nevertheless been published. They are here presented in chronological order of their first

appearance in an academic journal. Where relevant, the review also refers to related books or

conference papers. Table 2 summarizes the nine implementation approaches. The second

column shows how they differ in terms of the underlying market orientation concept. The

third column summarizes the main recommendations for implementing a market orientation

that they make. Here we distinguish between recommendations for diagnosis (how to assess a

firm’s marketing orientation, or lack thereof), intervention (how to go about improving a

firm’s market orientation) and evaluation (how to assess the effects of the implementation

14
effort). The last column shows to what extent the author’s claims are backed up by empirical

data.

The information processing approach by Kohli and Jaworski

Kohli and Jaworski’s views on implementation are derived from their definition of market

orientation as “the organizationwide generation of market intelligence pertaining to current

and future customer needs, dissemination of the intelligence across departments, and

organizationwide responsiveness to it” (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990, p. 6). The managerial

implications of this definition are detailed in a subsequent publication (Jaworski and Kohli,

1993) were responsiveness is defined as “being composed of two sets of activities - response

design (i.e., using market intelligence to develop plans) and response implementation (i.e.,

executing such plans)” (p. 54). Their earlier, exploratory, study leads to explicit suggestions

for implementing a market orientation (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). The authors identify some

of the antecedents to a market orientation that were discussed above (notably top

management commitment, interdepartmental dynamics, organizational systems and structure)

and argue that since these factors are controllable by senior managers, managerial

interventions can help engender a market orientation. First of all, senior managers must

communicate their commitment to a market orientation to junior employees. Junior

employees need to witness behaviors and resource allocations that reflect that commitment.

Next, interdepartmental dynamics need to be managed. Connectedness needs to be improved

and interdepartmental conflict reduced. Interdepartmental activities and exchange of

employees are examples of specific interventions. The third category of interventions is

aimed at organizationwide systems. Changing organization structure (less formalization and

centralization) and more market-based reward systems should facilitate the implementation of

a market orientation. The authors suggest that their measurement instrument MARKOR can

15
be used for an initial diagnosis of the current degree of market orientation and for post-

intervention measurements of the degree to which market orientation has been improved

(Kohli et al., 1993).

The norm-based approach by Lichtenthal and Wilson

Lichtenthal and Wilson (1992) approach implementation from a social structure perspective.

Their main focus is on interfunctional co-ordination. They argue that norms prescribe

individual behaviors. For an organization to act in accordance with the marketing concept, it

must therefore inculcate and transmit the appropriate values and create a set of norms to

guide market oriented behavior. In order to change, an organization must first define the

value system that currently drives behavior. This is the diagnostic phase in Lichtenthal and

Wilson’s approach. Next, it can select what values need to be altered and instigate changes in

these values. Management should then develop a list of desired behaviors. The norms that

drive these behaviors can be derived and programs can be developed per department to

change these norms or create new ones. These changes are best made from the top down.

Possible interventions include revising job descriptions, educational programs,

communication programs, and incentive programs to reward appropriate behavior.

Lichtenthal and Wilson do not detail any post-intervention evaluation tools or activities.

Interestingly, in an empirical study, Homburg and Pflesser (2000) find that the establishment

of market-oriented norms will not produce market-oriented behaviors unless artifacts, such as

stories, rituals and language, support these norms.

The strategy and support processes approach by Ruekert

Ruekert (1992) defines the level of market orientation as the degree to which a business unit:

(1) obtains and uses information from customers; (2) develops a strategy which will meet

16
customer needs; and (3) implements that strategy by being responsive to customers’ needs

and wants. In the discussion of his empirical study, Ruekert provides specific

recommendations for diagnosis, intervention, and evaluation. In order to assess the current

degree of market orientation, Ruekert recommends that his questionnaire be administered to

all managers, as well as a sample of sales reps and sales managers of each business unit. This

questionnaire includes subscales on market orientation practices and behaviors,

organizational systems of recruitment and selection, training, reward and compensation,

individual outcomes, and business unit performance. This assessment should make it possible

for corporate management to design initiatives to improve customer responsiveness at the

business unit level. According to Ruekert, interventions for increased market orientation

should focus on organizational support systems. “While a temporary change in behaviors

may be accomplished without the corresponding changes in organizational systems, the long

term shift toward a market orientation probably requires a more permanent shift in

organizational processes as well” (p. 243). In Ruekert’s view, the most important support

systems are human resource systems of recruitment and selection, training, and reward and

compensation. A repeated assessment of the degree of market orientation using the same

questionnaire may serve as an ongoing evaluation of progress.

The capabilities approach by Day

Day has developed his capabilities approach in three separate publications. In his early work

his view of market orientation as representing superior skills in understanding and satisfying

customers leads to a four-step program of intervention (Day, 1990). These interventions focus

on aligning strategy, structure, people, and programs, as well as redesigning performance

measures to encourage and reward market-driven behavior.

17
In a later publication, Day argues that market-driven organizations have superior market

sensing, customer linking, and channel bonding capabilities (Day, 1994b). He now offers a

comprehensive change program that is inspired by the TQM literature and aimed at

enhancing these capabilities. This program includes: (1) the diagnosis of current capabilities;

(2) anticipation of future needs for capabilities; (3) bottom-up redesign of underlying

processes; (4) top-down direction and commitment; (5) creative use of information

technology; and (6) continuous monitoring of progress. In this work, his focus is on business

process redesign, either radically or gradually from the bottom up, combined with top down

signaling of commitment and stretching of improvement targets. Information technology is

seen as an enabler to help firms do things they could not do before. The diagnostic stage of

Day’s approach involves an analysis of current capabilities and anticipated future capabilities.

It is not exactly clear from Day’s work what these capabilities are. The description of how

they should be assessed is in fact an assessment of business processes. Day suggests defining

key performance indicators for these processes and using them to monitor progress and

evaluate the results of the interventions.

A third publication incorporates the earlier recommendations in a more extensive program for

creating a market driven organization (Day, 1999). Day now defines the market driven

organization as one that has superior skills in understanding, attracting, and keeping valuable

customers, and suggests a change program that aligns culture, capabilities, and

(organizational) configuration with the creation of superior customer value. The role of top

management as the initiator and driver of the change program is emphasized. Day makes two

points that are specifically worth mentioning: (1) management should focus on the conditions

that enable employees to produce good results, and (2) change is the result of altering

18
behavior patterns, and these changes in behavior will eventually be absorbed into the

underlying norms, beliefs, and mind-sets.

The culture change approach by Narver and Slater

Narver and Slater’s ideas about implementing a market orientation can be found in one

publication (Narver et al., 1998). The argument can be summarized as follows: creating a

market orientation is about how the members of an organization learn to continuously create

superior customer value. This learning can be achieved in two ways: (1) via ‘a priori

education’, which the authors call the programmatic approach, and (2) via experiential

learning, called the market-back approach. The authors claim that most businesses fail to

engender a market orientation because they favor the more popular a priori learning over

experiential learning. However, according to the authors, experiential learning is required to

realize a culture change, and the proper role of a priori education is merely to prepare for

hands-on problem solving and experimentation in a results-driven continuous improvement

process. Hennestad’s (1999) description of an in-depth, longitudinal case study provides

ample illustrations of the role of experiential learning in increasing the level of market

orientation in an organization.

The systems-based approach by Homburg c.s.

Becker and Homburg (1999) introduce the term ‘market-oriented management’ and add

another systems perspective to the debate. They identify five managerial systems that

influence the degree of market-oriented management: (1) the organization system; (2) the

information system; (3) the planning system; (4) the controlling system; and (5) the human

resource management system. For each of these systems the authors provide suggestions on

how they can be redesigned to enhance market orientation. The authors provide empirical

19
support for the idea that more market oriented configurations of the managerial systems are

associated with higher performance, but the empirical data do not necessarily show that the

suggested interventions are related to successful organizational change. The measurement

instrument that is developed in the paper can be used to diagnose the current degree of market

oriented management, and can also be used to evaluate the impact of interventions for

increased market orientation. In a later publication (Homburg et al., 2000), information

systems, accounting systems, reward systems, and human resource management systems are

identified as the main determinants of customer-focused organizational structure on the basis

of fifty interviews with managers.

The management behavior approach by Harris c.s.

After an initial preference for Kohli and Jaworski’s behavioral conceptualization of market

orientation (Harris, 1996), the work of Harris and colleagues has focused on the role of

cultural change in the implementation of a market orientation (Harris, 1998; Harris and

Ogbonna, 1999). Using UK retailing organizations as their empirical setting, this work

includes extensive empirical research on barriers to implementing a market orientation

(Harris, 2000; Harris and Ogbonna, 2000). More recently, this work has been complemented

with empirical studies on the process of becoming more market oriented (Harris, 2002a;

Harris and Ogbonna, 2001a; Harris and Piercy, 1999). In these studies, management behavior

is recognized as a crucial factor in the implementation process. Conflictual, formalized, and

political behaviors were found to have a negative impact on market orientation, while vertical

communication positively impacts market orientation. Participative and supportive leadership

styles were found to help implement market orientation, and it was concluded that an

instrumental leadership style should be avoided. Both sets of recommendations are supported

by empirical survey data. Of particular interest is a complementary study that explores why

20
and how executives, managers, and employees intentionally sabotage market oriented culture

change (Harris, 2002b). This study has uncovered four rationales for resisting market-

oriented culture change, as well as five strategies (ranging from lip service to direct conflict)

that executives, managers and employees use to intentionally sabotage the implementation of

a market orientation.

The cultural transformation approach by Kennedy, Goolsby, and Arnould

Kennedy et al. (2003) report on a comparative study of two schools; one struggling to

implement a customer orientation, and one successfully transforming itself to an award-

winning customer-centered school. By contrasting high and low levels of success, the authors

derive three pillars of successful implementation. First, for staff members to internalize a

customer orientation, they must experience an unbroken chain of committed leadership from

top management to local managers. Adoption of a customer orientation is encouraged by

reducing ambiguity about leadership commitment. Second, well-articulated customer

requirements and fact-based performance feedback help to unify individuals and departments

into a coordinated effort to deliver customer value. Third, the collection, dissemination and

use of market intelligence (both from internal and external customers) ensure that a customer

orientation becomes self-reinforcing. Although Kennedy et al. do not explicitly address

diagnosis, intervention, and evaluation as three stages in organizational transformation, it is

clear from their descriptions that fact-based customer data play a crucial role in the diagnosis

and evaluation stages, while leadership and cross-functional improvement efforts prove key

in the transformation effort.

The cultural transformation approach by Gebhardt, Carpenter, and Sherry

21
Building on ethnographic studies at seven firms, Gebhardt et al. (2006) develop a four-stage

model of the process of creating a market orientation: (1) initiation, (2) reconstitution, (3)

institutionalization, and (4) maintenance. The stages are path dependent, and each stage

includes multiple steps or activities. The initiation stage is about powerful stakeholders

recognizing a threat, who then create coalitions to plan and implement change efforts.

Reconstitution comprises five steps: (1) demarcation, (2) value and norm development, (3)

reconnection with the market, (4) removal of dissenters and hiring of believers, and (5)

collaborative strategy. The institutionalization stage is about formalization of organizational

structures and processes, alignment of rewards, and cultural indoctrination through training.

The maintenance stage, finally, is about reinforcing market-oriented culture through three

processes: cultural screening of new members, culture maintenance rituals, and ongoing

market connection activities to update market schemas and validate market-oriented process

schemas. According to the authors, firms creating a market orientation embrace six cultural

values: trust, openness, keeping promises, respect, collaboration, and viewing the market as

the raison d’être. These values are the basis for market-oriented behaviors.

The managerial implications of the implementation literature

While the implementation issue may not have received the same attention as the definition

and model issues, we may nevertheless conclude that there are a number of thoughtful

publications that address how managers can improve the market orientation of their

organizations. Moreover, a number of both quantitative and qualitative empirical studies have

sought to substantiate the different implementation approaches. Several case studies have

been published, ranging from comparisons between overall change programs (Day, 1999),

and rich descriptions of organizational reorientations (Ballantyne, 1997; Börjesson and

Dahlsten, 2004; Gebhardt et al., 2006; Hennestad, 1999; Kennedy et al., 2003), to responses

22
of individuals to cultural change programs (Harris, 2002b; Harris and Ogbonna, 2000).

Quantitative empirical studies have shown that some management behaviors and leadership

styles are more conducive to the implementation of a market orientation than others (Harris

and Ogbonna, 2001a; Harris and Piercy, 1999), that artifacts (such as stories, rituals and

language) drive market oriented behaviors (Harris and Ogbonna, 2001a; Homburg and

Pflesser, 2000) and that certain management tactics are related to higher degrees of market

orientation (Strong and Harris, 2004).

At the same time, we are still in the early stages of understanding how to successfully change

the market orientation of an organization. As Table 2 demonstrates, the various

implementation approaches offer remarkably different perspectives on what should be

changed in the organization and how to structure the change process towards improved

market orientation. But despite these differences, there are also signs of convergence in the

recent literature. We will elaborate on this in the next section of the paper, in which we

integrate the different insights on the implementation of a market orientation.

[ Take in Table 2 ]

INTEGRATION AND DISCUSSION

Our review shows both the richness and fragmentation of the contemporary market

orientation literature. From a managerial perspective, the many suggestions that this literature

offers practitioners to implement a market orientation are both its strength and weakness.

Managers that would consult the literature about how to improve the market orientation of

their firms are likely to be overwhelmed by the variety of prescriptions they will find.

23
One way to help managers find their way in the divergent literature is to distinguish between

the ‘where’, the ‘what’, and the ‘how’ of implementing a market orientation. Managerial

advice about where to take corrective actions, calls for an interpretation of the literature in

terms of how the different aspects of a market orientation relate to each other in determining

the firm’s performance. Here the question is ‘which aspects of market orientation affect

performance?’ Managerial advice about what to do, calls for an interpretation of the literature

in terms of the enablers of a market orientation. Here the question is ‘what are the levers for

improving market orientation?’ Managerial advice about how to go about the implementation

of a market orientation calls for an interpretation of the literature in terms of its discussion of

intervention strategies. Here the question is ‘how should the process of implementing a

market orientation be managed?’

However, as our review has shown, a manager can expect different authors to give very

different answers to these questions. The perspectives on what a market orientation is, how it

should be measured, and how it can be implemented vary in important ways, and there have

been no explicit attempts to integrate them with managers in mind. Hunt and Lambe (2000)

point out the need for an integrative approach with their comment that research in the area

“lacks an underlying theory that could provide an explanatory mechanism for the positive

relationship between [market orientation] and business performance” (p. 28). Recent work on

the link between market orientation and theories of strategy has begun to address the issue of

grounding market orientation in underlying theory (Stoelhorst and Van Raaij, 2004), and this

has resulted in a framework that may also help integrate the different prescriptions with

respect to implementation.

24
Stoelhorst and Van Raaij (2004) draw on theories from organizational economics, strategic

management, and marketing to suggest an integrative logic to explain performance

differentials between firms. The resulting framework includes a variety of sources of

performance differentials and shows that they have all been discussed in the market

orientation literature (see Figure 2). The main value of the framework is that it shows how

these different sources of performance differentials and their market orientation equivalents

are related. In doing so, it can also serve as a conceptual tool to structure, ground and

integrate the different perspectives on the implementation of a market orientation.

[ Take in Figure 2 ]

The framework in Figure 2 is consistent with the implicit consensus in the market orientation

literature about the importance of generating and using information about markets in order to

generate customer value (Hult et al., 2005). The model differs from much of the market

orientation literature by seeing business processes as the central concern of being market

oriented. It is argued that it is in these business processes that customer value is actually

created. Consequently, market orientation is seen as the ability of a firm to generate

knowledge about markets and use this knowledge in its business processes for the creation of

superior customer value. This perspective is in line with studies that have shown processes of

innovation and new product development (NPD) to mediate the relationship between market

orientation and performance (Han et al., 1998; Langerak et al., 2004). However, the use of

market intelligence may well extend to other business processes. Examples of such processes

may be sales, customer service and other aspects of customer relationship management

(CRM), as well as logistics, channel building and other aspects of supply chain management

(SCM).

25
To illustrate how the framework in Figure 2 can help guide efforts to implement a market

orientation, let us return to the plight of the Wolverine CEO described by Shapiro (1988).

Figure 2 suggests a few important questions to help him diagnose the link between his

company’s performance problems and market orientation:

- Is low performance the result of an inability to provide differential customer value?

- Can the inability to create customer value be linked to specific business processes?

- Is low performance in these business processes the result of not using market knowledge?

- Is not using market knowledge the result of not having the necessary information,

inability to disseminate this information, inability to act upon this information, or

unwillingness to act upon this information?

This first, diagnostic, step can help focus attention on the processes that are crucial in

gathering, disseminating and using the market information needed to create customer value.

Note, also, that there are many possible answers to the questions above that would point to

other explanations for lackluster performance than a lack of market orientation. However, let

us assume that market orientation is indeed the problem. Once it is clear which processes

need to be improved, the second step would be to ask what about these processes it is that

needs to be improved. This brings us to the enablers of the processes by which firms create

market knowledge and translate it into customer value. Are the processes designed to result in

the required performance? Do people have the skills to perform these processes? Are the

processes supported by adequate systems? Are people rewarded for improving the

performance of these processes? Is top management committed to market orientation and do

they “walk the talk” of market orientation?

26
All nine implementation approaches published to date offer suggestions for what to change

within the organization. The suggestions converge on seven enablers for market orientation:

- Structure: The recommendations in the literature are to reduce centralization (Jaworski

and Kohli, 1993), as well as to reduce the number of hierarchical levels and increase

interfunctional integration (Becker and Homburg, 1999).

- Process design: Recommendations include the redesign of business processes for

improved value creation and value delivery (Day, 1994; 1999), the empowerment of

employees with direct customer contact (Becker and Homburg, 1999), and the

involvement of customers in process redesign (Becker and Homburg, 1999).

- ICT systems: Managers are advised to use information technology creatively to enable

new value creation processes (Day, 1994) and to store market information in accessible

information systems (Becker and Homburg, 1999; Homburg et al., 2000).

- Reward system: Performance should be measured, analyzed and rewarded on the basis of

market-based performance indicators (Becker and Homburg, 1999; Jaworski and Kohli,

1993; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Ruekert, 1992), incentive programs should award

appropriate behavior (Gebhardt et al., 2006; Lichtenthal and Wilson, 1992), managers

should stretch improvement targets and monitor progress continuously (Day, 1999), and

market-based performance feedback should be used to instill a culture of

interdepartmental connectedness (Kennedy et al., 2003).

- Leadership: The literature attaches great importance to leadership as an enabler to market

orientation. Top management should emphasize the importance of market orientation and

be willing to accept calculated risks and the occasional failure (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993;

Kohli and Jaworski, 1990), senior officers must be seen as embracing the critical norms

of market orientation themselves if change is to be successful (Lichtenthal and Wilson,

1992), leadership is vital to achieving and maintaining successful cultural change towards

27
 market orientation (Narver et al., 1998), leaders must signal management commitment

(Day, 1999), leaders should use a participative or a supportive leadership style to

implement market orientation, and avoid an instrumental leadership style (Harris and

Ogbonna, 2001a; Harris and Piercy, 1999), and management should ensure an unbroken

circuit of passionate, sincere, unified, and committed leadership from top levels to local

managers, “walking the walk” of customer orientation (Kennedy et al., 2003).

- Behavioral norms and values: Management should diagnose current organizational value

system, develop a list of desired behaviors, and develop top-down programs to change

norms and/or create new norms (Gebhardt et al., 2006; Lichtenthal and Wilson, 1992).

Furthermore, they should recognize and confront negative organizational behaviors (such

as conflictual, formalized, and political behaviors), and identify and foster positive

organizational behaviors (such as communication) (Harris and Piercy, 1999).

- Competence management: Recruitment, selection and training should be used to build a

workforce with market-oriented skills (Becker and Homburg, 1999; Gebhardt et al., 2006;

Ruekert, 1992) as well as managers with appropriate leadership styles (Harris and

Ogbonna, 2001a). Future needs for market-oriented capabilities should be anticipated

(Day, 1994b), and organizations should use a mix of a priori education and experiential

learning to establish market oriented behaviors (Narver et al., 1998).

A review of the current state of these enablers in their organizations helps managers to assess

to what extent the barriers to improving market orientation are cultural and/or systemic. This,

in turn, can help answer the question how to go about implementing a market orientation. The

nine implementation approaches currently available in the literature, occupy markedly

different positions on a continuum ranging from a high-tech “design” approach to a high-

touch “development” approach. The approaches advocated by Becker and Homburg (1999)

28
and by Day (1994; 1999) emphasize changes in structures, systems, and processes and are

examples of the former. The underlying assumption seems to be that by redesigning the

organizational environment in which they work, people will adapt their behavior to that new

environment. At the other end of the continuum we find approaches such as those by

Lichtenthal and Wilson (1992), Narver et al. (1998), and Gebhardt et al. (2006) who believe

in dealing directly with individual’s beliefs, norms and skills. Through training,

communication, and experiential learning, employees are developed into more market-

oriented individuals.

Figure 3 is a visualization of the dichotomy between design and development. It integrates

the earlier review of the implementation issue with the causal logic of Figure 2 by showing

how the enablers discussed in the literature can be related to the different dimensions of being

market oriented. The top of Figure 3 shows the systemic design enablers of a market

orientation, which include organizational structure, business process design, and ICT and

reward systems. The bottom of Figure 3 shows the cultural and behavioral development

enablers of a market orientation, which include leadership, behavioral norms and values, and

competence management. When absent, these enablers can, alone or in combination, turn out

to be barriers to implementing a market orientation. A careful diagnosis along the lines of the

questions outlined above can help pinpoint the sources of the problems firms may have in

generating, disseminating and using market information to create customer value. Depending

on where these problems are, a design, a development, or a hybrid intervention strategy may

be in order.

[ Take in Figure 3 ]

29
The logic of Figures 2 and 3 is in keeping with the literatures that have advocated the link

between customer value thinking and market orientation (Slater and Narver, 2000; Woodruff,

1997), and between market orientation and learning (Baker and Sinkula, 1999; 2002; Sinkula

et al., 1997; Slater and Narver, 1995). Figures 2 and 3 essentially depict market orientation as

being about learning how to generate customer value. While this indeed depends on the

generation, dissemination and use of market knowledge that has been the traditional focus of

the contemporary market orientation literature, Figures 2 and 3 also call for a much more

detailed consideration of which of its core business processes (for instance product

development, service delivery, or relationship management) a firm needs to improve to

generate customer value. Previous integrations have noted that managers should be

‘responsive’ to market intelligence and take ‘coordinated action’ without providing a more

detailed causal path from market intelligence to performance (Homburg and Pflesser, 2000;

Lafferty and Hult, 2001; Matsuno et al., 2005). Our suggestion is that managers think in

terms of change programs that lead to the use market intelligence in ways that improve the

business processes in which customer value is generated.

CONCLUSION

Some twenty years of market orientation research has much advanced our understanding of

the concept and its link to business performance. The market orientation literature is the

closest the marketing discipline has to a theory of the firm that can explain why some firms

outperform others. The development of this theory has resulted in a rich literature in which

marketing academics have linked the concept of market orientation itself to a wide variety of

other organizational phenomena. Translating the insights from this literature into managerial

implications has so far been a relatively underdeveloped field. The development of an

30
integrative framework to organize the different conceptual views and empirical findings on

market orientation in the literature is long overdue. This paper hopes to have made some

progress towards this goal by organizing what we know about ways to implement a market

orientation. The practical needs of managers like the Wolverine CEO to which Benson

Shapiro introduced us at the time that the contemporary market orientation literature was

gathering steam deserve our attention, if only because their consideration may lead to

conceptual developments that can in turn inform empirical research and theory development.

31
 REFERENCES

Appiah-Adu, K. (1998), “Market Orientation and Performance: Empirical Tests in a

Transition Economy”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 25-45.

Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996), “Market Orientation and Innovation”, Journal of Business

Research, Vol. 35, pp. 93-103.

Avlonitis, G.J. and Gounaris, S.P. (1999), “Marketing Orientation and Its Determinants: An

Empirical Analysis”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 33 No. 11/12, pp. 1003-37.

Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (1999), “The Synergistic Effect of Market Orientation and

Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing

Science, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 411-27.

Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2002), “Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and

Product Innovation: Delving into the Organization’s Black Box”, Journal of Market-Focused

Management, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 5-23.

Ballantyne, D. (1997), “Internal Networks for Internal Marketing”, Journal of Marketing

Management, Vol. 13 No. 5, pp. 343-66.

Barney, J.B. (1991), “Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage”, Journal of

Management, Vol. 17, pp. 99-120.

Barney, J.B. (2001), “Resource-Based Theories of Competitive Advantage: A Ten-Year

Retrospective on the Resource-Based View”, Journal of Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp.

643-50.

32
Becker, J. and Homburg, C. (1999), “Market-Oriented Management: A Systems-Based

Perspective”, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 17-41.

Bisp, S. (1999), “Barriers to Increased Market-Oriented Activity: What the Literature

Suggests”, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 77-92.

Börjesson, S. and Dahlsten, F. (2004), “Management Action in Developing Market

Orientation: A Report from a Customer Knowledge Project at Volvo Cars”, Journal of

Change Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 141-54.

Christensen, C.M. and Bower, J.L. (1996), “Customer Power, Strategic Investment, and the

Failure of Leading Firms”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 197-218.

Conduit, J. and Mavondo, F.T. (2001), “How Critical Is Internal Customer Orientation to

Market Orientation?”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 51, pp.11-24.

Cooper, R.G. (1979), “The Dimensions of Industrial New Product Success and Failure”,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43, pp. 93-103.

Day, G.S. (1990), Market Driven Strategy: Processes for Creating Value, The Free Press,

New York, NY.

Day, G.S. (1994a), “Continuous Learning About Markets”, California Management Review,

Vol. 36, pp. 9-31.

Day, G.S. (1994b), “The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 37-52.

Day, G.S. (1999), “Creating a Market-Driven Organization”, Sloan Management Review,

Vol. 41, pp. 11-22.

33
Deshpandé, R. and Farley, J.U. (1996), Understanding Market Orientation: A Prospectively

Designed Meta-Analysis of Three Market Orientation Scales, MSI working paper 96-125,

Marketing Science Institute, Cambridge, MA.

Deshpandé, R. and Farley, J.U. (1998), “Measuring Market Orientation: Generalization and

Synthesis”, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 213-32.

Deshpandé, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. (1993), “Corporate Culture, Customer

Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 23-37.

Drucker, P.F. (1954), The Practice of Management, Harper & Row, New York, NY.

Foley, A. and Fahey, J. (2004), “Towards a Further Understanding of the Development of

Market Orientation in the Firm: A Conceptual Framework Based on the Market-Sensing

Capability”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 12, pp. 219-30.

Gabel, T.G. (1995), “Market Orientation: Theoretical and Methodological Concerns”,

Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Summer Educators Conference,

American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL.

Gebhardt, G.F., Carpenter, G.S. and Sherry, J.F., Jr. (2006), “Creating a Market Orientation:

A Longitudinal, Multifirm, Grounded Analysis of Cultural Transformation”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 70, pp. 37-55.

González-Benito, Ó. and González-Benito, J. (2005), “Cultural vs. Operational Market

Orientation and Objective vs. Subjective Performance: Perspective of Production And

Operations”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 34, pp. 797-829.

34
Greenley, G.E. (1995a), “Forms of Market Orientation in UK Companies”, Journal of

Management Studies, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 47-66.

Greenley, G.E. (1995b), “Market Orientation and Company Performance: Empirical

Evidence From UK Companies”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-13.

Griffiths, J.S. and Grover, R. (1998), “A Framework for Understanding Market Orientation:

The Behavior and the Culture”, Proceedings of the American Marketing Association Winter

Educators Conference, American Marketing Association, Austin, TX.

Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, R.K. (1998), “Market Orientation and Organizational

Performance: Is Innovation a Missing Link?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 30-45.

Harris, L.C. (1996), “Benchmarking Against the Theory of Market Orientation”,

Management Decision, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 25-9.

Harris, L.C. (1998), “Cultural Domination: The Key to Market-Oriented Culture?”, European

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 3/4, pp. 354-73.

Harris, L.C. (2000), “The Organizational Barriers to Developing Market Orientation”,

European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 5/6, pp. 598-624.

Harris, L.C. (2001), “Market Orientation and Performance: Objective and Subjective

Empirical Evidence From UK Companies”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 38 No. 1,

pp. 17-43.

Harris, L.C. (2002a), “Developing Market Orientation: An Exploration of Differences in

Management Approaches”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 18, pp. 603-32.

35
Harris, L.C. (2002b), “Sabotaging Market-Oriented Culture Change: An Exploration of

Resistance Justifications and Approaches”, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol.

10 No. 3, pp. 58-74.

Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (1999), “Developing a Market Oriented Culture: A Critical

Evaluation”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 177-96.

Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2000), “The Responses of Front-Line Employees to Market-

Oriented Culture Change”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 34 No. 3/4, pp. 318-40.

Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2001a), “Leadership Style and Market Orientation: An

Empirical Study”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 5/6, pp. 744-64.

Harris, L.C. and Ogbonna, E. (2001b), “Strategic Human Resource Management, Market

Orientation, and Organizational Performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 51, pp.

157-66.

Harris, L.C. and Piercy, N.F. (1999), “Management Behavior and the Barriers to Market

Orientation”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 113-31.

Hennestad, B.W. (1999), “Infusing the Organisation with Customer Knowledge”,

Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 17-41.

Heskett, J.L., Jones, T.O., Loveman, G.W., Sasser, W.E. and. Schlesinger, L.A. (1994),

“Putting the Service-Profit Chain to Work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 72, pp. 164-74.

Homburg, C., Krohmer, H. and Workman, J.P. (2004), “A Strategy Implementation

Perspective of Market Orientation”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57, pp. 1331-40.

36
Homburg, C. and Pflesser, C. (2000), “A Multiple Layer Model of Market-Oriented

Organizational Culture: Measurement Issues and Performance Outcomes”, Journal of

Marketing Research, Vol. 37, pp. 449-62.

Homburg, C., Workman, J.P. and Jensen, O. (2000), “Fundamental Changes in Marketing

Organization: The Movement Towards a Customer-Focused Organizational Structure”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 4, pp. 459-78.

Houston, F.S. (1986), “The Marketing Concept: What It Is and What It Is Not”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 50, pp. 81-7.

Hult, G.T.M. and Ketchen, D.J. (2001), “Does Market Orientation Matter? A Test of the

Relationship Between Positional Advantage and Performance”, Strategic Management

Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 899-906.

Hult, G.T.M., Ketchen, D.J. and Slater S.F. (2005), “Market Orientation and Performance:

An Integration of Disparate Approaches”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26, pp. 1173-

81.

Hunt, S.D. and Lambe, C.J. (2000), “Marketing’s Contribution to Business Strategy: Market

Orientation, Relationship Marketing and Resource-Advantage Theory”, International Journal

of Management Reviews, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 17-43.

Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market Orientation: Antecedents and

Consequences”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 53-70.

Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1996), “Market Orientation: Review, Refinement, and

Roadmap”, Journal of Market-Focused Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 119-35.

37
Kennedy, K.N., Goolsby, J.R. and Arnould, E.J. (2003), “Implementing a Customer

Orientation: Extension of Theory and Application”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp.

67-81.

Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S. and Bearden, W.O. (2005), “Market orientation: A Meta-

Analytic Review and Assessment of Its Antecedents and Impact on Performance”, Journal of

Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 24-41.

Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market Orientation: The Construct, Research

Propositions, and Managerial Implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18.

Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J. and Kumar, A. (1993), “MARKOR: A Measure of Market

Orientation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, pp. 467-77.

Kotler, P. (1977), “From Sales Obsession to Marketing Effectiveness”, Harvard Business

Review, Vol. 55, pp. 67-75.

Lafferty, B.A. and Hult, G.T.M. (2001), “A Synthesis of Contemporary Market Orientation

Perspectives”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1/2, pp. 92-109.

Langerak, F. (2003), “An Appraisal of Research on the Predictive Power of Market

Orientation”, European Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 447-64.

Langerak, F., Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H.S.J. (2004), “The Impact of Market Orientation,

Product Advantage, and Launch Proficiency on New Product Performance and

Organizational Performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 2,

pp. 79-94.

Lear, R.W. (1963), “No Easy Road to Market Orientation”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.

41, pp. 53-60.

38
Lichtenthal, J.D. and Wilson, D.T. (1992), “Becoming Market Oriented”, Journal of Business

Research, Vol. 24 No. 3, pp. 191-207.

Martin, J. H. and Grbac, B. (2003), “Using Supply Chain Management to Leverage a Firm’s

Market Orientation”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 25-38.

Mason, K. and Harris, L.C. (2005), “Pitfalls in Evaluating Market Orientation: An

Exploration of Executives’ Interpretations”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 38, pp. 373-91.

Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T. and Rentz, J.O. (2005), “A conceptual and empirical comparison

of three market orientation scales”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 1-8.

Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business

Profitability”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 20-35.

Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F. and Tietje, B. (1998), “Creating a Market Orientation”, Journal of

Market-Focused Management, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 241-55.

Ottesen, G.G. and Grønhaug, K. (2002), “Managers’ Understanding of Theoretical Concepts:

The Case of Market Orientation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36 No. 11/12, pp.

1209-24.

Pelham, A.M. and Wilson, D.T. (1996), “A Longitudinal Study of the Impact of Market

Structure, Firm Structure, Strategy, and Market Orientation Culture on Dimensions of Small-

Firm Performance”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 27-43.

Peteraf, M.A. (1993), “The Cornerstones of Competitive Advantage: A Resource-based

View”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, 179-91.

39
Priem, R.L. and Butler, J.E. (2001), “Is the Resource-Based ‘View’ a Useful Perspective for

Strategic Management Research?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 22-

40.

Rodriguez Cano, C., Carrillat, F.A. and Jaramillo, F. (2004), “A Meta-Analysis of the

Relationship Between Market Orientation and Business Performance: Evidence From Five

Continents”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 179-200.

Ruekert, R.W. (1992), “Developing a Market Orientation: An Organizational Strategy

Perspective”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9, pp. 225-45.

Shapiro, B.P. (1988), “What the Hell Is ‘Market Oriented’?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol.

66, pp. 119-25.

Siguaw, J.A., Brown, G. and Widing, R.E. (1994), “The Influence of the Market Orientation

of the Firm on Sales Force Behavior and Attitudes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31,

pp. 106-16.

Sinkula, J.M. (1994), “Market Information Processing and Organizational Learning”, Journal

of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 35-45.

Sinkula, J.M., Baker, W.E. and Noordewier, T. (1997), “A Framework for Market-Based

Organizational Learning: Linking Values, Knowledge, and Behavior”, Journal of the

Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 305-18.

Slater, S.F. (1997), “Developing a Customer Value-Based Theory of the Firm”, Journal of

the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 162-7.

Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1994), “Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market

Orientation-Performance Relationship?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, pp. 46-55.

40
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market Orientation and the Learning Organization”,

Journal of Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 63-74.

Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (2000), “Intelligence Generation and Superior Customer Value”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 120-7.

Srivastava, R.K., Fahey, L. and Christensen, H.K. (2001), “The Resource-Based View and

Marketing: The Role of Market-Based Assets in Gaining Competitive Advantage”, Journal of

Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 777-802.

Srivastava, R.K., Shervani, T.A. and Liam Fahey (1999), “Marketing, Business Processes,

and Shareholder Value: An Organizationally Embedded View of Marketing Activities and

the Discipline of Marketing”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63, pp. 168-79.

Steinman, C., Deshpandé, R. and Farley, J.U. (2000), “Beyond Market Orientation: When

Customers and Suppliers Disagree”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28

No. 1, pp. 109-19.

Stoelhorst, J.W. and Van Raaij, E.M. (2004), “On Explaining Performance Differentials:

Marketing and the Managerial Theory of the Firm”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 57

No. 5, pp. 462-77.

Strong, C.A. and Harris, L.C. (2004), “The Drivers of Customer Orientation: An Exploration

of Relational, Human Resource and Procedural Tactics”, Journal of Strategic Marketing,

Vol. 12, pp. 183-204.

Van Bruggen, G.H. and Smidts, A. (1995), “The Assessment of Market Orientation:

Evaluating the Measurement Instrument as a Tool for Management”, Proceedings of the

Annual Conference of the European Marketing Academy, Cergy-Pontoise, May 16-19.

41
Vázquez, R., Santos, M.L. and Álvarez, L.I. (2001), “Market Orientation, Innovation and

Competitive Strategies in Industrial Firms”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp.

69-90.

Webster, F.E. (1988), “The Rediscovery of the Marketing Concept”, Business Horizons, Vol.

31 No. 3, pp. 29-39.

Wensley, R. (1995), “A Critical Review of Research in Marketing”, British Journal of

Management, Vol. 6, pp. S63-S82.

Wernerfelt, B. (1984), “A Resource-based View of the Firm”, Strategic Management

Journal, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 171-80.

Woodruff, R.B. (1997), “Customer Value: The Next Source for Competitive Advantage”,

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 139-53.

Wrenn, B.W. (1997), “The Market Orientation Construct: Measurement and Scaling Issues”,

Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 31-54.

About the authors

Erik M. van Raaij is Assistant Professor of Purchasing and Supply Management at RSM

Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. His research interests include market

orientation, customer profitability, purchasing and supply management, electronic

procurement, and business-to-business relationships. He has published articles in Industrial

Marketing Management, Journal of Business Research, Journal of Purchasing and Supply

Management, and Marketing Intelligence and Planning. Erik van Raaij is the corresponding

author and can be contacted at: eraaij@rsm.nl.

42
J.W. Stoelhorst is Assistant Professor of Strategy and Organization at Amsterdam Business

School, The Netherlands. His research interests include the application of evolutionary theory

in the social sciences, the dynamics of competitive strategy, and the theory of the firm. He

has published articles in the Journal of Business Research and the International Journal of

Technology Management, as well as a number of book chapters.

Acknowledgements The authors appreciate the helpful comments of William Baker and two

anonymous reviewers on a previous version of the manuscript.

43
 Table 1

Definitions of Market Orientation

Shapiro (1988) A company is market oriented if “information on all important buying influences permeates every corporate function” (p.120),
“strategic and tactical decisions are made interfunctionally and interdivisionally”, (p.121) and “divisions and functions make well-
coordinated decisions and execute them with a sense of commitment.” (p.122)
Kohli and Jaworski (1990) “Market orientation is the organisationwide generation of market intelligence pertaining to current and future customer needs,
dissemination of the intelligence across departments, and organisationwide responsiveness to it.” (p.6)
Narver and Slater (1990) Market orientation is defined as “the business culture that most effectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviors for the
creation of superior value for customers.” (p.20) Market orientation “consists of three behavioral components – customer orientation,
competitor orientation, and interfunctional co-ordination – and two decision criteria – long-term focus and profitability.” (p.21)
Ruekert (1992) The level of market orientation in a business unit is “the degree to which the business unit (1) obtains and uses information from
customers; (2) develops a strategy which will meet customer needs; and (3) implements that strategy by being responsive to customer
needs and wants.” (p.228)
Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster Customer orientation is “the set of beliefs that puts the customer’s interest first, while not excluding those of all other stakeholders
(1993) such as owners, managers, and employees, in order to develop a long-term profitable enterprise.” (p.27)
Day (1994b) “Market orientation represents superior skills in understanding and satisfying customers.” (p.37)

Note: Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster (1993) do not use the term market orientation, but use customer orientation instead. They refer to the same concept however, as they
“see customer and market orientations as being synonymous” (p. 27).

44
 Table 2

A classification of implementation approaches

Author(s) Viewpoint Recommendations Basis of support

Kohli and Market − Instill senior management commitment Recommendations based on 62
Jaworski orientation as − Improve interdepartmental connectedness and reduce interdepartmental conflict interviews with managers; data from
activities − Redesign organisationwide systems (organization structure, reward systems) about 500 managers show
correlations between market
orientation and five implementation
factors
Lichtenthal Market − Diagnose current organizational value system Conceptual paper
and Wilson orientation as − Develop list of desired behaviors
behavioral − Develop top-down programs to change norms and/or create new norms
norms
Ruekert Market − Diagnose current behaviors, systems, individual outcomes, and business performance Data from 400 managers from one
orientation as − Adapt systems for recruitment and selection firm show correlations between
activities − Adapt systems for training market orientation and recruiting,
− Adapt systems for rewards and compensation training and reward systems
Day Market − Diagnose current market sensing, customer linking, and channel bonding capabilities Largely conceptual; case
orientation as a − Anticipate future needs for capabilities descriptions illustrate the process of
capability − Redesign business processes becoming market-driven
− Signal management commitment
− Use information technology creatively
− Stretch improvement targets and monitor progress continuously
Narver and Market − Use a priori education to gain commitment to the continuous creation of superior customer value Conceptual paper
Slater orientation as − Use experiential learning to create an understanding of how to implement this norm
culture
Homburg Market-oriented − Reduce number of hierarchical levels, appoint key account managers, and fill key management Data from 234 SBU’s show
c.s. management as positions with employees having a marketing background correlations between market oriented
organizational − Increase interfunctional integration systems and performance; 50
systems − Empower customer contact employees and involve customers in process redesign interviews with managers confirm
− Collect and disseminate market information, and store it in accessible information systems many of the implementation factors.
− Set market-based objectives, engage in environmental scanning, and involve customer contact
personnel and customers in decision-making
− Measure and analyze performance on the basis of market data

45
 − Recruit people with a customer orientation, use training to disseminate market information, use
customer satisfaction for performance assessment and rewards, and use marketing skills as the
basis for career development
Harris c.s. Market − Recognize and confront negative organizational behaviors (such as conflictual, formalized, and Three in-depth case studies and data
orientation as political behaviors) from 107 store managers offer
culture − Identify and foster positive organizational behaviors (such as communication) support for the behavioral
− Use a participative or a supportive leadership style to implement market orientation, and avoid implementation factors. Data from
an instrumental leadership style 323 firms offer support for the
− Use recruitment and training to establish the appropriate leadership styles choice of leadership style.
Kennedy, Market − Ensure an unbroken circuit of passionate, sincere, unified, and committed leadership from top Two in-depth case studies show
Goolsby and orientation as levels to local managers, “walking the walk” of customer orientation differences between a progressing
Arnould culture − Use customer requirements and performance feedback to instill a culture of interdepartmental and a struggling organization.
connectedness
− Collect, disseminate and use data from external and internal customers so that a customer
orientation becomes self-reinforcing
Gebhardt, Market − Once a threat to the organization is recognized, a group of empowered managers needs to create Ethnographic studies at seven firms
Carpenter orientation as a coalition to plot the change process. reveal a four-stage process of
and Sherry culture − A complete transformation of the organization must be planned, the larger organization must be cultural transformation.
mobilized, and a cultural shift created through a process of value and norm development,
reconnecting organization members with customers, and removal of dissenters and hiring of
believers.
− Formal changes, such as alignment of rewards and indoctrination and training should follow
informal ones.
− Cultural screening of new hires, culture maintenance rituals, and ongoing market connections
should be used to sustain the new orientation of the organization.

46
 Figure 1

Market orientation, antecedents and consequences

Environmental
factors Need to Employee
become outcomes
market
Organizational oriented
strategies Mediating /
Degree of Customer
moderating
market orientation outcomes
variables
Ability to
Organizational
become
barriers & Financial
market
enablers outcomes
oriented

47
 Figure 2

An integrative perspective on market orientation (adapted from Stoelhorst and Van Raaij 2004)

Business process Positional Performance

Learning Resources
efficiencies advantages outcomes

Market Knowledge Value creation Differential Performance

learning about markets processes customer value outcomes

Day (1994a) Sinkula (1994) Day (1994b) Slater (1997) Jaworski & Kohli (1993)
Sinkula (1994) Slater (1997) Jaworski & Kohli (1993) Slater & Narver (2000) Narver & Slater (1990)
Slater (1997) Slater & Narver (2000) Slater (1997) Woodruff (1997) Pelham & Wilson (1996)

Information processing

Day (1994a; 1994b)

Kohli & Jaworski (1990)
Slater (1997)

48
 Figure 3

Enablers for the implementation of a market orientation

Design enablers:

Structure Process design ICT systems Reward system

Market Knowledge Value creation Differential Performance

learning about markets processes customer value outcomes

Information processing

Development enablers:

Leadership Behavioral norms & values Competence management

49