تاثیر زمینه های سوگیری استراتژیک سازمان بر تشخیص محوریت بازار The role of a firm’s strategic orientation dimensions in determining market orientation

abstract Article history: Received 2 December 2010 Received in revised form 30 April 2011 Accepted 12 July 2011 Available online xxxx Keywords: Market orientation Aggressiveness Marketing formalization Future orientation Risk proclivity Little is known about how various strategic orientation dimensions determine market orientation. The authors identify four key dimensions of a firm’s strategic orientation as critical antecedents to market orientation: the firm’s aggressiveness, its future orientation, the extent of marketing formalization, and risk proclivity. Moderating effects of two environmental forces, competitive intensity and technology turbulence, are also considered in light of their relationship with various dimensions of strategic orientation and market orientation. Using a survey with firms spanning multiple industries, the proposed effects are tested with latent class analysis with multiple regimes. The results, based on an optimal two-regime solution, show that that although market orientation is significantly impacted by these strategic orientation dimensions, the pattern of influence differs based on a firm’s membership in one of two regimes. © ۲۰۱۱ Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Market orientation has been, and will no doubt continue to be, central to a firm’s ability to compete and garner superior rewards in business markets as well as consumer markets. Whether cast as a culture focused on understanding and satisfying customer needs (e.g., Slater & Narver, 1994) or as the support mechanism for collecting, disseminating, and responding to market intelligence on customer needs (e.g., Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), the study and understanding of market orientation have been substantial and far reaching. To date, market orientation has been the focus of hundreds of studies, excellent meta-analyses, and review articles (Cano, Carrillat, & Jaramillo, 2004; Kirca, Jayachandran, & Bearden, 2005; Liao, Chang, Wu, & Katrichis, 2010) that highlight findings emerging from the body of works. The extant literature informs extensively on the outcomes of market orientation. Although some controversy exists regarding its influence in certain situations, evidence suggests that market orientation generates benefits in various direct and indirect patterns involving for example, innovativeness, customer loyalty, product quality, and ultimately firm performance (Grinstein, 2008; Jimenez-Jimenez & Ceggarra-Navarro, 2007; Kirca et al., 2005). Interestingly, literature on the antecedents of market orientation, though also informative, is substantially less expansive; for instance, little is known about key drivers of market orientation from the firm’s broader strategic orientation comprised of elements such as risk proclivity, aggressiveness, future orientation, for example (e.g., Morgan & Strong, 2003; Venkatraman, 1989).While market orientation has been itself cast as a strategic orientation (e.g., Zhou, Yim, & Tse, 2005), and has been juxtaposed with other strategic orientation dimensions to understand its performance implications (e.g., Hult & Ketchen, 2001; Noble, Sinha, & Kumar, 2002), little is known about how other various strategic orientation dimensions impact or determine market orientation. Given that desirable outcomes and performance advantages most often derive from market orientation, such gaps in knowledge regarding these key determinants are troubling. To augment understanding and to address compelling questions regarding the role of elements in a firm’s strategic orientation in driving market orientation, we look to the extant literature (e.g., Morgan & Strong, 2003; Venkatraman, 1989) and identify several dimensions of the strategic culture as particularly key. Specifically, we argue that 1) the firm’s aggressiveness, its strategic intent with regard to dominance and winning competitively (e.g., Hamel & Prahalad, 1989; Johnson & Sohi, 2001); 2) future orientation, the firm’s orientation with regard to an emphasis on long-term strategic considerations rather than immediate short-term immediate concerns,3) the extent of formalization with which the firm approaches marketing (c.f., Kirca et al., 2005; Slater, Olson, & Hult, 2006; Slotegraaf & Dickson, 2004); and 4) a firm’s risk proclivity, its tendency to avoid risk taking or engage in greater risk taking (e.g., March & Shapira, 1987; Morgan & Strong, 2003) will Industrial Marketing Management xxx (2011) xxx–xxx ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 402 472 2344; fax: +1 402 472 9777. E-mail addresses: johnsonjl@wsu.edu (J.L. Johnson), kelly.martin@business.colostate.edu (K.D. Martin), asaini2@unl.edu (A. Saini). 1 Tel.: +1 509 335 1877; fax: +1 509 335 3685. 2 Tel.: +1 970 491 7269; fax: +1 970 491 5956. IMM-06666; No of Pages 10 0019-8501/$ – see front matter © ۲۰۱۱ Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.09.011 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Industrial Marketing Management Please cite this article as: Johnson, J.L., et al., The role of a firm’s strategic orientation dimensions in determining market orientation, Industrial Marketing Management (2011), doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2011.09.011 influence market orientation. Additionally, because the literature indicates the importance of a firm’s context in understanding market orientation (e.g. Kirca et al., 2005), we examine the moderating effects of competitive intensity and technology turbulence (e.g., Zhou et al., 2005) on other strategic orientation dimensions’ relationship with market orientation. We organize the remainder of the paper as follows. We continue with theoretical background that provides foundation to conceptualize the four strategic orientation dimensions. We then develop relationships regarding the dimensions’ influence on market orientation, and also consider the moderating role of technology turbulence and competitive intensity. Following hypotheses development, we present our research methodology where we describe a multi-industry study of 186 firms and the data analytic approach. The literature generally suggests that unobserved heterogeneity across firms is problematic in uncovering effects of key strategic variables (e.g., Jacobson, 1990). Essentially, heterogeneity means that firms are unique in all aspects for example, resource endowments, culture, and decision-making processes (e.g., Wernerfelt, 1984), suggesting that researchers should account for heterogeneity to understand the effects of strategic orientation dimensions. Accordingly, we use latent class regression analysis to account for unobserved heterogeneity and to accommodate the existence of multiple latent regimes in the relationships specified (e.g., Hutchinson, Kamakura, & Lynch, 2000; Lee & Johnson, 2010; Wedel & Kamakura, 2000). We discuss findings based on the optimal two-latent regime solution. We conclude with a discussion of implications for theory and practice. 2. Market orientation as determined by other strategic orientations Conceptualized as implementing the marketing concept (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990), market orientation involves knowing and understanding customers and competitors (e.g., Deshpandé, Farley, & Webster, 1993; Narver & Slater, 1990). It fosters behaviors that result in superior value for customers; thus, market orientation essentially provides the underpinnings for planning and executing strategies that aim to deliver customer satisfaction, and accomplish and sustain competitive advantage (e.g., Day, 1999; Martin & Grbac, 2003; Zhao & Cavusgil, 2006). Given its criticality, understanding genesis of market orientation is key (e.g., Gebhardt, Carpenter, & Sherry, 2006). Interestingly, researchers have spent relatively less effort on understanding its determinants. For example, it is not likely a coincidence that a recent meta-analysis focused exclusively on the performance outcomes of market orientation (Cano et al., 2004). In terms of the number of overall effects, another meta-analysis found only 63 for the antecedents while 355 were reported for the consequences of market orientation (Kirca et al., 2005). Further, a preponderance of the literature on market orientation antecedents focuses on organizational structure, design, or process issues (e.g., Kirca et al., 2005), leaving substantial gaps in our understanding of other important factors that give rise, or even suppress market orientation in the firm.