03090569810216145 Marketing and Competitive Performance

8/20/2019 03090569810216145 Marketing and Competitive Performance

1/26

European Journal of MarketingMarketing and competitive performance: an empirical study

Peter Doyle Veronica Wong

Ar tic le information:To cite this document:Peter Doyle Veronica Wong, (1998),"Marketing and competitive performance: an empirical study", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 Iss 5/6 pp. 514 - 535Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569810216145

Downloaded on: 01 October 2014, At: 07:57 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.

To copy this document: [email protected]

The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2989 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded th is article also downloaded:

Paul James Harrison, Robin N. Shaw, (2004),"Intra#organisational marketing culture and market orientation: a case study of

the implementation of the marketing concept in a public library", Library Management, Vol. 25 Iss 8/9 pp. 391-398

Jimmy Chan Hung Ngai, Paul Ellis, (1998),"Market orientation and business performance: some evidence from Hong Kong",International Marketing Review, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 119-139

Charles Blankson, Jaideep G. Motwani, Nancy M. Levenburg, (2006),"Understanding the patterns of market orientationamong small businesses", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 Iss 6 pp. 572-590

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 600462 []

For Authors

If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors serviceinformation about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please

visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of onlineproducts and additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on PublicationEthics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569810216145


2/26

European Journal of Marketing32,5/6

514

Marketing and competitiveperformance: an empirical

studyPeter Doyle and Veronica WongUniversity of Warwick, Coventr y, UK

Introduction

In recent years there has been a renewed emphasis on internationalcompetitiveness through the delivery of superior value to customers. This isevidenced in the concerned reports from national government agencies (e.g.HMSO, 1994) and the output of academic research (e.g. Day, 1990; Hunt andMorgan 1995; Porter, 1990). The contribution of marketing to enhancingcompetitiveness, however, has been largely neglected by those outside theprofession and controversial among those within it.

Economic studies of national growth performance and governmentsponsored reports on the competitiveness of business have invariablydisregarded the contribution of professional marketing. Unfortunately,marketing academics themselves have not, until recently at least, prioritiseddemonstrating empirical support to the presumed link between market-

orientation and business performance (see Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). So far theevidence (Baker et al., 1994; Greenley, 1995; Hart and Diamantopoulis, 1994;Hooley and Lynch, 1994; Narver and Slater, 1993), surveyed by Wensley (1994),has been found contradictory and unconvincing. This vulnerability has beenexacerbated by direct challenges to the contribution of marketing. A survey bymanagement consultants McKinsey found that marketing departments are“often a millstone around an organisation’s neck” (Brady and Davis, 1993). Astudy by Coopers and Lybrand concluded that the marketing department is“critically ill” (The Economist , 1994). Such critics have argued that marketingimpedes companies’ re-engineering around core value-adding processes soincreasing costs and reducing effectiveness. In particular, they argue thatmarketing gears companies towards the proliferation of low value line

extensions rather than genuine world-class competitiveness. The purpose of this research is to explore how marketing contributes within

a broader model of the determinants of international competitiveness.Marketing does not work in isolation from the firm’s other capabilities andprocesses. Effective marketing may be desirable but it appears to be neither anecessary nor a sufficient condition for successful growth and profitability. Arepresentative sample of 132 UK and overseas strategic business units from 52large companies was selected. A multi-informant design was used to explore:

• the association between market orientation and business performance;

Received November 1996Revised April 1997

June 1997

European Journal of Marketing,Vol. 32 No. 5/6, 1998, pp. 514-535,©MCB University Press, 0309-0566


3/26

Marketing andcompetitive

performance

515

• how marketing interfaces with other business processes andcompetences; and

• the role of environmental characteristics in moderating the relationshipbetween market orientation and business performance.

Besides testing theory, the research findings may be useful to managers infirms seeking to change their cultures towards a market-orientation. It suggestswhich processes and capabilities are most associated with high performance.

The research instrument can also be used by managers to audit their strengthsand weaknesses by comparing their company’s profile with those of other highperforming organisations. Finally, the instrument can be used to follow-up a

change programme to measure the progress in enhancing core capabilities,processes and organisational commitment.First, a review of the literature on the determinants of business performance

will be provided, and hypotheses on the relationship between marketing andbusiness performance will be discussed. Next, the data collection andinstrument development stage is described followed by a discussion of theresearch results. The paper concludes with a discussion of the managerialrelevance of the findings and future research directions.

Background and hypotheses The popular discussions of marketing have been bedevilled by a confusionbetween marketing as a functional activity and marketing as an organisation-wide approach. In the 1950s when marketing began to be discussed inmanagement literature (Borch, 1957; McKitterick, 1957), it was the former thatbecame predominant. A market-oriented business often became synonymouswith the power, size and extent of the activities undertaken by the marketingdepartment (see King, 1985). Since marketing departments normally lookedafter advertising, promotion, packaging etc., these activities came to be seen aswhat marketing was about.

Despite marketing academics long recognising that marketing was primarilya philosophy of the entire business (e.g. see Drucker, 1974, p. 61), the formerview is still a cause of misdirected controversy. It is at the heart of the McKinseyattack on marketing (Brady and Davis, 1993) which was founded on thesurprising view that advertising is “the very basis of contemporary marketing”.It is also the foundation of the criticism in the famous Hayes and Abernathy

(1980) study of the USA’s declining competitiveness:

Investors, scientists and engineers … gave the world in recent times the laser, xerography,instant photography and the transistor. In contrast, worshipers of the marketing concept havebestowed upon mankind such products as new-fangled potato chips, feminine hygienedeodorant, and the pet rock …

In recent years much more emphasis has been on marketing as a total businessconcept. This is defined as recognising that “the key to achieving organisationalgoals consists in determining the needs and wants of the target customers anddelivering the desired satisfactions more effectively and efficiently than


4/26


516

competitors” (Kotler, 1994, p. 18; see also Deshpandeet al., 1993; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1993). This view of marketing as anorganisational philosophy is much more appealing today than the functionalview. For research purposes it raises two difficulties. One is operationalisingthis concept – how does one measure whether an organisation is market-oriented? Second, how does one disentangle marketing from the array of othercapabilities and processes needed to deliver products and services to satisfy thecustomer. Marketing encourages the organisation to “recognise” the priority of satisfying customers’ needs, but the ability to satisfy them depends on thecapabilities embedded throughout the firm’s supply-chain and operationalprocesses. It is easy to picture companies which may be extremely customer-

oriented but lack the operational skills, resources or capacity to meet customerneeds. The results will be frustrated customers and conflicts betweenmarketing and operational departments within the firm. Similarly, companiescan be seen which are clearly not customer-oriented but, because of favourableindustry structure (Porter, 1980), or inherited monopoly advantages (Kay, 1993),achieve high levels of sales and profit performance.

Figure 1 summarises the discussion below. Based on the literaturesubsequently reviewed, it is hypothesised that high performance companieshave a defined mission which includes specification of their target markets andbroad goals. Success in these markets depends on achieving a sustainablecompetitive advantage which in turn is founded on customer satisfaction.Customer satisfaction itself is built on a market-led strategy, effective systems

and processes and committed, capable and empowered staff. Finally all thesebuilding blocks are influenced and moulded over time by the rapidly changingand increasingly competitive international environment in which businessesoperate. Among these forces shaping companies are the learning organisation,networks and alliances and the re-engineering of business processes.

Business performance

Figure 1 indicates that in assessing business performance a distinction needs tobe made between today’s performance outcomes and strategies which drivefuture performance. The latter include policies to enhance customersatisfaction, to improve systems and processes and to build employeemotivation and commitment. These are means to achieve the ends. The endsthat managers seek are financial returns and growth performance. Both theacademic literature and the perspectives of managers normally view a businessas successful if it achieves sound financial performance and enhances itsposition in the market place. Each of these can be measured in a variety of ways.Academics favour shareholder value analysis (e.g. Rappaport, 1986) as the mostappropriate measure of financial performance, but managers still findaccounting measures of profits and return on capital employed moremeasurable and immediate (e.g. Doyle, 1994, pp. 2-9). Market performance ismeasured by sales growth or market share. The rationale for the centrality of financial performance is straightforward, unless shareholders see an adequate


5/26


performance

517

return then the business will not be viable in its present form. The case for salesgrowth and increased market share is more tenuous. Growth may increaseprofitability, but its attraction for shareholders is probably less than it is formanagers and employees. Prestige and perks are correlated to the size of thebusiness (Handy, 1985). Also growth normally offers more security of employment and prospects for advancement (Pascale and Athos, 1981).

Two related concerns have characterised discussions about theseperformance measures (e.g. Doyle and Hooley, 1992). One is the potential forconflict. It is, for example, quite easy to “buy” improved financial performanceat the expense of market share. Raising prices, cutting brand support andreducing capital employed will normally boost return on investment, but such a“turn-around” will normally lead to a creeping erosion of market position.Managers are acutely aware of the distinction between long term and shortterm performance (e.g. Kaplan and Norton, 1992). High short-term performancecan be paid for through missing long-term market opportunities. Therefore ourfirst hypothesis is:

Figure 1.Marketing and

industrialcompetitiveness

BusinessPerformance

Mission

CustomerSatisfaction

MarketingPlanning

Sustainable

CompetitiveAdvantage

Systems &Processes

PeopleMarket-ledStrategy

MISSION

RESULTS

GOALS &TOOLS

ORGANISATIONALINFRASTRUCURE

Changing Environment ..........................................................Re-engineeringNetworks & AlliancesBrand BuildingLearning Organisations

.......................................................... .......................................................... .......................................................... ..........................................................

CHANGINGCONTEXT


6/26


518

H1 :Successful companies will seek to balance financial and marketperformance.

Financial and sales results will be positively correlated.

Goals and tools

One problem with using sales and financial results to measure currentperformance is that they are a consequence of activities which took place in thepast. Future performance depends on today’s efforts to sustain and createcompetitive advantage (Day, 1990; Reichheld, 1996). Unless customers perceivethe firm’s offer as being superior in value to competitors they will not buy, or

buy at a satisfactory price. Therefore:

H2 :Successful businesses will have a sustainable differential advantage interms of product, service or overall company reputation.

Sustaining a differential advantage requires a balance of customer andcompetitive perspectives. Central to the marketing profession is the believe thata market orientation will increase the chances of higher business performance.Surprisingly, it is only relatively recently that an operational definition of amarket orientation has received broad agreement. This definition, as describedby Zaltman et a l. (1982) and Kohli and Jaworski (1990), views a marketorientation as composed of three sets of activities:

(1) organisation-wide generation of market intelligence about current andfuture customer needs;

(2) dissemination of the intelligence across departments; and

(3) organisation-wide responsiveness to it.

The main form of hypothesis tested here is:

H3 :Successful businesses have a clear market orientation as indicated bytheir generation and dissemination of market intelligence and theirorganisational responsiveness to it.

A market orientation is a broad, organisation-wide concept. By contrast,marketing planning is a more specific process associated with the management

of a given market or product. Whether this form of planning system contributesto strategic decision making and improve profitability is still controversial (e.g.Armstrong, 1982; Papadakis, 1995). But professional marketing stresses asystematic approach to market segmentation, competitive analysis andpositioning. So the use of strategic marketing planning processes should beexpected to lead to higher performance. That is:

H4 :The greater the use of strategic marketing planning, the more successfulthe business will be.


7/26


performance

519

Organisational inf rastr ucture

Organisational infrastructure refers to the firm’s capability to respond tomarket requirements. An articulated strategy of listening to the customer andusing customer feedback at all stages has been noted as a characteristic of topcompanies by many observers (e.g. Albrecht and Zenke, 1985). Companies thatinvolve all employees in gathering information from customers should be in astronger position to achieve progress in quality (Hauser and Clausing, 1988) andinnovation (Drucker, 1985). That is:

H5 :Successful companies will exhibit a stronger focus on listening tocustomers and a market-led strategy.

A market-led orientation and a customer focus create the right goals butwithout an effective supply chain, the company will be unable to meet the needsof customers for superior value. The firm, or its supply chain partners, need toinvest in world-class manufacturing, distribution and IT systems (e.g. Garvin,1995; Womack and Jones, 1994). Systems should be in place to stimulate andmonitor performance in quality and innovation outputs (Drucker, 1985; Hameland Prahalad, 1994). This means:

H6 :Successful companies are likely to be characterised by strong supplychain systems and processes.

Much has been made in the literature about the importance of staff. Severaldimensions have been emphasised. These include:

• the capabilities of the workforce resulting from careful selection andtraining (Porter, 1990);

• their motivation and commitment (Handy, 1990);

• their empowerment to act quickly and decisively to meet customerrequirements; and

• the ability of top management to communicate an inspiring vision(Pascale, 1990).

These suggest:

H7 :Successful businesses will be characterised by staff with high levels of capability, motivation, empowerment and strategic intent.

Customers do not buy products, they buy brands. Brands differentiate thecompany’s offer and present and sustain the added values successful companiesbuild. This is as true for business-to-business marketing (e.g. Prozac inpharmaceuticals, Hewlett-Packard laser jet in printers and Novex in polyethylene)as it is for consumer marketing (e.g. Coke and Levis). Companies are increasinglyconcerned with planning and building brands (e.g. Kapferer, 1992). Therefore:

H8 :Successful companies will exhibit clearer and more effective brandingpolicies.


8/26


520

International competition has brought dramatically increased pressures to cutcosts, to respond faster to customer requirements, and to enhance the efficiencyand effectiveness of business processes. Many leading companies have lookedto business re-engineering to redesign fundamentally their processes aroundadding value (e.g. Hammer and Champy, 1993). This suggests:

H9 :Successful companies will have considered re-engineering key businessprocesses to improve fundamentally their efficiency and effectiveness.

In recent years there has been a major change in both business and marketingtheories towards putting networks at the centre of competitive strategy. Thishas been described as “a fundamental reshaping of the field” (Webster, 1992), a

general paradigm shift (Kotler, 1994; Parvatiyar et al., 1992). It views globalcompetition as increasingly about competing networks of firms rather thanindividual businesses. Companies succeed, if they have the best network(Kotler, 1994, p. 46). Therefore:

H10 :Successful companies will have constructed an effective network of relationships with suppliers, buyers and internal partners.

The management of change is a central concern of executives in all successfulorganisations (Hamal and Prahalad, 1994). Changes in the businessenvironment continually erode the effectiveness of a firm’s strategy andorganisation. Therefore successful companies would be expected to be seekingto evaluate thoroughly the changes taking place in their industries, focusing oninnovation and encouraging staff to challenge current strategy and procedures

(Pascale, 1990). Therefore:

H11 :Managers in successful companies will place more emphasis onunderstanding and responding to changes in the marketing environment.

Today, in most industries, competitors are so quick to copy that new products,services and distribution innovations provide at most a temporary advantage.Slater and Narver (1994) argue that the critical challenge for any business isnow to create the combination of culture and climate that maximisesorganisational learning on how to create superior customer value. This abilityto learn faster than competitors may be the only source of sustainablecompetitive advantage (Dickson, 1992). The hypothesis tested is then:

H12 :Managers in successful companies place greater importance on

learning about customers and are proactive in searching for newopportunities in the market.

Finally, Porter (1980), Kay (1993) and other economists have stressed theimportance of industry characteristics as a determinant of performance.Barriers to entry, power of buyers and suppliers, the number of competitors andthe potential of substitutes affect the average returns available in an industry.Marketers have also speculated that the environment is an intervening variablein determining the importance of marketing. For example, Jaworski and Kohli(1993) hypothesised that the relationship between market orientation and


9/26


performance

521

business performance would be stronger where markets are more turbulent andcompetition is more intense. These lead to two hypotheses:

H13 :There will be an association between business performance andindustry characteristics.

H14 :Industry characteristics will affect the relationship between a marketorientation and business performance.

Data collectionSample

To obtain a representative set of UK companies, the sample was drawn from

The T imes Top 1,000 Firms in the UK. A total of 250 companies were chosenfrom among the top 1,000 by selecting every fourth listing. The initial contactwas with the CEO of each company requesting the company’s participation inthe study. A total of 19 companies could not be reached because of incorrectaddresses resulting in an effective base of 231 companies. The CEOs wererequested to provide the names of the heads of up to three of the company’sSBUs. Preferably, at least one of these should be an overseas subsidiary, the rest,domestic. A total of 68 CEOs agreed their company would participate and atotal of 174 SBU names were obtained.

The 174 SBU heads were then contacted to elicit their support. A multi-informant design was employed and each head was asked for the names of asenior marketing/sales manager, a senior accountant/financial manager and a

senior manufacturing/operations manager within the business unit. A total of 148 SBUs agreed to complete the questionnaires implying a total of 444respondents. The final response rate was 344 completed questionnaires from132 SBUs. For the purpose of analysis, the responses of the informants fromeach SBU were averaged to obtain an overall respondent score for eachbusiness unit. There were two motivations for this averaging. First, asdiscussed below, there were no statistically significant differences in the patternof responses between different functional managers. Second, managementperceptions are known to be subject to error and a number of researchers havefound that averaging across functions improves the accuracy of the data(Dawes, 1977; Starbuck and Mezias, 1996).

Questionnai re development

Because most of the dimensions had not been explicitly tested in the availableliterature, it was necessary to develop new scales for the constructs studied.

The following procedure suggested by Churchill (1979) was adopted.First, a large pool of items for each construct was generated with the aim of

capturing the concepts behind each dimension. These items were generatedfrom a review of the literature on marketing and strategy over the last 20 years.

This search sought to cover not only the academic literature, but alsopractitioner journals read by, and written for, managers. The aim was to reflectin the questionnaire the concepts and language employed by executives. From


10/26


522

this pool, a set was selected to cover the domain of the construct as closely aspossible. Each item was then scored on a five-point scale, ranging from 1=“strongly disagree” to 5= “strongly agree”.

Next, 35 managers representing a range of management functions pretestedthe questionnaire. They were asked to indicate any ambiguities or difficultieswith the instrument and to provide suggestions for improvement. Based onthis feedback the questionnaires were modified, some of the items weredropped, others were changed and some items were added. The revisedinstrument was then tested on six marketing academics and again theirfeedback and suggestions were used for further fine-tuning. Finally, another 20managers tested the revised questionnaire. At this stage there appeared to be nosignificant ambiguities or problems with it. The final instrument consisted of one main dependent construct – business unit performance – and tenindependent variables or constructs. Each construct consisted of between threeand 16 items.

After the survey had been completed the scales were further examined. Thereliability of each scale was estimated by computing its coefficient alpha(Nunnally, 1978). The results are shown in Table I. As can be seen the Cronbachcoefficients indicate that the scales have generally good to high reliability. Thismeant that it was unnecessary to eliminate any items to enhance the internalconsistency of the scales. The table also summarises the main results. Thecoefficient R shows the correlation of each construct with business unit

performance. Also the mean scores of high performing and low performingbusiness units are shown along with the statistical significance of thedifferences between these means.

Performance groupConstruct Alpha R Low High

Strong differential advantage*** 0.74 0.51 2.9 3.5Clear market orientation*** 0.79 0.36 2.8 3.2Strategic market planning** 0.69 0.29 2.8 3.2Clear marketing strategy** 0.75 0.33 3.0 3.3Good systems and processes** 0.73 0.31 2.8 3.2Staff capabilities and commitment** 0.85 0.39 3.0 3.4

Strong brand policies** 0.78 0.35 2.9 3.3Use of business process re-engineering** 0.66 0.28 2.8 3.3Networking and strategic alliances 0.68 0.20 3.0 3.2Adapt to changing environment* 0.71 0.30 2.9 3.3Learning organisations 0.64 0.21 3.1 3.2Character of industry 0.60 0.19 3.1 3.3

Notes:*** p < 0.001** p < 0.01* p < 0.05

Table I.Performance andconstructs


11/26


performance

523

Analysis and resultsPerformance

H1 postulated that successful companies would seek balanced financial andmarketing performance. For example they would not over-emphasise short-term financial performance at the expense of long-term market growth.

Performance was measured by four items: return on capital employed,market share, sales growth and the managers’ assessment of overallperformance. Managers were asked to judge performance against companiesregarded as “excellent” in their sector or industry. So for example, if managersscore their company as 5 on the return on capital employed scale, they would be

judging their company as having an outstanding level of profitability for their

sector. The correlation matrix (Table II) showed that all items were positivelycorrelated: the highest correlation was between sales growth and overallperformance (r = 0.64) and the lowest between return on capital and salesgrowth (r = 0.35). The Cronbach alpha was 0.80 suggesting excellent reliabilityof the construct. To group companies according to performance, Ward’s (1963)hierarchical clustering technique was employed using an error sum of squarescriteria.

Two clusters provided an efficient solution. The first cluster with 60observations consisted of low performers. The second cluster was highperformers with 72 observations. As Table III indicates there were highlysignificant differences in return on capital, market shares, growth and overallperformance between these two groups. The high performers scored

Return on capital Return Share Growth

Market share 0.36

Sales growth 0.35 0.51Overall performance 0.63 0.57 0.64

Notes:Alpha 0.801. All coefficientsp < 0.001

Table II.Correlations among

performance variables

Performance measuresReturn on Market Sales Overall

Cluster No. capital* share* growth* performance*

Low performers 60 2.15 2.50 2.55 2.18High performers 72 3.75 3.89 4.01 4.03

Notes:Alpha 0.782. * p < 0.001

Table III.Characteristics of lowand high performers


12/26


524

consistently better with performance ranging from an average of 55 per centsuperiority in market share, to 74 per cent in return on capital. These resultsshow strong support forH1 . High performers achieved balanced performancein both financial and sales results.

Differential advantage

Not surprisingly, the independent variables were frequently correlated. All weremeasuring various attributes of competitiveness. Rather than show complexfactor and multiple discriminant analyses which only partially dealt with thismulticollinearity and added greatly to the difficulty of interpreting the results,a simpler approach is adopted. The results show the mean differences between

the two performance clusters and simple analysis of variance tests thesignificance of these differences.

Table IV shows that higher performers had considerably greater ratings forpossessing a strong differential advantage. Interestingly, the most significantdifferences between high and low performers were not on individual productsand service differences, but on the overall reputation of the business. As Hameland Prahalad (1994) stressed, product and service innovation carry onlytemporary advantage. The skill is to have the company recognised as the long-term partner to do business with. There is a high correlation (r = 0.512) betweenpossessing a differential advantage and performance and all the items arestatistically significant. The results strongly support H2 that successfulbusinesses have a differential advantage in terms of products, services and

overall company reputation.

Market orientation

Market orientation is measured by nine items corresponding to Kohliand Jaworski’s (1990) categorisation of generating market intelligence,disseminating it across departments, and organisation-wide responsiveness toit. As Table V shows the association between performance and market

Performance groupVariables Low High

Business unit has strong DA*** 3.0 3.5DA lies in firm’s products** 2.7 3.2DA lies in firm’s service* 2.8 3.2DA lies in firm’s general reputation*** 3.2 4.0

Total score*** 2.9 3.5

Notes:Alpha 0.741; r = 0.512

*** p < 0.001** p < 0.01* p < 0.05

Table IV.Differential advantage


13/26


performance

525

orientation was again highly significant. High performers did score higher onall three sets of items concerning generation, dissemination and responsiveness,although some of these items were not significant. In particular, it is striking tonote that few companies benchmarked customer satisfaction and used it toprovide incentives for management. There is no significant difference in the

collection and use of customer satisfaction measures between high and lowperformers. Given the importance marketing experts (e.g. Goldzimer, 1989)attach to carefully monitoring the customer satisfaction ratings, these resultsare disappointing, if today still not surprising.

Strategic marketing planning (Table VI) was also employed more widelyin high performing companies. The two most significant items were instaff training, where low performers did little formal training in marketingplanning, and in fast responsiveness to competitor actions, where high


Do a lot of market research 2.6 3.1Driven by market segmentation** 2.6 3.2Disseminate customer satisfaction data 2.7 2.8Customer satisfaction influences pay 2.2 2.5Cross-functional teams* 3.0 3.4Marketing staff work well with others** 2.7 3.2We respond quickly 3.5 3.9Customer focus permeates all areas* 3.0 3.4Marketing focuses on real not trivial innovation** 3.0 3.4

Total score*** 2.8 3.2

Notes:Alpha 0.793; r = 0.361

*** p < 0.001** p < 0.01* p < 0.05

Table V.Performance and

market orientation


Clear segmentation and positioning 3.1 3.4Applies competitor analysis 2.8 3.2Staff trained in planning* 2.7 3.1Fast response to competitor actions* 2.6 3.0

Total score** 2.8 3.2

Notes:Alpha 0.692; r = 0.29** p < 0.01* p < 0.05

Table VI. The use of strategicmarketing planning


14/26


526

performers were again superior. For both market orientation and strategicmarketing planning, the relevant hypotheses,H3 andH4 , appear to have strongsupport.

Organisational inf rastructure

The company’s organisational infrastructure provides the means for addingsuperior value to customers. The strategy concept (Figure 1) develops the market-orientation dimension further: how effectively are management tuned-in tocustomers’ needs? In high-performing companies there are more likely to be directmeetings between customers and the manufacturing and design teams, a strongerquality focus and an emphasis on building long-term partnerships (Table VII).

There is no statistical difference in the amount of meetings with customers, but inlow-performing companies, these meetings seem to be controlled within themarketing department rather than spread across the business.

High performers invested significantly more in technology and highproductivity equipment. They provided staff with the tools to achieve highquality and efficiency. Much has been written in recent years about theimportance of supply chain management in creating competitive advantage(e.g. Porter, 1985). Interestingly, both sets of companies regard their


Strategy

Meet customers regularly 3.2 3.3Manufacture and design meet customers* 2.7 3.1Everyone focused on customers 3.1 3.2

Total quality focus* 2.9 3.3Life-time relationships* 3.1 3.5Systems

Invest in technology and productivity* 2.8 3.3Staff have tools for top quality* 2.8 3.3Integrated supply-chain system 2.9 2.9Staff

Invest in recruitment and training* 3.1 3.5 Top management has inspirational vision* 3.0 3.4Encourage risk-taking* 2.9 3.4

Performance recognised and rewarded** 2.7 3.2Decisive management 3.2 3.5No bureaucracy, wide empowerment 3.0 3.3Employees expect long-term employment 3.3 3.4Pervasive team spirit 3.1 3.4


Notes:Alpha 0.878; r = 0.42** p < 0.01* p < 0.05

Table VII.Organisationalinfrastructure:strategy, systems,staff


15/26


performance

527

performance at supply chain management as weak, and there is no difference inthe means between them.

Policies and attitudes towards staff are also marked in the expected direction(Table VII). Higher performing companies appear to invest more in recruitmentand training, have top management which provides an inspirational vision andencourages risk taking. It is interesting to note that in high performers staff donot expect lifetime employment with the company. This reflects the newrealism: in today’s highly competitive, rapidly changing markets no companiescan guarantee employment. Hence the importance of other motivators such astraining, recognition and inspirational leadership.

The changing context

The importance of branding is increasingly recognised in both customer andbusiness-to-business marketing. Table VIII indicates that the core brand valuesof a company are much better understood and communicated in highperforming units. Even high performers, however, believe that improvementscould be made in how these values are communicated in the presentation of theirproducts and services. There are also significant differences in views betweenheadquarters and local subsidiaries on how the brands should be communicated.

Re-engineering is another concept which has been at the forefront of management. As hypothesized (H9 ) this appears to have made more progress inhigh-performing companies. The latter feel more assured that they are fast,responsive and low cost units (Table VIII).

Looking at internal networking, both high and low performers exhibited highlevels of inter-departmental conflict and poor communication between


Branding a

Core brand values understood*** 3.0 3.7Brand values coherently expressed 2.9 3.2HQ and SBU agree on brand presentation 2.8 3.1

Total score** 2.9 3.3Re-engineer ing b

Used organisational re-engineering* 2.9 3.3Organisation is “lean and mean”* 2.9 3.4Fast, responsive and low-cost unit** 2.5 3.1


Notes:aAlpha 0.778; r = 0.35bAlpha 0.660; r = 0.28*** p < 0.001** p < 0.01* p < 0.05

Table VIII.Performance,branding and

re-engineering


16/26


528

marketing and other departments (Table IX). In terms of external strategicalliances there was little difference between the groups. None of the differences innetworking were statistically significant, suggesting that there is no statisticalsupport for H10 , that high performing companies have constructed moreeffective networks of relationships with suppliers, buyers and internal partners.

Successful companies tended to rate more highly on environmentalawareness. They were more conscious of the need to evaluate changes intechnology and the structure of their industries and to encourage staff tochallenge past strategies and procedures. Statistically the only significant itemwas in performance at innovation. High performers rated better at new productdevelopment and innovation in service and distribution channel development(Table IX).

H12 postulated that successful companies would place greater emphasison learning about customers and their problems. Staff were expected to be moreproactive in searching for new market opportunities and more comprehensivetraining programmes were expected to be in place. However, the results showedthat there were no statistical differences between high and low performers inattitudes towards learning.

Table X examines the association between industry characteristics andperformance. The most significant variable was market growth. Businesses in


Networks a

Between marketing and other departments 2.6 2.9Interdepartmental conflict 2.7 2.9Easy and open communication 3.8 4.0External strategic alliances 3.2 3.3Alliances for innovation and new products 3.0 3.2

Total score 3.0 3.2Learning b

Learning about customers 3.4 3.4Proactive search for new opportunities 3.0 3.3

Training in innovation and customer service 2.5 2.6 Total score

Changing envir onment c

Evaluate technological and industry dangers 3.2 3.5Performs well at innovation* 2.7 3.2Staff encouraged to challenge strategy 2.8 3.1

Total score 2.9 3.3

Notes:aAlpha 0.677; r = 0.20b Alpha 0.64; r = 0.10c Alpha 0.706; r = 0.30* p < 0.05

Table IX.Networking and thechanging environment


17/26


performance

529

high growth markets on average grew faster and achieved a higher return oncapital than those in mature markets. In other areas however, there were nostatistically significant differences. High and low performers were similar infacing rapidly changing customer requirements, high price sensitivity andfierce competition.

The final column of Table X shows the correlation between the marketorientation score and market characteristics. These show that companies inmarkets characterised by extremely fierce competition, high rates of technological change and new customers entering the market with differentneeds from current accounts, are more likely to be market oriented. Thesefindings supportedH14 and also are consistent with the findings of Narver andSlater (1993), Houston (1986) and Bennett and Cooper (1981) and not with thoseof Jaworski and Kohli (1993).

By contrast a market orientation appears to be less prevalent in high growthmarkets (r = 0.09,p > 0.05). In these favourable situations, demand is so strongthat the need to adapt to customer needs may be less necessary than whenmarkets mature and become more competitive. Overall while a marketorientation is strongly associated with market share (r = 0.27,p < 0.01), salesgrowth (r = 0.39, p < 0.001) and overall performance (r = 0.38, p < 0.001), itis weakly and not significantly associated with return on capital employed(r = 0.14, p > 0.05). The factors which a high market orientation are mostassociated with are proactively searching for new opportunities in the market

(r = 0.61,p < 0.001) and good communications between marketing and non-marketing departments (r = 0.60,p < 0.001).

A high market orientation is also correlated with strong branding policies(r = 0.59, p < 0.001) and the business possessing a recognised differentialadvantage in the market (r = 0.51,p < 0.001). As others have found, a marketorientation is encouraged by top managers inspiring staff with a vision of commitment to customers and world-class performance (r = 0.57,p < 0.001).Finally, a market orientation is associated with creating a strong team-spirit inall ranks of the business (r = 0.57,p < 0.001). This is a finding also made in

Performance groupVariables Low High Market orientation

Rapid growth markets* 2.1 2.6 0.09Sharp changes in customer requirements 3.5 3.6 0.16Highly priced sensitive customers 3.5 3.4 –0.07Extremely fierce competition** 3.9 4.0 0.24**High rate of industry technology change* 3.0 3.3 0.19*New customer’ with different needs* 2.7 3.0 0.19*

Notes:Alpha 0.60** p < 0.01* p < 0.05

Table X.Performance and

market characteristics


18/26


530

Jaworski and Kohli’s (1993) study in which they suggest that the ability of amarket orientation to provide meaning and commitment to staff could be itsmost important contribution.

Discussion and conclusionsVariation within samples

The respondents were drawn from SBUs in the UK, USA, Africa, the FarEast and Australia. They were also from different industrial sectors. Halfthe respondents were marketing/sales staff, half were from non-marketingfunctions. To explore for systematic differences, separate analyseswere performed for the major groups. Overall the differences were verymodest. UK businesses performed on average less well than those fromoverseas in profitability, market share, growth and overall results. Comparingbusinesses in the product sector from services there were no importantstatistical differences in performance or independent variables. Functionally,marketing managers tended to rate their businesses more positivelyon marketing strategy and planning than non-marketing managers butthese differences were not significant. Overall there were no statisticallysignificant differences in the responses between marketing and non-marketingrespondents. These findings are consistent with the results from previousmulti-informant studies (e.g. Silk and Kalwani, 1982). Averaging respondentsacross business units therefore offered the opportunity to increase thepotential accuracy of the responses (see Dawes, 1967; Starbuck and Mezias,

1996) without losing important information. These findings are consistentwith the results from previous multi-informant studies (e.g. Silk and Kalwani,1982).

Dr ivers of performance

The best performing companies scored significantly higher on both financialand marketing measures of success. Overall high performers scored nearlytwice as highly on the success criteria (p < 0.001). This finding suggeststhat these companies were pursuing robust strategies. For example, thereis no evidence that they were trading-off future market performance forshort-term financial results, as western companies are so often accused (e.g.Doyleet al., 1992). The 72 high performers were as strikingly superior in terms

of market share and sales growth as they were in terms of higher returns oncapital.

The most important driver of this performance was possessing a differentialadvantage (r = 0.51,p < 0.001). Companies did well when customers wanted todo business with them. High performers were preferred suppliers and this led tomuch higher sales growth (r = 0.47,p < 0.001) and a superior return on capital(r = 0.26, p < 0.001). The low performers rated themselves poorly – theyrecognised that they lacked unique product offerings, service advantages or asuperior general reputation in the market place.


19/26


performance

531

A market orientation is the route to building customer preference. Notsurprisingly, a market orientation was the second most important driver of performance (r = 0.36,p < 0.001). In high performing companies marketing wasseen as a total business philosophy rather than an activity undertaken by themarketing department. In contrast to the low performers, the marketing staff worked effectively with other functional areas within the business, aiming atproducing real value-adding results rather than trivial differences in packagingor advertising.

High performers were also more likely to employ strategic marketingplanning and to train staff in marketing. Branding values were also betterunderstood in the high performing companies (r = 0.35, p < 0.01). Higher

performers, whether they were in industrial or consumer markets, appeared toappreciate that clearly expressed brand values were effective means of differentiating themselves and adding value.

The importance of well-trained and committed staff is well recognised. High-performing companies invested significantly more in training and the carefulrecruitment of staff. In the better companies, risk taking was encouraged andhigh performance among staff more clearly recognised. Employees in thesecompanies also felt that top management communicated an inspirational visionof where the business was heading.

However, several variables that were expected to be associated withperformance turned out not to be. Few companies, whether high or lowperformers, appeared to collect and measure information on customer

satisfaction systematically. Few benchmarked themselves against competitorsor used customer satisfaction measures as criteria in staff bonuses or evaluationprocedures. This suggests that even in high-performing companies, high-quality marketing still has some way to go. Also few companies felt that theyhad made enough progress in supply chain management or in the creation of strong networks, alliances and partnerships.

Marketing and competi ti veness

Clearly there is a strong correlation between marketing and businessperformance. Companies with a strong market orientation are more likely to behigh performers. Marketing strategy and marketing planning are also highlycorrelated with performance. The strongest marketing predictors are a focus oncreating sustainable competitive advantage, good cross-departmentalrelationships, and an emphasis on the real value-added innovation rather thantrivial differentiation.

But the results confirm that marketing alone cannot guarantee success. Thefindings show that unless a company invests in good systems and thetechnology to deliver high productivity, outstanding performance is difficultto achieve. Nor is it true that market-oriented companies always invest ingood systems – in our sample the correlation is only 0.19 (p > 0.01). Inthese cases a strong market orientation may be important to produce goodresults.


20/26


532

Another caveat is that high performance can be contingent on industryconditions. Our results show that it is harder to achieve high performance inmature markets. High growth markets make it easier for managers to achievegrowth and profitability. No doubt this is why companies in fiercely competitivemarkets, with high rates of technological change, feel a need to look tomarketing to give them an edge.

Manager ial implications

For management this study suggests that the long-term performance of thebusiness depends most crucially on its ability to create a differential advantage.

A market orientation is strongly associated with the ability to create such anadvantage. Market-led companies are able to collect information aboutcustomer needs, disseminate it through the business and generate an effectiveresponse. But marketing is not a quick panacea for success or sufficient of itself.

The business also needs to invest in the technology and operations systemsneeded to perform effectively. It also needs to focus on investing in the skills of staff and engaging their commitment. Managers must also recognise thatperformance depends on the characteristics of the industry. Some industries aretougher.

Managers can use the instrument developed here for benchmarkingpurposes. They can compare their ratings with those of other businesseswithin the group, or indeed competitors, if such data can be obtained. They can

also monitor their progress over time by utilising the instrument periodically. This type of audit should enable managers to obtain a clear picture of thestrengths and weaknesses of the business and its readiness to competeinternationally.

Limitations and fur ther research

The study has a number of limitations. First, a postal survey cannot provide therichness of information obtainable from personal interviewing techniques.

There is an inevitable trade-off between depth and breadth in this type of research. Another potential problem is response biases created by CEOs non-randomly choosing SBUs. Finally, the use of managers’ perceptions as datacreates familiar problems of accuracy and causality (for a survey of these issues

see Starbuck and Mezias, 1996). Efforts were made to guard against such biasesby averaging across respondents, careful questionnaire design and collectingdata from a large sample of respondents, but it would be too optimistic to expectthat all such errors have been eliminated.

The study could be improved by having even larger samples. This wouldpermit further analyses across segments and geographical areas. Othervariables could also be included, such as the characteristics of employees. Itwould be instructive, too, to extend the study over time and assess whether thepredicted robustness of high performers is, in fact, correct.


21/26


performance

533

References

Albrecht, K. and Zenke, R. (1985),Service Ameri ca , Irwin, New York, NY.

Armstrong, S.J. (1982), “The value of formal planning for strategic decisions”, Strategic Management Journal , Vol. 3, pp. 197-211.

Baker, M.J., Black, C.D. and Hart, S.J. (1994), “Competitive success in sunrise and sunsetindustries”, in Saunders, J. (Ed.), T he Marketing I niti ative: ESRC Studies into Br iti sh Marketing , Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, pp. 58-71.

Bennett, R. and Cooper, R. (1981), “Beyond the marketing concept”, Business Hor izons , Vol. 22, June, pp. 76-83.

Borch, F.J. (1957), “The marketing philosophy as a way of business life”, in Marting, E. andNewgarden, A. (Eds), T he Marketing Concept: I ts Meaning t o Management , AmericanManagement Association, New York, NY, pp. 3-16.

Brady, J. and Davis, I. (1993), “Marketing’s mid-life crisis”, T he McK insey Quarterly , No. 2,pp. 17-28.

Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs”,Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.

Dawes, R.M. (1977), “Suppose we measure height with rating scales instead of rulers”,Applied Psychological Measurement , Vol. 1, pp. 267-73.

Day, G.S. (1990),Market Dr iven Strategy: Processes for Creating Value , The Free Press, New York,NY.

Despande, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. (1993), “Corporate culture, customer orientation andinnovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis”,Journal of M arketing , Vol. 57, January,pp. 23-37.

Dickson, P.R. (1992), “Towards a general theory of competitive rationality”,Journal of M arketing ,Vol. 56, January, pp. 69-83.

Doyle, P. (1994),Marketing Management and Strategy , Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Doyle, P. and Hooley, G.J. (1992), “Strategic orientation and corporate performance”, International Journal of Research in M arketing , Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 59-73.

Doyle, P., Saunders, J. and Wong, V. (1992), “Competition in global markets: a case study of American and Japanese competition in the British market”,Journal of Internati onal Business Studies , Vol. 23, Third Quarter, pp. 419-42.

Drucker, P.F. (1974),Management , Heinemann, London.

Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship , Heinemann, London.

(The )Economist (1994), “Death of the brand manager”, 9 April, pp. 79-80.

Garvin, D.A. (1995), “Leveraging processes for strategic advantage”,Har vard Business Review ,Vol. 95, September/October, pp. 76-82.

Goldzimer, L.S. (1989),Customer-dr iven , Hutchinson, London.

Greenley, G.E. (1995), “Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence fromUK companies”,Br iti sh Journal of M anagement , Vol. 6, March, pp. 1-14.

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994),Competing for the Future , Harvard Business School Press,Boston, MA.

Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993),Re-engineer ing the Corporation , Brealey, London.

Handy, C.B. (1985),Understanding Organisations , Penguin Books, London.

Handy, C.B. (1990),The Age of Unreason , Arrow Books, London.

Hart, S.J. and Diamantopoulos, S. (1994), “Marketing research activity and competitiveperformance: an empirical analysis”, in Saunders, J. (Ed.), T he Marketing In iti ative: ESRC Studies into Brit ish Marketing , Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, pp. 92-101.

http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.4250030303&isi=A1982PH77000002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.4250030303&isi=A1982PH77000002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0007-6813%2879%2990088-0http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3150876&isi=A1979GK74400010http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014662167700100213http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014662167700100213http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252055&isi=A1993KH92100002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252133&isi=A1992HA65600005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0167-8116%2892%2990029-Khttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0167-8116%2892%2990029-Khttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0167-8116%2892%2990029-Khttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490273&isi=A1992JT17500002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490273&isi=A1992JT17500002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8551.1995.tb00082.xhttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014662167700100213http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F014662167700100213http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252133&isi=A1992HA65600005http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0007-6813%2879%2990088-0http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490273&isi=A1992JT17500002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1057%2Fpalgrave.jibs.8490273&isi=A1992JT17500002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3150876&isi=A1979GK74400010http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252055&isi=A1993KH92100002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0167-8116%2892%2990029-Khttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0167-8116%2892%2990029-Khttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.4250030303&isi=A1982PH77000002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fsmj.4250030303&isi=A1982PH77000002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8551.1995.tb00082.x


22/26


534

Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D. (1988), “The house of quality”, Har vard Business Review , Vol. 88,pp. 63-76.

Hayes, R.H. and Abernathy, W.J. (1980), “Managing our way to economic decline”, Harvard Business Review , Vol. 80, July-August, pp. 67-77.

HMSO (1994),Competit iveness: Helping Business to Win , HMSO, London.

Hooley, G.J. and Lynch, J.E. (1994), “The effectiveness of British marketing”, in Saunders, J. (Ed.),T he Marketin g Init iative: ESRC Studies int o Bri tish Marketing , Prentice-Hall, HemelHempstead, pp. 20-41.

Houston, F.S. (1986), “The marketing concept: what is it, what is it not?”,Journal of Marketing ,Vol. 50, April, pp. 81-7.

Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.A. (1995), “The comparative advantage theory of competition”,Journal of Marketing , Vol. 59 No. 2, April, pp. 1-15.

Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 57, July, pp. 53-70.

Kapferer, J.N. (1992),Strategic Brand Management , Kogan Page, London.

Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), “The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance”,Harvard Business Review , January-February, pp. 81-9.

Kay, J. (1993),Foundat ions of Corporat e Success , Oxford University Press, Oxford.

King, S. (1985), “Has marketing failed or was it never really tried?”, Journal of Marketing Management , Vol. 1, pp. 1-19.

Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositionsand managerial implications”,Journal of M arketing , Vol. 54, April, pp. 1-18.

Kotler, P. (1994),Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementat ion and Contr ol ,8th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

McKitterick, J.B. (1957), “What is the marketing management concept?” in Bass, F.M. (Ed.),The Fronti ers of M arketing T hought and Science , American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,pp. 71-92.

Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1993), “The effects of a market orientation on business profitability”,Journal of M arketing , Vol. 54, October, pp. 20-35.

Nunnally, J.C. (1978),Psychometr ic Theory , 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.

Papadakis, V.M. (1995), “The contribution of formal planning systems to strategic investmentdecisions”,Br iti sh Journal of M anagement , Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 15-28.

Parvatiyar, A., Sheth, J.M. and Brown-Whittington, F. (1992), “Paradigm shift in interfirmmarketing relations: emerging the research issues”, working paper, Emory University,Washington, DC.

Pascale, R.T. (1990),Managing on the Edge , Penguin Books, London.

Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981),T he Art of Japanese Management , Penguin Books, London.

Porter, M.E. (1980),Competit ive Strategy , The Free Press, New York, NY.Porter, M.E. (1985),Competi ti ve Advantage: Creating and Sustaini ng Super ior Performance , The

Free Press, New York, NY.

Porter, M.E. (1990),The Competit ive Advantage of Nations , Macmillan, London.

Rappaport, A. (1986),Creating Shareholder Value: A New Standard for Business Performance ,Free Press, New York, NY.

Reichheld, F.F. (1996),The Loyalty Effect: T he Hidden Force behind Growth, Prof its and Lasting Value , Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.

Silk, A.J. and Kalwani, M. (1982), “Measuring influence in organisational purchase decisions”,Journal of Marketing Research , Vol. 19, May, pp. 165-81.

http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251602&isi=A1986C193200007http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252069&isi=A1995QQ63900001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252069&isi=A1995QQ63900001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251854&isi=A1993LN85600004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251854&isi=A1993LN85600004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0267257X.1985.9963971http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0267257X.1985.9963971http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251866&isi=A1990CZ14400001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251757&isi=A1990ED50600002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8551.1995.tb00083.xhttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3151617&isi=A1982NS60100001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251866&isi=A1990CZ14400001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251757&isi=A1990ED50600002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0267257X.1985.9963971http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F0267257X.1985.9963971http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F3151617&isi=A1982NS60100001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251854&isi=A1993LN85600004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251854&isi=A1993LN85600004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252069&isi=A1995QQ63900001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252069&isi=A1995QQ63900001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8551.1995.tb00083.xhttp://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251602&isi=A1986C193200007


23/26


performance

535

Slater, S.F. and Narver J.C. (1994), “Does competitive environment moderate the marketorientation-performance relationship?”,Journal of M arketing , Vol. 58, January, pp. 46-55.

Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of Marketing , Vol. 59, July, pp. 63-74.

Starbuck, W.H. and Mezias, J.M. (1996), “Opening Pandora’s box: studying the accuracy of managers’ perceptions”,Journal of Organizational Behaviour , Vol. 17, pp. 99-117.

Ward, J.H. (1963), “Hierarchical groupings to optimise an objective function”, Journal of the Ameri can Stat istical Associat ion , Vol. 58, pp. 236-44.

Webster, F.E. (1992), “The changing role of marketing in the corporation”,Journal of M arketing ,Vol. 56, October, pp. 1-17.

Wensley, R. (1994), “A critical review of research in marketing”, British Academy of ManagementConference, Lancaster.

Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1994), “From lean production to the lean enterprise”,Harvard Business Review , Vol. 72, November/December, pp. 164-73.

Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K. and Heffring, M. (1982),T heory Construction in M arketing , Wiley,New York, NY.

http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252250&isi=A1994MZ52900004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252120&isi=A1995RH64500006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252120&isi=A1995RH64500006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28199603%2917%3A2%3C99%3A%3AAID-JOB743%3E3.0.CO%3B2-2&isi=A1996UC75700001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01621459.1963.10500845http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01621459.1963.10500845http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251983&isi=A1992JR57400001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252250&isi=A1994MZ52900004http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01621459.1963.10500845http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F01621459.1963.10500845http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2F%28SICI%291099-1379%28199603%2917%3A2%3C99%3A%3AAID-JOB743%3E3.0.CO%3B2-2&isi=A1996UC75700001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252120&isi=A1995RH64500006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1252120&isi=A1995RH64500006http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.2307%2F1251983&isi=A1992JR57400001


24/26

This article has been cited by:

1. Samer Al-Mohammad, Mamoun Akroush, Abdelhadi Lutfi Odetallah. 2014. Marketing culture and business performance.Marketing Intelligence & Planning 32:7, 794-822. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

2. Arun Kumar Agariya, Deepali Singh. 2014. CRM Index Development and Validation in Indian Banking Sector.International Journal of Customer Relationship Marketing and Management 3:2, 10-32. [CrossRef ]

3. Leroy Robinson, Kathleen Williamson. 2014. Organizational Service Orientation: A Short-Form Version of the SERV*OR Scale. Services Marketing Quarterly 35:2, 155-172. [CrossRef ]4. Kerrie Bridson, Jody Evans, Felix Mav ondo, Joanna Minkiewicz. 2013. Retail brand orientation, positional advantage and

organisational performance. The International Review of Retail, Distribution and Consumer Research 23:3, 245-264. [CrossRef ]5. Zoe Lee. 2013. Rebranding in brand-oriented organisations: Exploring tensions in the nonprofit sector. Journal of Marketing

Management 29:9-10, 1124-1142. [CrossRef ]6. Roger Brooksbank, Ron Garland, Wayne Werder. 2012. Strategic marketing practices as drivers of successful business

performance in British, Australian and New Zealand golf clubs. European Sport Management Quarterly 12:5, 457-475.[CrossRef ]

7. Alan M. Rugman, Chang Hoon Oh, Dominic S. K. Lim. 2012. The regional and global competitiveness of multinationalfirms. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40:2, 218-235. [CrossRef ]

8. Robert A Opoku, Vincent B Essien. 2011. Employee perceptions of market orientation in the banking industry: A ca se froma developing country. Journal of Financial Services Marketing 16:2, 139-152. [CrossRef ]

9. Ron Garland, Roger Brooksbank, Wayne Werder. 2011. Strategic marketing's contribution to Australasian g olf clubperformance. Sport, Business and Management: An International Journal 1:2, 138-154. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

10. Mamoun N. Akroush, Samer E. Da hiyat, Hesham S. Gharaibeh, Bayan N. Abu‐Lail. 2011. Customer relationshipmanagement implementation. International Journal of Commerce and Management 21:2, 158-190. [ Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

11. Shu-Hsien Liao, Wen-Jung Chang, Chi-Chuan Wu, Jerome M. Katrichis. 2011. A survey of market orientation research(1995–2008). Industrial Marketing Management 40:2, 301-310. [CrossRef ]

12. Justin L. Davis, R. Greg Bell, G. Tyge Payne. 2010. Stale in the pulpit? Leader tenure and the relationship between marketgrowth strategy and church performance. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing 15:4, 352-368.[CrossRef ]

13. Robin Roslender, Susan J. Hart. 2010. Taking the customer into account: Transcending the construction of the customerthrough the promotion of self-accounting. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 21:8, 739-753. [CrossRef ]

14. Roger Brooksbank, Ron Garland, David Taylor. 2010. Strategic Marketing in New Zealand Companies. Journal of Global Marketing 23:1, 33-44. [CrossRef ]

15. Shawn Carraher, John A. Parnell, John E. Spillan. 2009. Customer service‐orientation of small retail business owners in Austria, The Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Slovakia, and Slovenia.Baltic Journal of Management 4:3, 251-268. [ Abstract][Full Text] [PDF]

16. N. Gladson Nwokah. 2009. Customer‐focus, competitor‐focus and marketing performance. Measuring Business Excellence 13:3, 20-28. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

17. Roger Brooksbank, Graham Garland, David Taylor. 2008. Strategic marketing practices: Their contribution to the competitivesuccess of medium-sized manufacturing firms in New Zealand. Small Enterprise Research 16:2, 8-20. [CrossRef ]

18. Guo Huan, Roger Brooksbank, David Taylor, Patrycia Babbis. 2008. Strategic marketing in Chinese manufacturing companies. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 20:3, 276-288. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

19. Eleni Michopoulou, Dimitrios Buhalis. 2008. Performance measures of net-enabled hypercompetitive industries: The case of tourism. International Journal of Information Management 28:3, 168-180. [CrossRef ]

20. Gabriel Baffour Awuah. 2008. Analyzing Customer-Orientation Practices of Firms from a Wider Perspective. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing 15:1, 45-72. [CrossRef ]

21. Jia-Jeng Hou. 2008. TOWARD A RESEARCH MODEL OF MARKET ORIENTATION AND DYNAMICCAPABILITIES. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 36:9, 1251-1268. [CrossRef ]

22. J. Llonch Andreu, M.ª P. López Belbeze, R. Eusebio. 2007. Orientación al aprendizaje, Orientación al mercado, Resultados y el efecto moderador de la procedencia funcional del Director General. Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de la Empresa10:33, 63-94. [CrossRef ]

23. Gabriel Baffour Awuah. 2007. A professional services firm's competence development. Industrial Marketing Management 36:8,1068-1081. [CrossRef ]

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.08.006http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1138-5758(07)70098-1http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470620801946702http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.07.003http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555850810890057http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/13555850810890057http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13555850810890057http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/ser.16.2.8http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683040910984293http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/13683040910984293http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13683040910984293http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08911760903442127http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.397http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.09.003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/10569211111144355http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/10569211111144355http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10569211111144355http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20426781111146745http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/20426781111146745http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2011.11http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0270-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2012.688755http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.812978http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2014.885369http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2006.08.006http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1138-5758(07)70098-1http://dx.doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2008.36.9.1251http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15470620801946702http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.07.003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13555850810890057http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/13555850810890057http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555850810890057http://dx.doi.org/10.5172/ser.16.2.8http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13683040910984293http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/13683040910984293http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13683040910984293http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/17465260910990975http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/17465260910990975http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/17465260910990975http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08911760903442127http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.04.002http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/nvsm.397http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.09.003http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/10569211111144355http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/10569211111144355http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/10569211111144355http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/20426781111146745http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/20426781111146745http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/20426781111146745http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2011.11http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11747-011-0270-5http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2012.688755http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2013.812978http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593969.2013.776991http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15332969.2014.885369http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/jcrmm.2012040102http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/MIP-08-2013-0127http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/MIP-08-2013-0127http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/MIP-08-2013-0127


25/26

24. Mitchell Ross, Joo‐Gim Heaney, Maxine Cooper. 2007. Institutional and managerial factors affecting international studentrecruitment management. International Journal of Educational Management 21:7, 593-605. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

25. Daniel Jiménez-Jiménez, Juan G. Cegarra-Navarro. 2007. The performance effect of organizational learning and marketorientation. Industrial Marketing Management 36:6, 694-708. [CrossRef ]

26. Tim Hughes. 2007. Regaining a seat at the table: marketing management and the e‐service opportunity. Journal of Services Marketing 21:4, 270-280. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

27. José I. Rojas-Méndez, Ali Kara, John E. Spillan. 2006. Market Orientation in the Chilean Small Business Context. Journal of Global Marketing 19:3-4, 93-132. [CrossRef ]28. N. Gladson Nwokah, Darego W. Maclayton. 2006. Customer‐focus and business performance: the study of food and beverages

organizations in Nigeria. Measuring Business Excellence 10:4, 65-76. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]29. Charles Blankson, Jaideep G. Motwani, Nancy M. Levenburg. 2006. Understanding the patterns of market orientation among

small businesses. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 24:6, 572-590. [ Abstract] [Full Tex t] [PDF]30. Professor Göran Svensson, Adel I. El‐Ansary. 2006. Marketing strategy: taxonomy and frameworks. European Business Review

18:4, 266-293. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]31. Óscar González-Benito, Javier González-Benito. 2005. Cultural vs. operational market orientation and objective vs. subjective

performance: Perspective of production and operations. Industrial Marketing Management 34:8, 797-829. [CrossRef ]32. Charles Blankson, Julian Ming‐Sung Cheng. 2005. Have small businesses adopted the market orientation concept? The case

of small businesses in Michigan. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 20:6, 317-330. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]33. Carmen Barroso Castro, Enrique Martín Armario, María Elena Sánchez del Río. 2005. Consequences of market orientation

for customers and employees. European Journal of Marketing 39:5/6, 646-675. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]34. Birgit Weischedel, Sheelagh Matear, Kenneth R. Deans. 2005. A qualitative approach to investigating online strategic decision

making. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 8:1, 61-76. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]35. Dr Spiros Gounaris, Philip Megicks, Atul Mishra, Jonathan Lean. 2005. Enhancing microfinance outreach through market‐

oriented new service dev elopment in Indian regional rural banks. International Journal of Bank Marketing 23:1, 107-125.[ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

36. Carlos Flavián Blanco, Francisco Javier Lozano Velázquez. 2004. Laorientación al mercado de la universidad póblica: Un retopara el sistema Untversitario EspaÑol. Inter national Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 1:2, 9-28. [CrossRef ]

37. Spiros P. Gounaris, George J. Avlonitis, Paulina Papastathopoulou. 2004. Managing a firm's behavior through marketorientation development: some empirical findings.European Journal of Marketing 38:11/12, 1481-1508. [ Abstract] [Full Text][PDF]

38. Sheelagh Matear, Brendan J. Gray, Tony Garrett. 2004. Market orientation, brand investment, new service development,market position and performance for service organisations.International Journal of Service Industry Management 15:3, 284-301.[ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

39. Cynthia Rodriguez Cano, Francois A. Carrillat, Fernando Jaramillo. 2004. A meta-analysis of the relationship between marketorientation and business performance: evidence from five continents. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21:2,179-200. [CrossRef ]

40. Photis M. Panayides. 2004. Marketing in Asia‐Pacific logistics companies: a discriminant analysis between marketing orientation and performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 16:1, 42-68. [ Abstract] [PDF]

41. Syed Aziz Anwar, M. Sadiq Sohail. 2003. Testing market orientation of bank managers in the emerging economy of Brunei.International Journal of Bank Marketing 21:6/7, 289-295. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

42. Robert E. Morgan, Carolyn A. Strong, Tony McGuinness. 2003. Product‐market positioning and prospector strategy.European Journal of Marketing 37:10, 1409-1439. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

43. Photis M. Panayides. 2003. Competitive strategies and organizational performance in ship management.Maritime Policy & Management 30:2, 123-140. [CrossRef ]

44. Michael W. Starkey, David Williams, Merlin Stone. 2002. The state of customer management performance in Malaysia.Marketing Intelligence & Planning 20:6, 378-385. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

45. Sheelagh Matear, Phil Osborne, Tony Garrett, Brendan J. Gray. 2002. How does market orientation contribute to servicefirm performance?. European Journal of Marketing 36:9/10, 1058-1075. [ Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

46. Ki Han Chung, Kim Dae Up. 2002. 내내내내내내 내내내내내내내 내내내 내내 내내. Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science 9:1, 19-46.[CrossRef ]

47. Gary Woller. 2002. From market failure to marketing failure: market orientation as the key to deep outreach in microfinance.

Journal of International Development 14:3, 305-324. [CrossRef ]48. Sue Vaux Halliday. 2002. Barriers to customer‐orientation. European Journal of Marketing 36:1/2, 136-158. [ Abstract] [Full

Text] [PDF]

http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560210412737http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560210412737http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12297119.2002.9707308http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560210437334http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560210437334http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560210437334http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0308883032000084850http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310487176http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560310487176http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560310487176http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560310487176http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560310487176http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652320310498438http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652320310498438http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02652320310498438http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02652320310498438http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02652320310498438http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02652320310498438http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02652320310498438http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.07.001http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230410540944http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/09564230410540944http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09564230410540944http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09564230410540944http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652320510577393http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02652320510577393http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02652320510577393http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750510575444http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750510575444http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/13522750510575444http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/13522750510575444http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340610677499http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340610677499http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340610677499http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340610677499http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/09555340610677499http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09555340610677499http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500610701663http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500610701663http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02634500610701663http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02634500610701663http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02634500610701663http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J042v19n03_05http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J042v19n03_05http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560210412737http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560210412737http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560210412737http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560210412737http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jid.883http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/12297119.2002.9707308http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560210437334http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560210437334http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560210437334http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02634500210445437http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02634500210445437http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500210445437http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0308883032000084850http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560310487176http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560310487176http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310487176http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02652320310498438http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02652320310498438http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652320310498438http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13555850410765122http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13555850410765122http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.07.001http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09564230410540944http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/09564230410540944http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09564230410540944http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560410560209http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560410560209http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560410560209http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02896623http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02652320510577393http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02652320510577393http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02652320510577393http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13522750510575444http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/13522750510575444http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/13522750510575444http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/03090560510590755http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/03090560510590755http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560510590755http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/08858620510618156http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/08858620510618156http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/08858620510618156http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.01.002http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/09555340610677499http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/09555340610677499http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/09555340610677499http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/02634500610701663http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.1108/02634500610701663http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/02634500610701663http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1108/13683040610719281http://emerald-prod.literatumonline.com/doi/full/10.

Date post:	07-Aug-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ysumaryan-doni
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

03090569810216145 Marketing and Competitive Performance

Documents