Influence of Market Orientation

8/2/2019 Influence of Market Orientation

1/12

JUDY A. SIGUAW, GENE BROWN, and ROBERT E. WIDING, I I

The authors used a national sample of 306 industrial salespeople to investigateempirically a model incorporating the constructs of market orientation, customerorientation, a difference score, and job attitudes. The results indicate that the se-lected market orientation of the firm significantly influences salesperson customer

orientation and job attitudes.

The Influence of the Market Orientation of theFirm on Sales Force Behavior and Attitudes

It has been suggested that a firm examine the extemalenvironment in which it operates prior to adopting a highlymarket-oriented organizational behavior as the strategyof choice (Houston 1986; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narverand Slater 1990). The degree to which the firm imple-ments a market orientation is based on its desired levelof organizationwide concern and responsiveness to cus-tomer needs and competitive actions (Kohli and Jawor-ski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990). On deciding the strat-egy of choice, an important aspect of implementation isto influence salespeople to adopt the chosen orientationin their selling efforts.

A firm, for example, can instill a customer-orientedphilosophy and provide the training, resources, and re-ward system necessary to support and motivate a highlycustomer-oriented sales force (Schlesinger and Heskett1991). Conversely, an organization can foster a strongselling-oriented sales force by rewarding, for example,immediate sales without regard for customer interests.Finally, firms can send mixed signals and/or attempt toreside between the extremes, which Narver and Slater

Judy A, Siguaw is an Assistant Professor of Marketing. CameronSchool of Business Administralion, University of North Carolina atWilmington, Gene Brown is an Associate Professor of Marketing,College of Administration and Business. Louisiana Tech University.Robert E. Widing. II. is an Associate Professor of Marketing, Schoolof Business, Bond University. Gold Coast. Australia, The authorsgratefully acknowledge the helpful suggestions of All Darrat. Jan Heide.Earl Honcycutt. Vince Howe. Hani Mesak. and Jagdip Singh and thankBarton A. Weitz and Ihe three anonymous JM R reviewers for theirvaluable comments. This research was supported partially hy grantsfrom the Cameron Sch(X)i of Business Administration. University ofNorth Carolina at Wilmington. All authors contributed equally to thisarticle.

(1990) suggest could be the least effective position toadopt frotrt a sales performance standpoint.Our first research objective involves identifying theeffect of the selected firm orientation, as viewed fromthe salesperson's perspective, on the salesperson's cus-tomer orientation and job attitudes (i.e.. role ambiguityand conflict, job satisfaction, and organizational com-mitment). Our second research objective, a corollary tothe first, is to determine whether the orientation of thesalesperson is related to job attitudes. That is, is adopt-ing a selling or customer orientation related to role stress,job satisfaction, and organizational cotnmitment?

Though a market orientation ranging from high to lowmight be selected by the firm, it seems clear that a strongcorrespondence should exist between the orientation de-sired at the firm level and the orientation practiced byits sales force. As advanced by Webster (1991), "em-ploye es, from the top-level executives to the operational-level workers, should have basically the same or con-sistent attitudes toward . . . tbe marketing orientation ofthe firm" (p. 342). A high level of agreement betweenthe orientations of the firm and sales force also can ben-efit the firm by providing a positive influence on job-related attitudes held by the sales force. When the ori-entations of salespeople deviate from the selectedbehaviors of their firms, however, what effect, if anydo these incongruous orientations have on the job atti-tudes of these salespeople? The third research objectiveis to examine whether differences in orientations affectthe job-related attitudes of salespeople.

Using the existing literature, a model is developed todescribe tbe relationships among market orientation,customer orientation, and the job attitudes of salespeo-ple. The model also depicts the proposed effects on jobattitudes that result from differences between the firm106

Journal of Marketing ResearchVol, XXXI (Eebrtiary 1994). 106-16


2/12

MARKET ORIENTATION 107and salesperson orientations. The hypothesized relation-ships are tested with a sample of industrial salespeople,and the results are presented with respect to previousfindings and their implications for sales force manage-ment.

MARKET AND CUSTOMER ORIENTATIONS"Market orientation consists of three behavioral com-ponents^customer orientation, competitor orientation,and interiunctional coordination" (Narver and Slater 1990,p, 21). Narver and Slater, consistent with Kohli and Ja-worski (1990), have defined customer and competitororientations as information acquisition and disseminationactivities that are necessary to understand what buyersvalue and the capabilities of and strategies used by com-petitors in serving target buyers. This knowledge pro-vides a framework in which to create superior value forcustomers relative to competitors. The third componentinvolves coordinating across the firm's departmental ac-tivities to deliver superior value to buyers.The scale developed to measure the market orientationof the firm (Narver and Slater 1990), including the cus-tomer orientation component, differs from the SOCO scale(Saxe and Weitz 1982), which measures the selling ori-entation-customer orientation (SOCO) of the salesperson(in referring to this scale we often use "customer ori-entation of the salesperson" for the sake of brevity). Themarket orientation scale assesses behaviors at the firmlevel, whereas the SOCO scale examines specific salesbehaviors at the salesperson level. The behaviors of thefinn explicated in the market orientation scale are indic-ative of the level of meaningful support provided tosalespeople, the capability of salespeople to provide su-

perior value to customers, and a philosophical orienta-tion to help guide salesperson conduct. From the viewof the sales force, the components indicated in the mar-ket orientation scale represent the instruments with whichsalespeople are equipped to use customer orientation intheir selling efforts. Th e relations hips between the firm'sbehaviors, as viewed by the salesperson, and the sales-person's actions and job attitudes are posited in the fol-lowing section.MODELS AND HYPOTHESES

Market OrientationIn the past, researchers have observed that market ori-

entation is the set of activities and behaviors imple-mented to reflect the degree to which the marketing con-cept has been adopted as a business philosophy (Jaworksiand Kohli 1992). A market orientation emanates fromthe firm's leadership down through the organization (cf.Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990). Aspreviously noted, the firm possesses the means of infiu-encing the customer orientation of its sales force and isrational in expecting the sales force to behave and re-spond to customer needs in a manner that is congruentwith the firm's market orientation. Therefore, it is rea-

Figure 1THE EFFECTS OF ORIENTATIONS AND DIFFERENCES IN

ORIENT ATIONS O N JOB ATTITUDES: HYPOTHESIZEDM ODEL .

MARKST

wrr

CUSTOMERORIENTATION

il II

sonable to expect that the market orientation of the firmhas a strong infiuence on the customer orientation of thesales force,Kohli and Jaworski (1990), moreover, posited a pos-itive relationship between the fimi's market orientationand customer satisfaction. However, to the customer, "thesalesperson is the firm" (Crosby, Evans, and Cowles1990); therefore, one important element to achievingcustomer satisfaction is the increased customer orienta-tion of the front-line company representatives, the salesforce. Therefore, a positive link between the market ori-entation of the firm to the customer orientation of thesalesperson is proposed, which is implicitly presumed byKohli and Jaworski. That is. the more salespeople per-ceive their firms to practice and reward the use of themarketing concept, the greater their focus on customerneeds (Figure 1 depic ts all relationships in the model) .

H|: The greater the market orientation of the firm, thegreater the customer orientation of the salesperson.The market orientation of the firm might affect notonly the customer orientation of the sales force but alsotheir job attitudes. It seems that industrial salespeoplenaturally desire a highly market-oriented organization(Kohli and Jaworski 1990). Because of their boundary-spanning role, industrial salespeople could perceive some

degree of roie conflict stemming from inconsistent or in-compatible detnands made by the customer and thesalesperson's firm. For example, a less market-orientedfirm could expect the salesperson to engage in highlyselling-oriented behaviors, whereas the salesperson couldprefer to act in the better interests of the customer. In-deed, role conflict has been cited as being a certain, thoughuncoveted, characteristic of many sales environments (cf.Behrman and Perreault 1984; Donnelly and Ivancevich1975; Franke, Behrman. and PerTeault 1982). A highlymarket-oriented firm, however, could reduce the contra-


3/12

108 JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 1994dictory demands placed on the salesperson, thereby re-ducing this source of conflict.

H2: The greater the market orientation of the firm, thelower the role conflict experienced by the sales-person.Role ambiguity is the result of uncertainty regardingstandards by which job performance is judged to be ad-equate. The salesperson is unsure of what should be doneand how and does not know which job functions are mostimportant to the various role partners (Behrman and Per-reauit 1984; W alker. Ch urchill, and Ford 1972). Kohliand Jaworski (1990) proposed that one benefit of a firmutilizing a market orientation would be the resulting de-crease in ambiguity for employees, particularly in termsof how much effort the employees should exert regard-ing market-oriented tasks. In addition, we have sug-gested previously that a high market orientation by thefirm can .serve as a clear and well-received guide for

salespersons, which should serve to reduce role ambi-guity.H3: The greater the market orientation of the firm, thelower the role ambiguity of Ihe salesperson.

The organizational environment fostered by the im-plementation of market-oriented activities and behaviorshas been proposed to elicit a feeling of pride and re-warding contribution from employees. Recently, for ex-ample, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) hypothesized and pro-vided exploratory research to support the notion that afirm with a strong market orientation will have employ-ees with greater job satisfaction and organizational com-mitment than organizations with less market orientation.On the basis of their tentative findings, we postulate sim-ilar relationships:

H4: The greater the market orientation of the firm, thegreater (he job satisfaction experienced by thesalesperson.H,: The greater the market orientation of the firm, thegreater the organizational commitment of the sales-person.Customer Orientation

Customer orientation is a selling behavior in whichsalespersons assist customers in making purchase deci-sions that will satisfy long-term wants and needs(Michaels and Day 1985; Saxe and Weitz 1982). Som estudies have envisioned customer orientation as an out-come of job satisfaction and organizational commitment(ef. Hoffman and Ingram 1991; O'H ara, Boles , andJohnston 1991). In this study, however, we conceptual-ize customer orientation as an antecedent of job atti-tudes. That is, the firm's market orientation affects thesalesperson's customer orientation, which in turn affectsjob attitudes. Specifically, highly customer-orientedsalespeople are postulated to have lower role conflict andambiguity and higher job satisfaction and commitmentthan their selling-oriented counterparts. It seems quite

plausible, however, that customer orientation both affects and is affected by jo b attitude s; nev erthele ss, wefocus on how customer orientation affects job attitudesand leave for further research the study of other relationships.Empirical evidence exists to indicate that salespeoplewith few exceptions, practice a customer orientation (COrather than a selling orientation (SO); the means of theSOCO construct, for example, measured on a 9-poinscale (9 = highly customer oriented), have been previ-ously reported as 7.6 and 7.7 (Saxe and Weitz 1982) and8.1 (Hoffman and Ingram 1991). Furthemiore, cus-tomers expect salespeople to meet their unique needsThey have definite expectations of the salesperson andapply pressure to achieve conformity with those expectations (Walker, Churchill, and Ford 1972). To the extent that the salesperson practices a customer orientationhe or she will strive to satisfy customer needs and desires, thereby reducing at least the portion of the roleconflict and ambiguity that can be attributed to customerinteractions.

Hf,: The greater the euslomer orientation of the sales-person, the lower the role conflid experienced bythe salesperson.H7: The greater the customer orientation of the salesperson, the lower the role ambiguity of the sales-person.As previously discussed, researchers recently have ar-gued that a feeling of pride occurs when organizationsand their employees work toward the common goal ofcustomer satisfaction and that this positive affective re-sponse toward the work situation results in increased job

satisfaction and organizational commitment (Jaworski andKohli 1993; Kohli and Jaworski 1990). Furthermoreearlier studies have provided empirical evidence of apositive relationship between job satisfaction and cus-tomer orientation (cf. Bateman and Organ 1983; Hoffman and Ingram 1991; Motow idlo 1984) and a positiverelationship between organizational commitment andcustomer orientation (O'Hara, Boles, and Johnston 1991)We propose similar relationships for the customer orientation construct. Specifically, engaging in customer-oriented behaviors is hypothesized to result in higher levelsof job satisfaction and organizational com mitmen t.Hsi The greater the customer orientation of the salesperson, the greater the job satisfaction experieneedby the salesperson.Hg: The greater the customer orientation of the sales-person, the greater the organizational commitmenof the salesperson.

Difference Between Customer and Ma rket OrientationsThough the firm should have a strong influence on theorientation of its sales force, salespeople nevertheless candeviate from the orientation of their firm. The boundaryspanning role of salespeople, for example, could explainwhy industrial sales representatives could be more highly


4/12

MARKET ORIENTATION 109customer oriented than the firm is market oriented. Thesalesperson's loyalties can be divided when the policiesand programs of the organization are perceived to be atodds with the needs and demands of his or her customers(cf. Chonko. Howell. and Bellenger 1986; Walker,Churchill, and Ford 1972). Moreover, the industrialsalesperson typically works without any close supervi-sion and is most often physically and psychologicallyseparated from the home office (Behrman and Perreault1984; Teas. Wacker. and Hughes 1979). This isolationfrom the parent office and close proximity to the cus-tomer could encourage the salesperson to feel a greaterloyalty to the customer than to his or her own employer.Salespeople therefore could exercise a higher level ofcustomer orientation than the firm desires. For example,these salespeople could sacrifice the immediate sale(contrary to firm wishes) in the best interests of theircustomers and maintenance of long-term customer re-lationships (Michaels and Day 1985; Saxe and W eitz1982).

Alternatively, it is also possible that the salespersonpossesses a lower custo mer orientation than the firm'smarket orientation. For example, separation and a lackof 'in the field" supervision enables the salesperson toengage in opportunistic behavior by focusing on the im-mediate sale, in spite of this being against the firm'swishes and long-term interests (Anderson and Oliver19K7).A difference between the orientations of the salesper-son and the firm is proposed to affect the job attitudesof the salesperson. A variable labeled DIFF has beencreated to identify the difference, as perceived by thesalesperson, between the market orientation of the em-ploying organization and the customer orientation of thesalesperson. It is posited that the intensity of perceivedrole conflict will decrease as the difference between themarket orientation of the finn and customer orientationof the salesperson decreases. When the salesperson per-ceives compatibility between the role demanded by hisor her own customer orientation and the role imposed byIhe organization, the perception of role conflict is less-ened.An agreement of orientations between the firm andsalesperson also should facilitate the communication ofexpectations because both parties are of one mind (i.e.,achieving customer satisfaction). Therefore, these sim-ilar expectations between the firm and the sales force

should decrease role ambiguity. A gap between the ori-entations of the firm and its sales force, however, com-plicates the communication of expectations, which arealready difficult because of the inherent isolation of thesales job. In this situation, role ambiguity could increaseas the gap increases. As a result, sales representativesmay be uncertain about how to perfomi their various ailes.or they may be unsure they are meeting the expectationsof management.Job satisfaction and organizational commitment alsoshould benefit by a matching of the behaviors expected

by the firm and those performed by the salesperson. Be-yond the philosophical agreement embodied by a con-cordance between market and customer orientations,which should enhance job satisfaction and organizationaicommitment, both these latter variables have been shownto be affected by role conflict and ambiguity (e.g., Behr-man and Perreault 1984; Chu rchill, Ford, and W alker1976; Rizzo. House, and Lirt/.man 1970; these interre-lationships are addressed further under "Replication Hy-potheses"). Hence, an agreement of orientations shoulddirectly reduce role conflict and ambiguity and enhancejob satisfaction and organizational commitment; more-over, by reducing role conflict and ambiguity, job sat-isfaction and organizational commitment also should beincreased indirectly.

H|o: The smaller Ihe difference between the market ori-enlalion of Ihc finn and the customer orientation ofthe salesperson, the lower the role conflict expe-rienced by the salesperson.H||: The smaller the difterenee between the market ori-entation of the firm and Ihc customer orientation ofthe salesperson, the lower the role ambiguity ex-perienced by the salesperson.H|2; The smaller the difference between the market ori-entation of the firm and the customer orientation t)fthe salesperson, the greater the job satistaetion ofthe salesperson.H,^: The smaller the differenee between the market ori-entation of the firm and the customer orientation ofthe salesperson, the greater the organizational eom-mitmcnt of the salesperson.Replication Hypotheses

Our primary purpose has been captured in the first 13hypotheses. The following hypotheses summarize the re-maining relationships am ong the job attitudes p resentedin the model. In essence, testing these hypothesized re-lationships serves to replicate the findings of previousstudies involving the job attitudes and also assists inspecifying the model sludied here. We recognize, how-ever, that interrelationships other Ihan those depicted inthe model can exist among these variables. For example,there is certainly a relationship between job satisfactionand organizational commitment; however, the directionof causality is still at issue (see Vandenberg and Lance1992). To avoid devoting undue attention to the contro-versies surrounding the more equivocal relationships, weconstrain our attention to the more established attiludinairelationships.Job satisfaction is enhanced by positive affective re-sponses toward components of the work situation (Smith.Kendall, and Hulin 1969). It generally has been arguedthat both role conflict and role ambiguity negatively af-fect job satisfaction (e.g., Behrman and Perreault 1984;Churchill. Ford, and Walker 1976; Dubinsky and Matl-son 1979; Fry et al. 1986; Rizzo , Hou se, and Lirtzman1970). Other researchers, however, have found only onecomponent of role perceptions (confiict or ambiguity) tobe related to jo b satisfaction (Hoffman and Ingram 199 1;


5/12

JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 1994Johnston et al. 1990; Lysonski, Singer, and Wilemon1988; Teas 1983). Though there are differing views pre-sented in the literature, we concur with Behrman andPerreault (1984), who observe that the weight of the evi-dence supports the belief that role conflict and role am-biguity will result in increased job dissatisfaction.

H|4,: The greater the perception of role conflict, the lowerthe job .satisfaction.Hi4b: The greater the perception of role ambiguity, thelower the job satisfaction.Organizational commitment commonly has been de-fmed as a perceived alliance between the individual andfirm that is characterized by employ ee invo lvem ent, ef-fort, and loyalty to the organization (cf. Morris andSherman 1981; Porter et al. 1974). Johnston and col-leagues (1990) concluded that role ambiguity is associ-ated directly and negatively with organizational com-mitment, whereas role confiict is related only indirectlyto organizational commitment. Others propose that both

role ambiguity and role conflict are related negatively toorganizational commitment (DeCotiis and Summers 1987;Feldman 1981; Michaels et al. 1988). Though some in-consistent findings exist, our model is specified to testthe latter logic with the hypotheses that both role conflictand role ambiguity negatively infiuence organizationalcommitment.H|5a: The greater the perception of role conflict, the lowerthe organizational commitment.H|5i,: The greater the perception of role ambiguity, thelower the organizational commitment.

METHODOLOGYConstruct Measurem ent *

Ail variables included in this study were measured onmultiple-item scales drawn from previous research. Thecorrelation matrix for the measures is presented in TableI. Summed scores of each construct were utilized in thestatistical analysis. Customer orientation was measuredusing the SOCO scale developed by Saxe and Weitz(1982). Job satisfaction was measured by the Job De-scriptive Index (JDI) developed by Smith, Kendall, andHulin (1969), and organizational commitment was mea-sured using the Organizational Commitment Question-naire (OCQ) developed by Porter and colleagues (1974).Role conflict and role ambiguity were measured usingthe role perception scales developed by Rizzo, House,and Lirtzman (1970). The scale used to measure marketorientation (MO) was developed by Narver and Slater(1990). The properties of this scale have been reportedonly in the Narver and Slater study; however, analysesof reliability and validity were found to be satisfactory.

As previously explained, DIFF refers to the degree ofdifference between orientations of the selling firm (MO)and the salesperson (SOCO). The difference is calcu-lated as the absolute value of the difference between the

standardized market orientation score and the standard-ized SOCO score.Samp le and Data Collection Procedures

A!l constructs were measured from the salesperson'sperspective using a self-report mail questionnaire. Be-cause the study focuses on the effects of market orien-tation on the salesperson's behavior and attitudes, thesalesperso n's perception of the firm's orientation is a rel-evant way to measure this construct. The samp ling frameconsisted of sales forces of U.S. firms listed in the As-sociation for Information and Image Management mem-bership roster. Because the roster lists sales force mem-bers for some firms and only sales force managers forothers, the following approach was used to reach sales-people .

Questionnaires were distributed to 585 randomly se-lected sales personnel of 241 companies involved in thesale of document imaging supplies, equipment, and ser-vices. In addition, questionnaires were distributed ran-domly to 353 sales/mariteting managers representing over245 companies in the same industry. A cover letter wassent to the sales managers of each of these companiesexplaining the study and requesting that the sales man-agers distribute questionnaires to three of their salespeo-ple. A total of 1644 questionnaires was mailed. A sec-ond copy of the questionnaire and a follow-up letterencouraging participation were mailed to these samplemembers not responding within four weeks after the ini-tial mailing: similarly, additional questionnaires were sentto the sales/marketing managers with a second requestfor distribution to the same three salespeople.The two mailings produced 306 respt>nses of which

only 278 were usable because of missing values; hence,a response rate of 16.9% was obtained. To detect pos-sible problems with nonresponse error, the data set wasdivided into quartiles on the basis of the timing of receiptof the questionnaire. The first quartile was drawn fromthe earliest responses obtained from the first mailout, andthe fourth quartile consisted of the latest responses, whichwere all received after the second mailout (Armstrongand Overton 1977). T-tests between the cases in the firstand fourth quartile indicated that no statistically signif-icant differences existed in the mean responses on anyvariable.Salesperson Characteristics

It is important to highlight that the respondents as agroup were highly customer oriented. The mean SOCOscore is 7.7 on a 9-point scale (Table 1), with nearly allsubjects at the midpoint or above; indeed, only one sub-ject was below the midpoint (at 4.8), and only five oth-ers fell between 5 and 6 on the 9-point scale (9 = highlycustomer-oriented), resulting in all but these six respon-dents reporting a 7 or above. With regard to salespersonviews of their firms' market orientation, the mean re-sponse was 4.74 (on a 7-point scale, with 7 indicating


6/12

MARKET ORIENTATIONTable 1

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS, AND PEARSON CORREL ATIONS

111

MarketohenlalionCustomerorientationDIFFRoleconflidRoleambiguityJobsatisfactionOrganizationalcommitment

Mean4.747.81t.oo3.662-872.204.92

Sid.Dev..9 6.68.8 0

1.311.13

.4 21.05

No. ofScaleItems1524

N / A86

7215

Alpha.88.8 6

N / A.82.8t.9 0.88

Customerorientation.171(.004)

DIFF'

- . 391(.000)- .341(.000)

Roleconflict- . 372(.000)- . 1 0 2(.090)

.243(.000)

Roleambiguity- . 5 2 6(.000)- . 130(.030)

.201(.001)

.442(.000)

Jo bsatisfaction.637(.000).165(.006)

- , 325(.000)- . 466(.000)- .529(.000)

Organizationalcommitment.645(.000).m( .001) - 2 9 3(.000)

- . 4 2 0(.000) '- . 482(.000).633(.000)

'DIFF = absolute value of the difference between the standardized market orientation score and standardized SOCO score. P-values are shownin parentheses.

highly market-oriented); therefore, the firms were viewedas being "somewhat" market-oriented. The mean re-sponses of the remaining constructs are presented inTable I.Regarding subject characteristics, 19% of the respon-dents were female and 8 1 % were male. In general, therespondents were well educated (71 .5% were collegegraduates), mature (average age = 40.8 years), experi-enced (selling experience = 14.2 years), and stable intheir work history (average tenure = 7.2 years).Measurement Issues

Reliability of measures. Th e reliability coefficients(Cronbach's alpha) for all the measures exceeded .8 (Ta-ble 1), well above the recommended standard of .7 thathas been suggested by Nunnally (1978). It is importantto note that though the reliability of the difference scorecould not be calculated (we used a summed score yield-ing a single indicant for each construct), it would be lowerthan the reliabilities of its two componentsmarket ori-entation and customer orientation (Peter. Churchill, andBrown 1993).Model estimation. Ordinary least squares regressionwas used to test our hypothesized relationships'; esti-mated coefficients and other results are presented in Ta-

'Weighted lease-squares regression (WLS) also was executed assuggested by Peter, Churchill, and Brown (1993) lo overcome poicn-tiat problems with difference scores. The results obtained utilizingWLS were not significantly different from the find ings obtained usingOLS.

ble 2. The proposed model in Figure I posits the fol-lowing five equations:1. CO = MO + error2. RC = MO + CO + DIFF + error3. RA = MO + CO -t- DIFF + error4. JS = MO -I- CO + DIFF + RA + RC + error5. OC = MO -I- CO -K DIFF -I- RA -t- RC + errorCO = Customer orientationM O - Market orientationRC = Role conflictRA = Role ambiguityJS = Job satisfactionOC = Organizational commitmentDIFF = Absolute value of the difference between thestandardized market orientation and standard-ized customer orientation scales

RESULTSThe results presented in Table 2 indicate that (1) themarket orientation of the firm significantly influences thecustomer orientation of the salesperson and each of thejob attitudes in the directions hypothesized, (2) the cus-tomer orientation of the salesperson is unrelated to thejob attitudes, and (3) the difference between the marketorientation of the finm and the customer orientation ofthe salesperson marginally influences only role conflictin the direction hypothesized. The details of these find-ings follow.H, states that as the market orientation of the firm in-


7/12

JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 1994Table 2

RESULTS OF ORDINARY LEAST SQUARE REGRESSIONS (STANDARDIZED REGRESSION WEIGHTS)

Independent VariableMarket orientationof th e firmCustomer orientationof the salespersonDIFF*Role conflictRole ambiguityR'df

CO'Beta.17-__.03"1276

Beta-.33"- . 01 '. i i '

. 14 '3274

Dependent VariablesRA 'Beta

- . 5 3 '- . 0 5- . 0 2 f

.28"3274

JS*Beta. 4 3 '.02- . 0 6-.Iff- . 2 i f . 4 9 '

5 2 7 2

Beta.50*.0 7

- . 0 1- . 17 "- . 1 4 '

.46'5272p


8/12

MARKET ORIENTATION 113sured by the SOCO scale, however, may not be indic-ative of those desired by the salesperson. For example,having the market and customer orientations in align-ment was predicted to improv e job attitudes, even if bothwere low; however, if the salesperson desires customerorientation to be high, but the firm fosters a selling ori-entation, thereby preventing the salesperson from per-forming in a customer-oriented manner, role stress canbe high and job satisfaction and organizational commit-ment low. So. though a congrxiency in behaviors exists,the results would be opposite from those initially hy-pothesized. Therefore, measuring the customer orienta-tion desired by the salesperson could be more relevantthan studying the actual behaviors measured by SOCOwhen examining the effect of differences on job atti-tudes.

The effect of customer orientation on job attitudes mightbe affected in a sim ilar fashion. For exam ple, even asalesperson who scores relatively high on SOCO couldbe constrained from performing at an even higher de-sired level; hence, the behaviors measured by the SOCOscale are not reflective of desired behaviors. In this case,even a salesperson with a relatively high customer ori-entation could possess lower than expected job attitudes.Conversely, the salesperson could be performing in acustomer-oriented manner that exceeds the dictates of thefirm, perhaps by ignoring selling-oriented commands orcovertly working with the customer to circumvent pol-icies that are not cu.stomer oriented. In this case, rolestress could be high and job satisfaction and organiza-tional commitment low, despite a high SOCO score.

The existence of other market and customer orienta-tion combinations also could add noise to the data; forexample, some salespeople who desire a low customerand market orientation exist, which could affect the find-ings of the market, customer, and difference hypotheses.The results of the market orientation hypotheses, how-ever, argue against this being prevalent for the currentsample, and past research also reports high SOCO scoresby salespeople. In any case, we suggest that further re-search on job attitudes examine the effect of customerorientation by salespeople in light of the firm's marketorientation and the level of customer orientation desiredby salespeople.Reducing role conflict by increasing market orienta-tion is also an interesting result, because it could helpresolve the different research findings regarding the ef-fect of role conflict on performance. On one hand, peo-ple with high role stress have been found in some priorresearch to have lower job perform ance, job satisfaction,and organizational commitment (Johnston et al. 1990;Lyso nski, Singer, and Wilemon 1988; Michaels et al.1988). On the other hand, other studies contend that roleconflict has a positive effect on sales performance (Behr-man and Perreault 1984; Michaels, Day, and Joachim-sthaler 1987). We speculate that these differing conclu-sions about the effect of role conflict on sales performancemight be caused by the differing market orientations of

the firms included in these studies. That is, role conflictcould lead to superior (inferior) performances in a highlyselling-orienled (market-oriented) firm, in which long-term customer satisfaction is not (is) of concern to thefirm. In short, market orientation could be a key ante-cedent to consider prior to developing hypotheses aboutjob attitudes and performance measures.In addition to the central findings discussed here, roleconflict and role ambiguity were f^ound to negatively af-fect job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Theserelationships were consistent with the findings of somepast studies (e.g., Behrman and Perreault 1984; Lyson-.ski. Sing er, and Wilem on 1988; Teas 1983 ). but incon-sistent with aspects of others (Hamner and Tosi 1974;Johnston et al. 1990). This study provides added supporttor the position that role stress negatively affects job sat-isfaction and organizational commitment.Manag erial Implications " - " "

From the salesperson's point of view, a high marketorientation can be inferred to be the preferred organi-zational orientation. When the salesperson perceives theflrm as being attentive to customer needs and satisfac-tion, and aware of competitor strategies to deliver su-perior value and coordinating market-related activitiesthroughout the f"irm. the organization is clearly strivingto support the sales force and reduce the difficulties as-sociated with a sales position. In tum, the salesperson ismore comm itted to and satisfied with the job . Co nse-quently, adopting a market orientation could be an eco-nomical decision for firms in terms of reducing costs as-sociated with losing both employees and customers.This study also indicates that the degree to which a

firm is perceived to be market oriented is a direct andsignificant factor in determining the manner in which thesales force will behave in interactions with customers.This finding indicates that management can be very in-fluential, through its recruitment, training, evaluation,and reward systems, in molding the orientation of its salesforce to conform to the finii's selected orientation, lnother words, the firm can elect to provide the resourcesand motivation to encourage rather than discourage cus-tomer-oriented selling.It is not our purpose to advocate that all flrms are nec-essarily better served in a sales perfomiance sense byembracing a market-oriented philosophy. The extemalenvironment in which the organization operates will cer-

tainly affect the decision conceming the most appropri-ate orientation from a sales dollar standpoint. However,should a firm elect a market orientation as its orientationof choice, this study supports the position that the firmwill achieve greater levels of customer-oriented sellingand more positive job attitudes by salespeople.Limitations

This study is limited by several factors that should beaddressed in further research. First, the model should be


9/12

114 J O U R N A L O F A A A R K E T I N G R E S E A R C H , F E B R U A R Y 1 9 9 4tested further with other independent samples. Testing amodel on a given data set "might capitalize on the pe-culiar characteristics of that data set" (Bagozzi and Yi1 9 8 8 , p. 83). Furthermore, only one industry was in-cluded in our sampling frame. Consequently, caution iswarranted regarding the generalization of our results toother selling environments.

Several measurement problems regarding differencescores have been noted in the literature that pertain tothe DIFF variable (Peter, Churchill , and Brown 1993),which was created to study the difference between themarket orientation of the firm and the customer orien-tation of the salesperson. The failure to support the hy-potheses related to DIFF might be caused by reliability,multicollinearity, and/or the variance restriction prob-lems identified by Peter, Churchill , and Brown (1993).Following their recommendations, in additional re-search, the difference between the orientation desired andthat existing for the organization could be measured byphrasing each item to capture the difference between theconstructs.Assessing the salesperson's perception of the orien-tation of the firm was the approach used to measure themarket orientation construct. Though appropriate be-cause we wanted to measure the effect of the marketorientation of the firm as perceived by the salespersonto relate these to the salesperson s customer orientationand attitudes, using the same respondent to assess cus-tomer orientation and market orientation could result incommon method variance. This shared variance, to somedegree, could account for the relationship between mar-ket orientation and customer orientation.

Finally, though we conducted a cross-sectional studyto examine the hypothesized relationships, some of theconstructs investigated could be dynamic in nature. Thiscould be a potential limitation because the cross-sectionaldata does not reflect any ongoing transformations thatmight affect the relationships among those variables. Forexample, the orientation of the firm could be movingtoward a greater or lesser market orientation, but the ef-fect on the salesperson's customer orientation and atti-tudes could be lagged. A longitudinal study would cap-ture better the dynamism of these constructs.Further Research Directions

Few studies have examined the market orientation ofthe firm and the customer orientation of the salespersonon salesperson performance and attitudes. Each of thesevariables, independently and in tandem, clearly have thepotential to influence the buyer-seller relationship. Thoughusing salespeople to assess the market orientation in thisstudy was appropriate, further research should considerhaving senior management assess the market orientationof the firm independently. In addition, having customersevaluate the customer orientation of the salesperson alsowould be desirable, because customers could provide amore definitive perspective on this measure.

Past research has shown that industrial sales represen-tatives, as a group, tend to be customer oriented (e.g.Michaels and Day 1985). Because our sample consistedof such salespeople (SOCO = 7 .8 , Table 1) , our findings are limited to investigating the hypothesized effectson/of customer-oriented salespeople. To examine sales-peop le and organizatio ns with orientatio ns different fromthose investigated in this study, futher research couldidentify and investigate less customer-oriented industries. One possibility is the retail sector, in which salesclerks have been criticized for their general lack of acustomer orientation, whereas their respective retail or-ganizations have espoused the need for a greater cus-tomer or ientation (e.g. , Koepp 1988) .

Though the results of this study indicate no ass(Kiationbetween customer orientation and job attitudes, otherstudies have reported a significant relationship (e.g.,O'Hara, Boles, and Johnston 1991). Central to this issueis the directionality of the relationships. Our study pro-posed custom er orientation to be antecedent to job attitudes , whereas others have conceptualized customer ori-entation as an outcome of job attitudes (e.g ., Hoffmanand Ingram 1991). The causal order or interactions amongthese variables should be investigated in additional stud-ies, so that the relationships among the constructs canbe understood. We suggest that research in the futurealso take into account the desired level of customer ori-entation by salespeople when studying the effect ofsalesperson customer orientation and/or firm and sales-person dilferences on job attitudes. This perspective mightilluminate more fully any difference effects on job atti-tudes. Finally, taking into account firm orientation couldhelp clarify the conflicting results of research studyingthe effect of variables such as role conflict on actual salesperformance. Market orientation of the finn could helpexplain why role conflict leads to more sales in someinstances and fewer sales in others.

RE FE RE N CE SAnderson, Erin and Richard L. Oliver (1987), "Perspectiveson Behavior-Based Versus Outcome-Based SalesforccControl Systems," Journal of Marketing, 51 (October)7 6 - 8 8 .Armstrong. J. Scott and Terry Overton (1977), "EstimatingNonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys," Journal of MarketingResearch, 14 (August) , 3 9 6-402.Bagozzi, Richard P. and Youjae Yi (1988), "On the Evalua-

tion of Siructural Equation Models," Journal of Academ y oMarketing Science, 16 (Spring), 74-9 4.Bateman, Thomas S. and D. W. Organ (1983), "Job Satis-faction and the Good Soldier: The Relationship Between Af-fect and Employee "Citizenship,"" Academv of ManagemenJournal, 36 , 587-95.Behrman, Douglas N. and William D. PerTeault. Jr. (1984)"A Role Stress Model of the Perfomiance and Satisfactionof Industrial Salespersons," Journal o f Marketing, 48 (Fall)9 -21 .Chonko, Lawrence B., Roy D. Howell, and Danny N. Bel-lenger (1986), "Congruence in Sales Force Evaluations; Re-


10/12

MARKET ORIENTATION

lation to Sales Force Perceptions of Conflict and Ambigu-ity," Journal of Personal Selling and Sales Management, 6(May) . 35 -48 .Churchill, Gilbert A., Neil M. Ford, and Orville C. Walker.Jr. (1976), "Organizational Climate and Job Satisfaction itithe Salesforce," Journal of Marketing Research, 13 (No-vember ) , 237-42 .Crosby, Lawrence A., Kenneth R. Evans, and Deborah Cowles(1990). "Relationship Quality in Services Selling: An In-terpersonal Influence Perspective," Journal of Marketing,54 (July), 6 8 - 8 1 .DeCotiis . Thoma.s A. and Timothy P. Summers (1987), "APath Analysis of a Model of the Antecedents and Conse-quences of Organizational Commitment," Human Rela-tions, 40 (7 ) . 445-70 .Donnelly, James H., Jr., and John M. Ivancevich (1975), "RoleClarity and the Salesman," Journal of Marketing, 39 (Jan-ua ry ) , 71 -74 .Dubinsky, Alan J. and Bruce E. Mattson (1979). "Conse-quences of Role Conflicl and Ambiguity Experienced byRetail Salespeople," Journal of Retailing, 55 (Winter) , 70-86.Feldman, Danie! C. (1981), "The Multiple Socialization ofOrganization M embers , " Academy of Management Review,6 ( 2 ) , 3 0 9 - 1 8 .Franke, George R., Douglas N. Behrman, and William D.Perreault, Jr. (1982), "Salesforce Performance and Satis-faction: Contemporaneous Relationships and Selected An-tecedents," in An As.sessment of Marketing Thought andPractice, B. Walker et al., eds. Chicago: American Mar-keting Association, 233-7.Fry, Louis W., Charles M. Futrell, A. Parasuraman, and Mar-garet A. Chmielewski (1986), "An Analysis of AlternativeCausal Miidels of Salesperson Role Perceptions and Work-Related Attitudes," Journal of M arketing Research, 23 (May),l.*!3-63.Hamner, W. C. and H. L. Tosi (1974), "Relationship of RoleConflict and Role Ambiguity to Job Involvement Mea-sut^es," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (Augus t) .4 9 7 - 9 .Hoffman, K. Douglas and Thomas N. Ingram (1991), "Cre-ating Customer-Oriented Employees: The Case in HomeHealth Caie," Journal of Health Care Marketing, 11 (Jun e),2 4 - 3 2 .Houston, Franklin S. (1986), "The Marketing Concept: WhatIt Is and What It Is Not," Journal of Marketing, 50 (April),8 1 - 8 7 .Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), "Market Ori-entation: Antecedents and Consequences." Journal of Mar-keting, 57 (July) , 53-70.Johnston, Mark W., A. Parasuraman, Charles M. Futrell. andWilliam C. Black (1990), "A Longitudinal Assessment ofthe Impact of Selected Organizational Influences on Sales-people's Organizational Commitment During Early Em-ployment , " Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (August),3 3 3 - 4 4 .

Koepp, Stephen (1988). "Why Is Service So Bad? Pul-eeze!Will SomebtHly Help Me?" in Managing Services: Mar-keting, Operations, and Human Resources, ChristopherH. Lovelock, ed. Englewood Cliffs , NJ: Prentice-Hall,Inc.Kohli, Ajay K. and Bernard J. Jaworski (1990), "Market Ori-entation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Man-

115ageria l Implica t ions ," you rna/o /A/a r/ ; f /m ^, 54 (Apri l ) , I -18 .Lysonski, Steven, Alan Singer, and David Wilemon (1988),"Coping with Environmental Uncertainty and BoundarySpanning in the Prixluct Manager's Role," The Journal ofBusiness and Industrial Marketing, 3 (Winter) , 5-16.Michaels, Roland E., and Ralph L. Day (1985), "MeasuringCustomer Orientation of Salespeople: A Replication with In-dustrial Buyers," Journal of Marketing Research, 22 (No-vember ) , 443-6 .. , and Erich A. Joachlm sthaler (198 7), "RoleStress Among Industrial Buyers: An Intcgratlve Model,"Journal of Marketing, 51 (Apri l ) , 28-45., William L. Cron, Alan J. Dubinsky, and Erich A.Joachimsthaler (1988), "Influence of Formalization on theOrganizational Commitment and Work Alienation of Sales-people and Industrial Buyers," Journal of Marketing Re-search, 25 (November ) , 376-83 .Morris , James H. and J. Daniel Sherman (1981), "General-izability of an Organizational Commitment Model," Acad-emy of Managemetit Journal, 24 , 512-26 .Motowidlo, Stephen J. (1984), "Docs Job Satisfaction lead toConsideration and Personal Sensitivity?" Academy of Man-agement Journal, 27 (December) , 910-15.Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater (1990), "The Effect ofa Market Orientation on Business Profitability," Journal ofMarketing, 54 (October) , 20-35.Nunnaily, J . C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. New York:McGraw-Hill BiX)k Company.O'Hara, Bradley S.. James S. Boles, and Mark W. Johnston(1991), "The Influence of Personal Variables on Salesper-son Selling Orientation," Journal of Personal Selling & SalesManagement, II (Winter) , 61-67.Peter, J. Paul, Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr., Tom J. Brown (1993),"Caution in the Use of Difference Scores in Consumer Re-search," Journal of Consumer Research, 19 (March) , 655-62 .Porter. Lyman W., Richard M. Steers, Richard T. Mowday,and P. V. Boulian (1974), "Organizational Commitment,Job Satisfaction and Turnover Among Psychiatric Techni-c ians ," Journal of Applied Psychology, 59 (5 ) , 603-9 .Rizzo, John R., Robert J. House, and Sidney J. Lirtzman(1970), "Roie Conflict and Ambiguiiy in Complex Organ-izax'wns," Admini.strative Science Quarterly. 15 , 150-63 .Saxe, Robert and Barton A. Weitz (1982). "The SOCO Scale:A Measure of the Customer Orientation of Salespeople,"Journal of Marketing Research, 19 (August), 3 4 3 - 5 1 .Schlesinger, Leonard A. and James L. Heskett (1991). "TheService-Driven Service Company," Harvard Business Re-view. (Sep tember -Oc tobe r ) . 7 1 - 8 1 -Smith, Patricia Cain, Lt>me M. Kendall, and Charles L. Hulin(1969), The Measurement of Satisfaction in Work and Re-tirement: A Strategy for the Study of Attitudes. Chicago: RandMcNally .Teas, Ray Kenneth (1983), "Supervisory Behavior. Role Stns.ss,and the Job Satisfaction of Industrial Salespeople," Journalof Marketing Research, 20 (February), 8 4 - 9 1 ., John G. Wacker, and R. Eugene Hughes (1979), "APath Analysis of Causes and Consequences of Salesmen'sPerceptions of Role Clarity," Journal of Marketing Re-search, 16 (Augus t) , 335-69.Vandenberg. Robert J . and Charles E. Lance (1992). "Ex-amining the Causal Order of Job Satisfaction and Organi-


11/12

116zational Commitment,*' Journal of Management 18 (I) , 153-6 7 .Walker, Orville C , Jr. , Gilbert A. Churchill, Jr. , and Neil M.Ford {1972). "Reactions to Role Conflict: The Case of theIndustrial Salesm an," Journal of Business Administration, 3

JOURNAL OF MARKETING RESEARCH, FEBRUARY 1994(Spr ing) , 25 -36 .Webster, Cynthia (1991), "A Note on Cultural Consistencywithin the Service Firm: The Effects of Employee Positionon Attitudes toward Marketing Culture." Journal of Acad-emy of Marketing Science, 19 (Fal l ) , 341-6.

The Am erican M arketing A sso ciat ion i sfor YOU, the Marketing ProfessionalThe American Marketing Association proudly p ublis hes the:Joumai of MarketingJournal of M arketing R esearchJoumai of Health Care MarketingJoumai of Puhlic Policy & MarketingMarketing Education ReviewMarketing Educator 'Marketing ManagementMarketing NewsMarketing R esearch:

AMA is ln the forefront of the marketing profession and will be developing and publishingnew Jo um als and periodicals. All expertly written a nd edited to brin e YOU, the m arketing professional.to the leading edge of marketing thoug htan d practice.AMA challenges you to use these outlets in:ClassroomsAcademic PursuitsResearch SourcesPersonal EnhancementProfessional DevelopmentFor informatlonon subscribing to publications, membership, or other AMA benefitscontac t the American M arketing AssociationIntemational Headquarters25 0 S outh Wacker DriveChicago. IL 60606(312) 648 053 6 or fax (312) 993-754 2The American Marketing Association's policies on REPRINTS and PERMISSIONSappear on page 27 of this issue.

f


12/12

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sanketagrawal
View:	217 times
Download:	0 times

Influence of Market Orientation

Documents