See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235264351

Marketing Orientation and its Determinants: An Empirical Analysis

Article  in  European Journal of Marketing · December 1999

DOI: 10.1108/03090569910285896

CITATIONS READS

284 2,240

2 authors:

George J. Avlonitis Spiros Gounaris

Athens University of Economics and Business University of Strathclyde
109 PUBLICATIONS   4,884 CITATIONS    86 PUBLICATIONS   5,403 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

COBEREN View project

Open Research in Sustainability Science (Doors) View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Spiros Gounaris on 18 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Marketing Orientation and Its Determinants: An Empirical Analysis
by

George J. Avlonitis and Spiros P. Gounaris

Dr. George J. Avlonitis is Professor of Marketing at the Department of Management Sci-

ence & Marketing of the Athens University of Economics &
Business.
Dr. Spiros P. Gounaris is Lecturer of Marketing at the Department of Management Sci-
ence & Marketing of the Athens University of Economics &
Business.
Abstract
Recent studies around the Marketing Orientation concept, and especially in Europe, have mainly focused
around two general topics: The understanding of Marketing Orientation and the investigation of the relation-
ship between Marketing Orientation and company performance. However, while a strong association between
Marketing Orientation development and company performance has been established, the understanding of the
Marketing Orientation remains unclear since some studies have suggested a philosophical nature for Market-
ing Orientation and some other studies concluded that Marketing Orientation represents a behavioural notion.
As a result of this antithesis, research has not proceeded in the investigation on the factors that determine the
degree of Marketing Orientation development. The findings presented in this paper show that Marketing Ori-
entation should be conceptualised synthetically since it represents the integration of a certain culture with spe-
cific behaviour. Furthermore, a step towards a closer examination of the major determinants of Marketing
Orientation development is taken: Although exploratory in nature, the findings suggest that Marketing Orien-
tation development is determined by company-specific, as well as by market-specific factors with the former
having a facilitating effect and the latter a coercive effect.
Key Words
Marketing Orientation Development, Determinants of Marketing Orientation, Company Factors and
Marketing Orientation, Market Factors and Marketing Orientation, Marketing Orientation and Its
Determinants: An Empirical Analysis

1. INTRODUCTION
Several research efforts have been focused on the investigation of the relationship between the degree of
Marketing Orientation adoption and company performance (e.g. Narver and Slater, 1989 Cadogan and Dia-
mantopoulos 1995, Anttila, Moller and Rajala 1995). All these and similar studies have produced significant
evidence of an association between the two notions.
On the other hand, Marketing Orientation is admittedly the characteristic of a limited number of compa-
nies: The vast majority fails to develop and exploit the benefits of the concept (Hooley, Lynch and Shepherd
1990). In order to explain this paradox, one has to consider the conditions under which the concept of Market-
ing Orientation can flourish. However, to the best of our knowledge, with the exemption of the research car-
ried out by Kohli and Jaworski (1992), little attention has been given on the conditions under which Marketing
Orientation could be developed.
This paper presents and tests a hypothesis regarding the importance, and the role, of company- and mar-
ket-specific variables in developing a Marketing Orientation. The major hypothesis of this paper is that Mar-
keting Orientation represents a synthesis of attitudes as well as of behaviours, the development of which is
significantly influenced by both the internal environment (as a facilitating variable) and the external/market
environment (as an initiating variable). In the following pages a relevant literature review, and the hypotheses
of the study, are presented.
2. BACKGROUND & HYPOTHESES
2.1. Explicating the Marketing Orientation Concept
During the last twenty years two main conceptualisations of the notion have been developed: One that in-
terprets Marketing Orientation as basically a company attitude and a second that explains it as basically a
company behaviour.
Drucker (1954) for instance stated that «marketing is not a specific company activity. Rather, it involves the
entire organisation viewed from the customers’ point». Similarly, Felton (1959) has also described Marketing
Orientation giving, too, attitudinal qualities to the concept. More specifically, he approached it as «a way of
thinking in doing business that is based on the integration and co-ordination of all marketing activities which,
in turn, will integrate with the rest of the company activities in an effort to maximise long-term profitability».
Much later, at the 1990 Marketing Science Institute (MSI) conference on «Organising to Become Market
Driven», Fr. Cespedes used Marketing Organisation to describe the functional department of the company that
executes marketing related activities (e.g. pricing, distribution, promotion etc.), while the concept of marketing
was identified with a certain way of thinking concerning the company’s priorities and goals (1990). In a simi-
lar direction are also the ideas of Deshpande and Webster (1989) who grant philosophical/cultural qualities to
Marketing Orientation. In doing so they use the degree of Marketing Orientation to explain the company’s
propensity to innovate (Deshpande, Farley and Webster 1992). In their study they use the term «customer ori-
entation» to describe a specific set of beliefs that puts the customers’ interests first and ahead of those of all
other stakeholders (e.g. owners, managers, employees) which, in their view, should be considered as part of a
broader, and more fundamental, corporate culture.
The above citations of writings that approach Marketing Orientation as a company philosophy are merely
indicative and by no means exhaustive. Others have also developed and stated similar views, all treating Mar-
keting Orientation as mainly a company philosophy (Houston 1986, Dixon 1990). To summarise the basic
facets of Marketing Orientation as a company philosophy, one can, on the basis of the attitudes underlying the
concept, isolate specific priorities for the Marketing Oriented company:
(a) a priority in customers when evaluating the company and its products and the extent to which both
the company and its products satisfy specific customers’ needs,
(b) a priority in elevating marketing as the prevailing culture of the company so the entire organisa-
tion will mobilise towards satisfying customers’ needs, and
(c) a priority in adjusting products according to the market needs and wants, rather than according
to the company’s perceptions and beliefs, so that customers satisfaction can be delivered.
However, as previously noted, parallel to the notion that Marketing Orientation represents a specific com-
pany philosophy, another one has been developed that regards Marketing Orientation as primarily a specific
company behaviour. Trout and Ries (1985) for example perceive Marketing Orientation as an effort to compile
market intelligence upon which the effort to build a competitive advantage is based. In fact, they take it a step
further by supporting that customer orientation, although important, is not as crucial as a competitor orienta-
tion is, as the later will enable the company to identify the weaknesses of its competitors and strike them back
were they suffer.
Elliot (1987) also adopts a behavioural approach in explaining Marketing Orientation, but from a different
viewpoint. He suggests that the concept of Marketing Orientation and the philosophy to set a priority to sat-
isfy customers’ needs, although important, is insufficient and requires revising. He proposes that the designing
of strategies that are purposed to achieve customer satisfaction should be considered as part of the Marketing
Orientation concept.
 This strategic-behavioural approach in explaining Marketing Orientation has found acceptance and support
by other authors too (Bonoma 1985, Bonoma and Clark 1992). In fact, attempts have been made to explain
Marketing Orientation as the understanding of the significance of marketing for the company. This calls for
the development of marketing skills (with particular emphasis in the designing and implementation of market-
ing strategies) by the people of the company while, at the same time, emphasis needs to be given on the re-
quired changes in the organisational structure and marketing systems of the company (Canning 1989, Kohli
and Jaworski 1990). Within this framework of behavioural-strategic approach to Marketing Orientation, Kohli
and Jaworski (1990) have set three main priorities for a Marketing Oriented company:
(a) priority in market intelligence collection (to understand the market),
(b) priority in intelligence dissemination throughout the company (to familiarise it with the market),
and
(c) priority in responsiveness to this intelligence (through the strategies and plans that the company de-
signs and implements).
This extensive presentation of the two dominant approaches of Marketing Orientation reveals significant
overlaps between them: Unless the company has developed a certain attitude, strategies that will aim to maxi-
mise its adaptation to the market cannot be designed. On the other hand, strategies designed to increase the
degree of the company’s adaptation to the market cannot be actually implemented unless the compulsion to do
so is appreciated. In other words, it would appear that the two main approaches that have been developed and
presented in the previous lines actually complement each other instead of opposing. Thus, we suggest that
H1 A genuine Marketing Orientation adoption represents the synthesis of certain atti-
tudes and of certain practices which, in turn, are related and inseparable.
2.2. Determinants of Marketing Orientation
Determinants of Marketing Orientation refer to those factors that influence the development of the set of at-
titudes and the set of practices that comprise the concept of Marketing Orientation. Our examination of the
pertinent literature revealed two broad groups of such factors: Company-specific factors and Market-specific
factors.
2.2.1. Company-Specific Factors

(a) Company’s Internal Environment

As previously explained, the concept of Marketing Orientation consists of specific attitudes that guide the
company’s culture and of specific practices that guide its behaviour. According to Pascale (1990) the com-
pany’s culture, like its practices and behaviour, is a manageable variable which can be appropriately manipu-
lated in order to achieve internal consistency in the pursuit of strategic synergy. Hence Marketing Orientation
cannot be viewed as something that the company has it or not. Rather, Marketing Orientation represents the
outcome of an evolutionary process that, within a broader framework of a changing environment, takes the
company from complete ignorance of the concept to full adoption (Preston, Saker and Smith 1993, Tuominen
and Moller 1996 Hooley, Lynch and Shepherd 1990).
Within this process, it is clear that the company needs to reconsider its strategical direction. However, strat-
egy formation requires that the company’s (new) mission has been consulted so that the prevailing company
culture (underlying the company’s mission) is in accordance with the company’s (new) strategic directions
(Cravens 1991). Once this first step is completed, the Top Management Team (TMT) needs to ensure that the
structural arrangements of the company reflect and facilitate the adoption of the new strategy so that structure
and strategy can work harmonically to promote the objective of greater market adaptation.
However, doing so is risky because each time that an important aspect of the company’s strategy clashes or
is incompatible with the prevailing culture, then, a situation of instability and unbalance between strategy and
culture arises. This situation involves a great deal of what Schwartz and Davis (1981) have termed «cultural»
risks. Thus, the company’s TMT is obliged to interfere with both the company’s culture and strategy and at-
tempt to harmonise them and bring them into accordance. Such situations are quite common among companies
that try to become Marketing Oriented: In some cases, if Marketing Orientation development starts with modi-
fications of the company’s set of attitudes and beliefs then, the emerging culture, will be incompatible with the
strategy of the company that was designed under the previous company’s culture that is currently under revi-
sion. In other cases, when the initiation of the Marketing Orientation development process starts with altera-
tions of the company’s practices and strategies then, the emerging strategy, will be incompatible with the exist-
ing culture and, consequently hard to gain acceptance and receive commitment.
In this context, Marketing Orientation development appears to be a political phenomenon as the company’s
re-orientation requires the re-design of the company’s structure, the reconsideration and the re-allocation of the
company’s resources, the re-modelling of the company’s information and communication networks and so on
(Piercy 1991, 1992). Clearly, under such conditions of literally re-shaping the entire organisation, existing in-
terests are harmed and the company’s present status quo frequently reacts negatively. Thus, the political nature
of Marketing Orientation is given and, likewise, the need for the company’s TMT to assume a significant
amount of risk (associated with the acceptance that conflicts between the new and the old situations will
arise), in order to allow Marketing Orientation to prevail, is also given.
Assuming that the company is risk-tolerant enough to initiate the process of establishing a Marketing Ori-
entation and proceed with it, other aspects of its internal environment become important factors that also de-
termine the degree of Marketing Orientation development.
More specifically, organisational studying has a long tradition of research which has established that the
way information is used is likely to be a function of the presence of organisational structures, systems and pro-
cesses (Cyert R and March G, 1992, Daft R. and Weick K. 1984, Weick K. 1979). Two fundamental character-
istics of these structures, systems and processes are the degree to which they are centralised and the degree to
which they are formalised.
Centralisation is defined as the delegation of decision-making authority throughout an organisation and
the extent of participation by organisational members in decision making (Aiken and Hage 1968). Formalisa-
tion is defined as the existence of specific rules, authority relations, communications, norms, procedures and
sanctions that characterise the operations of an organisation (Hall, Haas and Norman 1967).
Empirical research has shown that the company’s ability to acquire market information, to achieve
information transition company-wide and utilise it, is inversely related to the degree of centralisation that
characterises the pertinent information monitoring and collecting systems, structures and processes. For
instance the work of Deshpande (1982) and Deshpande and Zaltman (1982) has shown that the greater the
degree of centralisation in such structures, systems or processes, the lower the company’s ability to utilise
information from the market.
It is also argued that formalised structures, systems or procedures, although they may possibly facilitate in-
strumental utilisation processes (since such procedures involve using information to take marketing actions),
reduce information acquisition, information dissemination and conceptual utilisation by weakening myopic
interpretations, (Moorman 1995, Menon and Varadarajan 1992, Day 1991, Imai, Nokaka and Takeuchi 1985).
To summarise, the review of the organisational literature reveals significant evidence that the two facets of
Marketing Orientation are related with and influenced by the company’s attitude towards risk as well as the
company’s structural arrangements and, in particular, the degree of centralisation and formalisation that char-
acterises them. On these grounds we suggest that:
H2 The company’s (Top Management) attitude towards risk, as well as the degree of
centralisation and formalisation that characterise its structural arrangements, de-
termine the degree of Marketing Orientation.
(b) Significance Attached by the Top Management Team to Different Key Factors of Suc-
cess
The formation of the company’s internal environment, as well as the decision to initiate the process of
Marketing Orientation development, is certainly the accountability of the company’s Top Management Team
since it is most unusual that, any attempt to define what the company is and how it will compete in the market
will originate from the bottom and not from the top (Shapiro 1988). Indeed, the role of Senior Management in
moulding the principles upon which the company’s identity will be established has long been accepted (Meg-
ginson, Mosley and Pietri 1989 ).
On the other hand, companies have subjective theories, which link successful previous experience to
causes. Such theories and experiences provide guidelines about how should they move on into the future
(Ferguson and Dickinson (1982). Consequently, the Top Management’s team perception of the importance of
different Key Factors of Success (K.F.S.) should be expected to determine whether Marketing Orientation will
be selected as the basis for creating and sustaining a competitive advantage.
 The decision to build a competitive advantage based on the development of Marketing Orientation is the
outcome of an evaluation process that takes into consideration three main questions: (a) Does it make sense to
invest in building a certain competitive advantage under the given market conditions ? (b) Is the development
of this advantage efficient and effective ? and (c) Can this competitive advantage that will be derived by the
development of a Marketing Orientation be sustained in the long-run ? (Aaker 1989).
However, answering these questions requires that the company has considered and evaluated alternative
factors of success and has determined those critical factors that in its specific market(s) lead to better perform-
ance (Ohmae 1983). This evaluation process is frequently the outcome of the company’s previous experience
of what has served the company better in the past (Lorsch 1986). For example, if the company had benefited in
the past from being a cost leader, it is very likely that it will perceive that cost controlling is a Key Factor of
Success and, consequently, it will direct its efforts in maintaining its cost-controlling ability in order to sustain
its cost advantage over its competitors.
In other instances however, the way the company responds to its environment modifies the limitations, the
opportunities and the threats that the environment imposes to the company, a fact that, in turn, leads the com-
pany to reconsider and re-evaluate the importance of different KFS (Pearce and Robinson 1988 ). For exam-
ple, if the company, at a certain period of time, concluded that cost-controlling was no more a strong basis of
differentiation, alternative bases for building a competitive advantage would be sought and considered. In such
situations, it may be possible that the company’s Top Management Team decided that an aggressive sales
strategy would pay off. Thus, it becomes very likely that the company will reconsider the importance of being
a cost leader and try to establish a, new, competitive advantage based on its selling skills.
From the above discussion it becomes evident that the company’s resources are allocated and re-allocated
depending on the subjective evaluation of different KFS by the company’s TMT on how they perceive that a
competitive advantage can be established and on what are the Key Factors of Success that influence the mag-
nitude and the sustainability of this advantage (Day and Wensley 1983). On this basis, we expect that:
H3 The importance assigned by the Top Management Team to different Key Factors of Success determine
the degree of Marketing Orientation.
2.3. Market-Specific Factors
The salient role of the company’s market environment in the development of a Marketing Orientation has
also been established for quite some time now (Felton 1959, Levitt 1960, Kotler 1977). In fact, Levitt (1960)
has argued that, as long as the company operates in familiar, stable and predictable markets, it does not have to
develop a Marketing Orientation. However, because in the long-run most markets do not remain stable or pre-
dictable, companies have to become more adaptive to market changes (i.e. have to become Marketing Ori-
ented) while those who fail to do so simply die (Day 1990).
According to Porter (1985) the structure of any market consists of five main factors: Suppliers, Buyers,
New Entrants, Substitute Products and Existing Competitors. Consequently, changes of the market environ-
ment should originate from changes derived from these five major structural factors of the market which ex-
plain the nature and the type of any given market.
In the work of Davis, Morris and Allen (1991) the effect of certain environmental characteristics on spe-
cific entrepreneurial and organisational factors was investigated. More specifically, their analysis focused on
the investigation of the effect of certain market characteristics exercised on: (a) the importance assigned by the
company to specific marketing activities (e.g. formal marketing research, use of market segmentation strate-
gies etc.), (b) the company’s propensity to innovate and take calculated entrepreneurial risks and (c) its organ-
isational structure. Their findings indicated that in markets characterised by increased growth rates, companies
are more prone to (a) undertake more marketing activities, and (b) assume more innovative and proactive be-
haviour. Since Marketing Orientation has already been defined as the mixture of a set of beliefs (guiding the
company to undertake whatever action is necessary so that customers’ satisfaction is increased) coupled with
a certain set of practices (that actualise the behaviour into concrete practice) it would appear that the work of
Davis, Morris and Allen implies some association between growing-evolving market environments and Mar-
keting Orientation development.
Another association is also evident in the work of Diamantopoulos and Hart (1993). More specifically, in a
replication of the work of Kohli and Jaworski (1990) but within a British context, the authors found that com-
petitive hostility moderates the relationship between Marketing Orientation adoption and company perform-
ance. More specifically, according to their findings, the Marketing Orientation - company performance
association is stronger in the more competitive markets. Consequently, the degree of competition can reasona-
bly be expected to be one market-specific factor that determines the extent of Marketing Orientation develop-
ment.
In a similar direction are also the findings of an earlier study carried out by Narver and Slater (1989). How-
ever, in that study, the research focused on a larger number of variables and the interest centred on the effect
that specific market characteristics bear on both the company’s performance itself and the relationship be-
tween Marketing Orientation adoption and the company’s performance in the market. The evidence compiled
and the analysis that followed showed that the relationship between Marketing Orientation adoption and com-
pany performance is influenced by the power of the company’s suppliers, the power of the company’s buyers,
the barriers to entry as well as the ones to exit the market, the competitive intensity, and the rate of technologi-
cal change.
More specifically, the data collected by Narver and Slater showed that low barriers to entry, technological
changes and powerful buyers shaped a hostile and turbulent environment that had a negative effect on the
company’s performance while strengthened the association between Marketing Orientation and company per-
formance. Consequently it is logical to infer that under such conditions companies are more inclined to de-
velop a Marketing Orientation.
Finally, in a recent study Slater and Narver (1994) investigated, among other variables, the moderating role
of the strength of the economy in which companies operate, on the relationship between Marketing Orienta-
tion development and company performance. In that study, the findings showed that for companies operating
in week economies with stable or decreasing markets, a Marketing Orientation adoption is more likely than it
is for companies that operate in strong economies.
These empirical findings are in accordance with normative work developed in the 1980’s which had sug-
gested specific relationships between certain characteristics of the market environment and the basis upon
which companies attempt to build and sustain a competitive advantage (Porter 1985, Scherer 1980). For in-
stance, it has been argued that as the power of the company’s customers increases so will the company’s need
to develop a Marketing Orientation, since in such market conditions, the company’s customers have the power
to demand, and get, maximum adaptation to their specific and individual needs (Porter 1985, Schere 1980).
Similarly, it has also been suggested that the lower the barriers to entry for new competitors (Porter 1985), as
well as the greater the competitive intensity (Scherer 1980), the higher the company’s need to develop a Mar-
keting Orientation, since, under such conditions, competition is intensified and companies need to react either
through price cuts (and tolerate eroded profit margins) or through differentiated products that better meet the
demand of the market (and maintain/increase market share and profit).
To summarise, the literature reviewed suggests that the development of Marketing Orientation is influ-
enced not only by company-specific factors but also by market-specific ones. More specifically, empirical, as
well as normative, work suggests that: (1) the competitive intensity characterising the market, (2) the difficulty
with which new competitors may enter the market, as well as new competitors may enter it, (3) the distribution
of power between buyers and producers on one hand and producers and suppliers on the other, (4) the degree
of technological change and (5) the growth rates, both in the past and the expected ones for the future, charac-
terising the company’s market, influence the development of Marketing Orientation. On these grounds we
suggest that:
H4 The Nature of the company’s Market, as defined by the degree of competitive hostil-
ity, the existence of barriers to entry and barriers to exit, the rate of technology
change, the distribution of power between the market’s main protagonists and the
market’s growth rates, determines the degree of Marketing Orientation.
3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1. Sample
The hypotheses put forward in this paper were assessed against data from 444 Greek companies. The data
were secured by means of a mail questionnaire as this technique has the significant advantage to allow time to
the respondent to pile the information in question and, consequently, decrease the not-answered questions per
questionnaire (Hansen 1980).
The data collection strategy for the mail survey had two objectives. First, a cross sectional sample was cho-
sen with the intention to increase the generalizability of the findings. At the same time, it was necessary that
certain marketing skills should be present among the companies in the sample. Thus, we ensured that larger
companies would be adequately represented in the sample since, it was felt that, the larger the company the
higher the probability to possess these skills. Consequently, the sample was defined to encapsulate the follow-
ing companies described in the mailing lists of ICAP1:
Ÿ all manufacturing companies with more than 40 employees (n=1,843)
Ÿa random sample of 600 manufacturing companies with fewer than 40 employees
(n=3,362)
Ÿ all service companies with more than 20 employees (n=1,157),
This sampling procedure produced a sample of 3,500 companies. However, changes in addresses and/or
the close-down of some of these companies, eventually reduced the original sample down to 3,200 companies.
Clearly, including in the sample such a large number from such diversified industries increases the levels of
heterogeneity in the sample. Although increased heterogeneity has been argued to induce negative effects on
the quality of the findings Dubinsky and Ingram 1982, Bilkey 1978) cross-sectional samples with increased
levels of heterogeneity are frequently used in research efforts in order to increase the researchers’ ability to
generalise (Hooley, Lynch and Shepherd 1990, Kohli and Jaworski 1990).
The second objective of the data collection strategy was to collect the required information only from the
Marketing Director of the company or the Sales Director when a Marketing Director did not exist.
In order to collect the data, a detailed and lengthy questionnaire was designed. In doing so, particular em-
phasis was given in avoiding leading questions as well as complex or sensitive ones (especially in the begin-
ning of the questionnaire) that could influence the respondent negatively (Churchil 1991). Prior to mailing it,
the questionnaire was extensively pre-tested. For that purpose, 12 personal interviews were conducted with
Marketing Directors who had agreed to provide assistance and comments on the development of the question-
naire.
3.1.1. Response Rate and Structure of the Sample
Two mailing waves produced 278 and 175 completed questionnaires respectively. Table I summarises the
structure of the respondents. From these, 9 questionnaires had to be excluded from further analysis as the large
number of unanswered questions per questionnaire was making any further analysis impossible.

Table I: Structure of the Respondents

Consumer Industrial Services TOTALSb
Main Market 236 161 40 437
Small Medium Large

Sizea 106 189 143 438

a The definition of size took into consideration the characteristics, in terms of employment level and annual turn-
over, of Greek companies. Thus, as small were defined those companies that employed up to 50 employees and had
an annual turn over no more than US$ 2 mil. As medium were defined those companies that employed from 50 up
to 250 employees and had an annual turn over from US$ 2 mil. up to US$ 11 mil. As large were defined those
companies that employed more than 250 employees and had an annual turn over exceeding US$ 11 mil.
b Totals do not add to 444 as some respondents did not indicate the size of the company while others failed to indi-

cate the market that their company participated in.

Thus, 444 questionnaire were left for further analysis, giving a response rate of approximately 14%. A
higher response rate was probably impossible because of the length of the questionnaire (12 pages) and the
confidential nature of the information requested in some questions. Besides, one has to take into consideration
that large-scale surveys, using random sampling, tend to show a decline in response rates (Baim 1991, Meir
1991). Similar studies that involved large and cross-sectional samples achieved response rates ranging from
14% to 20% (Janson 1988, Gurrian 1991).

1
The Gallup’s subsidiary in Greece.
 However, an effort was also made to locate a possible source of non response bias. One objective means of
assessing nonresponse bias is to assume that respondents / nonrespondents differences might be manifested to
some degree between early and late responses (Armstrong and Overton 1977). Indeed, differences in measured
levels of Marketing Behaviour between the first wave (early) and the second wave (late) respondents were
insignificant indicating that the measured variables of our study are not valued differently between respon-
dents and not respondents.
3.1.2. Marketing Director
Respondents within companies were selected to have a deep knowledge of the company’s overall market-
ing culture and practices. At the same time, they had to be senior enough to provide information on the com-
pany’s strategies. The ICAP catalogues used in our research provide information regarding the companies’
various departments as well as the names of the Directors of each department. Thus, in the companies having a
Marketing Department, the Marketing Director was the recipient of the questionnaire while in the companies
that did not have a Marketing Department the questionnaire was addressed to the Sales Director.
The choice to use the single respondent approach was compelled by both the size of the sample and the re-
spondent’s familiarity with the research topic and the information sought. The large size of the sample ren-
dered the mailing of additional questionnaires to more respondents per company prohibitive in financial terms.
Besides, similar studies in the broader field of marketing have also employed the key respondent approach
without any flaws to the reliability of the data (Narver and Slater 1989 Donaldson 1995).
3.2. Variables Measurement
3.2.1. Marketing Orientation Measured as An Attitudinal Concept
In order to measure the respondents’ level of Marketing Orientation adoption (as attitude), they were pre-
sented with the 15 statements that have been found to adequately describe different attitudinal approaches to
Marketing Orientation (Hooley, Lynch and Shepherd 1990). Then, using a Likert scale (1=«I Fully Disagree»
to 5=«I Fully Agree») they were asked to indicate the degree of agreement or disagreement with each state-
ment. In order to avoid potential bias in the responses induced by the possibility that some respondents might
be inclined to systematically tick at the extremes of the scale, attention was given to phrase the sentences in a
manner that higher levels of agreement would not always represent a more positive attitude towards Marketing
Orientation. Later, during the analysis of the results, where necessary, the scales were reverted so that higher
levels of agreement would always represent more positive attitude toward Marketing Orientation. The state-
ments, as well as the pertinent descriptive statistics, are presented in the Appendix.
3.2.2. Marketing Orientation Measured as A Behavioural Concept
The measurement used by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) for Marketing Orientation as behaviour was em-
ployed to gauge the degree of Marketing Orientation (as behaviour) of the respondents (see appendix). Thus
using a 5-point scale (1=«It Does Not Represent Our Company At All» to 5=«It Fully Represents Us»), we
measured (a) the degree of market intelligence collection, (b) the degree of company-wide dissemination of
the intelligence, and (c) the degree of responsiveness to the market intelligence gathered. The means and
the standard deviation, as well as a reliability analysis, for the statements used to measure the 3 different as-
pects of Marketing Orientation (as behaviour) are presented in the Appendix.
3.2.3. Top Management’s Attitude Towards Risk
In order to measure the Top Management Team’s attitude towards risk, the respondents were presented
with the statements developed by Kohli and Jaworski’s (1992) that have been found to adequately describe the
company’s overall attitude towards risk. Then, using a 5-point scale (ranging from 1=«It does not represent
our company at all», to 5=«it fully represents our company») they were asked to indicate to what extent each
statement represented their company (see Appendix for statements and descriptive statistics).
3.2.4. Degree of Formalisation and Centralisation
To measure the company’s degree of formalisation, the respondents were presented with the 7 statements
developed by Heige and Aiken (1970) for assessing the company’s degree of formalisation. Then, using a 5-
point scale (1=«It does not represent our company at all» to 5=«It fully represents our company») the respon-
dents were asked to indicate to what extent each of the 7 statements represented their company. As far as the
measurement of the company’s degree of centralisation is concerned, the respondents were presented with the
4 statements used by Kohli and Jaworski (1992) in order to gauge the company’s degree of centralisation.
Then, using a 5-point scale (1=«It does not represent our company at all» to 5=«It fully represents our com-
pany») the respondents were asked to denote to what extent each of the 4 statements represented their com-
pany (see Appendix for statements and descriptive statistics).
3.2.5. Importance Assigned to Different Key Factors of Success
In order to evaluate the importance assigned by the Top Management Team to different Key Factors of
Success, the respondents were initially presented with a total of 16 different potential factors of success and,
using a 4-point scale ranging from 1=«Little or not important» to 4=«Very Important», were asked to indicate
the importance they perceived that each potential K.F.S had for their company (see Appendix for presentation
of the 16 statements and descriptive statistics for each statement). Preliminary analysis of the correlation ma-
trix of the 16 statements showed that it might be likely to form distinctive groups of factors that were possibly
underlying the original statements. For this purpose we performed a Principal Components Factor Analysis
(PCFA) of the original 16 statements. This analysis is particularly useful when the researcher seeks to identify
possible underlying factors that characterise a specific group of variables. The PCFA resulted in a 5-Factors
solution, namely Market Focusing (referring to such factors as the company being trusted by its customers,
the company’s overall image in the market, the promptness with which it reacts in customers’ needs and re-
quests, its willingness to define the quality of its products as perceived by its customers and the quality of the
relationships the company maintains with its customers), Channel Networking (describing such factors as
the spread of the company’s distribution channel, the quality of the relationships that it has with the members
of its distribution network, the existence of a management information and the emphasis it places on advertis-
ing), Product Uniqueness (pertaining to such factors as the uniqueness of the features of the company’s prod-
uct and its design) Price Advantage (including such factors as the financial strength of the company, cost
advantage and competitive pricing) and Skilful Salesmanship (referring to such factors as emphasis on per-
sonal selling and after-sales service) (see the Appendix for a detailed description of this Factor Analysis solu-
tion and pertinent statistics).
3.2.6. Measurement of Environmental forces

(a) Power of Company’s Buyers and Suppliers

Both concepts were measured using the same measures employed by Narver and Slater (1989). More spe-
cifically, the Power of the company’s Buyers was gauged by asking the respondents to indicate, using a 5-
point scale ranging form 1=«I Totally Disagree» to 5=«I Totally Agree», their agreement with the following
statement:
Buyers’ power: “Many of our customers have the power to negotiate and impose their terms when do-
ing business with our company” (mean = 2,745 Std. dev. = 1,056).
In order to assess the company’s power over its Suppliers, we asked the respondents to indicate, using a 5-
point scale, ranging form 1=«I Totally Disagree» to 5=«I Totally Agree», their agreement with the following
statements:
Suppliers’ power: “Our company has the power to negotiate and impose its own terms when doing busi-
ness with our major suppliers” (mean = 3,581 Std. dev. = 1,056).
(b) Barriers to Entry and Barriers to Exit
The existence of Barriers to Entry for possible competitors, as well as Barriers to Exit for the existing
competitors, was, again, evaluated using the measures originally employed by Narver and Slater (1989). Re-
spondents were presented with a 5-point scale ranging form 1=«Easily» to 5=«Difficult» and asked to indicate
(i) how easy it is for new competitors to enter the company’s market (mean = 3,714 Std. dev. =1,098) and (ii)
how easy it is for the existing competitors to leave the market (mean = 3,114 Std. dev. =1,176).
(c) Competitive Intensity
In order to measure the market’s degree of Competitive intensity, the measurement of Kohli and Jaworski
(1992) was employed. More specifically, the respondents were presented with 4 statements that are known to
describe the intensity of the competitive environment and were asked, using a 5-point scale (1=«I totally dis-
agree» to 5=«I totally agree»), to indicate their level of agreement with each statement. However, the results of
the reliability analysis performed in order to examine the reliability of the measure indicated that one of the 4
statements had to be eliminated. Thus, only the first 3 of the 4 statements were eventually employed (see Ap-
pendix for pertinent statements and descriptive statistics).
(d) Rate of Technological Change
Initially, the Rate of Technological Change characterising the market into which the company competed
was attempted to be measured by employing the measure of Narver and Slater who asked the respondents to
indicate, using a 7-point scale, the extent to which their production/service technology changed in their princi-
pal served market (1990). However, the 70 personal interviews we completed prior to the mail survey upon
which this paper is based, indicated that the wording used by Narver and Slater was inappropriate for Greece.
Instead, asking the respondents to indicate using a 6-point scale (1= “Not at All” to 6= “Heavily”) the extent to
which they were involved in new product development as a proxy measure of technology change was more
appropriate (mean = 3,446 Std. dev. = 1,281).
(e) Market’s Growth Rate
Finally, the Market Growth Rate (for both the previous 5 years and the 5 ahead) was assessed by using a
5-point scale (ranging from 1=«Rapidly declining» to 5=«Rapidly growing») and asking the respondents to
indicate how did their market evolved during the last 5 years (mean = 3,486 Std. dev. = 1,068) and what their
forecast was for the next 5 years (mean = 3,342 St. dev. = 0,895).
4. FINDINGS & DISCUSSION
4.1. Explication of the “Marketing Orientation” Concept (H1)
An examination of the correlation matrix of the 15 statements used to probe the degree of Marketing Orien-
tation adoption in attitudinal terms, revealed that it might be possible to derive distinctive attitudes towards
Marketing Orientation underlying the original variables. To exploit this possibility we performed a Principal

Table II: Attitudes Towards Marketing - A Factor Analysis

Components Factor Analysis. Table II shows the results of that analysis.
Factors Variables Loadings
F1: Market Analysis & Adaptation Intelligence on Competition 0,841
(22,6% of variation) Adapt to the Market 0,818
Market Analysis 0,740

F2: «High-Tech» Selling Promoting Products 0,814

(22,2% of variation) Supporting Sales 0,785
Confined in Sales & Marketing Dep. 0,682

F3: Ignorance Not Existent 0,884

(9,3% of variation) A Confusing Concept 0,785

F4: «High-Tech» Production Design & Production Management 0,880

(7,9% of variation) Decisions on Quality & Quantity 0,866

F5: Traditional Selling Build Customer Relations 0,845

(6,8% of variation) Maintain Customers Contacts 0,757

F6: Marketing Philosophy Satisfy Customers’ Needs 0,753

(6,1% of variation) Build Product Positioning & Image 0,676
A Company Culture 0,445
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy = 0,73621
Bartlett Test of Sphericity = 1979,5292, sign = 0,000

As can be seen from Table II, the P.C. Factor Analysis produced 6 different generic attitudes toward Mar-
keting Orientation, each one representing a different perception of the concept, namely:
i Market Analysis & Adaptation representing a conceptualisation that places emphasis on specific ac-
tions that are directed towards increasing the company’s level of adaptation to changing market condi-
tions (market analysis and adaptation, intelligence collection on competition and adaptation to the
market),
 i High-Tech Selling representing an approach that regards Marketing Orientation as nothing more than
a modern approach in sales with the company’s emphasis remaining on the selling effort (promoting
products, supporting sales and being the responsibility of the Marketing/Sales department),
i Ignorance denoting the lack of any specific approach towards Marketing Orientation. Rather, it
proves that some companies still consider Marketing Orientation as a «confusing concept» and, conse-
quently, do not apply it,
i High-Tech Production representing a production-based approach to Marketing Orientation (design
and management of the production process and decision-taking on production qualities and quantities)
with the emphasis of the company been placed on the production process,
i Traditional Selling corresponding to an approach that maintains a traditional selling conceptualisation
of Marketing Orientation (building customer relations and maintaining customer contacts), and finally
i Marketing Philosophy representing a cultural approach to Marketing Orientation (a company culture,
customer satisfaction and building product positioning and image).
Having identified a set of generic attitudes towards Marketing Orientation, we then tried to classify the re-
spondents on the basis of these attitudes. To do so, we performed a cluster analysis using the factor scores
derived from the P.C. Factor Analysis as independent variables.
For the clustering of the data we used the Quick Cluster routine of spss/win, a statistical program for P/C.
Quick Cluster is an alternative to the more common hierarchical clustering, offering efficient use of computer
resources while identifying clear and distinct clusters.

Table III: Company Profiles Based on Company’s Attitudinal Approach to Mar-

keting Orientation - Analysis of Variance
Variables Marketing Product Sales Production
Oriented Oriented Oriented Oriented Agnostics F Sign.
(% of Companies, n=444) (24,2%) (20,2%) (14,5%) (11,5%) (29,6%)

x SUPPORTING SALES (3,084) 4,025 [4,526] 3,888 [4,353] 28,790 0,000

x PROMOTING PRODUCTS (2,894) 3,367 3,929 3,733 [4,086] 22,168 0,000
x SATISFY CUSTOMERS’ NEEDS [4,705] 4,291 (3,421) 4,405 4,396 41,388 0,000
x CONFINED IN SALES & (2,852) (3,088) [3,842] 3,288 3,594 10,482 0,000
MARKETING DPTs
x MARKET ANALYSIS [4,357] [4,468] (3,350) 3,977 4,267 23,206 0,000
x NOT EXISTENT (1,315) 2,329 2,245 (1,666) [3,034] 46,214 0,000
x A COMPANY CULTURE [4,094] (2,835) (2,175) 3,650 3,267 38,491 0,000
x BUILD PRODUCT POSITIONING [4,126] (3,075) 3,631 3,800 3,775 14,909 0,000
& IMAGE
x DESIGN & PRODUCTION 2,789 [3,758] 2,245 [3,706] (1,873) 51,512 0,000
MANAGEMENT
x DECISIONS ON QUALITY & 3,452 [3,974] (2,473) [3,841} (2,519) 34,033 0,000
QUANTITY
x MAINTAIN CUSTOMERS 3,200 2,265 [4,105] (1,911) 3,732 61,436 0,000
CONTACTS
x INTELLIGENCE ON [4,210] 3,949 (3,140) (2,666) 3,965 34,692 0,000
COMPETITION
x ADAPT TO THE MARKET [4,378] 4,139 (3,333) (3,111) 4,163 29,687 0,000
x BUILD CUSTOMER RELATIONS [4,126] (2,949) [4,263] (2,688) 3,956 48,237 0,000
x A CONFUSING CONCEPT (1,663) 2,493 2,877 (1,666) [3,163] 34,875 0,000
Figures represent the average of each variable in each cluster. Maximum values are in brackets while minimum in parentheses (based on Duncan’s multiple range
test, p<0,10). Significance level is based on one-way analysis of variance
 The objective of Quick Cluster is to form a predetermined number of clusters from a large sample such that
the clusters display a high degree of internal similarity while being distinct from each other. Because the num-
ber of clusters is predetermined for Quick Cluster, there can be a problem in identifying the number of clusters
necessary to give a good solution for any set of data. In our analysis, we examined the 3, 4 and 5 clusters solu-
tion. The 3 clusters solution resulted in large clusters with unacceptably diverse membership while the 4 clus-
ters solution did not significantly improve the description of the data. Thus, the 5 clusters solution was
tentatively adopted.
To test the clarity of the 5 cluster solution we run an analysis of variance along with Dunkan’s multiple
range test for each of the original variables (from which the factors were derived) and across each cluster. This
analysis revealed that the 5-clusters solution was fitting the data in a meaningful way. Table III summarises
the results of this analysis.
As it can be seen in Table III, the 5-Clusters solution produced very interesting results as it allows a mean-
ingful clustering of the respondents based on the degree of Marketing Orientation adoption (as attitude) exhib-
ited by each company. More specifically:
i Marketing Oriented companies are companies that perceive marketing to be primarily a company cul-
ture with a priority in satisfying customers’ needs. To do so, they also believe that Marketing Orienta-
tion encompass certain activities, such as collecting market information and intelligence on
competitors, so that the company can adapt to the market and offer customer satisfaction. Within that
framework, they believe that building relations with the customers helps in better understanding their
needs while, proper product positioning and product image improves their ability to satisfy more than
the core needs (e.g. psychological needs, social needs etc.).
i Product Oriented companies hold a perception of marketing that is somehow close to the one held by
the previous group. However, although Product Oriented companies approach marketing with an em-
phasis on collecting market information for the purpose of managing the production and taking deci-
sion regarding the quality and the quantity of the production, no particular emphasis is placed on
associating these efforts with the objective of offering satisfaction to specific customer’s needs.
Rather, they seem closer to the product orientation concept offered by Kotler (1988) to describe the
companies which attempt to gain a competitive advantage by increasing the attraction of their product
through the addition of extra features, or the use of the most modern technology, while neglecting to
specify customer’s needs and a manner to serve these specific needs better.
i Sales Oriented companies are companies that conceive marketing to be primarily a sales-support func-
tion and that it is better left to the Marketing or the Sales departments. Typical of their attitude towards
marketing is the neglecting of any market analysis and the rejection of marketing as a company culture.
Within this framework, they try to build relationships with their customers and maintain regular con-
tacts not as means of increasing their understanding of their customers’ needs but rather as a way to in-
crease the effectiveness of their sales effort.
i Production Oriented companies are those that hold the basic attitude that their marketing effort should
focus on decision regarding the management of their production process and the quality and the quanti-
ties of the production outputs. They see no benefits in engaging with activities such as market analy-
sis, collecting intelligence from competitors and adapting to market conditions. In other words, these
companies, on the basis of their marketing attitude, can be described as introverted companies and
much remoted from market developments. Finally,
i Agnostic companies are companies which have a general picture of marketing as a notion that has to do
something with the sales function. Still, marketing remains to them a confusing concept that they do
not yet apply in their business activities.
The next stage of the analysis involved the investigation for potential relationships between adoption of
Marketing Orientation as attitude and Marketing Orientation as behaviour. For this purpose, we performed
ANOVA using the attitudinal profiles derived from the previous stage of the analysis as independent variables
and the measurements of Marketing Orientation (as behaviour) as dependent ones. What we actually exam-
ined is whether the means of the components of the scale employed to measure the degree of Marketing Orien-
tation adoption (as behaviour) varied among companies exhibiting different attitudinal profiles. Table IV
presents the findings of that analysis.
 The findings presented in Table IV clearly demonstrate that the adoption of Marketing Orientation, as be-
haviour, is associated with the adoption of Marketing Orientation, as attitude. More specifically, the «Market-
ing Oriented» companies are characterised by greater emphasis in intelligence collection and dissemination as
well as by greater responsiveness to intelligence.

Table IV: Adoption of Marketing Orientation as Practice and Marketing Orientation

as Attitude - Analysis of Variance
Marketing Product Ori- Sales Production
Oriented ented
Oriented Oriented Agnostics F sign.

x Intelligence Collection [4,041] 3,879 3,0762 3,527 3,317 16,972 0,000

x Intelligence Dissemination [4,025] 3,890 3,014 3,543 3,340 14,726 0,000
x Response to Intelligence [4,195] 3,705 2,758 3,290 3,094 16,902 0,000
Adoption of Marketing Orien- [4,091] 3,878 3,456 3,267 (2,942) 21,475 0,000
tation (as behaviour)
Figures represent the average of each variable in each cluster. Maximum values are in brackets while minimum in parentheses (based on
Duncan’s multiple range test, p<0,10). Significance level is based on one-way analysis of variance

Consequently, «Marketing Oriented» companies (in terms of their attitude towards marketing) are the ones
that undertake the set of activities which literature suggests that comprise Marketing Orientation as behaviour.
At the other extreme, the «Agnostics», which have no specific attitude towards marketing, are the ones that
demonstrate the lowest level of Marketing Orientation adoption (as behaviour). This finding is particularly
important in the sense that it manifests that Marketing Orientation consists of a certain set of beliefs about
marketing (which form a specific attitude toward marketing) and of a certain set of activities that actually ma-
terialise the attitude of Marketing Orientation into practice. Consequently, building a genuine Marketing Ori-
entation requires developing both the attitude and the behaviour elements of the concept. On these grounds,
we accept H1.
4.2. Effect of Company-Specific Factors on Marketing Orientation Development (H2, H3)
In order to examine (a) whether the ecology of the company’s internal environment determines the devel-
opment of Marketing Orientation and (b) whether the perception held by the company’s Top Management
Team, regarding the importance of different Key Factors of Success, influence the Marketing Orientation
adoption, we carried out a Canonical Correlation Analysis. This analysis, when compared against more tradi-
tional correlational analyses, has the characteristic that examines the degree of association between two sets of
variables rather than individual pairs of variables. Consequently, given that Marketing Orientation represents
the synthesis of a specific set of attitudes with a specific set of practices, Canonical Correlation Analysis is
more appropriate when attempting to examine the potential relationship between the degree of Marketing Ori-
entation (as attitude and as behaviour) development with various characteristics of the company’s internal en-
vironment. Table V provides a summary of the results of this analysis.
Redundancy in the criterion set, given the predictor set, was about 13% with four significant relationships
accounting for 94,6% of total redundancy. Although not too high, this level is comparable to that reported in
other research (e.g. Alpert and Peterson 1971, 34. Ford 1984, 50. Moller and Laaksonen 1984, Grossbart and
Crosby 1984). Information on loadings for the four significant variates is also provided in Table V. Loading
with an absolute value of 0.40 and over which appeared to be significantly related to each variate are bolded to
assist interpretation.
In order to test for the validity of this analysis the sample was split randomly in two halves and the canoni-
cal analysis was recomputed. Both the redundancy coefficient and the canonical loadings remained stable sug-
gesting that the results reported here are not due to chance.
When considering the canonical functions elicited from the analysis, it becomes apparent that Marketing
Orientation is indeed determined by the company-specific factors examined in this study. More specifically,
the analysis reported in Table V shows that:
 Table V: Effect of the Internal Environment on Marketing Orientation Develop-
ment

Variables Canonical R X2 d.f. sign. Criterion Set % of Total % of Total Re-

Redundancy Redundancy dundancy -
Accumulative
1 0.578 246.724 72 0.000 0.0890 68.0%
2 0.390 128.154 56 0.000 0.0170 13.0% 81.0%
3 0.322 79.911 42 0.000 0.0110 8.4% 89.4%
4 0.265 47.943 30 0.020 0.0060 4.6% 94.0%
5 0.221 26.727 20 0.143 0.0040 3.1% 97.1%
6 0.156 12.139 12 0.435 0.0020 1.5% 98.6%
7 0.114 4.952 6 0.550 0.0010 0.7% 99.3%
8 0.063 1.161 2 0.560 0.0005 0.38% 100.0%
0.131
Relationships between individual variables and the canonical variables
Canonical Loadings
1 2 3 4
Attitudes Criterion Set
Market Analysis & Adaptation 0.401 -0.366 0.124 -0.453
High-Tech Selling -0.275 0.406 -0.035 0.202
Ignorance -0.541 -0.409 0.607 -0.231
High-Tech Production 0.325 -0.527 0.517 0.421
Traditional Selling -0.051 0.412 0.342 -0.361
Marketing Philosophy 0.478 0.233 -0.405 0.311
Behaviour
Intelligence Collection 0.803 0.159 0.137 0.403
Intelligence Dissemination 0.718 0.166 -0.088 0.355
Response to Intelligence 0.611 -0.009 -0.155 0.353
Characteristics of the Internal Environment Predictor Set
Formalisation -0.512 0.273 0.537 0.427
Centralisation -0.682 -0.135 0.466 0.215
Risk Aversion -0.636 -0.019 0.527 0.104
Perceived Importance of Various K.F.S.
Market Focusing 0.617 -0.363 0.054 -0.403
Channel Networking 0.458 -0.449 0.364 0.456
Product Uniqueness 0.409 0.080 0.002 0.601
Price Advantage -0.183 0.403 0.426 -0.063
Skilful Salesmanship 0.125 0.407 -0.084 -0.350

a) The companies that keep an informal organisational framework, maintain a decentralised organisa-
tional structure, show great risk tolerance, and, at the same time, perceive Market focusing, Channel
Networking, and Product Uniqueness as critical Key Factors of Success have all developed Market-
ing Orientation since they maintain a positive attitude towards Marketing Orientation (i.e. maintain a
clear, not confused, conception of marketing as an emphasis on market analysis as well as a company
philosophy) and, at the same time, exhibit Marketing Oriented behaviour (i.e. emphasise the collection
 and dissemination of information from the market and the design of specific responses based on this
information).
b) It is revealed that Sales Orientation (second canonical function), results from a perception that Skilful
Salesmanship and Price Advantage are the most important K.F.S. Interestingly enough, as the data
suggest, perceiving skilful salesmanship and price advantages to be the only true basis upon which
success can be established (and, consequently, the resulting orientation) completely ignores any intel-
ligence-related activity. Also the development of a Sales Orientation is not associated with a particular
organisational structure since the degree of centralisation, the degree of formalisation and the degree of
risk tolerance do not appear to influence its development.
c) The findings of our analysis also suggest that companies that tend to maintain a more formal and
more centralised organisational structure while, at the same time, are generally risk-averted, are the
ones that assign the out-most importance to Price Advantages as KFS (third canonical function). This
combination of company-specific factors results to Production Oriented companies i.e. companies
that are generally confused about the meaning of Marketing Orientation and have a blurred perception
that it is something that has to do with the production process and perceive price to be the most impor-
tant factor that ensures success.
d) The companies that perceive Channel Networking and Product Uniqueness as critical KFS, while
are remarkably negative regarding the importance of Market Focusing, tend to maintain a formal or-
ganisational structure (fourth canonical function). This combination of company-specific factors re-
sults not in Marketing but rather in Product Orientation. Interestingly enough, the difference of
product oriented companies from Marketing Oriented ones is reflected on the fact that despite their in-
telligence oriented behaviour, market analysis is not part of their conception and understanding of
Marketing Orientation.
From these findings it is evident that the nature of the company’s internal environment determines the de-
velopment of Marketing Orientation and, more specifically, the degree of risk-aversion, centralisation and
formalisation that characterises it, determine the degree of Marketing Orientation development. On these
grounds we accept H2. Similarly, the findings presented in Table V also demonstrate that the importance as-
signed by the Top Management Team to different Key Factors of Success also determines the degree of Mar-
keting Orientation development. On these grounds we also accept H3.
4.3. Effect of Market-Related Factors on Marketing Orientation Development (H3)
Next, in order to investigate to what extent the market-related factors influence the development of a Mar-
keting Orientation we, again, used Canonical Correlation analysis. A summary of this analysis is presented in
Table VI.
Redundancy in the criterion set, given the predictor set, was about 16% with four significant relationships
accounting for 96,2% of total redundancy. As pointed earlier, other research has reported similar levels. Infor-
mation on loadings for the four significant variates is also provided in Table VI. Loadings with an absolute
value of 0.40 and over which appeared to be significantly related to each variate are bolded to assist interpreta-
tion.
Again, in order to test for the validity of this analysis the sample was split randomly in two halves and the
canonical analysis was recomputed. Both the redundancy coefficient and the canonical loadings remained sta-
ble suggesting that the results reported here are not due to chance.
When considering the canonical variables elicited from the analysis, it becomes apparent that the develop-
ment of a genuine Marketing Orientation is induced by certain conditions of the company’s external environ-
ment.
More specifically, Marketing Orientation (first canonical function) is associated with a competitive market
where new competitors can easily enter the market, technology changes rapidly, buyers are powerful
enough to impose their terms and conditions in their exchanges with the producers and high growth rates are
expected.
These characteristics of the market environment (competitive intensity, rapidly changing technology, buy-
ers’ power over producers and expectations for high growth rates in the future) that are associated with Mar-
keting Orientation development produce a picture of an attractive and evolving, though highly competitive,
arena in which companies compete on the basis of their ability to better meet, through their ability to innovate,
the demands and the needs of their customers.
 Table VI: Effect of the Market’s Conditions on the Development of a Genuine
Marketing Orientation

Variables Canonical R X2 d.f. sign. Criterion set % of Total % of Total Re-

Redundancy Redundancy dundancy -
Accumulative
1 0,427 225,312 72 0,000 0,091 55,8%
2 0,298 95,405 56 0,000 0,046 28,2% 84,0%
3 0,247 65,246 42 0,012 0,011 6,7% 90,7%
4 0,188 57,346 30 0,030 0,009 5,5% 96,2%
5 0,173 15534 20 0,265 0,002 1,3% 97,5%
6 0,115 3,987 12 0,456 0,002 1,3% 98,8%
7 0,073 2,995 6 0,607 0,002 1,3% 100%
8 0,030 0,999 2 0,986 0,000 0,0% 100%
0,163 100%

Relationships between individual variables and the canonical variables

Canonical Loadings
1 2 3 4
Attitudes Criterion Set
Market Analysis & Adaptation 0,655 -0,213 0,024 -0,022
High-Tech Selling 0,095 0,144 0,408 -0,078
Ignorance 0,067 0,419 0,179 0,039
High-Tech Production 0,224 0,545 -0,005 0,423
Traditional Selling 0,028 0,072 0,483 0,008
Marketing Philosophy 0,510 -0,265 0,121 -0,035
Behaviour
Intelligence Collection 0,404 -0,255 -0,421 -0,017
Intelligence Dissemination 0,437 -0,229 -0,105 0,401
Response to Intelligence 0,503 -0,233 -0,357 0,354

Market’s Characteristics Predictor Set

Increased Buyers Power 0,415 -0,549 0,688 -0,416
Increased Suppliers Power 0,079 -0,621 0,151 0,047
Strong Barriers to Entry -0,401 0,441 -0,613 0,428
Strong Barriers to Exit 0,314 0,003 -0,347 0,829
Competitive Intensity 0,520 -0,202 0,437 0,406
Rate of Technological Change 0,414 -0,673 -0,489 0,555
Market’s Growth Rate (last 5 years) -0,352 -0,285 -0,416 0,193
Predicted Market’s Growth Rate (next 5 years) 0,423 0,046 -0,402 0,411

On the other hand, according to the findings presented in Table VI (second canonical function), Agnostic
companies are found in a more stable market environment. More specifically, as the findings in Table VI
suggest, Ignorance of the Marketing Orientation is associated with strong barriers to entry for new competi-
tors, low rate of technological changes, and weak customers as well as suppliers. Interestingly enough, com-
petitive intensity, although does not load heavily in the variable, is negative indicating that Ignorance of
Marketing Orientation is also associated with market environments that are relatively simmered down in terms
of competitive rivalry.
When it comes to Sales Orientation, the findings in Table VI (third canonical function) suggest that it is
associated with a market environment that is rather similar to the one that is associated with Marketing Orien-
tation development, especially in terms of competitive and the power that the buyers possess over producers.
However, the market conditions that are associated with sales orientation are different in three critical aspects:
1. The rate of technological change is negative, indicating a stagnant market in terms of innovativeness and
new product development,
2. Market growth rates, both in the past and in the near future, are also negative, indicating a market in which
even in order to maintain market share companies need to seize market share from their competitors, and
3. Strong barriers to entry.
This situation results to competitive hostility which, coupled with the buyers’ power over producers
leads companies to intensify their sales efforts and build their salesmanship skills, especially so since the scope
for competing on their ability to diversify their product offerings is limited.
As far as Product Orientation is concerned, the results of the analysis presented in Table VI (fourth ca-
nonical function) indicate that it is associated with a technology driven market environment in which the
buyers’ lack the power to impose their terms and preferences over producers. More specifically, Product Ori-
entation appears to flourish in markets where expectations for future growth are high, technology changes
rapidly and entering as well as exiting the market is difficult probably due to the investments necessary in
order to be able to follow the rapidly developing technology. These conditions abrade the competitive intensity
in the market. However, since buyers’ lack the power to impose their preferences, companies competing under
such situations respond to competition by developing a Product Orientation and trying to gain competitive ad-
vantages through technological improvements and additional features for their products.
To summarise, the results of the analysis presented in Table VI clearly demonstrate that certain characteris-
tics of the market environment produce specific market conditions which, in turn, determine whether Market-
ing Orientation is developed or not. Although not all of the market variables examined in this study were
found to be equally important, competitive hostility, buyers’ power, rate of technological change and expected
market growth produce a combination of factors that result into a dynamic, evolving though competitive mar-
ket which, in turn, forces companies to develop a Marketing Orientation. On these ground, we accept H4.
5. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS
The empirical findings presented in this paper provide significant insights concerning both the nature of the
concept of Marketing Orientation and the factors that determine the adoption of Marketing Orientation.
Overall, the data has shown that the company’s orientation (marketing or not) represents the combined out-
come of its attitude with its behaviour. This finding is useful to those researchers doing research in the area of
Marketing Orientation and have raised the issue of the necessity to clarify and explicate the notion of the term
«orientation» before being able to probe deeper into potential relationships and associations between the Mar-
keting Orientation concept and various aspects of the management science (Dreher 1995).
As far as the nature of the Marketing Orientation is concerned, our analysis has shown that it is based on
the combination of:
i The company’s attitude to perceive Marketing Orientation as the company’s philosophy, which is
grounded on the persistence to analyse and understand the market prior to any actions, and
i The company’s behaviour to collect intelligence about the market, disseminate it company-wide and to
design the company’s response on the basis of this market-intelligence.
These two pillars of the Marketing Orientation concept are inseparable and interrelated. However, for Mar-
keting Orientation to be developed, it is required that both the company’s culture as well as its behaviour are
adjusted accordingly.
The practical implications of understanding and clarifying the element of the Marketing Orientation con-
cept are self-evident: Companies wishing to re-orientate themselves and develop a Marketing Orientation are
obliged to direct their efforts towards changing both their attitude and behaviour in such a manner that the two
operate in a synergistic and harmonic way to produce profitable exchanges through increased levels of satis-
faction for the company’s customers.
However, as our findings suggest, the success, or the failure, of their efforts for such a re-orientation to be
accomplished is determined, to a large extent, by the nature of the company’s internal environment, the percep-
tion of the company’s Top Management Team concerning the Key Factors of Success (K.F.S.) in the market
that the company operates as well as the nature of the company’s market.
Our analysis suggests that the company’s attitude towards risk, its structural systems as well as the impor-
tance assigned by the company’s Top Management to various K.F.S., facilitate the development of Marketing
Orientation. More specifically, our findings have shown that risk tolerance and decentralised, informal struc-
tural arrangements, coupled with increased perceived importance of Market Focusing, Channel Networking,
and Product Uniqueness as significant KFS, lead to Marketing Orientation development.
The company’s attitude towards risk is an important factor because companies are not Marketing Oriented
by nature. Rather, Marketing Orientation is a state that the company arrives passing through several phases
that represent different levels of adaptation to the market. This process is risky because it entails significant re-
allocations of resources and power within the company while the results of the effort can only be evaluated
after the process is completed. Consequently, initiating it requires that the company is prepared to assume this
risk.
According to the literature reviewed and as proved by this study, Marketing Orientation involves a great
deal of information generation and processing. This explains the influence also demonstrated in this study that
the company’s structural design (centralisation and formalisation) bear on Marketing Orientation development.
Decentralised and informal organisational structures facilitate the collection as well as the dissemination of
market information. Companies that allow greater autonomy to their divisions and functions are better in col-
lecting and disseminating market intelligence at company-wide level while, at the same time, they also im-
prove the responsibility and the skills of their middle level managers since, decentralised organisations, require
a greater number of more qualified managers who have decision making authority (Megginson, Mosley and
Pietri 1989). At the same time, by allowing for more informal arrangements, communication and intelligence
flow is not deterred by bureaucratic or hierarchical obstacles and, thus, Marketing Orientation development is
further facilitated. Thus, because Marketing Orientation involves a great deal of information flow within the
company, decentralised and informal organisational designs also nourish the Marketing Orientation develop-
ment.
These two structural characteristics, coupled with increased emphasis on such factors as Market Focusing,
Channel Networking and Product Uniqueness as KFS, propel the management, at all levels, to be more sensi-
tive and efficient in market intelligence collection as well as more willing, and capable, to communicate this
intelligence at a company-wide level.
This point has important implications. To start with, it provides researchers with useful, albeit preliminary,
insights regarding the role of the company’s structural systems, as well as the Top Management’s fundamental
perceptions of how business can grow, in Marketing Orientation development. Having said this, understanding
these conditions helps to explain why Marketing Orientation is not developed to the extent that one might ex-
pected given the numerous evidence that its development brings about significant performance improvements.
For instance, as our findings have shown, Production Orientation results under entirely different conditions
regarding both the company’s internal environment as well as its Top Management Team’s perception of the
significance of various K.F.S. Our findings demonstrated that Production Oriented companies are risk averted
in nature and maintain centralised and formalised organisational structure. Under such conditions, dealing with
change becomes cumbersome and, consequently, the chances for the company to evolve and become more
adaptive to its environment are minimal. Not surprisingly, in such companies, the prevailing perception is that
the company’s financial strength, cost advantages and competitive pricing will ensure its existence in the fu-
ture.
In addition, determining the role that specific characteristics have on the development of Marketing Orien-
tation, provides practitioners with a check-list and priorities that have to be completed in order to facilitate its
growth: Reconsideration of the organisational structure, delegation of authority, lesser formality, greater risk
tolerance and re-conceptualisation of how the company can become more efficient in dealing with competi-
tion, are changes that have to take place before Marketing Orientation commence to develop.
Nevertheless, initiating the Marketing Orientation development process does not appear to be entirely on
the discretion of the company’s management. As our findings suggest, the market also influences Marketing
Orientation development. More specifically, the market’s main forces, such as the buyers’ power over the pro-
ducers, the absence of barriers to entry for new competitors that might be willing to enter the market, the in-
tensity of competition, the rate of technological change as well as the expectations regarding future market
growth rates, were found to impel companies that operate under such conditions to evolve a Marketing
Orientation.
Such market conditions depict a dynamic, developing market. In such markets, predictability of their future
structure is low because, for instance, soft protection mechanisms against new and potential competitors re-
duces the company’s ability to foresee who the competitors will be in the future and what strategies they will
pursue. Similarly, increased rate of technological changes makes difficult for the company to remain on the
edge of technological advancement since it has to constantly monitor new technologies and new products of-
fered by competition. On the other hand, increased buyers’ power propels companies to consciously attempt to
increase their products ability to meet the buyers’ needs and demands, especially so under the aforementioned
conditions of the broader competitive scene. Thus, companies are stimulated to improve the quality of the
market intelligence they collect and, also, to improve both their willingness and ability to respond decidedly on
the basis of this intelligence. Consequently, Marketing Orientation is induced.
On the other hand, companies that operate in more tranquil, predictable and technologically intensive but
stable market environments are not found to pursue a Marketing Orientation. For instance, Production orienta-
tion appears to be the business approach for these companies that enjoy significant protection against new,
potential, competitors while they also benefit from their resulting power over both their buyers and suppliers.
In such markets, competitors know each other’s strategy and, more or less, the only basis upon which the com-
pany can ensure its long-term survival is through its efficiency in the production process and its ability to keep
the cost factor under control. Thus, the production process and cost controlling become the company’s focal
point and, thus, a Production Orientation results.
The importance of the market forces in the development of the company’s orientation is also evident by
considering how a single change of one of these forces alters the market’s conditions and influences the way
the company competes in the market. For instance, in markets that technology does remain relatively stable,
high future market growth rates are expected but competitive hostility is intensified (due to protection barriers
fading-out or increasing buyers’ power), companies are unwilling to give their share away. On the contrary,
they struggle for maintaining or improving their market position, usually through increased emphasis on sales
since technological differentiation is hard to achieve. Such conditions, as our findings have shown, favour the
development of a sales orientation.
Another interesting conclusion refers to the appropriateness of the various orientations depending on the
company’s market environment. Marketing Orientation development has been historically associated with the
companies’ need to sustain their growth and prosperity within a broader framework of changing market condi-
tions (Day 1990). Recent studies (Narver and Slater 1989, Diamantopoulos and Hart 1993, Ruekert 1992,
Wong and Saunders 1993) have demonstrated that Marketing Orientation development, in general, leads to
better performance. Evidence also exist (Diamantopoulos and Hart 1993, Greenley 1995, Slater and Narver
1992) which reveal that the characteristics of the company’s market moderate the relationship between the
Marketing Orientation development and the company’s performance. Indeed, the studies by Narver and Slater
(1989) and Avlonitis and Gounaris (1997) have shown that companies with either a Marketing or a Production
Orientation can be equally successful in accomplishing their performance objectives, when operating under
different market conditions.
On the other hand, the findings presented in this paper substantiate an association between the nature of the
market that the company competes with the company’s orientation. Our findings have shown that Marketing
Orientation is associated with relatively more dynamic markets while Production Orientation is associated
with relatively more stable markets.
When these findings are jointly considered one could make certain conjunctions regarding the appropriate-
ness of the two Orientations depending on the company’s market conditions. More specifically, the compound
consideration of the findings presented in this paper along with findings published elsewhere would imply that
for the companies which operate in relatively more dynamic markets, Marketing Orientation is a more appro-
priate orientation to develop. On the contrary, for companies that operate in relatively more stable and predict-
able markets, a Production Orientation would seem to be a more appropriate orientation to pursue.
This inference is important for practitioners to consider because it provides them with a benchmark for
evaluating the relevance of their company’s orientation and helps them understand whether their company’s
orientation is the one that better serves its interests within the given market it competes and at a particular
time. This conclusion has also value for marketing scholars since it explains why Marketing Orientation is not
widely adopted: Change and unpredictability render Marketing Orientation the most appropriate orientation.
Unless the company is faced with such conditions, or until it has realised the change, it sees limited scope for
developing a Marketing Orientation.
However, this conclusion should not be misinterpreted and companies ought not to be relaxing. Market
conditions are transient and, in the long run, all companies confront a market situation that will require a high
degree of Marketing Orientation (Kohli and Jaworksi 1990). Thus, it is better to invest in becoming Marketing
Oriented while the environment is somewhat munificent than to wait until it has grown hostile (Slater and
Narver 1994). What this research has shown is the degree of urgency with which the company should react: If
operating in a market that a non-Marketing Orientation can still be effective, planning to become Marketing
Oriented is possible. If you are not in such a market then planning becomes a luxury.
6. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Our study has certain limitations that need to be mentioned. To start with, despite the fact that every at-
tempt was made to maximise the quality of the data collected, the response rate does not allow for unreserved
generalisations.
This cautious treatment of the findings of this study is also mandated by the cross-sectional nature of the
research design. Although cross-sectional samples enable generalisation of the findings, they prevent high re-
sponse rates and the probing of the various aspects of the relationships identified in this study. For instance, it
may be possible that the associations established by this study will be stronger, or weaker for that matter, in
specific sectors of economic activity. Replication of our study within a single sector or between two or three
different sectors might give us a more detailed view of the nature of the relationships identified in this study
and will most certainly help to increase the response rate. These two parameters would allow us to enhance the
gravity of the conclusions.
The context of the study (Greece) is also a concern since it puts constraints on the generaliability of the re-
sults to other companies and other European countries. However, the use of a market setting other than the
larger European markets does not diminish the significance of the, preliminary in nature, findings presented in
this paper. Especially so when little research effort has been devoted in examining how company-specific and
market-specific factors affect the development of Marketing Orientation by European companies. Certainly,
future research that replicates this study in other national contexts would be welcome and would further im-
prove our understanding of the determinants of the Marketing Orientation development.
Another limitation pertains to the nature of certain variables since, some of the measures employed were
single-item ones. Although these measures are found to successfully conceptualise the notions they are sup-
posed to measure (Narver and Slater 1989, Kohli and Jaworski 1990), nonetheless, repeating the research us-
ing multi-item measures could allow for more reliable measurements.
Finally, another area for future research, which also is relevant to the aforementioned direction, is the need
to examine in detail the factors that influence the company’s degree of centralisation and formalisation as well
as the management’s attitude towards risk. As the findings of this study have indicated, the development of a
Marketing Orientation is determined by the company’s degree of centralisation, formalisation and attitude to-
wards risk. Consequently, the next question that future research may answer is what are the factors that deter-
mine whether the company is centralised or not, formalised or not and whether it is risk tolerant or not. For
instance, it is believed that major changes on an organisation are often preceded or quickly followed by a
change in CEO and the company’s senior management team. Clearly, this implies that the company’s structural
arrangement reflect, to a greater or lesser degree, certain personal as well as educational attributes and quali-
ties of both the CEO and the senior management team. Thus, these traits and attributes should determine
whether the company will be more centralised or not, more formalised or not as well as its overall attitude to-
wards risk. Hence the development of a Marketing Orientation should also be influenced by these factors.
Identifying these traits and attributes will facilitate companies in their pursuit for a Marketing Oriented busi-
ness approach.
 Appendix

Market’s Key Factors of Success - Descriptive Statistics and Factor Analysis

Factors Variables Mean St.Dev Loadings
Factor 1: Market Focu- Y Trusted by the customers 3.664 0.608 0.729
sing (22.8% of total Y Company image in the market 3.577 0.628 0.696
variance) Y Promptness of reaction in customers’ needs and 3.384 0.683 0.645
requests
Y Definition of product quality as perceived by 3.657 0.583 0.583
the company’s customers
Y Strong relationships with customers 3.318 0.749 0.547

Factor 2: Channel Net- Y Spread of distribution 2.894 0.929 0.728

working (10.9% of to- Y Emphasis on advertising 2.610 0.989 0.643
tal variance) Y Strong relationships with members of the dis- 2.748 0.963 0.565
tribution channel
Y Development of a Management Information 2.957 0.839 0.525
System

Factor 3: Product Uni- Y Product design 3.031 0.886 0.789

queness(8.5% of total vari- Y Unique characteristics/features of the product 3.089 0.955 0.781
ance)

Factor 4: Price Y Competitive pricing 3.282 0.750 0.773

Advantage (8.2% of to- Y Cost advantages 3.176 0.852 0.697
tal variance) Y Financial strength of the company 3.233 0.809 0.543

Factor 5: Skilful Sales- Y Emphasis on personal selling 3.080 0.845 0.766

manship (7.0% of total vari- Y After sales service 2.909 1.049 0.629
ance)

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy = 0.75100

Bartlett Test of Sphericity - 12206.85, sign.=0.000
 Wording, Descriptive Statistics and Cronbach’s Alfa for Multi-Item Measurement Scales
Item-to- Cronbach’s
Mean St.Dev. Total corel. Alfa
Top Management’s Attitude Towards Risk 3,648 0,867 0.693
The company’s Top Management Team feels that it is worthwhile taking 3,569 1,339 0.623
high financial risks that could yield high profits.
The company’s Top Management Team is generally prone to take finan- 3,981 1,235 0.624
cial risks.
The company’s Top Management Team shows preference in implement- 3,867 1,138 0.584
ing only those projects that have high probability of success.
The company’s Top Management Team encourages the development and 3,126 1,327 0.521
implementation of innovative projects though it is known that some of
them are likely to fail.
Level of Centralisation 3,166 1,048 0.738
Only few actions can be done without the previous authorisation from the 3,241 1,329 0.649
company’s Top Management Team.
An individual who would like to take his own decisions within the com- 2,953 1,408 0.661
pany would find a stimulating environment within the company .
Even trivial problems have to be taken to the Top Management Team for 3,016 1,500 0.651
resolution.
Every decision taken by a subordinate has to have the supervisor’s ap- 3,389 1,371 0.647
proval before been implemented.
Level of Formalisation 3,155 0,709 0.641
In our company, employees are motivated to feel that they supervise them- 2,770 1,322 0.565
selves.
For most of the things in our company it is within the authority of those 2,616 1,268 0.545
who are responsible for them to decide how they will be done.
Most people in the company establish their own rules on how things will 3,749 1,222 0.611
be done
For every problem that may arise there are certain rules to be followed 3,033 1,257 0.588
Every individual has specific rules to follow 3,197 1,241 0.564
The employees are constantly monitored for rules violation 2,970 1,314 0.540
To follow the right procedures is a thing frequently appraised by the Top 3,738 1,225 0.589
Management Team
Competitive Intensity 4,043 0,720 0.698
Competition in our market is extremely intensive 4,616 0,692 0.464
It is quite usual to have price-wars in our market 3,907 1,066 0.428
Every day we learn of a new action taken by our competitors 3,615 0,953 0.440
References
1. Aaker D. (1989), «Managing Assets and Skills: The Key to Sustainable Competitive Advantage»,
California Management Review, 31, no. 2, p. 25-40
2. Aiken M. and Hage J.(1968), «Organisational Independence and Intraorganisational Structure»,
American Sociological Review, 33, 912-30
3. Alpert P. and Peterson M. (1971), «On the interpretation of canonical analysis», Journal of Marketing
Research, 8, p. 67-70
4. Anttila M, Moller K and Rajala A., Assessing Market Orientation of High Technology Companies: A
Study in the Finish Electrical and Electronic Industry. In Marketing for Today and for the 21st Century,
Bergadaa M. (ed.), 24th EMAC Conference, 16-19 May 1995, Paris, France, p. 1383-92
5. Armstrong Sc. and Overton s. (1979), “Estimating Non-Response Bias in Mail Surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, vol. 14, August, p. 396-402
6. Avlonitis G and Gounaris S, (1997) «Marketing Orientation and Company Performance: A Comparative
Study of Industrial vs. Consumer Goods Companies», Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 26, no.5
7. Baim J (1991) “Response rates: A multinational perspective” Marketing & Research Today, vol. 19, no. 2,
p. 114-19
8. Bilkey W., The Export Behaviour of Small Sized Wisconin Firms, Journal of International Business
Studies, 8, spring/summer, 93-98, 1978
9. Bonoma T. and B. Clark, Marketing Performance Assessment, H.B.S. Press, Massachusetts, 1992
10. Bonoma T., The Marketing Edge: Making Strategies Work, Free Press, N. York, 1985
11. Cadogan J. and Diamantopoulos A. (1995), «Narver and Slater, Kohli and Jaworski and the Market
Orientation Construct: Integration and Internationalisation», Journal of Strategic Marketing, 3, no. 1, p.
41-60
12. Canning G., Is Your Company Marketing Oriented ?, Journal of Business Strategy, 9, no. 3, 34-36, 1989
13. Cavusgil S., Differences Among Exporting Firms Based on Their Degree of Internationalisation, Journal
of Business Research, 12, 3, 195-208, 1984
14. Fr. Cespedes “The Need for Organisational Change” in Organising to Become Market Driven, Marketing
Science Institute Conference Summary, September 13-14, 1990, Boston, Massachusetts.
15. Chaganti R. and R. Chaganti, A Profile of Profitable and Not-So-Profitable Small Firms, Journal of Small
Business Management, July, 43-51, 1983
16. Child J., Managerial and Organisational Factors Associated With Company Performance - Part II: A
Contingency Analysis, The Journal of Management Studies, February, 12-27, 1975
17. Churchill G., Marketing Research: Methodological Foundations, Dryden Press, Orlando, 1991 (5th ed.)
18. Cravens D. Strategic Marketing, 1991 (3rd edition) Boston, Irwin Press
19. Cyert R and March G, A Behavioural Theory of the Firm, 2nd edition, Blackwell, Oxford, 1992
20. Daft R. and Weick K. (1984), «Toward a Model of Organisations as Interpretation Systems», Academy of
Management Review, 9, April, p. 284-95
21. Davis D., Morris M., Allen J., (1991), «Perceived Environmental Turbulence and Its Effect on Selected
Entrepreneurship, Marketing and Organisational Characteristics in Industrial Firms», Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 19, no. 1, p. 43-51
22. Day G. and Wensley R., (1983), «Marketing Theory with a Strategic Orientation», Journal of Marketing,
47, Fall, p. 79-89
23. Day G., Market Driven Strategy, New York, The Free Press, 1990, p. 13
24. Day G., Learning About Markets, Marketing Science Institute, Report 91-117, MA Cambridge, 1991
25. Deshpande R and Fr. Webster, Organisational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda,
Journal of Marketing, 53, no. 1, 3-15, 1989
26. Deshpande R. (1982), «The Organisational Context of Market Research Use», Journal of Marketing, 9,
Fall, p. 91-101
27. Deshpande R. and Zaltman G. (1982), «Factors Affecting the Use of Market Research Information: A
Path Analysis», Journal of Marketing Research, 19, February, p. 14-31
28. Deshpande R., J. Farley and Fr. Webster, Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation and Innovativeness
in Japanese Firms: A Quadrant Analysis, Marketing Science Institute, Report no. 92-100, Boston
Massachusetts, 1992
29. Diamantopoulos A. and Hart S., Linking Market Orientation and Company Performance: Preliminary
Work on Kohli and Jaworski's Framework, Journal of Strategic Marketing, 1, no.2, 93-122, 1993
30. Dixon R., Marketing as Production: The Development of a Concept, Journal of The Academy of
Marketing Science, 18, no. 4, 337-343, 1990
31. Donaldson W. G., Manufacturers Need to Show Greater Commitment to Customer Service, Industrial
Marketing Management, 24, no.5, 1995
32. Dreher A., «Marketing Orientation: How to Grasp the Phenomenon» In Marketing for the New Europe:
Dealing with Complexity, Chias J. and Sured J. (eds.), 22nd EMAC Conference, 25-28 May 1993,
Barcelona, Spain, 375-94
33. Druker P., The Practice of Management, Harper and Row Publishers Inc., N. York,. 1954
34. Dubinsky A. and Ingram T, A Factor Analysis Study of criteria Examined in the First-Lines Sales
Manager Promotion Process, in An Assessment of Marketing Thought and Practice, B. Walker et al.
(editors), AMA Educator’s Conference Proceedings, Chicago, 224-7, 1982
35. Elliot G., The Marketing Concept: Necessary but Sufficient ?, European Journal of Marketing, 21, no. 2,
20-30, 1987
36. Felton A. Making the Marketing Concept Work, Harvard Business Review, 37, no. 4, 55-65, 1959
37. Ferguson C. and Dickinson R. (1982), «Critical Success Factors for Directors in the Eighties», Business
Horizons, May-June, 14-20
38. Ford D. (1984), «Buyer-seller relationships in international industrial markets», Industrial Marketing
Management, 13, p. 101-12
39. Greenley G. E., «Forms of Market Orientation in UK Companies», Journal of Management Studies, 32,
no.1, 47-66, 1995
40. Grossbart S. and Crosby L. (1984), «Understanding the basis of parental concern and reaction to
children’s food advertising», Journal of Marketing, 48, Summer, p. 79-82
41. Gurrian K (1991) “Communicating with a hidden market”, Medical Marketing & Media, vol. 26, no.1, p.
62-7
42. Hall R., Haas E. and Norman J., (1967), «Organisational Size, Complexity and Formalisation», American
Sociological Review, 32, 903-11
43. Hansen R. (1980), «A Self-Perception Interpretation of the Effects on Monetary and Non-Monetary
Incentives of Mail Survey Respondent Behaviour», Journal of Marketing Research, vol. 17, February,
p.p.77-83
44. Heige J. and Aiken M., Social Change in Complex Organisations, Random House, N. York, 1970
45. Hooley Gr., J. Lynch and J. Shepherd, The Marketing Concept: Putting the Theory into Practice,
European Journal of Marketing, 24, no. 9, 7-23, 1990
46. Houston Fr., “The Marketing Concept: What It Is And What It Is Not”, Journal of Marketing, 50, no. 2,
23-39, 1986
47. Imai K, Nonaka I. and Takeuchi H., «Managing the New Product Development Process: How Japanese
Firm Learn and Unlearn», in The Uneasy Alliance, Klark K., Hayes R. and Lorenz R. (eds.), Harvard
Business Studies, Boston, 1985, p. 337-75
48. Janson R (1988), “Ethical practices of industrial purchases” Purchasing World, vol. 32, no. 6, p.28-31
49. Kohli A. and B. Jaworski, Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences, Marketing Science
Institute, Report no. 92-104, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1992
50. Kohli A. and B. Jaworski, Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions and Managerial
Implications, Marketing Science Institute, Report no. 90-113, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1990
51. Kotler Ph., (1977), «From Sales Obsession to Marketing Effectiveness», Harvard Business Review, Nov-
Dec, p. 69-75
52. Kotler Ph, Marketing Management, 6th edition, Prentice Hall, N. York, 1988
53. Levitt Th. (1960), «Marketing Myopia», Harvard Business Review, Jul-Aug, p. 53-60
54. Lorsch J (1986), «Managing Culture: The Invisible Barrier to Strategic Change», California Management
Review, 28, no. 2, p. 95-109
55. Megginson L., Mosley D. and Pietri P., Management: Concepts & Applications, 3rd edition, Harper &
Row, Boston, 226-29, 1989
56. 11. Meir E (1991) “Response rates trends in Britain” Marketing & Research Today, vol. 19, no. 2, p. 120-
23
57. Menon A. and Varadarajan R. (1992), «A Model of Marketing Knowledge Use Within Firms», Journal of
Marketing, 56, October, p. 53-71
58. Moller K. and Laaksonen (1984), «Situational dimensions and decision criteria in industrial buying:
Theoretical and empirical analysis». Proceedings of the International Resarch Seminar in Industrial
Marketing, August 29th - 31st, Stockholm School of Economics.
59. Moorman C. (1995), «Organisational Market Information Process: Cultural Antecedents and New
Product Outcomes», Journal of Marketing Research, 32, August, p. 318-35
 60. Narver J. and St. Slater, The Effect of Market Orientation on Business Profitability, Marketing Science
Institute, Report no. 89-120, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1989
61. Ohmae K., The Mind of the Strategist, The Penguin Library in Management, N. York, 1983
62. Pascale R.T, Managing on the Edge, London, Viking, 1990
63. Payne A., Developing a Market Oriented Organisation, Business Horizons, 31, no. 3, 46-53, 1988
64. Pearce J. and Robinson R., Strategic Management, 3rd edition, Irwin Press, Illinois, 375
65. Piercy N. (1991), «Marketing Concepts and Actions: Implementing Marketing-Led Strategic Change»,
European Journal of Marketing, 25, August, p. 36-55
66. Piercy N., Market-Led Strategic Change, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1992
67. Porter M., Competitive Advantage, Free Press, London, 1985, p. 7
68. Preston D., Saker J and Smith G., «Culture Driven Strategic Marketing Planning». In Marketing for the
New Europe: Dealing with Complexity, Chias J. and Sured J. (eds.), 22nd EMAC Conference, 25-28 May
1993, Barcelona, Spain, 1267-77
69. Robinson and Pearce, Planned Patterns of Strategic Behaviour and their Relationship to Business-Unit
Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 9, 43-60, 1988
70. Ruekert R., Developing a Market Orientation: An Organisational Strategy Perspective, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, 9, no.4, 225-45, 1992
71. Scherer F., Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Rand McNally, Chicago, 1980
72. Schwartz H and Davis M., (1981), «Matching Corporate Culture and Business Strategy», Organisational
Dynamics, 10, Summer, p. 30-48
73. Shapiro B. (1988), «What the Hell is Market Oriented ?», Harvard Business Review, Nov-Dec, p. 119-25
74. Slater S. and Narver J. (1994), «Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Effect of Market
Orientation - Performance Relationship ?», Journal of Marketing, 58, no. 1, p. 46-55
75. Slater S. and Narver J., Market Orientation, Performance and the Moderating Influence on Competitive
Environment, Marketing Science Institute, Report no. 92-118, Cambridge Massachusetts, 1992
76. Swartz G., Organising to Become Market Driven, Marketing Science Institute, Report no. 90-123, Boston
Massachusetts, 1990
77. Trout J. and A. Ries, Marketing Warfare, McGraw Hill, N. York, 1985
78. Tuominen M and Möller K, «Market Orientation: A State of the Art Review». In Marketing for An
Expanding Europe, Beracs J., Bauer A. and Simon J. (eds.), 25th EMAC Conference, 14-17 May 1996,
Budapest, Hungary, 1161-81
79. Venkatraman E. and Ramanujam V., Measurement of Business Performance in Strategy Research: A
Competitive Analysis, Academy of Management Review, 11, no.4, 801-14, 1986
80. Verhage B.J. and Waarts E., Marketing Planning for Improved Performance: A Competitive Analysis,
International Marketing Review, 15, no.2, 20-30, 1988
81. Weick K., The Social Psychology of Organising Reading, MA, Addison Wensley, 1979
82. Wong V. and Saunders J., Business Orientations and Company Success, Journal of Strategic Marketing,
1, no.1, 20-40, 1993

View publication stats