Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

Research paper

Is it enough to be market-oriented? How coopetition and industry

experience affect the relationship between a market orientation and
customer satisfaction performance
James M. Crick, Masoud Karami, Dave Crick *
a
Marketing and Entrepreneurship at the School of Business, University of Leicester, UK
b
Department of Marketing, University of Otago Business School, New Zealand
c
Marketing, Telfer School of Management, University of Ottawa, Canada.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Although the advantages of a market orientation (the organisation-wide implementation of the marketing
Market orientation concept) are well-known, many smaller-sized (and under-resourced) companies struggle to satisfy their cus­
Coopetition tomers' wants and needs. Therefore, grounded in resource-based theory and the relational view (as well as
Industry experience
drawing upon an outside-in marketing perspective), this current study examines whether collaborating with
Customer satisfaction performance
Resource-based theory and the relational view
competitors (coopetition) enhances the market orientation – customer satisfaction performance relationship.
Outside-in marketing Based on a mixed methods research approach involving the New Zealand tourism and hospitality sector, the
findings showed that while a market orientation positively impacts customer satisfaction performance, sur­
prisingly, this association was negatively moderated by coopetition. A post-hoc test (via a three-way interaction
effect) revealed that industry experience can stabilise the potentially harmful consequences of coopetition by
allowing decision-makers to cooperate with suitable rivals (those that are trustworthy and target complementary
product-markets) to help them achieve mutually-beneficial outcomes. In short, it is sometimes not enough to be
market-oriented. Instead, owner-managers are typically best-served if they can coordinate a combination of
activities featuring a market orientation, coopetition, and “appropriate” industry experience to create “syner­
gistic” results.

1. Introduction them to engage in performance-enhancing forms of a market orientation

A “market orientation alone is not enough” (Rust, 2020, p. 3).
A fundamental issue within the wider marketing literature surrounds
how companies can satisfy their customers' wants and needs (Kumar,
Jones, Venkatesan, & Leone, 2011; Narver & Slater, 1990). A key driver
of customer satisfaction performance has been examined through a
market orientation, namely, the organisation-wide implementation of
the marketing concept (Ngo & O'Cass, 2012; Ozturan, Ozsomer, &
Pieters, 2014). That is, a market orientation is intended to help decision-
makers to develop “effective” marketing strategies by generating,
disseminating, and being responsive to information about their cus­
tomers and competitors (Cadogan, Souchon, & Procter, 2008). Never­
theless, the existing body of knowledge typically assumes that firms
possess an adequate threshold of resources and capabilities that allows
(Hunt & Morgan, 1995; Morgan, Vorhies, & Mason, 2009). However,
scarce research addresses how owner-managers of some smaller-sized
(and under-resourced) organisations might possess the desire to satisfy
their customers' wants and needs, but struggle to achieve such an
objective with limited tangible and intangible assets (Baker & Sinkula,
2009; Miles, Gilmore, Harrigan, Lewis, & Sethna, 2015).
An extension of this issue pertains to whether “traditional” forms of a
market orientation are sufficient for under-resourced enterprises in the
modern world (following Rust, 2020). If it is not enough to be market-
oriented in the present-day, entrepreneurs need to better-understand
what activities (and/or assets) they can harness to create value for
their end-users. At the same time, there has been a growing interest in
the business-to-business literature regarding how owner-managers of
under-resourced businesses collaborate with their rivals (coopetition) to
improve their performance in ways that would not be possible if they

* Corresponding author at: University of Ottawa, Telfer School of Management, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada.
E-mail address: dcrick@uottawa.ca (D. Crick).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.11.002
Received 26 August 2020; Received in revised form 5 November 2021; Accepted 7 November 2021
Available online 18 November 2021
0019-8501/© 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J.M. Crick et al.
were to operate under an individualistic business model (Estrada &
Dong, 2020; Pattinson, Nicholson, & Lindgreen, 2018). A popular defi­
nition of coopetition is that it is a “paradoxical relationship between two
or more actors, regardless of whether they are involved in horizontal or
vertical relationships, simultaneously in cooperative and competitive
interactions” (Bengtsson & Kock, 2014, p. 180). By engaging in these
networks, decision-makers (and functional-level employees) are equip­
ped with new resources, capabilities, and opportunities that allow them
to survive and grow within their markets (Ritala, 2012).
Nevertheless, there are currently relatively limited insights pertain­
ing to whether, and under what circumstances, coopetition (or similar
terms, like inter-firm collaboration) can assist owner-managers of
smaller-sized (and under-resourced) organisations to successfully
implement market-oriented strategies (Bouncken, Fredrich, & Kraus,
2020; Rindfleisch & Moorman, 2003). Consequently, there is a need to
determine whether coopetition can enhance the performance outcomes
of market-oriented behaviours, or if it prevents enterprises from satis­
fying the wants and needs of their end-users. This investigation's unique
insights are timely and important, as they offer new evidence regarding
the potential risks and rewards of cooperating with competitors to
positively impact market-oriented strategies.1
Therefore, grounded in resource-based theory and the relational
view (Dyer, Singh, & Hesterly, 2018; Lavie, 2006), together with
drawing upon the outside-in marketing domain (Day, 2014; Mu, Bao,
Sekhon, Qi, & Love, 2018), the objective of this current investigation is
to examine the relationship between a market orientation and customer
satisfaction performance under the moderating role of coopetition (in
the capacity of smaller-sized firms). By addressing this research objec­
tive, five contributions are made to enhance the extant literature:
1. Stronger evidence is offered to infuse business-to-consumer mar­
keting behaviours with the business-to-business marketing field, via
integrating a market orientation with coopetition activities (building
upon Crick & Crick, 2020). This helps the academic community to
better-understand that these areas of the overall discipline do not
have to be viewed as sitting in their own silos, but rather, can be
inter-connected within firm-level strategies.
2. Improved insights emerge on the underlying mechanisms regarding
how cooperating with competitors helps owner-managers of smaller-
sized (and under-resourced) firms to engage in performance-
enhancing market-oriented behaviours (reinforcing Rindfleisch &
Moorman, 2003; Bouncken et al., 2020).
3. Since not all competitors are the same, the risks and potential re­
wards of coopetition are evaluated (linking with Chiambaretto,
Bengtsson, Fernandez, & Näsholm, 2020; Yan, Dong, & Faems,
2020). That is, the role of trust in coopetition networks is considered
through industry experience (via a post-hoc test), supplemented with
some follow-up qualitative evidence, to signify its importance within
these business-to-business marketing relationships (following Crick
& Crick, 2021).
4. The seminal viewpoints pertaining to a market orientation are
revisited (i.e., Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater, 1990) to
demonstrate that “traditional” approaches of implementing the
marketing concept may not be sufficient in the twenty-first century
(as per Rust, 2020).
5. Resource-based theory and the relational view are infused in new
ways (extending Lavie, 2006; Dyer et al., 2018) to unpack the
interaction between a market orientation and coopetition on
customer satisfaction performance; that is, enhanced by drawing
1
The advantages of coopetition-oriented networks are not restricted to
“business customers”, namely, those purchasing goods/services from other or­
ganisations. Rather, coopetition can directly advantage “traditional” customers
(Crick & Crick, 2020). The authors are grateful to an anonymous reviewer for
requesting clarity regarding this issue.
63
Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75
upon an outside-in marketing perspective (see Mu et al., 2018;
Quach, Thaichon, Lee, Weaven, & Palmatier, 2020). This, in itself, is
a timely and important contribution because one theoretical lens
sometimes does not adequately explain a phenomenon in the broader
marketing domain (as noted by Crick & Crick, 2021).
To make these five contributions, this paper is divided as follows.
First, after exploring the theoretical underpinnings, the elements of the
conceptual framework are presented. Second, the research design is
justified. Third, the statistical results are outlined. Fourth, the follow-up
qualitative evidence is described. Fifth, these results are discussed in
relation to the extant literature. Sixth, a range of implications for
decision-makers are offered. Seventh, a few limitations and some ave­
nues for future research are noted.
2. Theory and hypotheses
2.1. An overview of resource-based theory
Resource-based theory assesses the connection between firm-level
resources/capabilities and business performance (Barney, 1991). Re­
sources are tangible assets, such as cash, as opposed to capabilities,
which are intangible assets, like knowledge (Morgan et al., 2009).
Resource-based theory is underpinned by the value, rarity, inimitability,
and non-substitutability (VRIN) framework, which evaluates the extent
to which businesses can leverage their well-organised assets to yield
sustainable competitive advantages (Barney, 1991). This enables firms
(small and large) to distinguish their offerings from their key competi­
tors to provide themselves with a superior (and long-term) market po­
sition (Hunt & Morgan, 1995).
2.2. Extensions to resource-based theory and the outside-in marketing
perspective
The seminal inside-the-firm perspective of resource-based theory has
been extended to encapsulate a range of assumptions pertaining to how
businesses operate within their industries (Crick & Crick, 2021). Most
notably, Barney (2001) and Priem and Butler (2001) argued that firms
should possess “strategic flexibility” (an ability to adapt, and respond, to
industry-wide dynamics) to cope with the uncertainty of rapidly-
changing markets. More recently, academics have taken an outside-in
marketing perspective to highlight that decision-makers should be
market-led and scan their sectors for external forces, including threats
from existing and potential rivals, as well as the demand from current
and prospective customers (Mu et al., 2018). More formally, outside-in
marketing is defined as “the belief and practice of listening to customers
and the market, leveraging data for customer segmentation and
profiling, and co-creating value through relationship development with
consumers and external partners - all of which can be evaluated through
customer-oriented measures tied to firm performance” (Quach et al.,
2020, p. 2). For example, Day (2014) discussed the market-led consid­
eration of firms potentially “de-railing” their competitors by developing
and implementing marketing strategies that will allow them to yield
sustainable competitive advantages.
This current study draws upon an outside-in marketing perspective,
alongside an infusion of resource-based theory and the relational view
(Dyer et al., 2018; Lavie, 2006). In particular, since Ngo and O'Cass
(2012) noted that a market orientation involves all members of an
organisation obtaining intelligence about their customers and compet­
itors (external information) and utilising it to perform better in their
markets. Additionally, because coopetition involves outside-in market­
ing principles, in which firms work with competitors to obtain mutually-
beneficial outcomes, including higher-levels of performance (Park, Sri­
vastava, & Gnyawali, 2014; Ritala, 2012). Consequently, these con­
ceptualisations might signify whether coopetition positively or
negatively impacts the performance outcomes of market-oriented
J.M. Crick et al.
behaviours, depending on whether these networks are (or are not)
“effectively” managed. In fact, the outside-in marketing perspective has
been linked to enterprises establishing networks with key stakeholders
to create superior customer value propositions (Zhang & Watson, 2020).
Yet, this stand of literature has largely overlooked coopetition strategies
by concentrating on other types of relationships, like those involving
supply chain partners (as per Crick & Crick, 2021).
2.3. Integrating resource-based theory with the relational view
Resource-based theory has been a widely-utilised perspective to
explain the performance outcomes of market-oriented activities and
coopetition (see Crick & Crick, 2020; Hooley, Greenley, Cadogan, &
Fahy, 2005). Nonetheless, this perspective largely overlooks the rela­
tional factors that are important when organisations engage in cooper­
ative business strategies, including working with industry rivals
(Barney, 2018; Hunt & Derozier, 2004). The relational view helps to
provide insights regarding how well-managed networks can assist or­
ganisations to yield sustainable competitive advantages and other
measures of performance (Dyer et al., 2018; Dyer & Singh, 1998). The
relational view complements resource-based theory to highlight how
inter-firm trust is needed to improve the performance outcomes of
sharing resources and capabilities within cooperative marketing stra­
tegies (Lavie, 2006). Accordingly, this current study utilised resource-
based theory, together with the relational view (and an outside-in
marketing perspective), to underpin the conceptual framework2 (Fig. 1).
2.4. The relationship between a market orientation and customer
satisfaction performance
A market orientation refers to the ways that owner-managers
implement the marketing concept to create customer value (Kirca,
Jayachandran, & Bearden, 2005). Behavioural forms of a market
orientation have been found to exhibit positive linkages with customer
satisfaction performance (Cadogan et al., 2008; Kohli & Jaworski,
1990). The reason being is that if decision-makers possess (and act upon)
information about their customers and competitors, they can leverage
this market intelligence to develop and implement strategies that satisfy
their customers' wants and needs (Narver & Slater, 1990). For instance,
in an international capacity, Boso, Cadogan, and Story (2012) argued
that owner-managers of market-oriented firms are “wiser” because they
can strategically time their ability to meet (and exceed) their customers'
demands. Further, a market orientation allows companies to receive
first-mover advantages through learning about profitable markets (do­
mestic or foreign) quicker than industry rivals (that are less-aware of
these opportunities) in order to satisfy new customers' wants and needs
(Hamzah, Crick, Crick, Ali, & Yunus, 2021). As previously alluded to,
there is a basis for speculating that a market orientation (alone) may not
be enough in the modern world (see Rust, 2020). In light of this un­
certainty, but nonetheless based on the wide body of prior research, it is
proposed that a market orientation is a performance-enhancing strategy.
As such, it follows that:
H1. A positive relationship exists between a market orientation and
customer satisfaction performance.
2 tation, scholars are advised to choose a sector where firms have a strong
Although market-oriented behaviours have been linked to performance for
some time (Kirca et al., 2005), the contribution of this article is to evaluate
whether coopetition impacts this association. Yet, to conceptualise and test this
issue, the main (direct) effect needed consideration. Additionally, the research
team did not explore any mediators, as it was more important to evaluate the
potential interaction effect from coopetition. This decision follows a large (and
growing) body of knowledge that has investigated the moderators affecting the
link between a market orientation and performance (e.g., Ozturan et al., 2014;
Slater & Narver, 1994). The authors thank an anonymous reviewer for asking
for more detail on this matter.
64
Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75
2.5. The moderating role of coopetition in the relationship between a
market orientation and customer satisfaction performance
Owner-managers of many smaller-sized organisations are committed
to satisfying their customers' wants and needs, but often, do not have the
assets that easily allow them to achieve such goals (Baker & Sinkula,
2009; Miles et al., 2015). Thus, some decision-makers choose to
collaborate with their competitors (in formal and informal capacities) to
overcome their liabilities and improve their performance (Bengtsson &
Kock, 2000; Rindfleisch & Moorman, 2003). For example, Felzensztein,
Gimmon, and Deans (2018) noted that certain agricultural businesses
engage in coopetition by pooling their resources and capabilities to
reduce overheads and to create a more exciting experience for their
customers through joint marketing events (e.g., trade shows). It is
therefore proposed that by cooperating with their competitors, owner-
managers of smaller-sized companies can access (and be able to uti­
lise) the “appropriate” resources and capabilities that are required to
turn their market-oriented behaviours into processes that deliver supe­
rior value to their customers (building upon Rust, 2020). Consequently,
it is anticipated that:
H2. Coopetition positively moderates the relationship between a
market orientation and customer satisfaction performance.
2.6. Control variables
The outcome variable (customer satisfaction performance) was
controlled for the following core factors. First, larger organisations, with
a greater volume of resources and capabilities, often have enhanced
scope to satisfy their customers' wants and needs than smaller firms,
with fewer assets of their own (Hooley et al., 2005). Although this
current investigation does not feature large enterprises, to explore this
matter in more depth, firm size controlled the outcome variable (ranging
from small to medium-sized firms). Second, older companies typically
have the ability to compete via heritage-based advantages that younger
rivals would often struggle to develop (Hamzah et al., 2021). Hence,
firm age was utilised as a control variable. Third, if owner-managers
possess sector-wide experience (regarding their customers and com­
petitors), they could use this to develop and implement performance-
driving marketing strategies (Cadogan, Kuivalainen, & Sundqvist,
2009; Crick, 2021). Therefore, customer satisfaction performance was
controlled for industry experience. Fourth, internationalised businesses
might have the potential to yield higher-levels of customer satisfaction
performance due to having a larger commitment and presence overseas
(Crick, 2007; Sraha, Sharma, Crick, & Crick, 2020). As such, degree of
internationalisation was modelled as a control path. The adopted
methodology follows in the next section.
3. Methods
3.1. Population of interest
An ideal setting for coopetition-oriented studies is one that contains
firms managing high-degrees of cooperativeness and competitiveness, so
that researchers can evaluate the interplay between these paradoxical
forces (Felzensztein et al., 2018). Likewise, to examine a market orien­
interface with their customers (Ngo & O'Cass, 2012). As such, the pop­
ulation of interest for this current investigation was the New Zealand
tourism and hospitality sector, since this industry (and its equivalent in
J.M. Crick et al. Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75

H1: (+)
Market orientation

H2: (+)

Customer satisfaction
Coopetition
performance

Control variables

The control paths for the outcome variable (customer satisfaction performance) were firm size,
firm age, industry experience, and degree of internationalisation. Additionally, coopetition was
included as a procedural control to test the interaction effect.

Fig. 1. Conceptual framework.

certain other countries) hosts many smaller-sized firms managing these
dynamics in their regional clusters3 (Chowdhury, Prayag, Orchiston, &
Spector, 2020; Czakon & Czernek, 2016). The key informants were
owner-managers, as managerial authority is normally needed to engage
in a market orientation, as well as coopetition strategies (Cadogan,
Sundqvist, Puumalainen, & Salminen, 2012; Ritala, 2012).
3.2. Data collection
The research team developed an electronic survey (through Qual­
trics) that contained measures of the constructs. After the survey was
designed, it was pre-tested with a sample of knowledgeable academics
(n = 8) and practitioners (n = 5), who could comment on its content and
the clarity of the operationalisations (Reynolds & Diamantopoulos,
1998). No concerns were identified during the pre-testing stage. Then,
the data collection process commenced, involving the paid assistance of
a reputable market research agency (see Hagtvedt, 2011). This organi­
sation was instructed to sample smaller-sized tourism and hospitality
firms from across New Zealand. A pilot study was launched (n = 50),
which involved checking the statistical data for its descriptive statistics,
revealing no problems (Hunt, Sparkman Jr., & Wilcox, 1982). Next, the
core study was implemented (n = 134). Since no changes were made to
the survey after the pilot study, the two datasets were combined to
establish a larger sample size (as per Morgan & Hunt, 1994). Thus, the
final sample size was 184 usable responses4 (i.e., 50 plus 134). Due to
the role of the market research agency, the response rate could not be
provided. Likewise, the research team could not test for early, vis-à-vis,
late response bias (see Armstrong & Overton, 1977).
3.3. Operationalisations
dissemination (five items), and intelligence responsiveness (five items),
each using seven-point Likert scales, ranging from: 1 = very strongly
disagree to 7 = very strongly agree. Second, customer satisfaction per­
formance was measured using a seven-point interval scale, with four
items, ranging from: 1 = much worse than competitors to 7 = much
better than competitors (adapted from Hooley et al., 2005). Third,
coopetition was operationalised using a seven-point Likert scale, with
five items, ranging from: 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly
agree (adapted from Bouncken & Kraus, 2013; Bouncken, Fredrich,
Ritala, & Kraus, 2018). Fourth, firm size was measured via the number
of employees within the sampled firms (Josephson, Johnson, & Maria­
doss, 2016). Fifth, firm age was captured through the number of years
that these organisations had been trading (Hamzah et al., 2021).
Sixth, industry experience was operationalised through the amount
of time (in years) that the respondents had been working in the global
tourism and hospitality sector (Chi & Gursoy, 2009). This scale captured
a different construct to firm age. That is, in principle, a very young
company could have an experienced owner-manager, with his/her in­
sights originating from prior employment in the sector before they
founded their current enterprise. Seventh, degree of internationalisation
was measured via the percentage of sales that originated from interna­
tional markets (Liu, Guillet, Xiao, & Law, 2014). Eighth, a coopetition-
oriented mind-set was measured using a seven-point Likert scale, with
six items, ranging from: 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly
agree (adapted from Crick & Crick, 2019). Ninth, the informant quality
tool consisted of a seven-point Likert scale, with five items, ranging
from: 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly agree (adapted
from Katsikeas, Samiee, & Theodosiou, 2006). The single-item (and
continuous) variables were transformed by natural logarithms to lessen
the size of their variances. Appendix A displays the full-list of the multi-
item measurement scales.5

The constructs were operationalised as follows. First, a market

orientation was measured using an adapted version of the MARKOR
scale (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). This three-component construct was
comprised of intelligence generation (four items), intelligence
3
Studies involving regional clusters have varied and included examples like
accommodation providers, restaurants, and alcohol-producers that feature
hospitality and tourism in their business models (Crick, 2015; Crick, Chaudhry,
& Crick, 2016; Crick & Crick, 2015; Crick, Crick, & Tebbett, 2020).
4
While this study contributes to the extant literature, this dataset has been
used in research featuring a different conceptual framework.
5
The following variable codes were used – intelligence generation (GEN),
intelligence dissemination (DISS), intelligence responsiveness (RESP), customer
satisfaction performance (CUST), coopetition (COOP), firm size (SIZE), firm age
(AGE), industry experience (INDS), degree of internationalisation (INTL), and
informant quality (INQ). Furthermore, MO was the code for the composite of
the market orientation construct (although this construct abbreviation was not
reported on during the subsequent statistical data analysis). Additionally, to test
for endogeneity bias (as explained later), a coopetition-oriented mind-set
(COM) was used as the instrumental variable. However, one indicator was
selected from the multi-item measure (COM_3) and was re-coded as ENDOG for
statistical purposes.

65
J.M. Crick et al. Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75

3.4. Data analysis Table 2

Underlying factor structure of the multi-item measurement scales.
The quantitative data were analysed through the subsequent pro­ Components
cedures. First, via SPSS 23, the characteristics of the sampled businesses
Items Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5 Factor 6
were examined. As shown in Table 1, a variety of smaller-sized tourism
and hospitality companies participated in this study with respect of their GEN_1 0.69 0.14 0.32 0.13 0.26 0.14
GEN_3 0.71 0.32 0.13 0.27 0.03 0.18
background characteristics. In addition, data were collected from or­ GEN_4 0.58 0.36 0.43 0.08 0.19 0.14
ganisations that were located throughout New Zealand, including rela­ DISS_1 0.13 0.81 0.18 0.01 0.17 0.11
tively densely populated cities, like Auckland and Christchurch, through DISS_2 0.30 0.71 0.08 0.08 0.20 0.26
to more rural locations (e.g., Lake Taupo and Queenstown). DISS_3 0.15 0.73 0.13 0.07 0.20 0.34
RESP_1 0.01 0.13 0.83 0.27 − 0.05 0.12
Second, using SPSS 23, an exploratory factor analysis was “run” with
RESP_2 0.26 0.15 0.74 0.14 0.17 0.13
a principal components analysis extraction and rotated via varimax RESP_3 0.35 0.10 0.69 0.25 0.15 0.01
(Crick & Crick, 2019). During this stage, several problematic items were COOP_1 0.19 0.06 0.13 0.84 0.02 − 0.12
removed, as they created cross-factor loadings. After these indicators COOP_2 0.20 − 0.12 0.01 0.83 − 0.18 − 0.12
were deleted, a six-factor solution was produced (Table 2). The item COOP_3 − 0.06 0.09 0.20 0.85 − 0.02 0.02
COOP_4 0.15 0.11 0.06 0.88 − 0.05 0.05
deletion did not negatively impact the structure of the multi-item scales COOP_5 − 0.04 0.01 0.26 0.78 0.03 − 0.07
(Hamzah et al., 2021). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test of sampling CUST_1 0.12 0.22 0.01 − 0.04 0.80 0.15
adequacy (0.87), alongside Bartlett's test of sphericity (χ2 = 2483.43; df CUST_2 0.17 0.16 0.08 − 0.13 0.77 0.19
= 253; Sig. = 0.00), produced acceptable results (accounting for 73.13% CUST_3 − 0.12 0.28 0.11 0.03 0.71 0.28
CUST_4 0.16 − 0.03 0.07 − 0.04 0.78 0.22
of the overall variance). The KMO test of sampling adequacy signified
INQ_1 0.15 0.15 0.10 − 0.06 0.17 0.83
that enough primary data had been collected. INQ_2 0.12 0.11 0.07 − 0.06 0.19 0.83
Third, through LISREL 8.71, a confirmatory factor analysis (mea­ INQ_3 0.04 0.10 − 0.01 0.07 0.15 0.77
surement model) was conducted to purify the operationalisations INQ_4 0.04 0.14 0.03 − 0.11 0.09 0.86
(Cadogan et al., 2008). This included dealing with the formative mea­ INQ_5 0.04 0.18 0.16 − 0.08 0.28 0.76

sures.6 A few items were deleted because they possessed low stand­ The items presented in a bold font were retained within the six-factor solution.
ardised factor loadings, high standardised error variances, non-
significant t-values, and issues relating to the modification indices
(Crick & Crick, 2021). The final items were satisfactory (Table 3), with Table 3
acceptable model fit indices (χ2 = 307.32; df = 225; χ2/df = 1.37; Sig. = Final (refined) measurement items.
0.00; RMSEA = 0.05; CFI = 0.97; IFI = 0.97; NNFI = 0.96; SRMR = Standardised factor loadings Standardised error variances
0.05). (λx) (θδ)
Fourth, via LISREL 8.71, the hypothesised and control paths were Items λx t-values θδ t-values
tested through covariance-based structural equation modelling (Sou­
GEN_1 0.71 9.84 0.49 8.00
chon, Hughes, Farrell, Nemkova, & Oliveira, 2016). Following accepted GEN_3 0.72 Fixed 0.49 7.99
practice, the multi-dimensional measures (and the moderator) were GEN_4 0.83 10.03 0.32 6.20
transformed (and modelled via the syntax file) into single-indicators DISS_1 0.70 Fixed 0.50 8.00
DISS_2 0.82 9.68 0.33 6.25
(Ping Jr., 1995). During this stage, the squared multiple correlation
DISS_3 0.78 9.38 0.38 6.97
(R2) was recorded to assess the amount of the outcome variable's vari­ RESP_1 0.68 Fixed 0.54 8.02
ance that was explained by the independent variables. Furthermore, RESP_2 0.78 8.80 0.39 6.61
using SPSS 23, the moderator was “residual-centered” to alleviate multi- RESP_3 0.81 8.98 0.34 5.97
COOP_2 0.80 12.98 0.36 7.76
COOP_3 0.82 13.52 0.33 7.44
Table 1 COOP_4 0.87 Fixed 0.25 6.42
COOP_5 0.75 11.78 0.44 8.26
The nature of the smaller-sized sampled companies.
CUST_1 0.80 Fixed 0.36 6.67
Characteristics Mean SD Min Max CUST_2 0.80 10.85 0.36 6.70
CUST_3 0.70 9.49 0.51 8.00
Firm age (years) 19.75 18.98 1.00 120.00
CUST_4 0.69 9.31 0.52 8.11
Years working in current organisation 7.71 7.32 1.00 50.00
INQ_1 0.88 13.55 0.22 5.47
Years working in the global tourism and 12.02 9.44 1.00 50.00
INQ_2 0.87 13.31 0.25 6.05
hospitality sector
INQ_4 0.82 Fixed 0.33 7.33
Percentage of sales from international markets 40.36 30.69 1.00 100.00
ENDOG 1.00 Fixed 0.00 Fixed
Percentage of sales from international visitors 40.24 29.03 1.00 100.00
SIZE 1.00 Fixed 0.00 Fixed
AGE 1.00 Fixed 0.00 Fixed
INDS 1.00 Fixed 0.00 Fixed
INTL 1.00 Fixed 0.00 Fixed

The critical t-value was 1.65 (5%, one-sided).

6
Formative measures (like the MARKOR scale) can be treated in various
ways, but often, these operationalisations are “unreal” manifestations of psy­
chological constructs that will contain a certain degree of measurement error
collinearity concerns (see Echambadi & Hess, 2007). The model-testing
(Cadogan & Lee, 2013). To counter-act some of these problems, Lee & Cadogan stage occurred when all independent variables were “nested” within the
(2013) suggested that if the dimensions of a core construct have similar cor­ analysis (Cadogan et al., 2009). A “spotlight analysis” was conducted on
relations with an outcome variable, it is “appropriate” to create a composite the interaction effect, whereby, the moderator (coopetition) was
(aggregate) term in a condensed model. This is because the dimensions capture assessed at low-levels and high-levels, namely, one standard deviation
trace evidence of the overall latent variable. Additionally, Lee, Cadogan, & (SD) below and above the mean to identify the key effect sizes (Spiller,
Chamberlain (2014) recommended that composite constructs should be Fitzsimons, Lynch, & McClelland, 2013).
modelled as “material formative variables” to minimise the measurement error.
This was addressed by averaging the purified components of the MARKOR scale
– the sum of the intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination, and intel­
ligence responsiveness, divided by three (see Cadogan et al., 2009).

66
J.M. Crick et al. Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75

3.5. Reliability and validity 3.7. Endogeneity bias

Reliability was considered by examining the Cronbach's alpha co­
efficients (α) of the multi-item scales before and after they were purified,
with all of them exceeding 0.70 (Crick & Crick, 2019). Face validity was
assured through the pre-testing stage (Reynolds & Diamantopoulos,
1998), as well as utilising an informant quality tool (adapted from
Katsikeas et al., 2006). Content validity was achieved by using estab­
lished measurement scales (Cadogan et al., 2009). Convergent validity
was evaluated by having composite reliabilities that were in excess of
0.60 and average variance extracted values that were greater than 0.50
(Souchon et al., 2016). To test for discriminant validity, the research
team compared the squared phi matrix correlations (accessed through
LISREL 8.71) against the average variance extracted values for each
construct (Table 4). Since the largest squared phi matrix correlation
(0.55) was below the smallest average variance extracted (0.56),
discriminant validity is likely to be present (Fornell & Larcker, 1981).
This small difference was attributed to the conceptually-associated
variables, like intelligence generation and intelligence responsiveness
(facets of the market orientation construct), which were expected to
produce large correlations (as noted by Cadogan et al., 2008). This
provided some evidence that these large values were for valid reasons,
rather than anything concerning.
3.6. Common method variance
Endogeneity bias refers to an undesirable situation where an inde­
pendent variable(s) is an influencing factor regarding an outcome var­
iable, but in reality, these constructs are jointly driven by an
“unmeasured” construct (Ullah, Akhtar, & Zaefarian, 2018). There are
various tools that can be utilised to combat these problems by detecting
whether endogeneity bias is present within a model, including econo­
metric techniques (Wooldridge, 2010). To test for endogeneity bias,
LISREL 8.71 was used across the following steps. First, the conceptual
framework was refined to evaluate one aspect of the model, namely, the
relationship between coopetition and customer satisfaction perfor­
mance. Second, an instrument was selected, as a construct that is
theoretically related to coopetition, but not customer satisfaction per­
formance. This was a coopetition-oriented mind-set (Crick & Crick,
2021). Third, one item from Crick and Crick's (2019) measure of a
coopetition-oriented mind-set was chosen (COM_3), since only one in­
dicator is needed for such a test (Antonakis, Bendahan, Jacquart, &
Lalive, 2010). Fourth, two structural models were produced, one
modelling the coopetition - customer satisfaction performance link and
another that included the instrument. Fifth, because the Δχ2 (10.74),
relative to the Δdf (7), was non-significant (below the critical value of
14.01), the data were deemed to be unaffected by endogeneity bias
(Souchon et al., 2016).

3.8. Post-hoc test

There are certain procedural and statistical tools that can be
employed to evaluate common method variance. In this current inves­
As discussed later, surprisingly, coopetition negatively moderated
tigation, the survey was presented in a short and interactive format
the association between a market orientation and customer satisfaction
(Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003). Further, the market
performance (challenging Rindfleisch & Moorman, 2003; Felzensztein
research agency was paid to ensure that the respondents met the pre-
et al., 2018). As such, a post-hoc test was conducted to examine the
defined criteria and completed the survey in a reasonable amount of
underlying reasons behind this counter-intuitive result (following
time by not rushing through questions (as per Hagtvedt, 2011). More
Cadogan et al., 2009). To take a closer look at this issue, a three-way
formally, the marker variable technique was employed (via SPSS 23). To
interaction effect was employed between a market orientation, coope­
enable this, a bivariate correlation matrix was produced that contained
tition, and industry experience and their effects on customer satisfaction
all constructs that were used to evaluate the research hypotheses and
performance. The reason being is that if decision-makers possess rele­
control paths. Next, a partial correlation matrix was created, with the
vant experience within their sectors (in terms of customers' wants and
same latent variables, but controlling for the informant quality tool
needs and competitors' activities), they might be able to utilise this
(adapted from Katsikeas et al., 2006). This construct (with a SD of 1.15)
knowledge to cooperate with trustworthy and complementary rivals
was chosen, since it was conceptually-unrelated to any other variable
that will allow them to achieve mutually-beneficial outcomes (Bouncken
used within this current investigation. Then, the differences between the
et al., 2020; Estrada & Dong, 2020). Hence, industry experience could
two correlation matrices were calculated and averaged. With a very
serve as a factor (i.e., an intangible asset) that assists owner-managers to
small mean difference (r = 0.04), the data were unlikely to be affected in
team-up with trustworthy coopetition partners that may positively
this regard (Lindell & Whitney, 2001).
impact the performance outcomes of a market orientation.
In turn, relevant industry experience might overcome some of the
downsides of these business-to-business marketing strategies, such as
the potential for tensions (e.g., trust-oriented concerns), lost business

Table 4
Final scale reliabilities and the test for discriminant validity.
Constructs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

1. Intelligence generation 1.00

2. Intelligence dissemination 0.53 1.00
3. Intelligence responsiveness 0.55 0.24 1.00
4. Coopetition 0.13 0.02 0.19 1.00
5. Customer satisfaction performance 0.22 0.32 0.10 0.01 1.00
6. Informant quality 0.16 0.30 0.07 0.01 0.26 1.00
7. Firm size 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.01 1.00
8. Firm age 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.14 1.00
9. Industry experience 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.12 1.00
10. Degree of internationalisation 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 1.00
11. Coopetition-oriented mind-set 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.00
Cronbach's alpha coefficient (α) 0.80 0.81 0.80 0.91 0.84 0.89 – – – – –
Composite reliability 0.80 0.81 0.80 0.88 0.84 0.89 – – – – –
Average variance extracted 0.57 0.59 0.58 0.66 0.56 0.73 – – – – –

The scale reliabilities for the single-item measures could not be calculated. However, since the multi-item operationalisations produced acceptable scale reliabilities,
the single-indicators were assumed to be in excess of the minimum benchmarks.

67
J.M. Crick et al. Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75

secrets, and negative influences on their competitive advantages (see
Crick & Crick, 2021). This test was intended to delve deeper into
whether it is enough to be market-oriented, or if other strategies and
assets need to be leveraged (extending Rust, 2020). Including the pro­
cedural constructs, the outcome variable (customer satisfaction perfor­
mance) was controlled for various factors. There is no single-agreed way
to undertake these complex tests. Yet, the approach taken within this
current study is consistent with earlier research (e.g., Cadogan et al.,
2012). Through LISREL 8.71, covariance-based structural equation
modelling was used for the post-hoc test, with attention being paid to the
same aspects from this software package as during the evaluation of the
research hypotheses and control paths (Souchon et al., 2016). Like the
main model-testing stage, “residual-centering” was employed to reduce
multi-collinearity errors (Echambadi & Hess, 2007). The same checks
(including the “spotlight analysis”) were made to ensure that the
structural model was evaluated in a robust manner (Spiller et al., 2013).
3.9. Follow-up interviews
The research team conducted 20 semi-structured interviews with key
decision-makers in the New Zealand tourism and hospitality sector
(similar to Bouncken & Kraus, 2013). These interviewees were sampled
in a purposive manner to comment on the underlying issues behind the
statistical results. These organisations offered a mixture of goods and
services, such as restaurants, weddings, accommodation, and networks
with external parties, like adventure sports businesses. Collectively, they
represented the main tourism and hospitality offerings within the
country (Chowdhury et al., 2020). These semi-structured interviews
lasted around 60 min, for which the transcripts were “manually-coded”
for key themes that corresponded to the three-way interaction effect.
Further, the qualitative stage was useful in determining whether a
market orientation (alone) is enough (in line with Rust, 2020). This
involved the interview transcripts being continually processed to find re-
occurring issues to explore “how” and “why” the statistical results
occurred (Suddaby, 2006). The statistical results are outlined in the next
section.
4. Statistical results
As presented in Table 5, the bivariate correlations (and the
descriptive statistics) revealed the underlying links among the latent
variables.
The structural model showed that a market orientation had a positive
and significant relationship with customer satisfaction performance (γ
= 0.31; t = 3.08). As such, H1 was supported. Contrary to what was
expected, coopetition negatively moderated the market orientation –
customer satisfaction performance association (γ = − 0.20; t = − 6.32).
Hence, a counter-intuitive result was found for H2 (Fig. 2). The “spot­
light analysis” showed that the slopes (and effect sizes) were negative at
low-levels (r = − 0.17) and high-levels (r = − 0.80) of coopetition. The
main control paths were not key drivers of the outcome variable, with
firm size (γ = − 0.11; t = − 1.41) and industry experience (γ = − 0.12; t =
− 1.01) being negative and non-significant. That said, firm age was
positive and significant (γ = 0.18; t = 1.82), but degree of internation­
alisation was negative and significant (γ = − 0.10; t = − 1.75). The
procedural control of coopetition was positively and significantly
related to customer satisfaction performance (γ = 0.90; t = 5.71). The fit
indices of the structural model met the required thresholds (χ2 = 49.42;
df = 43; χ2/df = 1.15; Sig. = 0.23; RMSEA = 0.03; CFI = 0.99; IFI = 0.99;
NNFI = 0.99; SRMR = 0.03). The squared multiple correlation (R2) was
0.33, indicating that the independent variables explained 33% of the
variance of customer satisfaction performance.
Regarding the post-hoc test, the structural model revealed that a
market orientation had a positive and significant association with
customer satisfaction performance (γ = 0.33; t = 3.20). Like before,
coopetition yielded a negative and significant moderating effect (γ =
− 0.20; t = − 6.12). When accounting for the three-way interaction effect
from a market orientation, coopetition, and industry experience, there
was a positive and significant impact on customer satisfaction perfor­
mance (γ = 0.07; t = 1.74). Following on, the “spotlight analysis”
showed that slope 1 (r = 0.41), slope 2 (r = − 0.22), slope 3 (r = 0.38),
and slope 4 (r = 0.10) reinforced the paths from the structural model
(Fig. 3). The slope with the greatest magnitude was when there were
high-levels of a market orientation, coopetition, and industry
experience.
The main control variables offered mixed results, with firm size (γ =
− 0.12; t = − 1.53) and industry experience (γ = − 0.12; t = − 1.03)
yielding negative and non-significant paths, whereas, firm age was
positive and significant (γ = 0.21; t = 2.05), but degree of internation­
alisation was negative and significant (γ = − 0.11; t = − 1.86). The

Table 5
Bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics.
Constructs 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12.

1. Intelligence generation 1.00

2. Intelligence dissemination 0.58** 1.00
3. Intelligence responsiveness 0.60** 0.40** 1.00
4. Market orientation 0.88** 0.79** 0.81** 1.00
5. Coopetition 0.29** 0.10 0.34** 0.30** 1.00
6. Customer satisfaction performance 0.38** 0.48** 0.24** 0.44** − 0.12† 1.00
7. Firm size 0.09 − 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.26** − 0.09 1.00
8. Firm age − 0.11 − 0.10 0.03 − 0.07 0.13† − 0.03 0.37** 1.00
9. Industry experience 0.06 0.15* 0.01 0.08 − 0.20** 0.07 − 0.06 0.35** 1.00
10. Degree of internationalisation 0.07 0.06 0.04 0.07 0.14† − 0.09 0.24** 0.22** 0.08 1.00
11. Coopetition-oriented mind-set 0.23** 0.02 0.28** 0.22** 0.64** − 0.03 0.18* 0.07 − 0.11 0.09 1.00
12. Informant quality 0.37** 0.44** 0.23** 0.41** − 0.07 0.42** − 0.06 0.08 0.15* − 0.01 − 0.06 1.00
Mean 5.10 5.21 4.07 5.67 5.21 5.69 2.13 2.56 2.21 3.10 4.35 5.78
SD 1.18 0.95 1.58 0.97 0.94 0.97 1.11 1.00 0.77 1.42 1.50 1.15
Min 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
Max 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 3.91 5.00 7.00 7.00

The coopetition-oriented mind-set construct was only used to test for endogeneity bias, whereas, the informant quality variable was utilised to assess common method
variance under the marker variable technique. They are shown here to reinforce the other bivariate correlations and descriptive statistics, but they were not used for
model-testing purposes. Additionally, the market orientation construct was the formative measure for intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination, and in­
telligence responsiveness. Hence, it yielded very high (and significant) correlations with the dimensions of the MARKOR scale (which is to be expected, rather than
anything concerning).
†
p < 0.10.
*
p < 0.05.
**
p < 0.01 (two-tailed tests).

68
J.M. Crick et al.
Customer satisfaction performance
Low market orientation High market orientation
Fig. 2. The two-way interaction effect between a market orientation and coopetition on customer satisfaction performance (main model-testing stage).
Customer satisfaction performance
Low market orientation High market orientation
Fig. 3. The three-way interaction effect between a market orientation, coopetition, and industry experience on customer satisfaction performance.
procedural controls produced various results – coopetition (γ = 0.92; t =
5.55), coopetition x industry experience (γ = − 0.45; t = − 1.97), and
market orientation x industry experience (γ = 0.01; t = 0.16). The most
important multiplication term was a market orientation x coopetition x
industry experience, since this was the key variable used during the
“nested” stage. The structural model fit indices were acceptable (χ2 =
58.42; df = 58; χ2/df = 1.01; Sig. = 0.46; RMSEA = 0.01; CFI = 1.00; IFI
= 1.00; NNFI = 1.00; SRMR = 0.03). Lastly, the squared multiple cor­
relation (R2) was 0.34 (34%), which was slightly more (0.01) than
during the core model-testing stage. Table 6 displays the aggregated
structural models. The qualitative findings are presented in the
following section.
5. Qualitative findings
Table 7 shows that a mixture of firms were sampled, including
characteristics like their employees. In addition, these interviewees
represented various tourism and hospitality regions in New Zealand,
making the qualitative findings transferrable to the wider population.
Regarding theme 1 (the relationship between a market orientation
and customer satisfaction performance), all interviewees indicated that
by acquiring (and acting upon) information about their customers and
69
Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75
Low coopetition
High coopetition
(1) High coopetition,
High industry
experience
(2) High coopetition,
Low industry
experience
(3) Low coopetition,
High industry
experience
(4) Low coopetition,
Low industry
experience
competitors, they could create value for their end-users. This came as no
surprise because it signifies that if owner-managers can deliver value to
their customers, this can lead to positive outcomes, not least of which
increasing their sales. Examples of indicative quotes were:
[…] we're always looking for new and improved ways to excite and
entertain our customers… This is why our sales have been so high
(Firm 1).
[…] by having an awareness of our competitors' strengths and
weaknesses, by being focused on our customers, we've been able to
direct our attention to areas that help us to stand out from the other
folks [rivals] in the sector (Firm 15).
To shed more light on theme 1, all interviewees were asked about
whether it is enough to be market-oriented, or if other assets and stra­
tegies must be utilised to increase customer satisfaction performance.
Here, all interviewees raised a fascinating point (in practitioner, rather
than academic, discourse) that a market orientation is an important
driver of such outcomes (as per the above points), but there are potential
limitations associated with these organisation-wide activities, like the
sheer expense of collecting, processing, and acting upon information
about customers and competitors. These individuals emphasised that a
J.M. Crick et al. Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75

Table 6 market orientation and coopetition on customer satisfaction perfor­

Aggregated structural models. mance), all interviewees signified that coopetition strategies occurred in
Model 1 Model 2 different respects. Owner-managers of these firms were active in sharing
resources and capabilities with their competitors due to the importance
Independent variables γ t- γ t-
values values of these networks helping them to create value for their end-users to
boost performance. An interesting matter emerged, which suggested
Firm size − 0.11 − 1.41 − 0.12 − 1.53
Firm age 0.18 1.82 0.21 2.05
that coopetition activities are important for many decision-makers of
Industry experience − 0.12 − 1.01 − 0.12 − 1.03 under-resourced, smaller-sized enterprises, due to helping them to cope
Degree of internationalisation − 0.10 − 1.75 − 0.11 − 1.86 with the pressures of their sectors, together with creating customer
Market orientation 0.31 3.08 0.33 3.20 value. This supported the previous assertions that despite there being
Coopetition 0.90 5.71 0.92 5.55
performance-enhancing merits linked to a market orientation, such
Market orientation × coopetition − 0.20 − 6.32 − 0.20 − 6.12
Coopetition × industry experience – – − 0.45 − 1.97 organisation-wide behaviours are often not enough for certain owner-
Market orientation × industry – – 0.01 0.16 managers. This helps explain why some decision-makers often decide
experience to cooperate with selected competitors, alongside being market-
Market orientation × coopetition × – – 0.07 1.74 oriented. Illustrative quotes included:
industry experience

The critical t-value was 1.65 (5%, one-sided, since the paths were directional).
Both of these models were “run” using a “nested” approach. This meant that
some interaction effects were included as procedural control variables. Hence, in
Model 1 (the main model-testing stage), the core moderating effect was a market
orientation × coopetition, whereas, in Model 2 (the post-hoc test), the research
team were primarily focused on a market orientation × coopetition × industry
experience. The unstandardised path estimates were recorded (γ).
[…] by working with the guys [competitors] in this area, we've been
able to get tools, information, access to the industry body, and much
more… I wouldn't have been able to do all that on my own (Firm 3).
[…] my competitors are my mates and we help each other all the
time, whether it's friendly advice, or something more formal… We
need each other to survive (Firm 17).

To explain theme 2 in more depth, on its own, coopetition appeared

Table 7 to have a positive connection with customer satisfaction performance.
Characteristics of the businesses that participated in the follow-up qualitative Yet, all interviewees explained that the potential risks of such business-
stage. to-businesses marketing strategies were sometimes exhibited when
using these networks to supplement a market orientation. These “dark-
Firm Year Full-time Part-time Seasonal Regional
founded employees employees employees location sides” included there being tensions among certain rivals that prevented
owner-managers from successfully implementing market-oriented ac­
1 1986 12 21 5 Auckland
2 1990 30 17 11 Wellington
tivities. A prominent example (in practitioner discourse) was how there
3 1999 60 33 32 Otago was an influx of competitiveness that manifested through coopetition
4 1980 12 3 1 Canterbury partners behaving opportunistically for their own gains, resulting in
5 1987 60 31 4 Auckland firms struggling to create value for their customers (perhaps having lost
6 1986 17 2 1 Otago
trade to rival enterprises). To illustrate this point, examples from in­
7 1992 10 1 1 Canterbury
8 1989 24 7 3 Wellington terviewees featured:
9 1998 30 12 4 Wellington
10 1988 10 6 2 Auckland […] it's a funny game when you're collaborating with the other guys
11 2002 50 27 47 Otago [competitors] in this region… There have been times where my
12 1932 35 19 8 Hawke's supposed pals were stealing my customers (Firm 6).
Bay
13 1988 12 3 1 Wellington […] I used to share all sorts of stuff with my competitors… It all
14 1999 18 2 1 Auckland stopped when they started behaving like greedy children and
15 1990 25 22 3 Otago
screwing me over behind my back (Firm 14).
16 2000 15 4 1 Hawke's
Bay
Turning to theme 3 (the three-way interaction effect between a
17 2001 10 6 2 Gisborne
18 1998 15 8 2 Otago market orientation, coopetition, and industry experience on customer
19 1989 60 34 25 Auckland satisfaction performance), all interviewees highlighted that relevant
20 2003 29 13 10 Canterbury sector-wide experience is a critical organisational capability in salvaging
These smaller-sized tourism and hospitality firms had a variety of business some of the “dark-sides” of coopetition strategies. Most notably, if
models, with some being especially multi-faceted (i.e., having a larger array of owner-managers possess relevant industry experience regarding their
goods and services being sold to their end-users). customers and competitors, they can utilise such market intelligence to
collaborate with complementary rivals, rather than those that are un­
market orientation is not used as a stand-alone consideration, as they trustworthy. It was evident that for under-resourced decision-makers, a
employ their limited resources and capabilities to pursue various op­ market orientation (alone) is not enough. Instead, there needs to be a
portunities. To put this into context, illustrations from interviewees “synergistic” blend of a market orientation, coopetition, and industry
included: experience (a complicated process) to increase customer satisfaction
performance. Some exemplar quotes were:
[…] it certainly helps to look after your customers, but you can't
always be doing that… I spend loads of time doing other stuff and […] you shouldn't just team-up with anyone [competitors]… It's
that takes a lot of effort and can be costly (Firm 2). better to work with rival businesses who you can trust and are doing
similar things… My experience in this world [industry] has taught
[…] it's really expensive to be customer-driven. All the costs asso­ me that (Firm 11).
ciated with market research, advertising, offering samples [food
tastings based on their business model], and all that can be huge. […] trust is key. Otherwise, it's a huge mistake to cooperate with
(Firm 13). people [rivals] that are selling different stuff to you, or even worse,
are going to do you over when they no longer need you… It's taken
Proceeding to theme 2 (the two-way interaction effect between a

70
J.M. Crick et al.
me a long time to learn this, but nevertheless, it's knowledge that I
now cherish (Firm 20).
A pertinent issue in theme 3 involved all interviewees suggesting that
alongside reducing the odds of cooperating with untrustworthy com­
petitors, “relevant” industry experience increased the performance
outcomes of a market orientation. This was exhibited via relevant in­
dustry experience helping owner-managers of under-resourced, smaller-
sized firms to create value for their end-users, including within coope­
tition networks. Examples included:
[…] it's getting harder and harder to look after my customers on my
own… I often depend on my industry experience when devising my
day-to-day and long-term plans (Firm 2).
[…] I can't even think about satisfying my customers (wants and
needs) without using my experience in the sector… It even helps
when I'm working with the other folks [competitors] in the area
(Firm 17).
To emphasise an important point from the post-hoc test (remaining
with theme 3), coopetition x industry experience had a negative and
significant link with customer satisfaction performance. On its own, this
path was merely a procedural variable, but was something that was
examined during the qualitative stage. The core issue was that industry
experience is a multi-faceted organisational capability, whereby, owner-
managers can utilise their sector-wide knowledge in various respects
and ‘relevance’ was key. All interviewees highlighted (to different de­
grees) that their industry experience was not necessarily transferrable
across different regions (i.e., throughout New Zealand), let alone other
countries. This appeared to amplify some of the potential “dark-sides” of
coopetition. By way of illustration:
[…] I used to work in Minnesota [in the United States]… The things I
learned there just don't apply here in New Zealand… This affects the
ways that I collaborate with other folks [i.e., competitors] in this
region (Firm 5).
[…] my industry experience is vast, but it probably is worthless
outside of this place… This makes it hard to forge ties with others
(rivals outside of the region) and how to work with them (Firm 17).
At this stage (i.e., theme 3), the research team asked the interviewees
about the industry experience that is best-served to complement a
market orientation and coopetition to boost customer satisfaction per­
formance. The reason being was that the prior exemplars needed clarity
regarding how owner-managers can leverage their sector-wide knowl­
edge in this capacity. All interviewees illustrated this matter (in different
forms of practitioner discourse) by highlighting that relevant industry
experience can be used as a “screening process” to select suitable coo­
petition partners, namely, those that can amplify the performance out­
comes of market-oriented behaviours. For instance, all decision-makers
argued (to varying degrees) that the benefits of relevant industry
experience manifests via them being aware of their customers' wants and
needs, coupled with them being knowledgeable about their direct and
indirect rivals' strengths and weaknesses. To illustrate this issue:
[…] my experience in the sector has taught me loads of valuable
lessons… I tend to use this knowledge to team-up with others
[competitors] that will help me to reach the customers that I'm tar­
geting… It also helps me to avoid working with ass****s [competi­
tors] who will make my life difficult (Firm 4).
[…] knowledge is everything in this game [i.e., sector]… Experience
helped me to distinguish between my enemies, if you want to call
them that, and friends, so I can work with those that won't stab me in
the back (Firm 20).
In short, the follow-up interviews assisted the research team to delve
deeper into the statistical results. These findings, from the mixed
71
Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75
methods approach, are discussed as follows.
6. Discussion
Earlier research has found that behavioural forms of a market
orientation (the generation of, dissemination of, and responsiveness to
market intelligence) should yield higher-levels of customer satisfaction
performance (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). Yet, often, this body of knowl­
edge has implicitly assumed that market-oriented companies possess the
required assets that are needed to satisfy their customers' wants and
needs (Hunt & Morgan, 1995; Morgan et al., 2009). That is, owner-
managers of many smaller-sized (and under-resourced) enterprises
might want to (and try to) successfully implement market-oriented
strategies, but lack the tangible and intangible assets that they need
for these to be successful (Baker & Sinkula, 2009; Miles et al., 2015).
Another strand of literature has signified that some decision-makers
engage in coopetition to access new resources, capabilities, and oppor­
tunities that allow them to survive and grow within their markets
(Bengtsson & Kock, 2000; Felzensztein et al., 2018; Park et al., 2014).
Thus, this current study integrated resource-based theory and the rela­
tional view (Dyer et al., 2018; Lavie, 2006), alongside drawing upon the
outside-in marketing domain (Mu et al., 2018; Zhang & Watson, 2020),
to examine whether coopetition positively moderates the relationship
between a market orientation and customer satisfaction performance (in
the capacity of under-resourced, smaller-sized firms).
After undertaking an empirical investigation (involving mixed
methods evidence from the New Zealand tourism and hospitality sector),
the following key findings contribute to the extant literature. First, a
market orientation was found to have a positive association with
customer satisfaction performance. This result (supplemented by the
follow-up interviews), not surprisingly, supports a large volume of work
highlighting that as firms generate, disseminate, and are responsive to
market intelligence, they can utilise this information to develop and
implement “effective” (performance-enhancing) marketing strategies
(see Boso et al., 2012; Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Kirca et al., 2005). This
could be explained through owner-managers being equipped with the
key assets that help them to successfully implement market-oriented
activities (consistent with Hooley et al., 2005; Ngo & O'Cass, 2012). In
fact, it builds upon Hunt and Morgan's (1995) seminal work suggesting
that market-oriented resources and capabilities are underpinned by the
VRIN framework, allowing enterprises (small and large) to improve
their performance, including identifying new (and improved) ways to
satisfy their customers' wants and needs.
However, this does not mean that it is enough to be market-oriented,
since instead, the subsequent findings showed that in the contemporary
environment, decision-makers might need to engage in other strategies,
and leverage different resources and capabilities (like via coopetition
and industry experience), to harness the merits of a market orientation
(building upon Rust, 2020). As found during the qualitative stage,
owner-managers may possess a threshold level of resources and capa­
bilities to enable them to exhibit market-oriented behaviours, but these
are often costly and very time-consuming (Hamzah et al., 2021; Slater &
Narver, 1994). This reinforces the view that a market orientation may
need to be supplemented by other assets and/or strategies to boost
company performance. Second, the more important contribution
featured the moderating role of coopetition, which rather than posi­
tively impacting the market orientation – customer satisfaction perfor­
mance relationship, yielded a negative interaction effect. It appeared
that instead of providing smaller-sized (and under-resourced) firms with
new resources, capabilities, and opportunities (as per Bouncken &
Kraus, 2013; Pattinson et al., 2018), coopetition can be harmful if it is
not managed “effectively”.
There are explanations for this seemingly counter-intuitive result,
which were also reinforced by the qualitative evidence. For instance,
coopetition has scope to influence certain negative outcomes, such as
tensions (e.g., conflict, power imbalances, and opportunistic
J.M. Crick et al.
behaviours), lost business secrets, and diluted points-of-difference if
decision-makers work with untrustworthy competitors (Czakon &
Czernek, 2016). If owner-managers cooperate with untrustworthy
competitors, they might suffer due to sharing excessive quantities of
information that limits the extent to which they can satisfy their cus­
tomers' wants and needs (Park et al., 2014). Hence, it has been recom­
mended that organisations must collaborate with trustworthy and
complementary rivals to avoid some of these negative consequences
(Crick & Crick, 2021). As such, the negative moderating effect from
coopetition could be explained by certain owner-managers collabo­
rating with the “wrong” (i.e., untrustworthy) competitors that lessens
their customer satisfaction performance. This may result from them
possessing limited relevant sector-level experience regarding which
firms are best-served to yield mutually-beneficial outcomes (Bouncken
et al., 2020).
Accordingly, new evidence has emerged on the potential risks of
organisations' decision-makers cooperating with their rivals (extending
Chiambaretto et al., 2020; Yan et al., 2020), since not all competitors are
the same. Here, the “dark-sides” of coopetition activities pertain to the
interaction with a market orientation because these business-to-business
marketing networks do not always lead to performance-enhancing
strategies. This means that while a market orientation and coopeti­
tion, individually, might positively impact customer satisfaction per­
formance, together, they may negatively interact if not managed
“effectively”. Additionally, these arguments extend a body of evidence
that there are moderating factors affecting the performance conse­
quences of a market orientation (Ozturan et al., 2014; Slater & Narver,
1994). Third, to unpack this relationship, the post-hoc test (via a three-
way interaction effect) revealed that industry experience, combined
with coopetition, positively impacts the market orientation – customer
satisfaction performance link. More specifically, the findings highlight
that if decision-makers have relevant experience within their sectors,
they can utilise this information to collaborate with trustworthy rivals to
enhance the (“synergistic”) performance outcomes of their market-
oriented behaviours (supporting Bouncken et al., 2020; Estrada &
Dong, 2020).
Fifth, a final discussion point is that by infusing resource-based
theory with the relational view, this current study could investigate
the cooperative and competitive aspects of coopetition and how they
impact the market orientation – customer satisfaction performance
relationship (Dyer et al., 2018; Lavie, 2006). The infusion of these lenses
helped to unpack the cooperative and competitive dynamics within the
association between a market orientation and customer satisfaction
performance under the moderating role of coopetition, as well as in­
dustry experience (following Hunt & Derozier, 2004; Barney, 2018).
Likewise, the outside-in marketing perspective supplemented these
theoretical viewpoints by offering stronger insights into the underlying
factors surrounding the interaction between a market orientation and
coopetition on customer satisfaction performance (see Day, 2014; Mu
et al., 2018). In turn, this current study responds to Rust (2020) by
finding that a market orientation may not be enough to satisfy cus­
tomers' wants and needs. Coopetition may only benefit market-oriented
behaviours if decision-makers can leverage “relevant” forms of industry
experience (a multi-faceted organisational capability) to enhance
customer satisfaction performance. Some implications for decision-
makers are outlined as follows.
7. Implications for decision-makers
This current study offers the following implications for decision-
makers. Owner-managers in smaller-sized organisations should collect,
analyse, and respond to information about their customers and com­
petitors, as this market intelligence can help them to satisfy the wants
and needs of their end-users. More importantly, while cooperating with
competitors may have certain benefits, there are prominent challenges
associated with these actions if they are not managed “effectively”. This
72
Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75
includes the risks of tensions (like diminishing trust), lost business se­
crets, and diluted unique selling points. There can be harmful perfor­
mance consequences if owner-managers “ineffectively” engage in
coopetition in an attempt to enhance their customer satisfaction per­
formance. There are instances where collaborating with rivals can be
rewarding. Specifically, decision-makers should utilise knowledge per­
taining to their sectors (i.e., information about customers and compet­
itors) to work with rivals that will mitigate the chances of these negative
outcomes and increase the prospects of successfully implementing
market-led activities. In practice, owner-managers are typically advan­
taged if they have been working in a sector for a long time (and this may
include localised clusters depending on the industry context). This is
because they have probably learned about how to (and how not to)
operate successfully within their markets.
It is advised that entrepreneurs should acknowledge that synergy is
most likely to exist when they can coordinate their market-oriented
behaviours, alongside trustworthy coopetition partners, utilising “rele­
vant” industry experience. For decision-makers that have less industry
experience (perhaps having worked in other sectors prior to a career
change, or being recent graduates), they may wish to recruit or consult
experienced individuals that can help them to engage in performance-
driving forms of a market orientation and coopetition. Alternatively,
they might consider coopetition as a business-to-business marketing
strategy for the future – for when they become ready (experienced) to
cooperate with “appropriate” competitors. It is stressed that quality can
be more important than quantity regarding industry experience. This
sector-wide knowledge can have profound influences on customer
satisfaction performance if it is not used “correctly”. Owner-managers
are recommended to have the resources and capabilities to operate
under an individualistic business model if these coopetition arrange­
ments become counter-productive. Otherwise, there is a considerable
chance that they could be trapped within harmful coopetition partner­
ships. Some limitations and avenues for future research are presented as
follows.
8. Limitations and avenues for future research
Although this current study has contributed to the extant literature,
there are certain limitations that facilitate key avenues for future
research:
1. While the survey sample size (n = 184) was large enough to test the
research hypotheses and control paths (and to undertake the post-
hoc test), it was still somewhat small. In future research, greater
volumes of survey data should be collected to yield generalisable
results.
2. The empirical context (the New Zealand tourism and hospitality
sector) was ideal for this current investigation. Nevertheless, this was
just one setting. Consequently, in future research, academics should
consider using different populations of interest to evaluate whether
these results are transferrable to other contexts. As an example, this
could include undertaking work in the tourism and hospitality sec­
tors of other countries, such as the United States and the United
Kingdom, or nations with a larger psychic distance, like China. Then,
future research could explore cross-national comparisons, before
focusing on different industries.
3. It could be argued that the statistical results existed due to the chosen
measurement scales being largely interval-based in their response
formats. This extends to the measure for industry experience con­
sisting of the length of time the respondents had accumulated in the
tourism and hospitality sector, rather than the quality of their ex­
periences. Hence, a direction for future research would be to utilise a
combination of scale types. For example, interval scales could be
used to capture a market orientation and coopetition (among other
latent variables), whereas, customer satisfaction performance (and
associated constructs) could be measured through proxies taken from
J.M. Crick et al.
secondary sources. That said, the follow-up interviews supplemented
the statistical results to facilitate a mixed methods approach.
4. With its conceptualisations and empirical evidence, this current
study concentrated on smaller-sized enterprises fostering a market
orientation and coopetition (as well as industry experience) to in­
fluence customer satisfaction performance. To better-understand
whether these issues apply exclusively to smaller-sized firms, re­
searchers may choose to undertake comparative work. This could
involve testing similar issues, but evaluating the model across two
groups – smaller-sized companies and larger corporations, respec­
tively. This way, the wider marketing community can be informed on
the boundaries of these conceptualisations and empirical evidence.
5. Although an “appropriate” tool was used to check for endogeneity
bias (through an instrumental variable – revealing no problems),
future research could repeat this current investigation with different
instruments. An illustration would be to use an experimental
approach within a survey-based methodology to ensure that endo­
geneity bias is not present. This pertains to providing respondents
with a “random” instrument (using an electronic survey) in a struc­
tural model (or an equivalent model-testing approach). This is a
relatively new approach, but it could determine whether the pro­
spective statistical results are (or are not) “spurious”.
In closing, these limitations were not deemed to be serious problems,
but rather, yield ample scope for future research.
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the advice of Professor John
Cadogan regarding statistical advice together with the comments of
three anonymous reviewers.
Funding
Funding was received from Queenstown College where one of the
authors previously worked until mid-2020.
Appendix A. Full-list of the multi-item operationalisations
Intelligence generation
To what extent do you agree with the following statements about
your business activities?
• GEN_1 - We review the effect of changes in our business environment
• GEN_2 - We are quick to detect fundamental shifts in our
environment
• GEN_3 - We generate a lot of information concerning trends
• GEN_4 - We generate a lot of information concerning our customers'
wants and needs
Anchors: 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly agree
(adapted from Jaworski & Kohli, 1993)
Intelligence dissemination
To what extent do you agree with the following statements about
your business activities?
• DISS_1 - We never lose information about our customers
• DISS_2 - Information about customers reaches relevant personnel on
time
• DISS_3 - Information about customers is processed without any
problems
• DISS_4 - Information about our competitors is rarely discarded
• DISS_5 - Information about market trends is seldom thrown away
Anchors: 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly agree
(adapted from Jaworski & Kohli, 1993)
73
Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75
Intelligence responsiveness
To what extent do you agree with the following statements about
your business activities?
• RESP_1 - We are quick to respond to significant changes in our
competitors' prices
• RESP_2 - We respond to competitive actions that threaten us
• RESP_3 - We respond quickly to competitors' business strategies
• RESP_4 - We take quick action to respond to unhappy customers'
feedback
• RESP_5 - We are quick to respond to important changes in our
business environment
Anchors: 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly agree
(adapted from Jaworski & Kohli, 1993)
Coopetition
Think of your business relationships with your competitors. To what
extent do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
• COOP_1 - We collaborate with our competitors extensively
• COOP_2 - We share assets (equipment, etc.) with our competitors
• COOP_3 - We cooperate with our rivals to achieve a common goal
• COOP_4 - An active collaboration with rival firms is important to us
• COOP_5 - Our rivals are our allies
Anchors: 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly agree
(adapted from Bouncken & Kraus, 2013; Bouncken et al., 2018)
Customer satisfaction performance
Please evaluate the performance of your business over the past year
(twelve months), relative to your major competitors, in terms of the
following:
• CUST_1 - Customer satisfaction
• CUST_2 - Delivering value to customers
• CUST_3 - Delivering what your customers want
• CUST_4 - Retaining valued customers
Anchors: 1 = much worse than competitors to 7 = much better than
competitors (adapted from Hooley et al., 2005)
Coopetition-oriented mind-set
To what extent do you agree with the following statements about
your business relationships with your competitors?
• COM_1 - We believe in the importance of cooperating with
competing firms
• COM_2 - We perceive that it is “effective” to collaborate with
competitors
• COM_3 - We feel that it is vital to collaborate with our rivals
• COM_4 - We have a mind-set focused on cooperating with
competitors
• COM_5 - We believe that firms should share assets (equipment, etc.)
with their rivals
• COM_6 - Cooperating with competitors is likely to improve our
performance
Anchors: 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly agree
(adapted from Crick & Crick, 2019). Please note that since this construct
was only used to test for endogeneity bias, only one item was utilised,
namely, COM_3. Hence, this single-indicator featured in the scale puri­
fication process, rather than the entire multi-dimensional measure
Informant quality
To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following items?
• INQ_1 - I am confident about my answers to the questions
• INQ_2 - I am confident that my answers reflect our firm's situation
• INQ_3 - This survey deals with issues I am very knowledgeable about
J.M. Crick et al.
• INQ_4 - My current role qualifies me as an “appropriate” person to
complete this survey
• INQ_5 - I am competent to answer the above questions
Anchors: 1 = very strongly disagree to 7 = very strongly agree
(adapted from Katsikeas et al., 2006)
References
Antonakis, J., Bendahan, S., Jacquart, P., & Lalive, R. (2010). On making causal claims: A
review and recommendations. The Leadership Quarterly, 21(6), 1086–1120.
Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating non-response bias in mail surveys.
Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.
Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. (2009). The complementary effects of market orientation
and entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses. Journal of Small
Business Management, 47(4), 443–464.
Barney, J. B. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1), 99–120.
Barney, J. B. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for strategic
management research? Yes. Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 41–56.
Barney, J. B. (2018). Why resource-based theory’s model of profit appropriation must
incorporate a stakeholder perspective. Strategic Management Journal, 39(13),
3305–3325.
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2000). Coopetition in business networks: To cooperate and
compete simultaneously. Industrial Marketing Management, 29(5), 411–426.
Bengtsson, M., & Kock, S. (2014). Coopetition – quo vadis? Past accomplishments and
future challenges. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 180–188.
Boso, N., Cadogan, J. W., & Story, V. M. (2012). Complementary effect of entrepreneurial
and market orientations on export new product success under differing levels of
competitive intensity and financial capital. International Business Review, 21(4),
667–681.
Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2020). Configurations of firm-level value
capture in coopetition. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101869.
Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., Ritala, P., & Kraus, S. (2018). Coopetition in new product
development alliances: Advantages and tensions for incremental and radical
innovation. British Journal of Management, 29(3), 391–410.
Bouncken, R. B., & Kraus, S. (2013). Innovation in knowledge-intensive industries: The
double-edged sword of coopetition. Journal of Business Research, 66(10), 2060–2070.
Cadogan, J. W., Kuivalainen, O., & Sundqvist, S. (2009). Export market-oriented
behavior and export performance: Quadratic and moderating effects under differing
degrees of market dynamism and internationalization. Journal of International
Marketing, 17(4), 71–89.
Cadogan, J. W., & Lee, N. (2013). Improper use of endogenous formative variables.
Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 233–241.
Cadogan, J. W., Souchon, A. L., & Procter, D. B. (2008). The quality of market-oriented
behaviors: Formative index construction. Journal of Business Research, 61(12),
1263–1277.
Cadogan, J. W., Sundqvist, S., Puumalainen, K., & Salminen, R. T. (2012). Strategic
flexibilities and export performance: The moderating roles of export market-oriented
behavior and the export environment. European Journal of Marketing, 46(10),
1418–1452.
Chi, C. G., & Gursoy, D. (2009). How to help your graduates secure better jobs? An
industry perspective. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
21(3), 308–322.
Chiambaretto, P., Bengtsson, M., Fernandez, A.-S., & Näsholm, N. H. (2020). Small and
large firms’ trade-off between benefits and risks when choosing a coopetitor for
innovation. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101876.
Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G., Orchiston, C., & Spector, S. (2020). Post-disaster social
capital, adaptive resilience, and business performance of tourism organizations in
Christchurch, New Zealand. Journal of Travel Research, 58(7), 1209–1226.
Crick, D. (2007). UK SMEs' motives for internationalising: Differences between firms
employing particular overseas market servicing strategies. Journal of International
Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 11–23.
Crick, D., Chaudhry, S., & Crick, J. M. (2016). Trading in a competitive environment:
South-Asian restaurants in the UK. Strategic Change, 25(4), 371–382.
Crick, D., & Crick, J. M. (2015). Learning and decision making in marketing planning: A
study of New Zealand vineyards. Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 33(5), 707–732.
Crick, J. M. (2015). Bridging the gap between threshold and dynamic capabilities: A
qualitative study of the collaboration strategies of New Zealand wineries. Unpublished
MBS thesis in Management. New Zealand: Massey University.
Crick, J. M. (2021). The dimensionality of the market orientation construct. Journal of
Strategic Marketing, 29(4), 281–300.
Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2019). Developing and validating a multi-dimensional measure
of coopetition. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 34(4), 665–689.
Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2020). Coopetition and COVID-19: Collaborative business-to-
business marketing strategies in a pandemic crisis. Industrial Marketing Management,
88(1), 206–213.
Crick, J. M., & Crick, D. (2021). Rising up to the challenge of our rivals: Unpacking the
drivers and outcomes of coopetition activities. Industrial Marketing Management, 96
(1), 71–85.
Crick, J. M., Crick, D., & Tebbett, N. (2020). Competitor orientation and value co-
creation in sustaining rural New Zealand wine producers. Journal of Rural Studies, 73
(Jan), 122–134.
74
Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75
Czakon, W., & Czernek, K. (2016). The role of trust-building mechanisms in entering into
network coopetition: The case of tourism networks in Poland. Industrial Marketing
Management, 57(1), 64–74.
Day, G. S. (2014). An outside-in approach to resource-based theories. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 42(1), 27–28.
Dyer, J. H., & Singh, H. (1998). The relational view: Cooperative strategy and sources of
inter-organizational competitive advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(4),
660–679.
Dyer, J. H., Singh, H., & Hesterly, W. S. (2018). The relational view revisited: A dynamic
perspective on value creation and value capture. Strategic Management Journal, 39
(12), 3140–3162.
Echambadi, R., & Hess, J. D. (2007). Mean-centering does not alleviate collinearity
problems in moderated multiple regression models. Marketing Science, 26(3),
438–445.
Estrada, I., & Dong, J. Q. (2020). Learning from experience? Technological investments
and the impact of coopetition experience on firm profitability. Long Range Planning,
53(1), 101866.
Felzensztein, C., Gimmon, E., & Deans, K. R. (2018). Coopetition in regional clusters:
Keep calm and expect unexpected changes. Industrial Marketing Management, 69(1),
116–124.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. Journal of Marketing
Research, 18(3), 382–388.
Hagtvedt, H. (2011). The impact of incomplete typeface logos on perceptions of the firm.
Journal of Marketing, 75(4), 86–93.
Hamzah, M. I., Crick, J. M., Crick, D., Ali, S. A. M., & Yunus, N. M. (2021). The nature of
the relationship between an entrepreneurial marketing orientation small business
growth: Evidence from Malaysia. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small
Business (forthcoming).
Hooley, G. J., Greenley, G. E., Cadogan, J. W., & Fahy, J. (2005). The performance
impact of marketing resources. Journal of Business Research, 58(1), 18–27.
Hunt, S. D., & Derozier, C. (2004). The normative imperatives of business and marketing
strategy: Grounding strategy in resource-advantage theory. Journal of Business &
Industrial Marketing, 19(1), 5–22.
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The comparative advantage theory of competition.
Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1–15.
Hunt, S. D., Sparkman, R. D., Jr., & Wilcox, J. B. (1982). The pre-test in survey research:
Issues and preliminary findings. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(2), 269–273.
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences.
Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.
Josephson, B. W., Johnson, J. L., & Mariadoss, B. J. (2016). Strategic marketing
ambidexterity: Antecedents and financial consequences. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 44(4), 539–554.
Katsikeas, C. S., Samiee, S., & Theodosiou, M. (2006). Strategy fit and performance
consequences of international marketing standardization. Strategic Management
Journal, 27(9), 867–890.
Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-
analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance.
Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24–41.
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research
propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.
Kumar, V., Jones, E., Venkatesan, R., & Leone, R. P. (2011). Is market orientation a
source of sustainable competitive advantage or simply the cost of competing?
Journal of Marketing, 75(1), 16–30.
Lavie, D. (2006). The competitive advantage of inter-connected firms: An extension of
the resource-based view. Academy of Management Review, 31(3), 638–658.
Lee, N., & Cadogan, J. W. (2013). Problems with formative and higher-order reflective
variables. Journal of Business Research, 66(2), 242–247.
Lee, N., Cadogan, J. W., & Chamberlain, L. (2014). Material and efficient cause
interpretations of the formative model: Resolving misunderstandings and clarifying
conceptual language. AMS Review, 4(1), 32–43.
Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in
cross-sectional research designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.
Liu, W., Guillet, B. D., Xiao, Q., & Law, R. (2014). Globalization or localization of
consumer preferences: The case of hotel room booking. Tourism Management, 41(1),
148–157.
Miles, M. P., Gilmore, A., Harrigan, P., Lewis, G., & Sethna, Z. (2015). Exploring
entrepreneurial marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 23(2), 94–111.
Morgan, N. A., Vorhies, D. W., & Mason, C. H. (2009). Market orientation, marketing
capabilities, and firm performance. Strategic Management Journal, 30(8), 909–920.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship
marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Mu, J., Bao, Y., Sekhon, T., Qi, J., & Love, E. (2018). Outside-in marketing capability and
firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 75(1), 37–54.
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business
profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.
Ngo, L. V., & O’Cass, A. (2012). Performance implications of market orientation,
marketing resources, and marketing capabilities. Journal of Marketing Management,
28(1–2), 173–187.
Ozturan, P., Ozsomer, A., & Pieters, A. (2014). The role of market orientation in
advertising spending during economic collapse: The case of Turkey in 2001. Journal
of Marketing Research, 51(2), 139–152.
Park, B. J. R., Srivastava, M. K., & Gnyawali, D. R. (2014). Walking the tight rope of
coopetition: Impact of competition and cooperation intensities and balance on firm
innovation performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 43(2), 210–221.
J.M. Crick et al.
Pattinson, S., Nicholson, J., & Lindgreen, A. (2018). Emergent coopetition from a sense-
making perspective: A multi-level analysis. Industrial Marketing Management, 68(1),
25–35.
Ping, R. A., Jr. (1995). A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and
quadratic latent variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 336–347.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Priem, R. L., & Butler, J. E. (2001). Is the resource-based “view” a useful perspective for
strategic management research? Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 22–40.
Quach, S., Thaichon, P., Lee, J.-Y., Weaven, S., & Palmatier, R. W. (2020). Toward a
theory of outside-in marketing: Past, present, and future. Industrial Marketing
Management, 89(1), 107–128.
Reynolds, N., & Diamantopoulos, A. (1998). The effect of pre-test method on error
detection rates: Experimental evidence. European Journal of Marketing, 32(5–6),
480–498.
Rindfleisch, A., & Moorman, C. (2003). Inter-firm cooperation and customer orientation.
Journal of Marketing Research, 40(4), 421–436.
Ritala, P. (2012). Coopetition strategy – When is it successful? Empirical evidence on
innovation and market performance. British Journal of Management, 23(3), 307–324.
Rust, R. T. (2020). Outside-in marketing: Why, when, and how? Industrial Marketing
Management, 89(1), 102–104.
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive environment moderate the market
orientation-performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, 58(1), 46–55.
Souchon, A. L., Hughes, P., Farrell, A. M., Nemkova, E., & Oliveira, J. S. (2016).
Spontaneity and international marketing performance. International Marketing
Review, 33(5), 671–690.
Spiller, S. A., Fitzsimons, G. J., Lynch, J. G., & McClelland, G. H. (2013). Spotlights,
floodlights, and the magic number zero: Simple effects tests in moderated regression.
Journal of Marketing Research, 50(2), 277–288.
75
Industrial Marketing Management 100 (2022) 62–75
Sraha, G., Sharma, R. R., Crick, D., & Crick, J. M. (2020). International experience,
commitment, distribution adaptation and performance: A study of Ghanaian firms in
B2B export markets. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 35(11), 1715–1738.
Suddaby, R. (2006). From the editors: What grounded theory is not. Academy of
Management Journal, 49(4), 633–642.
Ullah, S., Akhtar, P., & Zaefarian, G. (2018). Dealing with endogeneity bias: The
generalized method of moments (GMM) for panel data. Industrial Marketing
Management, 71(1), 69–78.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross-section and panel data. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
Yan, Y., Dong, J. Q., & Faems, D. (2020). Not every coopetitor is the same: The impact of
technological, market and geographical overlap with coopetitors on firms’
breakthrough inventions. Long Range Planning, 53(1), 101873.
Zhang, J. Z., & Watson, G. F. (2020). Marketing ecosystem: An outside-in view for
sustainable advantage. Industrial Marketing Management, 88(1), 287–304.
James M. Crick is Associate Professor of Marketing and Entrepreneurship at the School of
Business, University of Leicester, UK. His current research interests involve work in
Entrepreneurial Marketing and International Strategy; particularly work that addresses
competitiveness.
Masoud Karami is a Lecturer in the Department of Marketing, University of Otago
Business School. His current research interests involve work at the Marketing/Entrepre­
neurship interface, particularly involving effectuation theory and addressing issues in
International Entrepreneurship.
Dave Crick is the Paul Desmarais Professor of International Entrepreneurship and Mar­
keting in the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa, Canada. His current
research interests involve work at the Marketing/International Entrepreneurship interface
and particularly work that addresses a more effective public/private sector interaction.