Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Article information:
To cite this document:
Peter Doyle Veronica Wong, (1998),"Marketing and competitive performance: an empirical study", European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 32 Iss 5/6 pp. 514 - 535
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569810216145
Downloaded on: 01 October 2014, At: 07:57 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 59 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2989 times since 2006*
Paul James Harrison, Robin N. Shaw, (2004),"Intra#organisational marketing culture and market orientation: a case study of
the implementation of the marketing concept in a public library", Library Management, Vol. 25 Iss 8/9 pp. 391-398
Jimmy Chan Hung Ngai, Paul Ellis, (1998),"Market orientation and business performance: some evidence from Hong Kong",
International Marketing Review, Vol. 15 Iss 2 pp. 119-139
Charles Blankson, Jaideep G. Motwani, Nancy M. Levenburg, (2006),"Understanding the patterns of market orientation
among small businesses", Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 24 Iss 6 pp. 572-590
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 600462 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service
information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please
visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
514
In recent years much more emphasis has been on marketing as a total business
concept. This is defined as recognising that the key to achieving organisational
goals consists in determining the needs and wants of the target customers and
delivering the desired satisfactions more effectively and efficiently than
Marketing and
competitive
performance
515
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
516
competitors (Kotler, 1994, p. 18; see also Deshpande et al., 1993; Kohli and
Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1993). This view of marketing as an
organisational philosophy is much more appealing today than the functional
view. For research purposes it raises two difficulties. One is operationalising
this concept how does one measure whether an organisation is marketoriented? Second, how does one disentangle marketing from the array of other
capabilities and processes needed to deliver products and services to satisfy the
customer. Marketing encourages the organisation to recognise the priority of
satisfying customers needs, but the ability to satisfy them depends on the
capabilities embedded throughout the firms supply-chain and operational
processes. It is easy to picture companies which may be extremely customeroriented but lack the operational skills, resources or capacity to meet customer
needs. The results will be frustrated customers and conflicts between
marketing and operational departments within the firm. Similarly, companies
can be seen which are clearly not customer-oriented but, because of favourable
industry structure (Porter, 1980), or inherited monopoly advantages (Kay, 1993),
achieve high levels of sales and profit performance.
Figure 1 summarises the discussion below. Based on the literature
subsequently reviewed, it is hypothesised that high performance companies
have a defined mission which includes specification of their target markets and
broad goals. Success in these markets depends on achieving a sustainable
competitive advantage which in turn is founded on customer satisfaction.
Customer satisfaction itself is built on a market-led strategy, effective systems
and processes and committed, capable and empowered staff. Finally all these
building blocks are influenced and moulded over time by the rapidly changing
and increasingly competitive international environment in which businesses
operate. Among these forces shaping companies are the learning organisation,
networks and alliances and the re-engineering of business processes.
Business performance
Figure 1 indicates that in assessing business performance a distinction needs to
be made between todays performance outcomes and strategies which drive
future performance. The latter include policies to enhance customer
satisfaction, to improve systems and processes and to build employee
motivation and commitment. These are means to achieve the ends. The ends
that managers seek are financial returns and growth performance. Both the
academic literature and the perspectives of managers normally view a business
as successful if it achieves sound financial performance and enhances its
position in the market place. Each of these can be measured in a variety of ways.
Academics favour shareholder value analysis (e.g. Rappaport, 1986) as the most
appropriate measure of financial performance, but managers still find
accounting measures of profits and return on capital employed more
measurable and immediate (e.g. Doyle, 1994, pp. 2-9). Market performance is
measured by sales growth or market share. The rationale for the centrality of
financial performance is straightforward, unless shareholders see an adequate
Business
Performance
RESULTS
Mission
MISSION
Sustainable
Competitive
Advantage
Customer
Satisfaction
Marketing
Planning
Market-led
Strategy
Systems &
Processes
People
Changing Environment
Re-engineering
Networks & Alliances
Brand Building
Learning Organisations
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
..........................................................
Marketing and
competitive
performance
517
GOALS &
TOOLS
ORGANISATIONAL
INFRASTRUCURE
CHANGING
CONTEXT
return then the business will not be viable in its present form. The case for sales
growth and increased market share is more tenuous. Growth may increase
profitability, but its attraction for shareholders is probably less than it is for
managers and employees. Prestige and perks are correlated to the size of the
business (Handy, 1985). Also growth normally offers more security of
employment and prospects for advancement (Pascale and Athos, 1981).
Two related concerns have characterised discussions about these
performance measures (e.g. Doyle and Hooley, 1992). One is the potential for
conflict. It is, for example, quite easy to buy improved financial performance
at the expense of market share. Raising prices, cutting brand support and
reducing capital employed will normally boost return on investment, but such a
turn-around will normally lead to a creeping erosion of market position.
Managers are acutely aware of the distinction between long term and short
term performance (e.g. Kaplan and Norton, 1992). High short-term performance
can be paid for through missing long-term market opportunities. Therefore our
first hypothesis is:
Figure 1.
Marketing and
industrial
competitiveness
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
518
Organisational infrastructure
Organisational infrastructure refers to the firms capability to respond to
market requirements. An articulated strategy of listening to the customer and
using customer feedback at all stages has been noted as a characteristic of top
companies by many observers (e.g. Albrecht and Zenke, 1985). Companies that
involve all employees in gathering information from customers should be in a
stronger position to achieve progress in quality (Hauser and Clausing, 1988) and
innovation (Drucker, 1985). That is:
These suggest:
H7: Successful businesses will be characterised by staff with high levels of
capability, motivation, empowerment and strategic intent.
Customers do not buy products, they buy brands. Brands differentiate the
companys offer and present and sustain the added values successful companies
build. This is as true for business-to-business marketing (e.g. Prozac in
pharmaceuticals, Hewlett-Packard laser jet in printers and Novex in polyethylene)
as it is for consumer marketing (e.g. Coke and Levis). Companies are increasingly
concerned with planning and building brands (e.g. Kapferer, 1992). Therefore:
H8: Successful companies will exhibit clearer and more effective branding
policies.
Marketing and
competitive
performance
519
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
520
business performance would be stronger where markets are more turbulent and
competition is more intense. These lead to two hypotheses:
H13: There will be an association between business performance and
industry characteristics.
H14: Industry characteristics will affect the relationship between a market
orientation and business performance.
Data collection
Sample
To obtain a representative set of UK companies, the sample was drawn from
The Times Top 1,000 Firms in the UK. A total of 250 companies were chosen
from among the top 1,000 by selecting every fourth listing. The initial contact
was with the CEO of each company requesting the companys participation in
the study. A total of 19 companies could not be reached because of incorrect
addresses resulting in an effective base of 231 companies. The CEOs were
requested to provide the names of the heads of up to three of the companys
SBUs. Preferably, at least one of these should be an overseas subsidiary, the rest,
domestic. A total of 68 CEOs agreed their company would participate and a
total of 174 SBU names were obtained.
The 174 SBU heads were then contacted to elicit their support. A multiinformant design was employed and each head was asked for the names of a
senior marketing/sales manager, a senior accountant/financial manager and a
senior manufacturing/operations manager within the business unit. A total of
148 SBUs agreed to complete the questionnaires implying a total of 444
respondents. The final response rate was 344 completed questionnaires from
132 SBUs. For the purpose of analysis, the responses of the informants from
each SBU were averaged to obtain an overall respondent score for each
business unit. There were two motivations for this averaging. First, as
discussed below, there were no statistically significant differences in the pattern
of responses between different functional managers. Second, management
perceptions are known to be subject to error and a number of researchers have
found that averaging across functions improves the accuracy of the data
(Dawes, 1977; Starbuck and Mezias, 1996).
Questionnaire development
Because most of the dimensions had not been explicitly tested in the available
literature, it was necessary to develop new scales for the constructs studied.
The following procedure suggested by Churchill (1979) was adopted.
First, a large pool of items for each construct was generated with the aim of
capturing the concepts behind each dimension. These items were generated
from a review of the literature on marketing and strategy over the last 20 years.
This search sought to cover not only the academic literature, but also
practitioner journals read by, and written for, managers. The aim was to reflect
in the questionnaire the concepts and language employed by executives. From
Marketing and
competitive
performance
521
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
522
this pool, a set was selected to cover the domain of the construct as closely as
possible. Each item was then scored on a five-point scale, ranging from 1=
strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree.
Next, 35 managers representing a range of management functions pretested
the questionnaire. They were asked to indicate any ambiguities or difficulties
with the instrument and to provide suggestions for improvement. Based on
this feedback the questionnaires were modified, some of the items were
dropped, others were changed and some items were added. The revised
instrument was then tested on six marketing academics and again their
feedback and suggestions were used for further fine-tuning. Finally, another 20
managers tested the revised questionnaire. At this stage there appeared to be no
significant ambiguities or problems with it. The final instrument consisted of
one main dependent construct business unit performance and ten
independent variables or constructs. Each construct consisted of between three
and 16 items.
After the survey had been completed the scales were further examined. The
reliability of each scale was estimated by computing its coefficient alpha
(Nunnally, 1978). The results are shown in Table I. As can be seen the Cronbach
coefficients indicate that the scales have generally good to high reliability. This
meant that it was unnecessary to eliminate any items to enhance the internal
consistency of the scales. The table also summarises the main results. The
coefficient R shows the correlation of each construct with business unit
performance. Also the mean scores of high performing and low performing
business units are shown along with the statistical significance of the
differences between these means.
Construct
Strong differential advantage***
Clear market orientation***
Strategic market planning**
Clear marketing strategy**
Good systems and processes**
Staff capabilities and commitment**
Strong brand policies**
Use of business process re-engineering**
Networking and strategic alliances
Adapt to changing environment*
Learning organisations
Character of industry
Table I.
Performance and
constructs
Notes:
*** p < 0.001
** p < 0.01
* p < 0.05
Alpha
0.74
0.79
0.69
0.75
0.73
0.85
0.78
0.66
0.68
0.71
0.64
0.60
Performance group
R
Low
High
0.51
0.36
0.29
0.33
0.31
0.39
0.35
0.28
0.20
0.30
0.21
0.19
2.9
2.8
2.8
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.8
3.0
2.9
3.1
3.1
3.5
3.2
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.2
3.3
Return on capital
Return
Market share
Sales growth
Overall performance
Share
0.36
0.35
0.63
Marketing and
competitive
performance
523
Growth
0.51
0.57
0.64
Notes:
Alpha 0.801. All coefficients p < 0.001
Table II.
Correlations among
performance variables
Cluster
No.
Return on
capital*
Low performers
High performers
60
72
2.15
3.75
Notes:
Alpha 0.782. * p < 0.001
Performance measures
Market
Sales
share*
growth*
2.50
3.89
2.55
4.01
Overall
performance*
2.18
4.03
Table III.
Characteristics of low
and high performers
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
524
Variables
Business unit has strong DA***
DA lies in firms products**
DA lies in firms service*
DA lies in firms general reputation***
Total score***
Notes:
Alpha 0.741; r = 0.512
Table IV.
Differential advantage
Performance group
Low
High
3.0
2.7
2.8
3.2
2.9
3.5
3.2
3.2
4.0
3.5
Variables
Performance group
Low
High
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.2
3.0
2.7
3.5
3.0
3.0
2.8
3.1
3.2
2.8
2.5
3.4
3.2
3.9
3.4
3.4
3.2
Marketing and
competitive
performance
525
Notes:
Alpha 0.793; r = 0.361
*** p < 0.001
** p < 0.01
* p < 0.05
Table V.
Performance and
market orientation
orientation was again highly significant. High performers did score higher on
all three sets of items concerning generation, dissemination and responsiveness,
although some of these items were not significant. In particular, it is striking to
note that few companies benchmarked customer satisfaction and used it to
provide incentives for management. There is no significant difference in the
collection and use of customer satisfaction measures between high and low
performers. Given the importance marketing experts (e.g. Goldzimer, 1989)
attach to carefully monitoring the customer satisfaction ratings, these results
are disappointing, if today still not surprising.
Strategic marketing planning (Table VI) was also employed more widely
in high performing companies. The two most significant items were in
staff training, where low performers did little formal training in marketing
planning, and in fast responsiveness to competitor actions, where high
Variables
Clear segmentation and positioning
Applies competitor analysis
Staff trained in planning*
Fast response to competitor actions*
Total score**
Notes:
Alpha 0.692; r = 0.29
** p < 0.01
* p < 0.05
Performance group
Low
High
3.1
2.8
2.7
2.6
2.8
3.4
3.2
3.1
3.0
3.2
Table VI.
The use of strategic
marketing planning
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
526
performers were again superior. For both market orientation and strategic
marketing planning, the relevant hypotheses, H3 and H4, appear to have strong
support.
Organisational infrastructure
The companys organisational infrastructure provides the means for adding
superior value to customers. The strategy concept (Figure 1) develops the marketorientation dimension further: how effectively are management tuned-in to
customers needs? In high-performing companies there are more likely to be direct
meetings between customers and the manufacturing and design teams, a stronger
quality focus and an emphasis on building long-term partnerships (Table VII).
There is no statistical difference in the amount of meetings with customers, but in
low-performing companies, these meetings seem to be controlled within the
marketing department rather than spread across the business.
High performers invested significantly more in technology and high
productivity equipment. They provided staff with the tools to achieve high
quality and efficiency. Much has been written in recent years about the
importance of supply chain management in creating competitive advantage
(e.g. Porter, 1985). Interestingly, both sets of companies regard their
Variables
Table VII.
Organisational
infrastructure:
strategy, systems,
staff
Strategy
Meet customers regularly
Manufacture and design meet customers*
Everyone focused on customers
Total quality focus*
Life-time relationships*
Systems
Invest in technology and productivity*
Staff have tools for top quality*
Integrated supply-chain system
Staff
Invest in recruitment and training*
Top management has inspirational vision*
Encourage risk-taking*
Performance recognised and rewarded**
Decisive management
No bureaucracy, wide empowerment
Employees expect long-term employment
Pervasive team spirit
Total score**
Notes:
Alpha 0.878; r = 0.42
** p < 0.01
* p < 0.05
Performance group
Low
High
3.2
2.7
3.1
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.5
2.8
2.8
2.9
3.3
3.3
2.9
3.1
3.0
2.9
2.7
3.2
3.0
3.3
3.1
2.9
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.2
3.5
3.3
3.4
3.4
3.4
Marketing and
competitive
performance
527
Variables
Brandinga
Core brand values understood***
Brand values coherently expressed
HQ and SBU agree on brand presentation
Total score**
Re-engineeringb
Used organisational re-engineering*
Organisation is lean and mean*
Fast, responsive and low-cost unit**
Total score**
Notes:
a Alpha 0.778; r = 0.35
b Alpha 0.660; r = 0.28
*** p < 0.001
** p < 0.01
* p < 0.05
Performance group
Low
High
3.0
2.9
2.8
2.9
3.7
3.2
3.1
3.3
2.9
2.9
2.5
2.8
3.3
3.4
3.1
3.3
Table VIII.
Performance,
branding and
re-engineering
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
528
Variables
Networksa
Between marketing and other departments
Interdepartmental conflict
Easy and open communication
External strategic alliances
Alliances for innovation and new products
Total score
Learningb
Learning about customers
Proactive search for new opportunities
Training in innovation and customer service
Total score
Changing environmentc
Evaluate technological and industry dangers
Performs well at innovation*
Staff encouraged to challenge strategy
Total score
Table IX.
Networking and the
changing environment
Notes:
a Alpha 0.677; r = 0.20
b Alpha 0.64; r = 0.10
c Alpha 0.706; r = 0.30
* p < 0.05
Performance group
Low
High
2.6
2.7
3.8
3.2
3.0
3.0
2.9
2.9
4.0
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.4
3.0
2.5
3.4
3.3
2.6
3.2
2.7
2.8
2.9
3.5
3.2
3.1
3.3
Variables
Rapid growth markets*
Sharp changes in customer requirements
Highly priced sensitive customers
Extremely fierce competition**
High rate of industry technology change*
New customer with different needs*
Performance group
Low
High
2.1
3.5
3.5
3.9
3.0
2.7
2.6
3.6
3.4
4.0
3.3
3.0
Market orientation
0.09
0.16
0.07
0.24**
0.19*
0.19*
Notes:
Alpha 0.60
** p < 0.01
* p < 0.05
high growth markets on average grew faster and achieved a higher return on
capital than those in mature markets. In other areas however, there were no
statistically significant differences. High and low performers were similar in
facing rapidly changing customer requirements, high price sensitivity and
fierce competition.
The final column of Table X shows the correlation between the market
orientation score and market characteristics. These show that companies in
markets characterised by extremely fierce competition, high rates of
technological change and new customers entering the market with different
needs from current accounts, are more likely to be market oriented. These
findings supported H14 and also are consistent with the findings of Narver and
Slater (1993), Houston (1986) and Bennett and Cooper (1981) and not with those
of Jaworski and Kohli (1993).
By contrast a market orientation appears to be less prevalent in high growth
markets (r = 0.09, p > 0.05). In these favourable situations, demand is so strong
that the need to adapt to customer needs may be less necessary than when
markets mature and become more competitive. Overall while a market
orientation is strongly associated with market share (r = 0.27, p < 0.01), sales
growth (r = 0.39, p < 0.001) and overall performance (r = 0.38, p < 0.001), it
is weakly and not significantly associated with return on capital employed
(r = 0.14, p > 0.05). The factors which a high market orientation are most
associated with are proactively searching for new opportunities in the market
(r = 0.61, p < 0.001) and good communications between marketing and nonmarketing departments (r = 0.60, p < 0.001).
A high market orientation is also correlated with strong branding policies
(r = 0.59, p < 0.001) and the business possessing a recognised differential
advantage in the market (r = 0.51, p < 0.001). As others have found, a market
orientation is encouraged by top managers inspiring staff with a vision of
commitment to customers and world-class performance (r = 0.57, p < 0.001).
Finally, a market orientation is associated with creating a strong team-spirit in
all ranks of the business (r = 0.57, p < 0.001). This is a finding also made in
Marketing and
competitive
performance
529
Table X.
Performance and
market characteristics
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
530
Jaworski and Kohlis (1993) study in which they suggest that the ability of a
market orientation to provide meaning and commitment to staff could be its
most important contribution.
Discussion and conclusions
Variation within samples
The respondents were drawn from SBUs in the UK, USA, Africa, the Far
East and Australia. They were also from different industrial sectors. Half
the respondents were marketing/sales staff, half were from non-marketing
functions. To explore for systematic differences, separate analyses
were performed for the major groups. Overall the differences were very
modest. UK businesses performed on average less well than those from
overseas in profitability, market share, growth and overall results. Comparing
businesses in the product sector from services there were no important
statistical differences in performance or independent variables. Functionally,
marketing managers tended to rate their businesses more positively
on marketing strategy and planning than non-marketing managers but
these differences were not significant. Overall there were no statistically
significant differences in the responses between marketing and non-marketing
respondents. These findings are consistent with the results from previous
multi-informant studies (e.g. Silk and Kalwani, 1982). Averaging respondents
across business units therefore offered the opportunity to increase the
potential accuracy of the responses (see Dawes, 1967; Starbuck and Mezias,
1996) without losing important information. These findings are consistent
with the results from previous multi-informant studies (e.g. Silk and Kalwani,
1982).
Drivers of performance
The best performing companies scored significantly higher on both financial
and marketing measures of success. Overall high performers scored nearly
twice as highly on the success criteria (p < 0.001). This finding suggests
that these companies were pursuing robust strategies. For example, there
is no evidence that they were trading-off future market performance for
short-term financial results, as western companies are so often accused (e.g.
Doyle et al., 1992). The 72 high performers were as strikingly superior in terms
of market share and sales growth as they were in terms of higher returns on
capital.
The most important driver of this performance was possessing a differential
advantage (r = 0.51, p < 0.001). Companies did well when customers wanted to
do business with them. High performers were preferred suppliers and this led to
much higher sales growth (r = 0.47, p < 0.001) and a superior return on capital
(r = 0.26, p < 0.001). The low performers rated themselves poorly they
recognised that they lacked unique product offerings, service advantages or a
superior general reputation in the market place.
Marketing and
competitive
performance
531
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
532
References
Albrecht, K. and Zenke, R. (1985), Service America, Irwin, New York, NY.
Armstrong, S.J. (1982), The value of formal planning for strategic decisions, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 3, pp. 197-211.
Baker, M.J., Black, C.D. and Hart, S.J. (1994), Competitive success in sunrise and sunset
industries, in Saunders, J. (Ed.), The Marketing Initiative: ESRC Studies into British
Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, pp. 58-71.
Bennett, R. and Cooper, R. (1981), Beyond the marketing concept, Business Horizons, Vol. 22,
June, pp. 76-83.
Borch, F.J. (1957), The marketing philosophy as a way of business life, in Marting, E. and
Newgarden, A. (Eds), The Marketing Concept: Its Meaning to Management, American
Management Association, New York, NY, pp. 3-16.
Brady, J. and Davis, I. (1993), Marketings mid-life crisis, The McKinsey Quarterly, No. 2,
pp. 17-28.
Churchill, G.A. Jr (1979), A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February, pp. 64-73.
Dawes, R.M. (1977), Suppose we measure height with rating scales instead of rulers, Applied
Psychological Measurement, Vol. 1, pp. 267-73.
Day, G.S. (1990), Market Driven Strategy: Processes for Creating Value, The Free Press, New York,
NY.
Despande, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. (1993), Corporate culture, customer orientation and
innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January,
pp. 23-37.
Dickson, P.R. (1992), Towards a general theory of competitive rationality, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56, January, pp. 69-83.
Doyle, P. (1994), Marketing Management and Strategy, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Doyle, P. and Hooley, G.J. (1992), Strategic orientation and corporate performance, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 59-73.
Doyle, P., Saunders, J. and Wong, V. (1992), Competition in global markets: a case study of
American and Japanese competition in the British market, Journal of International Business
Studies, Vol. 23, Third Quarter, pp. 419-42.
Drucker, P.F. (1974), Management, Heinemann, London.
Drucker, P.F. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Heinemann, London.
(The) Economist (1994), Death of the brand manager, 9 April, pp. 79-80.
Garvin, D.A. (1995), Leveraging processes for strategic advantage, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 95, September/October, pp. 76-82.
Goldzimer, L.S. (1989), Customer-driven, Hutchinson, London.
Greenley, G.E. (1995), Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from
UK companies, British Journal of Management, Vol. 6, March, pp. 1-14.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1994), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press,
Boston, MA.
Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Re-engineering the Corporation, Brealey, London.
Handy, C.B. (1985), Understanding Organisations, Penguin Books, London.
Handy, C.B. (1990), The Age of Unreason, Arrow Books, London.
Hart, S.J. and Diamantopoulos, S. (1994), Marketing research activity and competitive
performance: an empirical analysis, in Saunders, J. (Ed.), The Marketing Initiative: ESRC
Studies into British Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Hemel Hempstead, pp. 92-101.
Marketing and
competitive
performance
533
European
Journal of
Marketing
32,5/6
534
Hauser, J.R. and Clausing, D. (1988), The house of quality, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 88,
pp. 63-76.
Hayes, R.H. and Abernathy, W.J. (1980), Managing our way to economic decline, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 80, July-August, pp. 67-77.
HMSO (1994), Competitiveness: Helping Business to Win, HMSO, London.
Hooley, G.J. and Lynch, J.E. (1994), The effectiveness of British marketing, in Saunders, J. (Ed.),
The Marketing Initiative: ESRC Studies into British Marketing, Prentice-Hall, Hemel
Hempstead, pp. 20-41.
Houston, F.S. (1986), The marketing concept: what is it, what is it not?, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 50, April, pp. 81-7.
Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.A. (1995), The comparative advantage theory of competition, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 2, April, pp. 1-15.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A. (1993), Market orientation: antecedents and consequences, Journal
of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, pp. 53-70.
Kapferer, J.N. (1992), Strategic Brand Management, Kogan Page, London.
Kaplan, R.S. and Norton, D.P. (1992), The balanced scorecard: measures that drive performance,
Harvard Business Review, January-February, pp. 81-9.
Kay, J. (1993), Foundations of Corporate Success, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
King, S. (1985), Has marketing failed or was it never really tried?, Journal of Marketing
Management, Vol. 1, pp. 1-19.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions
and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 1-18.
Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning, Implementation and Control,
8th ed., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
McKitterick, J.B. (1957), What is the marketing management concept? in Bass, F.M. (Ed.), The
Frontiers of Marketing Thought and Science, American Marketing Association, Chicago, IL,
pp. 71-92.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1993), The effects of a market orientation on business profitability,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, October, pp. 20-35.
Nunnally, J.C. (1978), Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
Papadakis, V.M. (1995), The contribution of formal planning systems to strategic investment
decisions, British Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 15-28.
Parvatiyar, A., Sheth, J.M. and Brown-Whittington, F. (1992), Paradigm shift in interfirm
marketing relations: emerging the research issues, working paper, Emory University,
Washington, DC.
Pascale, R.T. (1990), Managing on the Edge, Penguin Books, London.
Pascale, R.T. and Athos, A.G. (1981), The Art of Japanese Management, Penguin Books, London.
Porter, M.E. (1980), Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1985), Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance, The
Free Press, New York, NY.
Porter, M.E. (1990), The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Macmillan, London.
Rappaport, A. (1986), Creating Shareholder Value: A New Standard for Business Performance,
Free Press, New York, NY.
Reichheld, F.F. (1996), The Loyalty Effect: The Hidden Force behind Growth, Profits and Lasting
Value, Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Silk, A.J. and Kalwani, M. (1982), Measuring influence in organisational purchase decisions,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, May, pp. 165-81.
Slater, S.F. and Narver J.C. (1994), Does competitive environment moderate the market
orientation-performance relationship?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 46-55.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), Market orientation and the learning organization, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59, July, pp. 63-74.
Starbuck, W.H. and Mezias, J.M. (1996), Opening Pandoras box: studying the accuracy of
managers perceptions, Journal of Organizational Behaviour, Vol. 17, pp. 99-117.
Ward, J.H. (1963), Hierarchical groupings to optimise an objective function, Journal of the
American Statistical Association, Vol. 58, pp. 236-44.
Webster, F.E. (1992), The changing role of marketing in the corporation, Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 56, October, pp. 1-17.
Wensley, R. (1994), A critical review of research in marketing, British Academy of Management
Conference, Lancaster.
Womack, J.P. and Jones, D.T. (1994), From lean production to the lean enterprise, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 72, November/December, pp. 164-73.
Zaltman, G., LeMasters, K. and Heffring, M. (1982), Theory Construction in Marketing, Wiley,
New York, NY.
Marketing and
competitive
performance
535
24. Mitchell Ross, JooGim Heaney, Maxine Cooper. 2007. Institutional and managerial factors affecting international student
recruitment management. International Journal of Educational Management 21:7, 593-605. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
25. Daniel Jimnez-Jimnez, Juan G. Cegarra-Navarro. 2007. The performance effect of organizational learning and market
orientation. Industrial Marketing Management 36:6, 694-708. [CrossRef]
26. Tim Hughes. 2007. Regaining a seat at the table: marketing management and the eservice opportunity. Journal of Services
Marketing 21:4, 270-280. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
27. Jos I. Rojas-Mndez, Ali Kara, John E. Spillan. 2006. Market Orientation in the Chilean Small Business Context. Journal
of Global Marketing 19:3-4, 93-132. [CrossRef]
28. N. Gladson Nwokah, Darego W. Maclayton. 2006. Customerfocus and business performance: the study of food and beverages
organizations in Nigeria. Measuring Business Excellence 10:4, 65-76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
29. Charles Blankson, Jaideep G. Motwani, Nancy M. Levenburg. 2006. Understanding the patterns of market orientation among
small businesses. Marketing Intelligence & Planning 24:6, 572-590. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Professor Gran Svensson, Adel I. ElAnsary. 2006. Marketing strategy: taxonomy and frameworks. European Business Review
18:4, 266-293. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
31. scar Gonzlez-Benito, Javier Gonzlez-Benito. 2005. Cultural vs. operational market orientation and objective vs. subjective
performance: Perspective of production and operations. Industrial Marketing Management 34:8, 797-829. [CrossRef]
32. Charles Blankson, Julian MingSung Cheng. 2005. Have small businesses adopted the market orientation concept? The case
of small businesses in Michigan. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing 20:6, 317-330. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
33. Carmen Barroso Castro, Enrique Martn Armario, Mara Elena Snchez del Ro. 2005. Consequences of market orientation
for customers and employees. European Journal of Marketing 39:5/6, 646-675. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
34. Birgit Weischedel, Sheelagh Matear, Kenneth R. Deans. 2005. A qualitative approach to investigating online strategic decision
making. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 8:1, 61-76. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Dr Spiros Gounaris, Philip Megicks, Atul Mishra, Jonathan Lean. 2005. Enhancing microfinance outreach through market
oriented new service development in Indian regional rural banks. International Journal of Bank Marketing 23:1, 107-125.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
36. Carlos Flavin Blanco, Francisco Javier Lozano Velzquez. 2004. Laorientacin al mercado de la universidad pblica: Un reto
para el sistema Untversitario Espaol. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 1:2, 9-28. [CrossRef]
37. Spiros P. Gounaris, George J. Avlonitis, Paulina Papastathopoulou. 2004. Managing a firm's behavior through market
orientation development: some empirical findings. European Journal of Marketing 38:11/12, 1481-1508. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
38. Sheelagh Matear, Brendan J. Gray, Tony Garrett. 2004. Market orientation, brand investment, new service development,
market position and performance for service organisations. International Journal of Service Industry Management 15:3, 284-301.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
39. Cynthia Rodriguez Cano, Francois A. Carrillat, Fernando Jaramillo. 2004. A meta-analysis of the relationship between market
orientation and business performance: evidence from five continents. International Journal of Research in Marketing 21:2,
179-200. [CrossRef]
40. Photis M. Panayides. 2004. Marketing in AsiaPacific logistics companies: a discriminant analysis between marketing
orientation and performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics 16:1, 42-68. [Abstract] [PDF]
41. Syed Aziz Anwar, M. Sadiq Sohail. 2003. Testing market orientation of bank managers in the emerging economy of Brunei.
International Journal of Bank Marketing 21:6/7, 289-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
42. Robert E. Morgan, Carolyn A. Strong, Tony McGuinness. 2003. Productmarket positioning and prospector strategy.
European Journal of Marketing 37:10, 1409-1439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Photis M. Panayides. 2003. Competitive strategies and organizational performance in ship management. Maritime Policy &
Management 30:2, 123-140. [CrossRef]
44. Michael W. Starkey, David Williams, Merlin Stone. 2002. The state of customer management performance in Malaysia.
Marketing Intelligence & Planning 20:6, 378-385. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
45. Sheelagh Matear, Phil Osborne, Tony Garrett, Brendan J. Gray. 2002. How does market orientation contribute to service
firm performance?. European Journal of Marketing 36:9/10, 1058-1075. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Ki Han Chung, Kim Dae Up. 2002. . Journal of Global Academy of Marketing Science 9:1, 19-46.
[CrossRef]
47. Gary Woller. 2002. From market failure to marketing failure: market orientation as the key to deep outreach in microfinance.
Journal of International Development 14:3, 305-324. [CrossRef]
48. Sue Vaux Halliday. 2002. Barriers to customerorientation. European Journal of Marketing 36:1/2, 136-158. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
49. Mehmet Oktemgil, Gordon E Greenley, Amanda J Broderick. 2000. An empirical study of isolating mechanisms in UK
companies. European Journal of Operational Research 122:3, 638-655. [CrossRef]
50. Monty L. Lynn, Richard S. Lytle, Samo Bobek. 2000. Service orientation in transitional markets: does it matter?. European
Journal of Marketing 34:3/4, 279-298. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]