The Synergistic Effect of Market Orientation and Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance.

Although a large body of research theoretically asserts a positive relationship between market orientation and organizational performance, fewer empirical studies demonstrate it using multiple and varied organizational performance measures. Additionally, a series of recent studies have theoretically proposed, but not empirically demonstrated, that a firm’s learning orientation is likely to indirectly affect organizational performance by improving the quality of its market-oriented behaviors and directly influence organizational performance by facilitating the type of generative learning that leads to innovations in products, procedures, and systems. This empirical study supports all of these specific contentions and the more global notion that higher order learning processes may be critical in creating a sustainable competitive advantage in the firm

Learning Orientation, Market Orientation, and Innovation: Integrating and Extending Models of Organizational Performance

Recent studies have demonstrated effects of learning orientation or market orientation on innovation-driven organizational performance. While these studies have enhanced our understanding of innovation processes in the firm, they have been unable to determine the relative contribution of learning orientation and market orientation to innovation. The integration of these two fundamental strategic orientations in this research enables such an assessment. The model in this research also measures the degree to which market orientation and learning orientation influence organizational performance, independent of their effect on product innovation. The most notable finding is the potential preeminence of learning orientation over market orientation. The implications are of critical importance to marketers because they provide insights into the type of organizational culture that is associated with high levels of performance

The Complementary Effects of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurial Orientation on Profitability in Small Businesses.

Market orientation (MO) and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) are correlated, but distinct constructs. MO reflects the degree to which firms\u27 strategic market planning is driven by customer and competitor intelligence. Entrepreneurial orientation reflects the degree to which firms\u27 growth objectives are driven by the identification and exploitation of untapped market opportunities. When modeled separately, research has reported direct effects of both constructs on firm profitability. When modeled simultaneously, however, the direct effect of EO has disappeared. This has led some scholars to postulate that EO is an antecedent of MO. The results of this study contradict this presumption and suggest that EO and MO complement one another, at least in small businesses, to boost profitability. The major difference between this and previous studies is the inclusion of innovation success, which captures an indirect effect of EO on profitability. At least in small firms, the results suggest that EO complements MO by instilling an opportunistic culture that impacts the quality and quantity of firms\u27 innovations

Environmental Marketing Strategy and Firm Performance: Effects on New Product Performance and Market Share.

Recent studies on marketing and the natural environment have called for research that links environmental marketing strategies to the performance of the firm. This research operationalizes the enviropreneurial marketing (EM) construct and examines its relationship with firm performance. It is the first empirical research to operationalize the EM construct. The new scale, albeit a first attempt, demonstrates encouraging psychometric properties. According to the resource-based view of the firm, a resource such as EM should directly influence firms’ capabilities (e.g., new product development success) but not competitive advantage (e.g., change in market share). A nationwide study of top-level marketing managers supports this perspective. In addition, although market turbulence also affects new product development success, it does not have an impact on EM. This suggests that EM formation is driven by internal rather than external forces

Does Market Orientation Facilitate Balanced Innovation Programs? An Organizational Learning Perspective.

There appears to be widespread agreement that optimal new product development programs require a balance between customer-led and lead-the-customer innovation practices. The former is associated with adaptive learning inspired incremental innovation, whereas the latter is associated with generative-learning-inspired radical innovation. There is debate, however, as to whether a strong market orientation can facilitate this balance. Some believe that a strong market orientation causes firms to overemphasize customer-led incremental innovations. Others believe that a strong market orientation can facilitate this balance but assert that traditional measures of market orientation only capture the types of behaviors associated with customer-led incremental innovations. This latter concern has led some to abandon the single-construct operationalization of market orientation and to introduce two constructs—responsive and proactive market orientation—into the literature. The purpose of this research is to address these developments. The study makes use of a national sample of marketing executives and employs a cross-sectional survey design. Measures used are market orientation, radical and incremental innovation priority, generative and adaptive learning priority, and new product success. Confirmatory factor analyses and structural equations models are employed to develop measures and to test hypotheses. The study\u27s results reaffirm the position that a strong market orientation helps facilitate a balance between incremental and radical innovation by shifting firms\u27 innovation priority more toward radical innovation activities. It also suggests that the abandonment of traditional conceptualizations and measures of market orientation are premature

The Complementary Effect of Market Orientation and Entrepreneurial Orientation on Innovation Success and Profitability

Market orientation (MO) and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) are correlated, but distinct constructs. MO reflects the degree to which firms\u27 strategic market planning is driven by customer and competitor intelligence. Entrepreneurial orientation reflects the degree to which firms\u27 growth objectives are driven by the identification and exploitation of untapped market opportunities. When modeled separately, research has reported direct effects of both constructs on firm profitability. When modeled simultaneously, however, the direct effect of EO has disappeared. This has led some scholars to postulate that EO is an antecedent of MO. The results of this study contradict this presumption and suggest that EO and MO complement one another, at least in small businesses, to boost profitability. The major difference between this and previous studies is the inclusion of innovation success, which captures an indirect effect of EO on profitability. At least in small firms, the results suggest that EO complements MO by instilling an opportunistic culture that impacts the quality and quantity of firms\u27 innovations

Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and Product Innovation: Delving into the Organization\u27s Black Box

Many scholars now agree that market orientation is necessary, but not sufficient to facilitate the type of innovation that breeds long-term competitive advantage (cf. Dickson, 1996). In addition to a strong market orientation, a firm must also be able to institutionalize higher order learning processes, the type of learning that enables radical innovation. Recent research (cf. Baker and Sinkula, 1999) has empirically established a synergistic effect of market orientation and learning orientation on organizational performance. This paper attempts to add to the literature by offering a more complete theoretical explanation of how these two constructs interact to affect product innovation capabilities. Three types of marketing firms are identified. Phase I firms learn primarily through modeling and are typically limited to manager-driven incremental innovation. Phase II firms learn primarily through adaptive learning and are typically limited to market-driven incremental innovation. Phase III firms engage in generative learning and pursue ongoing radical innovation. We propose that only Phase III firms are capable of maintaining competitive advantage in dynamic market environments