Measuring scales of the concept of market orientation. Critical … · 2005-11-21 · measuring...

[121]

12105

january · april 2005 · esic market

Measuring scales of the concept of market orientation. Critical reviewof their content and psychometricpropertiesLuis Ignacio Álvarez González

María Leticia Santos Vijande

Rodolfo Vázquez Casielles

Área de Comercialización e Investigación de Mercados

Departamento de Administración de Empresas y Contabilidad

Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Empresariales

Universidad de Oviedo

AbstractThe development of a valid and reliable instrument to measure marketorientation applicable in different sectorial contexts has been, during thelast decade, one of the priorities of study in the marketing field.Consequently, this paper tries to undertake a critical revision of the mainscales of market orientation tested to date in the academic literature inorder to identify their fortresses and weaknesses and to establish, togetherwith the different conceptual approaches elaborated to the market orien-tation concept, the constructs and basic characteristic that should under-lie to an optimum scale of measure.

Key words: market orientation Scales, reliability, validity.

JEL code: M31.


measuring scales of the concept of market orientation.critical review of their content and psychometric properties

1. IntroductionThis paper is aimed to evaluate the main contributions made during the lastdecade to the measuring of the market orientation concept. To this end, thisconcept is previously defined from the diverse analysis perspectives under-taken in the literature as an introduction to the evaluation of the differentmarket orientation scales developed up to the year 2000. This evaluation isundertaken specifying firstly the analysis perspective underlying each scale,its most novel aspects, its main theoretical references and the variables anddimensions that form it. Secondly, a critical evaluation of each scale’s con-tent validity and psychometric properties is undertaken. Finally, an effort ismade to develop novel market orientation scales from both a cultural andbehavioural perspective integrating the previous contributions revised.

2. Market orientation concept. Analysis perspectives

Market orientation defends the generation and consolidation of marketexchanges based on the continuous generation of a more valuable offerthan any other competitive alternative, in order to attain an advantageous,lengthy and sustainable permanence of the organisation in its present orpotential market (Narver and Slater, 1990). The approaches to the marketorientation concept have been carried out basically from two perspectives:(1) that in which this orientation is basically considered an element of thefirm’s organisational culture; and (2) that in which market orientation isconsidered from a behavioural or operative conception, in such a way thata series of specific actions or patterns of behaviour are identified (Álvarez,Santos and Vázquez, 2000).

Culturally, market orientation implies the existence of a set of valuesand attitudes shared by all the organisation that try to stimulate the crea-tion of higher value for customers (Hurley and Hult, 1998; Narver, Slaterand Tietje, 1998). From this perspective we can affirm that market orien-tation as culture must encourage (1) external orientation, not only to thecustomer but also to the competitor and to all the other factors of the spe-

[122]

122 05



cific and generic environment that may condition the target public’s effec-tive satisfaction, (2) internal integration and coordination of individualsand functions that allow designing a common competitive response and(3) the adoption of a strategic view or long-term view in order to providehigher value in the long term (Álvarez, Santos and Vázquez, 2000).

Operatively, the definition of the market orientation concept impliespointing to the specific actions on the market that, according to the pre-vious approach, must generate in the customer the perception that he isreceiving a more valuable global offer than he can obtain of any othervaluable alternative (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). There is general agree-ment on the fact that these actions can be summarised in the three follo-wing critical dimensions (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990): (1) generation ofintelligence on all the market elements (customers, competitors and envi-ronment), (2) dissemination or internal sharing of such intelligence and (3)development and implementation of a response action that brings aboutthe target public’s effective satisfaction.

3. Market orientation measuring scalesLlonch Andreu (1996) carries out a critical review of the main modelsdesigned until the beginning of the 90s decade to measure the firms’ levelof adoption of the marketing concept. His review was founded on themain existing approaches to understand this concept and ranged from theearliest models generated for such measuring (Ames, 1970) to the latestdevelopments already linked to the concept of market orientation (Narverand Slater, 1990; Deshpandé, Farley and Webster, 1993). Despite the rele-vance of Llonch Andreu’s work (1996), time and the proliferation ofextensive literature on the matter of market orientation makes its updatingnecessary. This would allow completing the catalogue of scales aimed atestablishing the firm’s degree of implementation of the marketing conceptwith the most recent contributions on the issue related to the evaluationof the organisation’s level of market orientation. This is the aim of the pre-sent section.

[123]

12305



Specifically, the market orientation scales analysed are presented in thefollowing works1: Narver and Slater (1990), Ruekert (1992),Diamantopoulos and Hart (1993), Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar (1993),Deshpandé, Farley and Webster (1993), Pelham (1993), Deng and Dart(1994), Rivera Camino (1995) and Lambin (1996), Deshpandé and Farley(1996), Bisp, Harmsen and Grunert (1996), Gray, Matear, Boshoff andMatheson (1998) and Becker and Homburg (1999). Each of these scaleshave received academic approval, as it is shown by the fact that they havebeen presented in first-rate specialised publications and conferences. Theirrelevance is equally revealed by the fact that they have been mostly usedeither textually or as a basic reference, in a large number of subsequentworks.

3.1. Narver and Slate’s (1990) ScaleNarver and Slater (1990) develop MKTOR, one of the most widely usedscales to estimate an organisation’s market orientation in very diverse sec-torial and national realities from a cultural perspective. The scale is deve-loped assuming the theoretical basis elaborated by these authors accordingto which a true market orientation involves, (1) customer orientation, (2)competitor orientation and (3) interfunctional coordination, as well astwo decision criteria, (1) long-term perspective and (2) profitability pers-pective. From this approach, an initial set of items are generated that aresubmitted to the opinion of a sample of directors of the main industrialcompanies in the West of the USA. The scale’s final design includes 15items that are presented, grouped into dimensions, in Figure 1.

[124]

124 05

(1) We have not considered in thisexhaustive bibliographical reviewthose scales whose elaboration, to the dateof elaboration of thispaper, were under way.An example is the oneput forward by Verhees(1998) where a doublescales is intended to bedeveloped to quantifysmall independent firms’level of market orientation from a double cultural and operative perspective.Another example is provided by Langerak,Nootenboom, and VanDer Knaap (1999) whodevelop a scale to estimate the transforming firm’s market orientation fromthe triple perspective ofsupplier-firm-customer.With respect toShapiro’s (1988) scale,although it can be regarded as pioneer ofmarket orientation, weare unaware of any referents of its psychometric properties.


january · april 2005 · esic market [125]

12505

CUSTOMER ORIENTATION

1. Customer commitment.2. Create customer value.3. Understand customer needs.4. Customer satisfaction objectives.5. Measure customer satisfaction.6. After-sales services.

COMPETITOR ORIENTATION

7. Salespeople share competitor information.8. Respond rapidly to competitors’ action.9. Top managers discuss competitors’ strategies.10. Target opportunities for competitive advantage.

INTERFUNCTIONAL COORDINATION

11. Interfunctional customer calls.12. Information shared among functions.13. Functional integration in strategy.14. All functions contribute to customer value.15. Share resources with other business units.

Figure 1. Market Orientation Scale

Source: Narver and Slater (1990).

Parallel to the generalisation in the use of this scale a reflexive tide ofopinion about its validity and reliability has arisen. With regard to the sca-le’s content, two facts are emphasised. In the first place, despite the factthat the scale is generated considering market orientation from a culturalperspective, the analysis of the items that form it shows its partially ope-rative character (Deshpandé and Farley, 1998). Secondly, in the scale’sfinal design, there is a lack of items that allow estimating, on the one hand,the level of external orientation to environmental factors different fromthose related to the customer or the competition (Kohli, Jaworski andKumar, 1993; Rivera Camino, 1995; Lado, Maydeu and Rivera, 1998;and Langerak, Nootenboom and Van Der Knaap, 1999) and, on the other



hand, the effective adoption of the necessary management perspectivebased on the establishment of long-term relationships with strategic clients(Álvarez, Santos and Vázquez, 2000).

With reference to the scale’s psychometric properties, to start with, theparameters of reliability, concept validity and concurrent validity obtainedare considered adequate, although it would have been advisable to makeuse of subsequent confirmatory analyses. With regard to its dimensiona-lity, despite proclaiming its one-dimensional character, no model is provi-ded to substantiate it. This uncertainty increases as subsequent studieshave pointed out that the model’s goodness of fit is not very good (Siguawand Diamantopoulos, 1994; Hulland, 1995; Farrell and Oczkowski,1997).

3.2. Ruekert’s (1992) ScaleRuekert (1992) considers that market orientation must stop being concei-ved as a mere business philosophy to be represented in the actions orga-nisations exert on their markets. According to this premise, the authordevelops a valid and reliable behavioural scale to analyse the marketorientation level not only on any corporation but also of its different busi-ness units. This scale is conceptually developed following the works byShapiro (1988), Narver and Slater (1990) and Kohli and Jaworski (1990).A representative sample of U.S. high technology firms’ managers is usedto evaluate the scale. Figure 2 presents the 23 variables finally included inthe scale.

[126]

126 05



12705

USE OF INFORMATION SUBSCALE

1. Listens to opinions of customers.2. Uses customer information to improve quality3. Objectives based on customer needs.4. Use customer information to develop technology.5. Use market research data in managing products.6. Use market research to segment markets.7. Obtain ideas from customers to improve products.8. Salesforce has information on customers and competitors.9. Values customers input in planning new products.

DEVELOPMENT OF A MARKET ORIENTED STRATEGY

10. Strategy relies on market research.11. Develop specific plans for market segments.12. Products have resources to improve market position.13. Values market position versus financial performance.14. Prices determined by customer value.15. Focus on markets which have competitive strength.16. Invests in building market position.17. Planning organized by markets rather than products.

IMPLEMENTATION OF A MARKET ORIENTED STRATEGY

18. Keep promises we make to customers.19. Respond to customer needs when bidding projects.20. Respond to customer needs in writing contracts.21. Respond to customer needs in creating terms of sale.22. Respond to customer needs in credit policies23. Respond to customer needs in delivery on time.


Source: Ruekert (1992).

The scale’s content stands out as fitting quite well into the operativeapproach underlying its theoretical basis, presenting only one item (item3) that seems to have a more cultural than operative nature. Nevertheless,the scale’s content may be censured in some aspects. Firstly, there is anover-emphasis on the customer and, on the contrary, an scarce considera-tion of the competitor and the environment. Secondly, there is also a lack



of items related to the dissemination of the generated information, alt-hough in the theoretical analysis carried out, it is stated that organisatio-nal actions must be shared by the different functions and divisions intowhich it is structured. For its part, the scale’s psychometric analysis standsout the suitability of the parameters of reliability, convergent and concu-rrent validity obtained by means of exploratory methods, although theredoes not exist confirmatory evidence that allows drawing definitive con-clusions about the scale’s dimensionality.

3.3. Diamantopoulos and Hart’s (1993) ScaleDiamantopoulos and Hart (1993) each develop simultaneously their ownestimation scales. The first scale (Figure 3) is generated to identify thedimensions underlying the marketing concept from the perspective ofbusiness philosophy and culture. These dimensions turn out to be thefollowing: (1) “purpose of marketing”, that is the overall role of marke-ting in conducting business (items 1, 2, 3, 5 and 8), (2) “market focus”(items 10, 11 and 12), (3) “centrality market” as a business function(items 4 and 6) and (4) customer orientation (items 7 and 9). The secondscale (Figure 4) tries to examine the implementation of the marketing con-cept from an operative perspective, which these authors call in the strictsense market orientation. In both cases, a sample of United Kingdomindustrial companies, from diverse sectors, both in maximum growth(electronics, medical equipment, ready cooked food and pharmaceuticalproducts) and also in recession (agricultural machinery, paper and lumber,and sports and toys), with different financial situation as well, were usedas testing ground.

[128]

128 05



The comment on the scales’ content must be preceded by the positiveevaluation of the effort made to estimate the concept of market orienta-tion from a double cognitive and operative perspective. Afterwards, someclarifications must be made. Thus, it would have been necessary to impro-ve both scales’ validity of content by means of a better consideration ofthe existing literature on the matter under study. Additionally, the culturalscale does not reveal the need for organisations to be oriented to compe-tition and the environment, and to adopt a long-.term management pers-pective. For its part, the operative scale is excessively related to the use ofdifferent marketing techniques directed to know, exclusively, the customerpreferences and develop an offer for this after sharing the generated infor-mation.

[129]

12905

1. The main task of marketing is to increase sales volume and profits will follow naturally.2. Marketing is mainly concerned with stimulating demand for a product or service.3. Marketing is basically the sale of a product or service.4. Decisions made by a company’s marketing department have an influence on the decisions of

other major departments.5. A product which is better than the competition will always sell.6. A top marketing executive should always be a member of the executive decision-making com-

mittee (e.g. the Board).7. Customers’ needs task is to satisfy the needs of the average customer rather than individual seg-

ments of the market.8. A company’s main task is to satisfy the needs of the average customer rather than individual seg-

ments of the market.9. The entire business should be organized and operated to satisfy customers at a profit.10. Cooperation and participation of all the company’s departments is necessary to satisfy customers

and achieve objectives.11. Seeking our the market’s needs and wants should be a continuous process.12. Marketing research is essential to solve both company and customer problems.

Figure 4. Measurement of Market Orientation

Source: Diamantopoulos and Hart (1993).



[130]

130 05

MARKET INTELLIGENCE GENERATION

1. Existence of in-house market research facility (Dichotomous: 0=no 1=yes).2. Commissioning of marketing research to specialist agencies (Dichotomous: 0=no 1=yes).3. Maintenance of records of customer complaints (Dichotomous: 0=no 1=yes).4. Salesforce customer contact (Four-item; items scored form 1=not al all to 5=to a great extent).

4.1. Complaint handling 4.2. Post-purchase liaison with customers4.3. Social contacts with customers 4.4. Market research activities

5. Other customer contact (Three-item; items scored form 1=not al all to 5=mainly).

5.1. Sales calls by top executives.5.2. Management visits to customer/user sites.5.3. Visits of customers to the company.

INTELLIGENCE DISSEMINATION

6. Contact frequency between marketing and other function (Five-item; items scored form 1=neverto 5=very often).

6.1. R&D 6.2. Finance 6.3. Engineering 6.4. Sales 6.5. Production

7. Dissemination of the strategic plan (Number of levels of hierarchical dissemination; 1=senior dis-semination to 5=general workforce):

7.1. Senior management 7.2. Middle managers, the main functional heads7.3. junior and/or trainee managers 7.4. Supervisors and /or foremen 7.5. The general workforce

RESPONSIVENESS TO MARKET INTELLIGENCE

8. Provision of pre-purchase information/advice to potential customers(Dichotomous: 0=no 1=yes).9. Initiation of new product development/product modification(Five-item; items scored form 1=not

al all important to 5=extremely important).

9.1. Technological monitoring

Figure 4. Measurement of Market Orientation



The scales’ psychometric evaluation is characterised by the lack ofdata. Thus, no information is provided about their concept validity orabout their dimensionality, the estimated statistics to study the reliabilitymust be classified as inadequate (for example, the fourth dimension of thephilosophical scale, “customer orientation”, presents an Alpha ofCronbach coefficient of 0.38) and there is only reliable evidence regardingthe different values assigned to concurrent validity.

3.4. Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar’s (1993) ScaleKohli, Jaworski and Kumar (1993) contribute to the study of marketorientation with one of the scales (MARKOR) that, together with Narverand Slater’s (1990) enjoys a wider practical spreading. Its utilisation isrecommended to analyse the operative implementation of the marketingconcept or behavioural market orientation. The theoretical model underl-ying this scale is elaborated by the authors and depicts market orientationas (1) the generation of market intelligence, (2) its internal disseminationand (3) the development and implementation of a response action directedto the market. Taking this structure into account, a scale is developedusing a sample of executives from the main USA companies. This scale’scontent is described in Figure 5.

[131]

13105

9.2. Feedback from end-users9.3. Distribution outlets and the salesforce 9.4. In-house R&D work

10. Sophistication of segmentation techniques (Number of types of segmentation used; items scoredform 1=1 type used to 8=8 types used).

11. Achieving quality by customer consultation (single scale; item scored form 1=not al all importantto 5=extremely important).

12. Achieving quality by customer design input (single scale; item scored form 1=not al all importantto 5=extremely important).

Figure 4 (Continuation)

Source: Diamantopoulos and Hart (1993).



Comparatively, MARKOR is more consistent than MKTOR both withregard to its content (Gauzente, 1999) and to its psychometric properties(Farrell and Oczkowski, 1997). This is not an obstacle to clarify bothaspects. Starting from the content, it is outstanding the scale’s agreementwith the operative perspective that supports its theoretical basis; however aconsiderable number of items are referred to the customer, although the aut-hors’ initial intention was to develop an integrating model centred more onthe market as a whole than on the customer, in a specific way (Van Bruggenand Smidts, 1995; Caruana, Pitt and Money, 1996; Farrell and Oczkowski,1997; Lado, Maydeu and Rivera, 1998; and Langerak, Nootenboom andVan Der Knaap, 1999). Additionally, it is questioned the generation of thescale using as a reference a set of marketing definitions in agreement withsocio-economic realities different from the present ones, and which arecurrently dismissed as ambiguous and inconsistent (Gabel, 1995).

[132]

132 05

INTELLIGENCE GENERATION

1. In this business unit, we meet with customers al least once a year to find out what products or

services they will need in the future.

2. In this business unit, we do a lot of in-house market research.

3. We are slow to detect changes in our customers’ product preferences. (R)

4. We poll end users al least once a year to assess the quality of our products and services.

5. We are slow to detect fundamental shifts in our industry (e.g., competition, technology, regula-

tion). (R)

6. We periodically review the likely effect of changes in our business environment (e.g., regulation)

on customers.


7. We have interdepartmental meetings at least once a quarter to discuss market trends and deve-

lopments.

8. Marketing personnel in our business unit spend time discussing customers’ future needs with

other functional departments.


Fuente: Narver y Slater (1990).



With regard to the scale’s psychometric properties, we must point outits reduced reliability and the fact that only the Alpha of Cronbach coef-ficient has been used for its estimation. Moreover, it would have beenadvisable to use other complementary methods to analyse both its conceptand criterion validity (Van Bruggen and Smidts, 1995) and its dimensio-nality. With reference to the latter comment, several authors (Hulland

[133]

13305

9. When something important happens to a major customer of market, the whole business unit

knows about it with a short period.

10. Data on customer satisfaction are dissemination al all levels in this business unit on a regular

basis.

11. When one departments finds out something important about competitors, it is slow to alert other

departments. (R)

RESPONSIVENESS

12. It takes us forever to decide how to respond to our competitors’ price changes. (R)

13. For one reason or another we tend to ignore changes in our customer’s product or services needs.

(R)

14. We periodically review our product development efforts to ensure that they are in line with what

customers want.

15. Several departments get together periodically to plan a response to changes taking place in our

business environment.

16. If a major competitor were to launch an intensive campaign targeted at our customer, we would

implement a response immediately.

17. The activities of the different departments in this business unit are well coordinated.

18. Customer complaints fall on deaf ears in this business unit. (R)

19. Even if we came up with a great marketing plan, we probably would not be able to implement

it in a timely fashion. (R)

20. When we find out that customers would like us to modify a product of service, the departments

involved make concert efforts to do so.


Source: Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar (1993).



1995; Caruana, Pitt and Money, 1996; Bhuian, 1997; Farrell andOczkowski 1997; Siguaw, Simpson and Baker, 1998; Caruana, 1999),have verified that this model’s goodness of fit indexes are not excessivelygood, being necessary, in all cases, the elimination of some additionalitems to improve them.

3.5. Deshpandé, Farley and Webster’s (1993) ScaleDeshpandé, Farley and Webster (1993) tried to develop an estimationscale of the organisations’ level of cultural orientation to the customer2. Itsrelevance rests not so much on the scale itself, not even on its sample’s geo-graphical novelty (large Japanese firms), but on the analysis unit used forits validation, which is known as “Quadrad”. Thus, the scale is requestedto be evaluated not only by some member of the organisation, as it is habi-tual, but also by some of its principal customers, which facilitates the iden-tification and treatment of the points of disagreement that could exist.With regard to the scale itself (Figure 6), it is generated after an extensiveprogram of personal interviews and the consideration of the works byKohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990). All this linksthis scale to the cultural perspective of the concept of market orientation.

[134]

134 05

1. We have routine in the context of your specific product/market or service/market business.2. Our product and service development is based on good market and customer information.3. We know our competitors well.4. We have a good sense of how our customers value our products and services.5. We are more customer focused than our competitors.6. We compete primarily based on product or service differentiation.7. The customer’s interest should always come first, ahead of the owners’.8. Our products/services are the best in the business.9. I believe this business exists primarily to serve customers.

Figure 6. Customer Orientation

Source: Deshpandé, Farley and Webster (1993).

(2) These authors consider customerorientation synonymouswith market orientationand opposed to competitor orientationwhen more attention ispaid to the competitionthan to the unsatisfiedneeds of the customerhimself.



Despite its novel execution, this scale presents certain deficiencies in itscontent. On the one hand, from its final design it cannot be inferred thatit can be used to estimate only an organisation’s customer orientation, asthere exists a set of items that emphasise the importance to the competi-tor orientation (items 3, 5, 6 and 8). On the other hand, in this scale wefind mixed items with a clear cultural nature (items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9)with other more operative ones (items 1, 2 and 3). Among its psychome-tric properties, it is worth highlighting that the data provided in the origi-nal work by Deshpandé, Farley and Webster (1993) are scarce, and so itis necessary, in order to carry out the scale’s evaluation, to refer to the laterwork by Deshpandé and Farley (1996). The synthesis of both allows high-lighting the scale’s reliability and criterion validity, without having, nevert-heless, relevant information about its dimensionality.

3.6. Pelham’s (1993) ScalePelham (1993) brings forward a novel cultural market orientation scalefor several reasons. On the one hand, the author uses as analysis unit thesmall industrial company, whereas up to then studies were based on sam-ples of large or medium-sized companies. On the other hand, it appears tobe reliable for carrying out dynamic studies about market orientation(Pelham and Wilson, 1996) and for the study of the moderating effect ofboth differentiated products and target customers on the market orienta-tion-firm’s performance relationship (Pelham, 1997). The conceptual refe-rences taken into account in the elaboration of this scale are Narver andSlater (1990) and Kohli and Jaworski (1990). The rigorous generationprocess undertaken gives rise to the scale shown in Figure 7 and whosedimensions are: (1) customer understanding orientation, (2) customersatisfaction orientation and (3) competitor orientation.

[135]

13505



This scale also stands out because the thoroughness in the analysis ofits reliability, validity and dimensionality. Its conceptualisation, however,needs to be clarified in the following aspects: (1) the external environmentorientation is not evaluated explicitly beyond the customer himself and thecompetitor, (2) the interfunctional coordination, as an underlying dimen-sion, is not identified and (3) the perspective of relationship managementin the long term associated with the survival of the organisation in themarket is not considered. Moreover, three items with a more operativethan cultural content are identified (items 3, 4 and 7).

3.7. Deng and Dart’s (1994) ScaleDeng and Dart (1994) develop a market orientation scale related to thepatterns of behaviour that show any firm’s day-to-day routine, in order toguarantee its applicability to all types of organisation. The scale’s genera-

[136]

136 05

1. Our firm’s strategy for competitive advantage is based on our thorough integrated in serving tar-get markets. (agree/disagree)

2. Our firm’s market strategies are to a (moderate/great) extent driven by our understanding of pos-sibilities for creating value for customers.

3. Our firm responds (slowly/quickly) to negative customer satisfaction information throughout theorganization.

4. If a major competitor were to launch an intensive campaign targeted at our customers, we wouldimplement a response immediately. (agree/disagree)

5. How frequently do top managers discuss competitive strengths and weakness?. (never/very fre-quently)

6. How frequently do you take advantage of targeted opportunities to take advantage of competi-tors’ weakness?. (never/very frequently)

7. Information on customers, marketing success, and marketing failures is communicated acrossfunctions in the firm. (agree/desagree)

8. All our functions (not just marketing and sales) are responsive to, and integrated in, serving tar-get markets. (agree/disagree)

9. All our managers understand how the entire business can contribute to creating customer value.(agree/disagree)

Figura 7. Market Orientation Scale

Source: Pelham (1993).



tion was carried out taking as reference the dimensions underlying theconcept of marketing according to a series of research works the authorsconsider relevant; among others stand out: Keith (1960), McNamara(1972), Kotler (1977), Webster (1988), Narver and Slater (1990), Hooley,Lynch and Shepherd (1990). The scale is submitted to the opinion of asample of directors of Canadian firms of different size, sector and loca-tion. The variables finally included in the scale are shown, grouped intotheir corresponding dimensions, in Figure 8.

The scale’s content can be criticised because despite its intended ope-rative nature, Ruekert’s (1992) and Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar’s (1993)scales have not been taken into account in the bibliographical review, and,additionally, a large number of more cultural than operative items areused. Furthermore, organizational benefit is considered as a component ofmarket orientation and not as a consequence of this, although not even thestudy taken as reference to include this dimension (Narver and Slater,1990) validates a scale that integrates this component. The last criticismstems from the lack of items associated with the actions carried out on thegeneric environment.

[137]

13705



[138]

138 05


1. We encourage customer comments –even complaints– because they help us to do a better job.2. After sales service is an important part of our business strategy.3. We have a strong commitment to our customers.4. We look for ways to create customer value in our products.5. We measure customer satisfaction on a regular basis.6. Our company would be much better off if our salesforce just work a bit harder.7. In our company, marketing’s most important job is to identify and help meet the needs of our customers.8. We define product quality in terms of customer satisfaction.


9. We regularly analyse our competitors’ marketing programs.10. We frequently collect market data to help direct our new product plans.11. Our salespeople are instructed to monitor and report on competitive activity.12. We respond rapidly to competitors’ actions.13. Our top managers often discuss competitors’ programs.14. We target opportunities based on competitive advantage.

INTERFUNCTIONAL COORDINATION

15. In our company, the marketing people have a strong input into the development of new products.16. Market information is shared with all departments.17. All departments are involved in preparing company plans.18. We do a good job of integrating the activities of each department.19. The marketing people in our organization interact frequently with other departments such as manufacturing,

finance, physical distribution, etc.20. In our company, marketing is seen as a guiding philosophy for the entire organization.

PROFIT EMPHASIS

21. Our accounting system could fairly quickly determine the profitability of each of our product lines.22. Our accounting system could fairly quickly determine the profitability of each of our sales territories.23. Our accounting system could fairly quickly determine the profitability of each of our customers.24. Our accounting system could fairly quickly determine the profitability of each of our distribution methods.25. We have a good idea of the sales potential for each of our markets.

Figure 8. Measuring Market Orientation

Source: Deng and Dart (1994).

However, it is worth highlighting the value and significance of theparameters of reliability, concept and criterion validity obtained followingthe exploratory procedures suggested by Churchill (1979), although theuse of confirmatory estimators of these results would be advisable.



3.8. Rivera Camino (1995) and Lambin (1996)’s ScaleThese authors have developed a scale in which market orientation is con-ceived as a business philosophy that promotes the overall organisation’sorientation towards the different participants in the market (final custo-mer, distributor, competition and environment). This approach is put for-ward taking as main references the works by Shapiro (1988), Narver andSlater (1990) and Kohli and Jaworski (1990). It is initially validated andfound reliable on a sample of Belgian insurance firms, although it appearsconsistent with other national and sectorial realities. In practice, the scale(Figure 9) seeks to estimate the market orientation from the considerationof several aspects: (1) the level of information generation about the mar-ket participants’ expectations and patterns of behaviour (analysis dimen-sion); (2) the extent to which specific market plans are designed and imple-mented for each group (action dimension); and (3) the way all of this isdone in a coordinated and continuous way in time (coordination dimen-sion).

[139]

13905



[140]

140 05

Interdepartmental meetings to discuss market trends.Formal dissemination of market information at all levels.Informal dissemination of market information.Market intelligence use to feed-back departmental performance.Direct interaction with customers at all levels of the firm.Market intelligence use for services’ development.Market intelligence use for coordinated competitive strategy design.Market intelligence use for coordinated marketing plans development.Market intelligence use to achieve personal involvement in firm’s strategy implementation.

COORDINATION

Figure 9. Indicators of Market Orientation

END-CUSTOMER

Satisfaction of our end-customers.Present and future needs.Factors influencing the buying decision.Choice and preference criteria.Emerging of new segments.Roles of participants in the buying decision.In-use problems with our products.Firm’s offer positioning.Non-monetary costs.Profitability by our customers.

COMPETITOR

Competitors’ competitive strategy.Competitors’ strengths and weaknesses.Competitors’ mix characteristics.Substitutive services evolution.Potential competition evaluation.

DISTRIBUTORS-CUSTOMERS

Satisfaction of our distributors.Changing needs of distributors.Goals of our distributor.Compatibility of our strategy whit their goals.Value of our products for them.Value of our brands for them.Problems with our products.Image and attitude or our products.Image of distributor perceived by end-customers.Profitability per distributor.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLIMATE

Environment monitoring system.External environment effects on target custo-mers.External environment effects on distributors.Environmental opportunities and threats.

ANALYSIS



14105


END-CUSTOMEROffer of a complete solution to the problem.Development of new product concepts.Communication and consistent marketing plan.Adapted products to each segment.Development of new product concepts.Fast response to changing needs.Fast response if dissatisfaction.Pricing based on the value added to customers.Training to ensure optimal use of the products.Abandonment of unprofitable segments.

COMPETITORAcciones para proteger nuestros clientes finales.Acciones para proteger nuestros distribuidores.Rapidez para anticipar las acciones de la compe-tencia.Capacidad para sorprender a la competencia.

DISTRIBUTORS-CUSTOMERSRecognition as business’ partners.Coordination for the development of the marke-ting plan.Sharing of market information.Communication of competitive objectives.Sharing of information about our strategy.Support for sale, formation and publicity.Services adaptation to their needs.Encouragement of their contribution with thebusiness.Fast response if dissatisfaction.Rejection of non-profitable distributors.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLIMATEEstrategias para influir sobre los grupos claves.Promoción del beneficio social que brinda la firma.Promoción de preocupación ecológica de la firma.Mantener credibilidad de firma ante gruposclave.

ACTION

Source: Rivera Camino (1995).

The main criticism about the content of this scale has to do with itslength, which hinders enormously the fieldwork and the attainment of sig-nificant sample sizes. Otherwise, its composition is quite well related tothe underlying theoretical approach, being represented the whole of ele-ments the market integrates. However, there are some doubts about thescale’s dimensionality, which should be dispersed if the structural modelstook into account the saturation of the different dimensions.

3.9. Deshpandé and Farley’s (1996) ScaleDeshpandé and Farley (1996) generate a market orientation scale from a“meta-analysis” of the internal and common characteristics of the propo-



sals by Narver and Slater (1990), Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar (1993) andDeshpandé, Farley and Webster (1993). This scale is of a operative natu-re (Figure 10), as it can be inferred from the definition of market orienta-tion as “the set of cross-functional processes and activities directed at cre-ating and satisfying customers through continuous needs-assessment”.The scale is elaborated so that it can be applied to any type of geographi-cal and industrial contexts (in its elaboration up to nine different sectorswere considered).

[142]

142 05

1. Our business objectives are driven primarily by customer satisfaction.2. We constantly monitor our level of commitment and orientation to serving customer needs.3. We freely communicate information about our successful and unsuccessful customer experiences

across all business functions.4. Our strategy for competitive advantages is based on our understanding of customers’ needs.5. We measure customer satisfaction systematically and frequently.6. We have routine or regular measures of customer service.7. We are more customer focused than our competitors.8. I believe this business exists primarily to serve customers.9. We poll end-users at least once a year to assess the quality of our products and services.10. Data on customer satisfaction are disseminated at all levels in this business unit on a regular

basis.


Source: Deshpandé and Farley (1996).

The size of the sample used is questionable, although the main part ofthe criticism is centred on the scale’s content (Narver and Slater, 1998). Inthe first place, the authors defend the scale’s operative content although atotal of four items (items 1, 4, 7 and 8) have an eminently cultural cha-racter. Secondly, the authors refer to the needed interfunctional activitiesand processes to create and satisfy customers, however there are not anyitems associated with the development and implementation of a valuableoffer for the market. Thirdly, the generation and dissemination of infor-mation about the environment is not considered. Regarding the scale’s



psychometric properties, it provides a high Alpha of Cronbach coefficient(0.89) and all the 10 items are summarised in an only factor (explaining40% of the accumulated variance), however, no confirmatory analyses arecarried out to confirm this point. In addition, the authors point out that ahigh correlation between this scale and the result estimators used is achie-ved although this conclusion is lately criticised by Narver and Slater(1998) indicating the need to consider a wider sample than that used inDeshpandé and Farley’s work.

3.10. Bisp, Harmsen and Grunert’s (1996) ScaleThese authors proposed a market orientation scale that takes into accountthe different members of a business environment (final users, buyers andcompetitors), which covers the different organisational functions(sales/marketing, production and general management) and which consi-ders both the cultural and operative dimension of market orientation. Thisscale stands out by its novel and rigorous definition consistent with themarket orientation concept, both in its cultural and operative perspective.It also approaches individually the customer’s double role both as a buyerand final user of the product and, lastly, it is elaborated so that it can beused to analyse the adoption of this orientation by the different organisa-tional functional areas. The scale is tested among 51 members of the samefirm. This brings about 50 items summarised in five dimensions (Figure11).

[143]

14305



[144]

144 05

MARKET INTELLIGENCE FOCUS

Customer (cus attitude).1. We must constantly be aware of what changes in market conditions mean for our customers’ requirements and

wishes.2. It is essential always to be able to identify changes in customers’ demands and wishes regarding our products.Customer (cus behavior).3. I either meet or talk to customers several times a year to find out which products or services they want in the future.4. Whenever I go to fairs or conferences, I use to opportunity to talk to customers about the products or services

they are likely to want in the future.5. I am continually trying to find out whether customers are satisfied with our products.Consumers (con attitude).6. The results of consumer survey must regularly be incorporated into product development to enable the firm to

react as quickly as possible to changing consumers demands and needs.7. Our product development should always take account of current major consumer trends.Consumers (con behavior).8. Whenever I meet customers and other people from the industry, I spend a lot of time discussing consumers’ futu-

re needs.9. I often meet people from other departments and functions to discuss which products consumers will want in the

future.Competitors (com attitude).10. It is crucial for us to be able to swiftly counter competitors’ attempts to steal our customers.11. We must be ready to counter any moves a competitor makes to steal our customers.Competitors (com behavior).12. If I find out that one of our competitors’ is making a serious efforts to steal our customers, and it’s affecting my

area, then I’ll help take immediate steps to counter it.13. If a competitor makes major prince changes, the I do all I can to help us react quickly.

ACTION LEVEL

Operational (operat attitude).14. If a customer wants to change a product or service, we should try to accommodate him as soon as possible.15. We should work closely with our customers so that we make the products they want.Operational (operat behavior).16. If I hear that a customer has made a complaint, I try to do something about it at once.17. We often choose to ignore changes in consumer demands regarding our products.18. If somebody learns that a customer wants a product or service changed, I work with others to implement that

change as soon as possible.Strategic (strat attitude).19. Our medium-term (1-2 years ahead) plans should be based on surveys which monitor how customers’ wishes and

demand change.20. We should be so well-informed about our markets to be able to make realistic and detailed marketing plans for

the coming year.21. Planning future production capacities requires regular information about both existing and potential competitors.




14505

Strategic (strat behavior).22. Getting regular information about consumers, customers, and competitors enables us to plan developments 2-3

years ahead.23. We have information about our competitors which enables us to assess which markets and which products we can

concentrate on.24. As a results of the information we receive about customers, consumers, and competitors, we are able to plan stra-

tegies which are both realistic and which increase turnover.

COMPETENCE

Speed of Reaction (speed attitude).25. We must constantly improve those channels of communication thorough which we learn about important com-

petitor or customer news.26. We should have contingency plans so that we can swiftly counter any competitors’ moves to steal our customers.27. We should be able to react more promptly to competitors’ price changes tan we do today.Speed of Reaction (speed behavior).28. When another department discovers something important about a competitor, it is too slow to pass it on to me.29. I am quickly informed about fundamental changes (eg. technology, legislation, competition) in our industry.Implementation of Plans (impl attitude).30. We must become better at carrying out plans and projects according to plan.31. We ought to be much more responsive to changing customer demands regarding our products and services.Implementation of Plans (impl behavior).32. We are good at meeting changing customer demands regarding products and services.33. I’m satisfied with the way our marketing people involve people from other functions in solving concrete problems.34. The way we react to and deal with customer complaints is satisfactory.

ORGANIZATION

Discussion of Market Development (disc attitude).35. We should often have cross-departmental meetings to discuss market trends.36. We should regularly meet people form other departments in order to keep up to date on the market situation.37. I’d very interested in meeting Discussion of Market Development (disc behavior).38. I often talk with other people in the firm about the possible consequences of environmental changes for our cus-

tomers.39. I take part in meeting where we discuss different ways of predicting consumers’ reactions.40. I meet people from other departments regularly to discuss market developments.Coordination of Activities (coord attitude).41. If a customer requests changes in a product or service, then all departments should cooperate in finding a solu-

tion which satisfies him.42. If we see that a customer’s needs are changing, we should make immediate cross-departmental efforts to meet them.Coordination of Activities (coord behavior).43. As soon as a product or service in my area needs changing, I work closely with all the people involved to imple-

ment the change as soon as possible.




[146]

146 05

44. I take pains to ensure that may market-oriented activities do not conflict with activities elsewhere in the company.45. If a customer complains about something in my area, I get to the bottom of it at once so that I can prevent simi-

lar complaints in future.

APPEAL

Presentation of data (appeal attitude).46. I would rather have too little market information and be able to digest it, than be flooded with it and not know

whether it is important.47. I would like to have as much information about the market as possible, but only about those parts of it which

concern me directly.Presentation of data (appeal behavior).48. The information we receive about the market is valuable and easy to understand.49. I am very satisfied with the way market information is presented in the company.50. I am quite satisfied with the market information I receive from internal sources.


Source: Bish, Harmsen and Grunert (1996).

The scale’s content deserves in general, a positive evaluation. Firstly,because of the items’ agreement with the theoretical perspective, culturalor operative, that supports them. Secondly, because of its relation to thedimensions underlying either the cultural or operative market orientationdefinition. Thirdly, because it can be used to estimate the existing diffe-rences in an organisation’s level of market orientation both from a cultu-ral and a behavioural perspective and in terms of the underlying dimen-sions to each perspective. The criticisms to this scale are related to (1) itslack of validation in an multisectorial context (it is only tested in the areaof the food industry), (2) the limited theoretical foundation that supportsit, (3) the absence of items relative to the orientation towards environ-mental factors and (4) its excessive length.

However, the most significant weaknesses are in its psychometricanalysis. On the one hand, the parameters of reliability obtained arehardly over the minimum recommended value to consider a scale reliableand the value of the Alpha of Cronbach coefficient is not provided for anydimension,. On the other hand, we do not have data about its concept andcriterion validity, or about its dimensionality.



14705

3.11. Gray, Matear, Boshoff and Matheson’s (1998) ScaleGray, Matear, Boshoff and Matheson (1998), consider that the MKTORand MARKOR scales have not a great practical applicability and areexcessively related to the North American large industrial reality. Thus,they generate a new measure to make it valid for any industrial reality inits location, New Zealand. This scale adopts, according to the authors, anoperative perspective. Its methodological development is inspired byMKTOR and MARKOR and the Deng and Dart’s (1994) scale. A sampleof New Zealand small, medium-sized and large firms operating in diffe-rent markets was chosen to test the scale, which finally comprises 20 itemsgrouped into three critical dimensions (Figure 12).


1. We encourage customer comments and complaints because they help us do a better job.2. After-sales service is an important part of our business strategy.3. We have a strong commitment to our customers.4. We are always looking at ways to create customer value in our products.5. We measure customer satisfaction on a regular basis.


6. We regularly monitor our competitors’ marketing efforts.7. We frequently collect marketing data on our competitors to help direct our marketing plans8. Our salespeople are instructed to monitor and report on competitor activity.

INTERFUNCTIONAL CO-ORDINATION

9. Marketing information is shared with all departments10. We regularly have inter-departmental meetings to discuss market trends and developments.11. Our marketing people regularly discuss customer needs with other departments.12. The marketing people regularly interact with other departments on a formal basis.13. All departments are involved in preparing business.14. We do a good job integrating the activities of all departments.

RESPONSIVENESS

15. We are quick to respond to significant changes in our competitors’ pricing.16. Somehow we tend to ignore changes to our customers’ product/service needs.

Figure 12. Market Orientation Questions



[148]

148 05

This scale’s content presents serious problems, even more severe thanthose identified in the case of MKTOR and MARKOR. These can be sum-marised in the following: (1) it is difficult to justify a market orientationscale’s content from the textual aggregation of the items which are part ofothers that differ in perspective (cultural or operative). Besides, as a con-sequence of this aggregation, it can be observed that (2) cultural and ope-rative items alternate, although the effective adoption of the first perspec-tive does not have to imply necessarily the adoption of the second, and (3)the concern about the benefit is kept as a dimension of market orientationand not as its consequence. Another direct consequence of the aggregationof scales en bloc is (4) their limitations are continuously present, as it isshown by the fact that there are not any items related to the environmentor long-term management perspective. Finally, (5) after the scale’s valida-tion process, this does not incorporate operative items that allow estima-ting the development of a response directed to the market.

With reference to the scale’s psychometric evaluation, it is necessaryto highlight the adequate sequential process followed to this end, as wellas the adequacy of the parameters of reliability, concept and criterionvalidity, and goodness of fit. We must simply point out the fact that alt-hough the authors consider the perspective to the benefit as a componentof market orientation, when it comes to analysing the scale’s concurrentvalidity, it is observed that there is not any significant correlation bet-ween this dimension and the RO, which reasserts the idea that such a

PROFIT EMPHASIS

17. Our management information system can quickly determine the profitability of our major customers.18. Our management information system can quickly determine the profitability of our product lines.19. Our management information system can quickly determine the profitability of our sales territories.20. Our management information system can quickly determine the profitability of our distribution chan-

nels.


Source: Gray, Matear, Boshoff and Matheson (1998).



dimension is not a component of market orientation but rather a conse-quence.

3.12. Becker y Homburg’s (1999) ScaleBecker and Homburg (1999) introduce a novel, valid and reliable scale toestimate to what extent organisations adopt a market oriented. For theauthors, this orientation implies the incorporation of the customers’ andcompetitors’ characteristics into the different management systems thatguide the organisations’ evolution. It is therefore an innovative approachwhen it comes to estimating market orientation, and complementary, alt-hough not exclusive, of the cultural and operative approach. The scale isinspired by the existing management systems theory. This theory makesthe authors state that the market-oriented management must lead to theorganisation’s structuring into five managerial systems: (1) organisation,(2) information, (3) planning, (4) controlling and (5) human resourcemanagement. The scale is tested with a sample of general managers fromdifferent German industrial and service firms. It is reduced to 60 itemsthat, linked to the five functions previously delimited and to the 16 underl-ying subdimensions, are represented in Figure 13.

This scale needs, given its novelty, a series of clarifications to be inves-tigated in the near future. Firstly, we cannot talk about an organisationalsystem and limit it solely to the study of the hierarchy, the contact with thecustomer and the organisational processes. It will be necessary to godeeply into, for example, the concepts of formalisation and centralisation.Secondly, we cannot talk about an information, planning and control sys-tem without insisting on the implementation of a response action directedto the market and developed from the information generated and dissemi-nated. Thirdly and finally, we cannot talk about a human resource systemand evaluate only the management’s work and not that of the rest of per-sonnel. To these criticism it can be added the confusion of cultural andoperative items, the predominance of items related to the customer and thescale’s length which may cause low response rates.

[149]

14905



[150]

150 05

MARKET-ORIENTED ORGANIZATION SYSTEM

Hierarchy.1. In this business unit the head of the marketing department has a very high hierarchical position.2. In this business unit the head of the sales department has a very high hierarchical position.Interfaces.3. In this business unit we have installed key account managers.4. Each customer is assigned to a particular customer contact employee in this business unit.5. In this business unit the responsibility for the handling of customer complaints is clearly defined.Processes.6. In this business unit customers can talk to all employees that are involved in the production and deli-

very of our products and services.7. We regularly benchmark the structure and quality of our processes.8. In order to make our processes more market-oriented, we have regular meetings of all employees with

direct contact to our customers9. In this business unit customer contact employees are empowered to decide on their own.10. In this business unit each employee is regarded as an internal customer.11. We regularly meet with customer to make our internal processes more market-oriented.12. We immediately adopt our internal processes to changing market requirements.

MARKET-ORIENTED INFORMATION SYSTEM

Information Generation.13. In this business unit each customer complaints is analyzed in depth.14. We regularly collect background information on our customers (activities, buying behaviour, etc.)15. We regularly and systematically monitor our competitors’ activities.16. We systematically ask our customer contact employees about their experiences.17. The responsibility for the collection and analysis of suggestion made by employees to increase the

degree of customer orientation is clearly defined in this business unit.18. In this business unit new products launched by our competitors are analyzed in depth.19. We do a lot of market research in this business unit.Information Dissemination.20. We regularly organize interdepartmental meetings in which customer contact employees report on

their experience with customer interaction.21. New market information is communicated immediately across all concerned business functions.22. In our business unit we have a message system which can be used to send important market informa-

tion to all employees.23. In this business unit new information about customers and competitors is transferred very slowly to

other departments (R).Information Storage.24. We have installed electronic databases which contain extensive information on customers.25. We have installed electronic databases which contain extensive information on competitors.

Figure 13. Market-Oriented Organization System



15105

26. In our business unit all employees have unlimited access to the full range of market information sto-red in our databases.

27. We regularly inform our employees about our internal sources of market-related information.

MARKET-ORIENTED PLANNING SYSTEM

Definition of Objectives.28. We use feedback from our customers as a guideline for the definition of our business objectives.29. Reaching a high degree of customer satisfaction is an important objective in our business unit.30. Delighting our customers is an important objective in our business unit.31. The generation of competitive advantages is an important objective in our business unit.32. In this business unit marketing and sales employees take part in the process of goal definition.Environmental Monitoring.33. We analyze market trends on a regular basis in order to identify opportunities and risks.34. We regularly predict changes in customer preference in order to modify the range of our products in

time.35. We regularly meet with our most important customers to discuss their future needs.36. Changes in basic market conditions and their effects on our product offerings are taken into account

during our planning activities.37. We make sure that information resulting from our monitoring activities is taken into account during

our planning activities.Choice of Alternatives.38. In this business unit customer contact employees take part in decisions on the future product range.39. In this business unit decisions on the introduction of new product depends to a large degree on the

market potential of the product.40. In this business unit decisions on the introduction of new products are influenced by the judgement

of selected customers that have been asked about the new product in advance.

MARKET-ORIENTED PLANNING SYSTEM

Target-Performance-Comparison.41. We regularly compare actual customer satisfaction assessments with our customer satisfaction objec-

tives.42. In this business unit indicators of product quality are based on customer requirements.43. In this business unit indicators of process quality are based on customer requirements.Deviation Analysis.44. In this business unit analysis of deviation are based upon extensive information on customers.45. In this business unit analysis of deviation are based upon extensive information on competitors.46. In this business unit analysis of deviation are based upon extensive information on basic market con-

ditions.47. In this business unit corrective action is taken immediately after the analysis of deviation has been ter-

minated.




[152]

152 05

MARKET-ORIENTED HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Recruitment.48. We systematically test the skills of job applicants in dealing with customers.49. During the recruitment process we simulate customer contacts in order to check the applicants’ per-

sonal customer orientation.Training.50. In this business unit new employees get detailed information on the most important customers befo-

re they start working.51. In this business unit new employees get detailed information on the most important competitors befo-

re they start working.52. We regularly inform our employees about significant changes in the basic market conditions.Assessment.53. In this business unit the assessment of managerial performance is influence by the results of customers

satisfaction surveys.54. Activities which are directed towards an increase of the customer satisfaction level play a major role

in the assessment of senior managers’ performance.55. In this business unit the assessment of managerial performance is influenced by the degree to which

customer satisfaction objectives are met.Career Development.56. In this business unit very customer-oriented employees usually get promoted faster than others.57. In this business unit general managers usually have worked in the marketing/sales department before.Reward/Incentives.58. Customer satisfaction assessments influence senior managers’ pay in this business unit.59. We regularly award prizes to employees who contributed personally to an increase of our business

unit’s customer orientation.60. Suggestions by employees that lead to a significant increase in overall customer satisfaction are sepa-

rately rewarded in this business unit.


Note: (R) indicates a reversed item.Source: Becker and Homburg (1999).

Finally, it is worth highlighting, from a psychometric point of view,that three of the subscales that make up this latter measuring instrumentpresent reliability parameters below what is advisable (subsystems of con-tact with the customer, selection of alternatives and promotion) althoughthe model adjustment is adequate.



15305

4. ConclusionsThe present paper carries out a complete and thorough review of the dif-ferent market orientation scales developed during the last 90s decade. Ofall of them those with a wider repercussion in later research works, dueboth to the rigour of their theoretical foundations and to their authors’prestige are Narver and Slater’s (1990) and Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar’s(1993) scales. However, neither these two scales nor the others evaluatedcan be considered completely definitive contributions to the study of mar-ket orientation. Or at least this is what can be deduced from the criticalreview undertaken of their content and psychometric properties.

With regard to their content, the main criticism relative to the scalesevaluated is related to the different items’ nature and main focus. Withreference to the items’ nature we must say that all the scales are elabora-ted to evaluate the market orientation concept either from its cultural oroperative perspective. However, in practice, each scale mixes indistinctlycultural and operative items. With regard to the items’ main focus we mustpoint out the over-emphasis on the customer present in most scales. Ingeneral, there are plenty of items related to the customers whereas thenumber of items relative to the competition and the rest of environmentalfactors is very small, even non-existent. As to the rest, it is worth pointingout that although some of the scales fit the conceptual approach carriedout for the operative perspective of market orientation, this is not so forthe cultural perspective. Finally, we want to emphasise that a large num-ber of the scales have been generated in socio-economic realities that dif-fer substantially from the Spanish situation, which may question their usein national studies.

Regarding the psychometric properties, the most significant criticism isrelated to the absence of confirmatory evaluation processes through struc-tural equation models. This lack is observed above all in the oldest scales.In them it is habitual to refer to reliability by means of the Alpha ofCronbach coefficient, to state one-dimensionality according to the resultsof principal components’ different factorial analyses or to defend the con-



vergent and discriminating validity considering only the correlationamong the critical dimensions into which each scale is structured. Thelatest developments on scales’ evaluation processes recommend to use thefollowing additional criteria to the tests introduced above. In order tostudy reliability the consideration of the compound reliability coefficientand the percentage of explained variance is suggested; one-dimensionalitywill have to be stated taking into account the results of the confirmatoryfactorial analyses carried out to this end; convergent validity will be defen-ded once the substantial convergence of the different items in their res-pective critical dimensions has been tested; and the evaluation of the dis-criminating validity is based on confirming that the correlation’s confi-dence interval between each pair of dimensions does not contain the criti-cal value 1 (Álvarez, Santos and Vázquez, 2000).

These critical considerations must be taken into account in the deve-lopment of any new measuring scale of the concept of market orientation.This is at least what has been made in the study undertaken by Álvarez,Santos and Vázquez’s (2000) in which new market orientation scales havebeen generated from both a cultural and operative or behavioural pers-pective. The scales’ final design is respectively shown in Figure 14 andFigure 15.

[154]

154 05



15505

INTELLIGENCE GENERATION

1. We constantly analyse our commitment level and orientation to serve our customers’ needs.2. We know our competitors well.3. All functional area directors visit our current and potential customers regularly.4. We obtain ideas form our customers in order to improve our products.5. We carry out frequent studies on our customers in order to know what products and services they will

need in the future.6. Investigation and market study results are used as a source of information for taking decisions.7. We contact our customers periodically in order to learn their perceptions as to the quality of our pro-

ducts and services.8. We regularly gather market data to be used directly in our new product developments plans.9. Systems for detecting significant changes in the industry are developed by our firm.10. We are able to detect changes in our customers’ preferences rapidly.11. We encourage our customers to make comments and even complaints as to the firm’s offer, as that will

help us to accomplish our work better.12. We regularly analyse the marketing plans of our competitors.13. We frequently evaluate the possible effects of environmental change on our customers.14. We measure the service level supplied to our customers routinely and regularly.


15. Interdepartmental meetings are held for discussion of market tendencies and future evolution.16. When something important happens to a customer or group of customers, the whole company is

aware of this information in a short time.17. We manage to supply the different departments or members of the firm with reports regularly.18. Top management regularly discusses the strengths, weaknesses and strategies of the competitors.19. Sales personnel regularly share information with the firm regarding the competitor’s strategy.20. There is a fluent exchange of opinions between the functional areas in order to decide how to respond

to competitor strategies.21. Customer satisfaction data is made knows at all levels of the firm in a regular way.

RESPONSE

22. We use the feedback supplied by customers to improve quality.23. In the planning and development of new products, we start from what is valuable for the customers.24. We keep the promises made to our customers.25. Product development efforts is often reviewed in order to assure its conformity with the customers’

desires.26. Customer complaints are attended to rapidly.27. We are sensitive to how our customers evaluate our products and services, so that when faced with

negative perceptions, any necessary modifications are initiated immediately.28. We endeavour to attain competitive advantages based on the understanding of our customers’ needs.

Figure 14. Operative Market Orientation Scale



[156]

156 05

EXTERNAL ORIENTATION

1. We believe that the design of our corporation strategy must primarily focus on providing added valueto customers.

2. Customer satisfaction is the main strategic objective by the firm3. We believe that it is necessary to be aware of the environmental (general and specific) changes to assess

their influence on customer needs.4. The search and identification of market needs must be a continuous process.5. A strategy directed at obtaining a competitive advantage should be based on the understanding of cus-

tomer needs.6. Our aim is to satisfy our customers’ needs and desires better than our competitors.7. It is indispensable to know the environmental tendencies in order to develop our competitive strategy.8. Managers must understand the contribution or each one of the firm’s activities to the creation of value

for the customers.

INTEGRATION AND INTERNAL COORDINATION

9. We seek the integration and coordination of all the firm’s functions to obtain the proper satisfactionof the market needs.

10. We believe that our marketing personnel must interact frequently with other departments, such as pro-duction, finance, logistic, etc.

11. Inter-departmental coordination is a priority within the firm.12. Market intelligence must be shared by all departments.13. We make the effort to integrate the activities of all departments in order to design a more satisfactory

offer for our customers.14. We firmly believe that sharing resources and collaborators among the departments is essential to

attend to our customers needs.

MANAGEMENT OF LONG TERM RELATIONSHIP

15. In the relationships with our main customers, we seek to create standards of behavior which rule futu-re exchanges.

16. We believe that our main customers will react favorably under troublesome situations due to thestrength of the relationship that has been created over time.

17. We believe that it is worthwhile to dedicate time and effort to training personnel specialized in dea-ling with our main customers.

18. We value to generate trust in our main customers so that they share confidential information with uson market conditions, as well as on their decisions and strategy.

Figure 15. Cultural Market Orientation Scale



15705

ReferencesÁLVAREZ, L.I.; SANTOS, M.L. and VÁZQUEZ, R. (2000): “Análisis

Cultural y Operativo de la Orientación al Mercado: EfectosModeradores en la Relación O.M.-Resultados”, Revista Española deInvestigación de Marketing ESIC, Vol. 6 (1), pp. 7-41.

AMES, B.C. (1970): “Trappings vs. Substance in Industrial Marketing”,Harvard Business Review, Vol. 48 (4), pp. 93-102.

BECKER, J. and HOMBURG, C. (1999): “Market-OrientedManagement: A System-Based Perspective”, Journal of MarketFocused Management, Vol. 4, pp. 17-41.

BHUIAN, S.N. (1997): “Exploring Market Orientation in Banks: AnEmpirical Examination in Saudi Arabia”, Journal of ServicesMarketing, Vol. 11 (5), pp. 317-328.

BISP, S.H.; HARMSEN, H. and GRUNERT, K.G. (1996): “ImprovingMeasurement of Market Orientation - An Attitude/Activity basedapproach”, 25th EMAC Conference, pp. 75-87, Budapest.

CARUANA, A. (1999): “An Assessment of the Dimensions and theStability of Items in the MARKOR Scale”, Marketing Intelligence &Planning, Vol. 17 (5), pp. 248-253.

CARUANA, A.; PITT, L.F. and MONEY, A.H. (1996): “An Assessment ofthe Dimensions and the Stability of Items in the Markor Scale”, enEilson, E. and Hare, J.F. (eds.): Developments in Marketing Science.American of Marketing Science, p. 229, Phoenix.

DENG, S. AND DART, J. (1994): “Measuring Market Orientation: AMulti-factor, Multi-ítem Approach”, Journal of MarketingManagement, Vol. 10, pp.725-742.

DESHPANDÉ, R. and FARLEY, J.U. (1996): “Understanding MarketOrientation: A Prospectively Designed Meta-analysis of Three MarketOrientation Scales”. Working Paper, 96-125, Marketing ScienceInstitute.

– (1998): “Measuring Market Orientation: Generalization and Synthesis”,Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 2, pp. 213-232.



[158]

158 05

DESHPANDÉ, R., FARLEY, J.U. and WEBSTER, J. (1993): “CorporateCulture, Customer Orientation and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms:A Quadrad Analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57 (1), pp. 22-27.

DIAMANTOPOULOS, A. and HART, S. (1993): “Linking MarketOrientation and Company Performance: Preliminary Evidence onKohli and Jaworskis Framework”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol.1, pp. 93-121.

FARRELL, M.A. and OCZKOWSKI, E. (1997): “An Analysis of theMKTOR and MARKOR. Measures of Market Orientation: AnAustralian Perspective”, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 8, pp. 30-40.

GABEL, T.G. (1995): “Market Orientation: Theoretical andMethodological Concerns”, American Marketing Association SummerEducators’ Conference, pp. 368-375.

GAUZENTE, C. (1999): “Comparing Market Orientation Scales: AContent Analysis”, Marketing Bulletin, Vol. 10, pp. 76-86.

GRAY, B.; MATEAR, S.; BOSHOFF, C. and MATHESON, P. (1998):“Developing a Better Measure of Market Orientation”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 32 (9/10), pp. 884-903.

HOOLEY, G.J.; LYNCH, J.E. and SHEPHERD, J. (1990): “TheMarketing Concept: Putting the Theory into Practice”, EuropeanJournal of Marketing, Vol. 24 (9), pp. 7-24.

HULLAND, J. (1995): “Market Orientation and Market LearningSystem: An Environment - Strategy - Performance Perspective”,Working Paper, 95-09, Western Business School, London, Canada.

HURLEY, R.F. and HULT, G.T. (1998): “Innovation, Market Orientationand Organization Learning: An Integration and EmpiricalExamination”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 (3), pp. 42-54.

KEITH, R.J. (1960): “The Marketing Revolution”, Journal of Marketing,Vol. 24 (1), pp. 35-38.

KOHLI, A.K. and JAWORSKI, B.J. (1990): “Market Orientation: TheConstruct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications”,Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 (2), pp. 1-18.



15905

KOHLI, A.K.; JAWORSKI, B.J. and KUMAR, A. (1993): “MARKOR: AMeasure of Market Orientation”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.30 (4), pp. 467-477.

KOTLER, P. (1977): “From Sales Obsession to Marketing Effectiveness”.Harvard Business Review, Vol. 56 (6), pp. 67-75.

LADO, N.; MAYDEY, A. and RIVERA, J. (1998): “Measuring MarketOrientation in Several Populations: A Structural Equations Model”,European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 32 (1-2), pp. 23-39.

LAMBIN, J.J. (1996): “The Misunderstanding about Marketing,”, CEMSBusiness Review, 1, pp. 37-56.

LANGERAK, F.; NOOTENBOOM, K. and VAN DER KNAAP, N.(1999): “Preliminary Findings on a Triad Measure of MarketOrientation”, 28th EMAC Conference, Berlin.

LLONCH ANDREU, J. (1996): “¿Cómo Medir el Grado de Orientaciónal Mercado?”. ESIC Market, (julio-septiembre), pp. 59-79.

McNAMARA, C.P. (1972): “The Present Status of Marketing Concept”,Journal of Marketing, 36 (1), pp. 50-57.

NARVER, J.C. and SLATER, S.F. (1990): “The Effect of a MarketOrientation on Business Profitability”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54(4), pp. 20-35.

– (1998): “Additional Thoughts on the Measurement of MarketOrientation: A Comment on Deshpandé and Farley”, Journal ofMarket Focused Management, Vol. 2, pp. 233-236.

NARVER, J.C.; SLATER, S.F. and TIETJE, B. (1998): “Creating a MarketOrientation”, Journal of Market Focused Management, Vol. 2, pp.241-255.

PELHAM, A.M. (1993): Mediating and Moderating Influences on theRelationship between Marketing Orientation and Performance, Thesisin Business Administration, The Pennsylvania State University.

– (1997): “Market Orientation and Performance: The ModeratingEffects of Product and Customer Differentiation”, Journal of Businessand Industrial Marketing, Vol. 12 (5), pp. 276-296.

PELHAM, A.M. and WILSON, D.T. (1996): “A Longitudinal Study of theImpact of Market Structure, Firm Structure, Strategy, and MarketOrientation Culture on Dimensions of Small-Firm Performance”,Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 (1), p. 27-43.

RIVERA CAMINO, J. (1995): “La Orientación al Mercado comoEstrategia Competitiva”, Curso de Verano sobre la OrientaciónEmpresarial al Mercado de la Universidad Jaume I, Castellón.

RUEKERT, R.W. (1992): “Developing a Market Orientation: AnOrganizational Strategy Perspective”, International Journal ofResearch in Marketing, Vol. 9, pp. 225-245.

SHAPIRO, B.P. (1988): “What the Hell is Market Oriented?”, HarvardBusiness Review, Vol. 66 (6), pp. 119-125.

SIGUAW, J.A. and DIAMANTOPOULOS, A. (1994): “The MarketOrientation Measure: A Re-examination of Narver and Slater’s Scale”,en Park and Smith (eds.): Enhancing Knowledge Development inMarketing. American Marketing Association Winter Educator’sConference, Vol. 5, pp. 150-151.

SIGUAW, J.A.; SIMPSON, P.M. and BAKER, T.L. (1998): “Effects ofSupplier Market Orientation on Distributor Market Orientation andthe Channel Relationship: The Distributor Perspective”, Journal ofMarketing, Vol. 62 (3), pp. 99-111.

VAN BRUGGEN, G.H. and SMIDTS, A. (1995): “The Assessment ofMarket Orientation: Evaluating the Measurement Instrument as a Toolfor Management”, 24th EMAC Conference, pp. 2037-2043, París.

VERHEES, F. (1998): “Market Orientation, Product Innovation andCompany Performance. The case of small independent companies”,27th EMAC Conference, pp. 139-153, Stockholm.

WEBSTER, F.E. (1988): “The Rediscovery of the Marketing Concept”,Business Horizons, may-june, pp. 29-39.



[160]

160 05

Measuring scales of the concept of market orientation. Critical … · 2005-11-21 · measuring...

Documents

Transcript of Measuring scales of the concept of market orientation. Critical … · 2005-11-21 · measuring...