The Role of Common and Unique Effects of
Strategic Orientations on Firm Innovativeness: A
Meta-Analytical Comparison across Europe, Asia
and the U.S.
Table of contents
Overview tables ... III
1 Introduction ... 1
2 Theoretical background ... 1
2.1 Definitions... 1
2.2 How strategic orientations are working together ... 5
2.3 Mixed Findings and hypothesis development ... 16
3 Method ... 22
3.1 Literature research and selection criteria ... 22
3.2 Coding ... 23 3.3 Analysis ... 25 4 Results ... 27 4.1 Bivariate metaanalysis ... 27 4.2 Commonality analysis ... 28 4.3 Moderator continents ... 33 5 Discussion ... 34 5.1 Outcome ... 34
5.2 Implications for theory ... 38
5.3 Implications for practice ... 39
5.4 Limitations and future research ... 40
6 Conclusion ... 41
7 References ... 42
8 Appendix ... 52
8.1 Appendix A Measures of strategic orientations ... 52
8.2 Appendix B Results bivariate meta-analysis ... 55
Overview tables
Abstract
1 Introduction
The origin of continuous improvements and innovation possibly lays in the principles that direct and shape the firm activities. These principles are named the strategic orientations (SO) (Hakala, 2011). In general, there are existing several strategic orientations whereas market (MO), entrepreneurial (EO), learning (LO) and technology orientation (TO) are the four strategic orientations that have attracted significant interest and investigation recently (Hakala, 2011). Whereas the effect of a single strategic orientation has been investigated in quite a few studies (Han, Kim, & Srivastava, 1998; Seo, 2019), the research of a combination of strategic orientations is very limited. Nevertheless, there is evidence that a combination of strategic orientations is more effective than a firm’s focus on a single strategic orientation (Grinstein, 2008; Salavou, 2005). As far as we know several strategic orientations can be used and possibly should be applied together (Hakala, 2011) but there is only limited research on how they work together (Grinstein, 2008) and how firms can actually combine them. The interaction of market, entrepreneurial, learning and technology orientation with one another (Grinstein 2008) misses out on examination, although some studies report that using only a single orientation cannot be as adequate as a combination of several ones (Atuahene-Gima & Ko, 2001). Also, the contradicting findings regarding to the relationship between single strategic orientations and innovation leaves further space for closer investigations.
as they are working exclusively. However, this model may not be fully concluding as there might exist other ways of interrelation between the strategic orientations.
The result should support managers and responsibilities of organizations to deploy strategic orientations in a way that supports their innovativeness optimally and can therefore serve as a valuable resource of the firm and its competitive advantage.
Figure 1 Overview of relationships between strategic orientations and innovation
2 Theoretical background
2.1 Definitions
The strategic orientation of a firm refers to the principles and the general tendencies which are implemented by a firm to direct and influence its actions in such a way that the firm achieves above average performance (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997). A strategic orientation can include various forms where the most studied ones are market, entrepreneurial, learning and technology orientation (Hakala, 2011). These are the strategic orientations that also have been investigated frequently in recent literature and will be examined here. This supports the resource-based view, as the firm’s strategic orientation can be the source of competitive advantage (Kocak, Carsrud, 2017). As such, their unique and common effect on innovation is investigated as innovation is one of the most important drivers for firm success. This is why firms need to focus on innovation and should be aware of a strategy that helps them to support innovation capabilities.
Innovation
innovativeness is also a dimension of EO, innovativeness as a whole is rather related to product or process developments, processes, ideas, services and new inventions (Nasution, Mavondo, Matanda, & Ndubisi, 2011).
Market orientation
been one of the most popular topics within marketing literature. Most of the studies revealed the positive effect of MO on innovation and firm performance. (Green, Inman, Brown, & Willis, 2005; Greenley, 1995; Narver & Slater, 1990). Nevertheless, few investigations showed the limitations of MO. They point out that market orientation would rather lead to product imitations over real innovations (Bennett and Cooper, 1981) as firms are trying to respond to existing demands. However, innovations require to foresee demands that might occur in the future. Only if new products, ways, processes and services can be offered, a real innovation has been made. Following competitors and imitating existing business operations does not require innovation but does most likely not lead to a competitive advantage. As such, a competitive advantage and firm success can only be enabled by focusing on innovations.
Entrepreneurial orientation
on frequent and extensive product innovation”. This proactive and vigilant behavior supports firms to find innovative solutions to existing problems. This might include product and market developments by reallocating resources (Narver & Slater, 1990) and combining them in new and innovative ways. Focusing on entrepreneurship furthermore enhances technological progress and business opportunities as firms with entrepreneurial orientation dare to do something unknown. Entrepreneurial orientation and the resulting proactive behavior support firms to uncover future grievances (Hult, Hurley, & Knight, 2004) and respond to them before the customer knows that he actually has an occurring demand. As it is essential for a firm to succeed on the market and to perform well, EO can ensure this market success by being courageous, broad-minded and outgoing when it comes to innovative responses to market demands.
Learning orientation
constantly need to learn about external and internal developments. Due to successful learning processes, firms can enlarge their potential of innovation (Hult et al., 2004; Keskin, 2006).
Technology orientation
Technology orientation refers to the firm’s ability to develop new technologies or products (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997). Dimension of TO are product, production and innovation orientation or product, service and technology orientation (Kocak, Carsrud, 2017). This focus implies, that customer value and long-term firm success can be most effectively created by new innovations which include technology solutions, products, services and production processes (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997; Grinstein, 2008; Hamel, Gary; Prahalad, 1990). TO is important as an increasing amount of innovations is related to technology developments. Such new technologies may be 3D print or other new prototypes as well as other technical advancements. Technology orientation is also closely related to innovation (Grinstein, 2008) as it refers to the use of new technologies or products which lead to innovations (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997; Hult et al., 2004). This requires the deployment of resources to the R&D departments as this is the business areas where innovations start (Gao, Zhou, & Yim, 2007). Therefore, technology orientation is identified to have a positive impact on the firm innovativeness, albeit this effect if depending on the firm’s resources (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997).
2.2 How strategic orientations are working together
strategic orientations on firm innovativeness. While the unique effects have been studied more recently, the investigations for a combination of several strategic orientations are still lacking. Furthermore, existing results do not provide clarity but instead are contradicting. However, recent literature suggests that strategic orientations are somehow interlinked with one another (Hakala, 2011) as they cover important different but also overlapping business areas.
MO and EO
MO and LO
the primary factor. Market orientation without learning orientation and therefore the focus on customer needs without adapting any learning processes can lead to imitative developments which will less likely lead to competitive advantage (W. Baker & Sinkula, 1999). Although a number of studies agrees on the complementary relationship between MO and LO (Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Baker & Sinkula, 2002; Farrell & Oczkowski, 2002; Hult et al., 2004), (Day, 1999) argues that a market-oriented approach is only effective if firms are able to gain market knowledge. Both MO and LO have been discussed as the antecedents of innovation, but there are several differences between both of them. MO seems to support tactical changes in the short-term while LO supports long-term changes that are also fundamental (Garvin, 1993). A combination of both can ensure an outside-in strategy by MO, and the outside-inside-out market approach by LO (Baker & Soutside-inkula, 1999). These differences support the complementary impact of MO and LO on innovation. Learning-oriented organizations are more likely to challenge old assumptions and create new ideas to transform into action (Bouwen & Fry, 1991). Learning orientation is said to increase in combination with strong customer orientation which is part of market orientation (Salavou, 2005).
MO and TO
innovation-marketing fit, product advantage and interfunctional teamwork. Overall, the current state of knowledge appears to suggest that the effective level of the focus of a firm on markets or technologies appears to depend on the level of environmental turbulence (Gao et al., 2007). Studies support the fact that market orientation needs the support of technology orientation (Appiah-Adu & Singh, 1998; Berthon et al., 2004) to be as effective as possible. A combination of MO and TO is thus perceived more successful than choosing one of the strategic orientations separately. Empirical results indicate that technology orientation is more important than customer orientation because product newness seems to be most important to customers as it enables new product productions beyond previous experiences and consumption patterns (Salavou, 2005). Customer orientation as part of MO and technology orientation are positively associated with innovation, combined focus on customer and technology orientation outperforms organizations that follow either one or the other of these orientations alone. Both orientations seem to have a beneficial effect on innovation. (Leiponen, Helfat, 2009). This is also supported by other studies which suggest that the combination of Mo and TO enables the development of innovation (Dosi, 1988).
MO, EO and LO
These relationships require further research to investigate in which combination learning orientation tends to be more successful over another. While some findings indicate that market orientation fosters learning organization (W. Baker & Sinkula, 2002; Slater & Narver, 2019) others suggest that entrepreneurial orientation together with learning orientation (Wang, 2008) or market orientation also seems to be an efficient combination (Zahra, 2008) regarding the impact on innovation. Market orientation and entrepreneurial orientation are both learning constructs (Baker & Sinkula, 2002). Firms that learn more effectively than their competitors possess the basis for more rapid improvement, which can translate into superior new product success profitability, market share and in the long-term into a sustainable competitive advantage (Day, 1999). EO and MO are both placed on learning either about markets and customers. Therefore, some studies suggest that EO and MO facilitate learning (Argyris, Schön, 1980; Covin & Miles, 1999). While EO is characterized by an attitude based on the construct of behavior towards a certain action, market orientation refers to the behavioral organization culture (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993). Market orientation with its aspects market intelligence, dissemination of intelligence and responsiveness organization-wide create a certain culture that states values and attitudes. Learning orientation, however, refers to a learning process which can take place in several business areas. When a firm is growing, commitment to learning is essential as assets have to be distributed different (Wang, 2008).
orientation. Entrepreneurial orientation includes the firm’s strategy and the actions taken to pursue business opportunities (Lumpkin, Dess, 1996).
EO and LO
LO or EO solely might impact the level to which another strategic orientation may be implemented within a firm (Foley & Fahy, 2004; Schindehutte, Morris, & Kocak, 2008). However, it remains unclear how EO and LO are related to one another (Wang, 2008). Recent studies show that entrepreneurial oriented firms are more risk taking and innovative which leads these firms to overcome traditional structures and hierarchies (Kuratko et al., 2001). This supports new flexibility and flat firm structures that enable individual’s creativity (Zahra, Kuratko, & Jennings, 1999) which fosters learning. As individuals can act more independent and try their own ideas in entrepreneurial firms, learning is automatically possible. When open firm structures enable creativity and independence, learning by doing can be possible. Learning is in general an evolving process (Reuber & Fischer, 1999). For firms a better understanding of learning and engaging in entrepreneurial activities is deciding for the performance. Although risk-taking is not positively related to innovation, proactiveness and the combination of both does positively influence innovation (Ejdys, 2016). Studies found that the likeliness of rising learning orientation together with entrepreneurial orientation is high. As such, entrepreneurial orientation is suggested to positively influence innovation.
EO and TO
and resources of technology orientation (Aloulou, Fayolle, 2005). A combination of both orientations exclusively could seem to lack on evidence as no study could be found that explicitly investigates this relationship. However, it can be assumed that risk taking and proactive behavior together with technological progresses might have a positive impact on innovation. As this has not been investigated in previous literature, the relationship between EO and TO should be investigated here.
MO, EO and TO
Innovations are impacted by communication abilities, new technologies and proactiveness. These are components of MO, EO and TO and can together impact firm innovation and support innovativeness (Gatignon & Xuereb, 1997). Nevertheless, there is no support on how this combination affects innovation. However, high levels of MO, EO, and TO within an organization seem to lead to a higher level of firm innovativeness (Renko, Carsrud, & Brännback, 2009). The reason for this might be that TO refers to technological progress and patents and is therefore crucial for a firms R&D department (Lee & Tsai, 2005). MO and EO are referring to the strategy an organization is following and are therefore influencing the overall direction of a firm’s development. This is highly important as the strategy of a firm supports or innovations and superior performance. Nevertheless, these choices about strategic orientation are not independent of the resources of the firm (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997) as the resources of a firm are restricted.
MO, LO and TO
learning orientation might be important contributors to a firm’s innovation. Focus on technology however, seems to not be as important as MO and LO within this combination.
Country specific effects
2009). Also, different markets vary in term of their conditions and the relationship between strategic orientations may be impacted by the cultural context (Grinstein, 2008). This also includes the institutional environment and prevailing rules and regulations (Li, Zhao, Tan, & Liu, 2008). As there seems to be a research gap regarding the cultural and geographical context of a firm on the relationship between its strategic orientation to influence innovation, this will be further investigated. As the expected effect will differ from country to country, a comparison between three of the most important trading zones will be compared with one another which are the United States, Asia and Europe.
2.3 Mixed Findings and hypothesis development
Figure 2 Overview commonality analysis
Own figure
Total = Total variance explained by CQ dimensions U1, U2, U3, U4 = Unique effect (first-order commonalities) C5, C6, C7, C8, C9, C10 = Second-order commonalities C11, C12, C13, C14 = Third-order commonalities C15 = Fourth-order commonality
to learn about possibilities that might occur in the future. Therefore, a combination of market orientation and technology orientation might be the most effective one when it comes to the relationship with innovation (Spanjol et al., 2012). As the market perspective always keeps developments and demands in mind, technology orientation enables actual innovation by using technology. Nowadays many innovations are based on new technologies such as digitization, electronic cars or automation. While the combination of EO and LO promises learning abilities and proactive behavior, it is the combination of market orientation and technology orientation that enables real innovation (Spanjol et al., 2012). Nevertheless, there are also some relationships between strategic orientations that require further investigation. The relationship between entrepreneurial orientation and technology orientation has not been studied. For the reasons above and the positive influence of EO and TO in other combinations it can be assumed that EO and TO together have a positive impact on innovativeness. As such, the first hypothesis that will be examined is the following:
H1: EO and TO together have a positive impact on innovation.
possible. Technology orientation is also fostering innovation. As innovation is already part of technology orientation (Adams et al., 2019), TO seems to be the ideal complement for market orientation. Learning orientation sets the focus of the firm on several learning processes. These processes might refer to products, developments or processes within the firm. Recent studies seem to support the effectiveness of a combination of MO, EO and LO. Based on the fact that all of them take place on learning, they seem to facilitate each other. Entrepreneurial orientation on the other hand sets proactive and risky behavior in the focus of the firm’s strategy. As both learning orientation and entrepreneurial orientation seem to be supportive in combination with market and technology orientation, the combination of all strategic orientations is highly interesting. As all combinations of strategic orientations seem to have the potential to positively influence firm innovativeness, investigation on the most effective combination in needed. As such, the explorative question that needs to be investigated is:
H2: Which combination of strategic orientations is the most effective one when it comes to the influence on innovation.
The fact that the combination of strategic orientations might be more valuable than focusing on an individual one leads to the assumption that a common effect of SO’s on innovation might be positive while the unique effects may be weaker.
H3: The common effect of all four strategic orientations on firm innovativeness is positively stronger than the unique effect of MO, EO, LO and TO.
that have been investigated. Previous researchers argue that free economies like the U.S. might be more experienced in competition than firms from more regulated environments such as China. This implies that firm from developed environments and free economies had to focus on their strategic orientation since their free economies started to be able to compete on the market. This might be a reason for the better leveraging effect from strategic orientation on firm innovativeness in U.S. than in Asian located firms. Regarding innovation U.S. firms seem to be more focused on the actual customer demands while Asian firms might be more focused on their competitiveness which might hinder innovations (Ozkaya et al., 2015).
H4: Which geographical context can show the strongest impact of strategic orientations on firm innovativeness.
3 Method
Due to the contradicting existing research regarding several strategic orientations, a meta-analytical approach is the chosen method to allow conclusions regarding the effect of strategic orientations on innovation. A meta-analysis statistically aggregates results from various studies which are independent from each other.
3.1 Literature research and selection criteria
From the 67 studies that have been found 14 had to be excluded due to the missing correlation data which do not allow any comparison within the meta-analysis. Overall, 33 studies based on 7909 subjects have been analyzed for MO, 17 studies based on 5505 subjects for EO, 15 studies based on 3220 subjects for LO and finally 5 studies based on 3015 subjects for technology orientation. As some studies provided numbers for more than on strategic orientation, the final number of studies remains 53, although the results are based on the findings of 70 investigations on strategic orientations. The results are based on overall 19649 subjects, but one again, some studies are included twice as they serve as a base for investigation on more than one strategic orientation. Overall, 23 previous studies result from investigations in Europe, 26 from Asian country investigations and only 6 are based on the results of U.S. firms. Asian studies are mostly examined in China 12) while a lot of European studies have been carried out in Spain (9). For Asia the results that are provided are from Malaysia (1), Turkey (6), Taiwan (4), South Korea (3), Japan (1), Vietnam (1). All studies that have been conducted in Asian firms were conducted in a single country. For Europe the results are from studies in Spain (9), Germany (3), Greece (3), Italy (3), Switzerland (1), Sweden (1), Finland (1), Poland (1), Czech (1), Slovenia (1), Albania (1), France (1) and United Kingdom (1). Four studies provide results for more than on country whereas one study compares Nordic firms with U.S. located firms.
3.2 Coding
researched country which is especially important for the comparison of several regional areas. The countries have been summarized within continents as the comparison of Europe, Asia and the U.S. is within the focus of investigation. Table 1 gives an overview about the coding scheme.
Table 1 Summary of studies included in the meta-analysis
Reference Year N Country Strategic orientation
Alegre & Chiva 2004 182 Spain Italy EO
Erdil, Erdil, & Keskin 2004 55 MO
Mavondo, Chimhanzi, & Stewart 2005 220 Australia MO Tajudin, Musa, & Musa 2011 65 Malaysia MO
Appiah-Adu and Singh 101 UK MO
Adams, Freitas, Fontana 2017 1603 France TO
Kocak, Carsrud, Oflazoglu 2015 818 Turkey MO, EO, TO
Ozkaya et al 2014 674 US MO
Prifti, Alimehmeti 99 Albania MO
Han, Kim, Srivastava 1998 134 US MO
Lewrick, Omar, Williams 2011 171 Munich MO
Zhang, Zhu 2016 220 China MO
Cai, Liu, Zhu, Deng 248 China MO
Seo 2019 1837 Korea EO
Tang, Chen, Jin 2014 151 Chinese EO
Asemokha, Musona, Torkkeli,
Saarenketo 2014 95 Finland EO
Choi 2009 258 South Korea MO; LO
Baker, Sinkula 1999 411 US MO, LO
Mahto, McDowell, Kudlats 2018 53 US LO
Keskin 2006 157 Turkey MO, LO
Calisir, Gumussoy, Guzelsoy 2012 150 Turkey LO
Li, Guo, Yi, Liu 2005 351 China LO
Arzubiaga, Kotlar, De Massis, Maseda,
Iturralde 2018 230 Spain EO
Mesa, Alegre 2015 150 Spain, Italia EO
Song, Ma, Yu 2019 209 China EO
Bouncken, Plüschke, Pesch, Kraus 2014 171 Germany EO Renko, Carsrud, Brännback 2009 85 US / Nordic MO; EO
Helen Salavou 2005 150 Greece MO, LO, TO
Table 1 Summary of studies included in the meta-analysis
Reference Year N Country Strategic orientation
Joaquín, Chiva 182 Italy, Spain EO
Li, Zhao, Tan, Liu 2008 213 China MO
Frishammar, Hörte 2007 224 Sweden MO
Mavondo, Chimhanzi, Stewart 2004 220 Australia MO, LO Rhee, Park, Lee 2004 333 South Korea MO, EO, LO Avlonitis, Salavou 2003 143 Greece MO, EO, LO
Lin, Peng, Kao 2006 333 Taiwan
Spanjol, Mühlmeier, Tomczak 2012 222
Germany,
Switzerland MO, TO
Eris, Ozmen 2012 102 Turkey MO, LO
Lukas, Ferrell 2000 194 US MO
Jiménez-Jimenez, Sanz Valle 2008 744 Spain MO
Le Phi Ho et al 30 Vietnam MO
Rong, Huang 2017 231 China LO
Hernandez-Espallardo,
Delgado-Ballester 218 Spain MO
Acar, Özsahin 2017 161 Turkey MO, TO
Boso, Story, Cadogan 2013 203 Ghana MO, EO Sozuer, Altuntas, Semercioz 2017 326 Turkey MO, LO
Song, Wie, Wang 2015 242 China MO
Yang, Wie, Zhao 2018 204 China MO
Zhang, Zhu 2014 220 China MO
Vazquez, Santos, Alvarez 1999 264 Spain MO
Tang, Chen, Jin 2014 151 China EO
3.3 Analysis
Based on these 53 studies the bivariate meta-analysis could be applied.
For the studies that could be used the number of participants (N), the weighted average correlation (r) and the corrected and weighted average correlation (p) is reported. To interpret the heterogeneity the Q and I² statistic have been used for comparing the results. Furthermore, the standard error of average effect size was used to calculate the 95% confidence interval. Confidence intervals that are not including zero represent a significant correlation.
4 Results
4.1 Bivariate meta-analysis
The results of the bivariate meta-analysis show the effect of each strategic orientation on innovativeness based on the considered continent. The results are summarized in Table 2. Overall, the results show that the effect for market orientation, learning orientation and technology orientation on innovation is strongest in Asia. It is only entrepreneurial orientation that has the strongest correlation with innovation in Europe.
To interpret the results more in detail, MO (r = 0.38, p < 0.05) is significantly strong related to innovation in Asia (0.45). Also, heterogeneity is the highest in Asia (118,06) compared to both Europe (41,98) and US (61.49). MO and innovation are almost related as strong in the U.S (0.38). The weakest correlation is evident for Europe with (0.26). For the heterogeneity
Q = 307,98 and I² = 89,61. As this high numbers indicate that further investigation is needed
(I² is above 75%), the moderator analysis will show further results. By using the moderators, heterogeneity reduces to 15.22 by using the continents. As such, the continental locations seem to be a valid moderator as 15.22 of heterogeneity can be explained by continents. This value is also significant (0.004 < 0.05). The variance that is explained by the moderator is 30.62.
the U.S., for this reason there cannot be any statement made. Overall, 47.72 of the variance can be explained by the moderators.
LO (r = 0.51, p < 0.05) with heterogeneity measures of Q = 335.11, I² = 95.82 seems to be highly correlated with innovation in all regions. The strongest effect can be found in Asia (0.55), followed by the U.S. (0.5) and a still high effect in Europe with 0.43. There is a huge variance in heterogeneity from 273.51 in Asia to 0.72 I the U.S. All in all, 11.76 of heterogeneity can be explained by the moderators which is statistically significant. As such, the moderators again seem to be valid. 58.91 of variance between the groups can be explained by the moderators.
For technology orientation (r = 0.4, p < 0.05) the results show that the correlation between TO and innovation has the strongest effect in Asia (0.65). For Europe the correlation is lower (0.19). The heterogeneity is I² = 98.61 and Q = 287.38. Although heterogeneity also reduces for technology orientation by using the moderators, this is not statistically significant. Also, the results only rely on data from Asia and Europe while U.S. studies are completely missing. In comparison the effect of market orientation on innovation is the strongest in Asia, followed by the U.S and the weakest effect in Europe. For entrepreneurial orientation the strongest effect can be seen in Europe, followed by Asia. Learning orientation shows again the highest correlation of LO and innovation in Asia, followed by the U.S and Europe. Also, for technology orientation the effect is stronger in Asia as in Europe.
4.2 Commonality analysis
effect of the SO in combination with the other SO’s while in the column unique the single effect of the regarded SO is stated. Rs is the structure coefficient while r describes the correlation.
The results of the commonality analysis show that TO (16.8%) and EO (18.5%) are always the strongest predictor of innovation whereas MO (< 1%) and LO (1.3%) barely have a unique effect. This implies that most of the variance that MO and LO explain in innovation is shared with EO and TO. Therefore, EO and TO need to be present so that MO and LO can have a positive impact on the firm innovativeness.
According to the findings, MO has no unique effect towards innovation (0.000). The effect of learning orientation is also very small as the result of (0.003) shows. In contrast, the effect of both technology and entrepreneurial orientation on innovation is rather strong. Technology orientation has an effect of (0.04) while entrepreneurial orientations clearly has the strongest effect as can be seen on (0.044).
Table 2 Regression results and relative importance test
b Beta r rs rs2 Unique Common GenDom Pratt RLW MO 0.026 0.026 0.30 0.617 0.380 0.000 0.090 0.027 0.008 0.027 EO 0.260 0.260 0.42 0.863 0.746 0.044 0.133 0.091 0.109 0.090 LO 0.077 0.077 0.33 0.678 0.460 0.003 0.106 0.037 0.025 0.036 TO 0.235 0.235 0.40 0.822 0.676 0.040 0.120 0.082 0.094 0.084 Total NA NA NA NA 2.262 0.087 0.449 0.237 0.236 0.237
Table 3 provides detailed results of the commonality analysis. The numbers in column commonality are the same as the numbers that can be seen in the previous table in column unique. Additional to that, the column % indicated how much percent a strategic orientation or a certain combination contributes to firm innovativeness.
As also indicated in table 2, MO seems to have no effect on innovation when the focus is exclusively on MO. Less than 1% of variance in innovation can be explained by using the single market orientation. Combined with EO, MO contributes to the explained variance in Innovation (1.8%), in combination with EO and LO (6.8%) and through the effect of all four SOs (21.9%). Therefore, MO seems to be important although the first impression led to the conclusion that MO has no effect at all.
explain 13.4% of variance in innovation. This number is indeed lower than EO can explain alone but much higher than in different combinations.
LO’s unique effect can only explain 1.3% of variance in innovation. In combination with one other orientation this number is not changing drastically MO 1.1%, TO 2.8% and EO 2.8%. Also, in combination with two other orientations the effect of LO remains smaller than 6.8% (with MO&EO).
TO has a comparable high unique effect as EO which is 16.8%. IN combination with effect is dramatically decreasing to less than 1%, the combination together with LO remains at 2.8%. EO and TO together seem to be the most powerful combination when it comes to the effect on innovation which is 13.4%.
There is only one combination that can explain 21.9% of variance in innovation which is the combination of all four strategic orientations. While the results for MO, EO and LO are significant, TO studies do not provide significant results. However, it is necessary to take the overall number of studies into account, while there is sufficient research for MO, there is lesser for EO and LO. It is TO that is examined least thoroughly and can only present results from two locational areas. Therefore, the result may not be as meaningful as for MO, EO and LO. This should be seen as a sign as missing research is not a good sign for current research. For MO however, the dataset and available information is sufficient as it provides investigations from different contexts, in different region, firm sizes and industries.
orientation has also a strong unique effect on innovation. Surprisingly, LO and especially MO has no or a very weak unique effect on innovation. In contrast to previous studies which suggested MO as the most important driver for innovation, this cannot be supported by the results.
Table 3 Results of commonality analysis
Commonality % Total MO 0.000 0.001 0.090 EO 0.044 0.185 0.176 LO 0.003 0.013 0.109 TO 0.040 0.168 0.160 MO,EO 0.004 0.018 0.187 MO,LO 0.003 0.011 0.121 EO,LO 0.007 0.028 0.195 MO,TO 0.001 0.004 0.183 EO,TO 0.032 0.134 0.231 LO,TO 0.007 0.028 0.188 MO,EO,LO 0.016 0.068 0.197 MO,EO,TO 0.007 0.029 0.234 MO,LO,TO 0.007 0.030 0.193 EO,LO,TO 0.015 0.065 0.236 MO,EO,LO,TO 0.052 0.219 0.237 Total 0.237 1.000 NA
more important as they can explain around 63%. Based on these results, hypothesis 2 can be supported as the common effect of four strategic orientations on innovation is stronger than the unique effects.
4.3 Moderator continents
Regarding the moderators and the local differences there are again different effects. Market orientation is tested to have the strongest impact on innovation within an Asian context (0.45). In the United States the effect of MO on innovation is weaker with (0.38). In Europe MO seems to have the least strong effect on innovation which is said to be (0.26).
5 Discussion
5.1 Outcome
The main objective of this investigation was to find out how strategic orientations are related to one another. Furthermore, it was in the center of examination to find out which combination of strategic orientations is superior to others when it comes to the effect on innovation. A comparison between the continents of Europe, Asia and the United States provide some valuable insights for geographical disparities.
The results of this investigation are challenging the outcomes of previous studies in two ways. First, previous studies assumed that market orientation is the most important strategic orientation when it comes to the effect on innovation (Kocak, Alan Carsrud, 2017). Second, the few studies that actually compared different geographical areas with each other, provided evidence that firms located in the U.S. might mostly rely on technology orientations, whereas European firms tend to focus on market orientation (Renko et al., 2009). As it turns out, market orientation does not seem to be the strategy to enhance innovation and the correlation between market orientation and innovation is weaker in Europe than in Asian countries or in the U.S.
However, although the results from the meta-analysis could lead to the assumption that market orientation does not have any impact on innovation at all, the commonality analysis shows that this is not the case. In combination with EO, LO and TO, MO has a significant role within the relationship to innovation. For the unique effect of entrepreneurial orientation as well as technology orientation the results indicate that both play a more important role than previous findings suggest. Although existing literature indicates that entrepreneurial behavior enhances innovation ability (Schindehutte et al., 2008), there seems to be missing awareness on the strong unique effect of entrepreneurial orientation on innovation. The same can be applied to technology orientation (Kocak, Carsrud, 2017). While some studies already suggested the importance of technology orientation for innovation, the intensity of the unique effect seems to be surprising in comparison to the unique effect of market or learning orientation.
Following the results of this meta-analysis, firms that decide to follow a single orientation should rather focus on entrepreneurial or technology orientation than on market orientation. Setting one of them in the focus of the strategy will more likely lead to better firm innovativeness than focusing on MO or LO. A reason for the fact that market orientation has the weakest unique correlation with innovation might be that knowledge about the market and the competitors will not lead to innovations as the focus is too narrow (Renko et al., 2009). When firms have their eyes on what is happening on the market their creativity and self-esteemed behavior might be restricted. There is no space for own developments when one is always following market developments and trends.
These results support H3 and uncover the importance of every single orientation from a commonly used perspective. As the effect of a combination of all four SO is higher than any other correlation, this is suggested to be the most effective combination if firms want to enhance the firm innovativeness. Overall, it is very interesting to see that the effect of a combination of all four orientations is much higher than the sum of the unique effects. This supports previous findings that suggested that a broad focus would always lead to superior performance which can be achieved through innovation (Katila & Ahuja, 2020; Laursen & Salter, 2006; Leiponen, Aija; Helfat, 2009). A firm that has the capacities to combine all four strategic orientations is therefore assumed to be more successful in enhancing the firm innovativeness. The strong common effect shows that every strategic orientation is very important when they are used commonly.
progresses might positively relate to their innovation capability. These processes can be assumed to be supported by setting the focus on learning within the firm. This might be explained by the fact that nowadays innovations are closely related to technological developments or technical progresses. However, it is not only the geographical location that influences the deployment of amount of strategic orientations, it is also the firm’s resource capability. Depending on the firm size, experience and the turnover not every firm might be able to formulate a strategy that combines market, entrepreneurial, learning and technology orientation. If a firm would rather focus on one orientation, based on the results the focus on entrepreneurial or technology orientation would be advisable, depending on the environment that a firm is operating in, Asia or Europe. A combination of both EO and TO would be also the suggested recommendation for a strategy consisting of two orientations. If a firm has enough resources a combination of all four orientations would be advisable to have an optimal effect on innovation.
5.2 Implications for theory
This gap in literature shows that there is the need for investigating more regarding a combination of EO and TO but also more than two strategic orientations and especially all the four together.
5.3 Implications for practice
5.4 Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations. First, the reliability of results should, as always, be interpreted carefully. A reason for this is that continents might be only one of several possible moderators within the relationship of strategic orientations and firm innovativeness. Many studies describe industries or firm size as a possible moderator or influencing factor when it comes to the impact of strategic orientations on firm innovativeness. Therefore, upcoming research should investigate if there are and what other moderators might have an impact on the SO and innovation relationship.
Also, some data is heavily relying on certain continents. For the TO and innovation relationship there is no data from U.S. firms. Instead, data is based on investigations of Europe and Asia so that there is no objective comparison possible across all three continents. This small amount of data can also hinder reliable and universal conclusions as a bigger amount of data would be more reliable. This is the case for technology orientation and also for learning orientation where only a few studies are available. Contrary, for market orientation there is more research available so that this might lead to the most reliable results.
6 Conclusion
7 References
Adams, P., Bodas Freitas, I. M., & Fontana, R. (2019). Strategic orientation, innovation performance and the moderating influence of marketing management. Journal of
Business Research, 97(December 2018), 129–140.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.12.071
Akin Kocak, Alan Carsrud, S. O. (2017). Market, entrepreneurial, and technology orientations: impact on innovation and firm performance. Management Decision, 55(Unit 07), 1–5.
Aloulou, Wassim; Fayolle, A. (2005). a Conceptual Approach of Entrepreneurial Orientation Within Small Business Context. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 13(01), 21–45. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0218495805000045
Appiah-Adu, K., & Singh, S. (1998). Customer orientation and performance: A study of
SMEs. Management Decision, 36(6), 385–394.
https://doi.org/10.1108/00251749810223592
Argyris, C.; Schön, D. A. (1980). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Revista Latinoamericana de Filosofia, 19(3), 186–190.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996). Market orientation and innovation. Journal of Business Research, 35(2), 93–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/0148-2963(95)00051-8
Innovation : Integrating ... Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4(4), 295–308. Baker, W., & Sinkula, J. (1999). The Synergistic Effects of Market Orientation and Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance. Journal of the Academy of Management Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070399274002
Baker, W., & Sinkula, J. (2002). Market Orientation, Learning Orientation and Product Innovation: Delving into the Organization’s Black Box. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012543911149
Bell, S. J., Whitwell, G. J., & Lukas, B. A. (2002). Schools of thought in organizational learning. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/03079459994335
Berthon, P., Mac Hulbert, J., & Pitt, L. (2004). Innovation or customer orientation? An empirical investigation. European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 1065–1090. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410548870
Bouwen, R., & Fry, R. (1991). Organizational Innovation and Learning: Four Patterns of Dialog between the Dominant Logic and the New Logic. International Studies of
Management & Organization, 21(4), 37–51.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1991.11656566
Burgelman, & A., R. (1991). Intraorganizational Ecology of Strategy Making and Organizational Adaptation : Theory and Field Research Author ( s ): Robert A .
Burgelman Published by : INFORMS Stable URL :
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2634929 REFERENCES Linked references are available. Organization Science, 2(3), 239–262.
capability, and firm performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 31, 515 citation_lastpage=524.
Choi, S. (2014). Learning Orientation and Market Orientation as Catalysts for Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(2), 393– 413. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764012465491
Covin, J.G.; Slevin, D. P. (1989). Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign environments. Strategic Management Journal.
Covin, J. G., & Miles, M. P. (1999). Corporate Entrepreneurship and the Pursuit of Competitive Advantage. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300304
Damanpour, F. . (1987). The Adoption of Technological, Administrative, and Ancillary Innovations: Impact of Organizational Factors.
Day, G. (1999). Misconceptions about Market Orientation. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009882027377
Deshpandé, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E. (2012). Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Developing a Market Orientation, 57(1), 79–102. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231426.n4 Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal
of Economic Literature, 26(3), 1120–1171.
Ejdys, J. (2016). Entrepreneurial Orientation vs. Innovativeness of Small and Medium Size Enterprises. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management, 6(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.32738/jeppm.201601.0003
Necessary for Superior Organizational Performance? Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5(3), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022990622706
Foley, A., & Fahy, J. (2004). Towards a further understanding of the development of market orientation in the firm: A conceptual framework based on the market-sensing capability. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 12(4), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965254042000308048
Gao, G. Y., Zhou, K. Z., & Yim, C. K. (Bennett). (2007). On what should firms focus in transitional economies? A study of the contingent value of strategic orientations in China. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 24(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2006.09.004
Garvin, D. A. (1993). Building a Learning Organization. Harvard Business Review. Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J. (1997). Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product
Performance Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article : Strategic Orientation of the Firm and New Product Performance. Journal of Marketing Research (A+), 34(1), 77–90.
Green, K. W., Inman, R. A., Brown, G., & Willis, T. H. (2005). Market orientation: Relation to structure and performance. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 20(6), 276–284. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620510618110
Greenley, G. (1995). Invited Comment on the Market Segmentation Content of ‘A Critical Review of Research in Marketing.’ British Journal of Management, 6(December), S89–S91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.1995.tb00142.x Grinstein, A. (2008). The relationships between market orientation and alternative
115–134. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560810840934
Hakala, H. (2011). Strategic Orientations in Management Literature: Three Approaches to Understanding the Interaction between Market, Technology, Entrepreneurial and Learning Orientations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 199– 217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2010.00292.x
Hamel, Gary; Prahalad, C. K. (1990). Copyright ©2000. All Rights Reserved. Harvard Business Review.
Han, J. K., Kim, N., & Srivastava, R. K. (1998). Market orientation and organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, 62(4), 30–45. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252285
Huber, G. P. (1991). Organizational Learning : The Contributing Processes and the Literatures Author ( s ): George P . Huber Source : Organization Science , Vol . 2 , No . 1 , Special Issue : Organizational Learning : Papers in Honor of ( and by ) James G . March ( 1991 ), pp. Organization Science, 2(1), 88–115.
Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2003.08.015
Hunt, S. D., & Morgan, R. M. (1995). The Comparative Advantage Theory of Competition. Journal of Marketing, 59(2), 1. https://doi.org/10.2307/1252069 Jansen, J. J. P., Van Den Bosch, F. A. J., & Volberda, H. W. (2006). Exploratory
Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Developing a Market Orientation, 57(3), 103–134. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231426.n5
Katila, R., & Ahuja, G. (2020). Something Old , Something New : A Longitudinal Study of Search Behavior and New Product Introduction. Academy of Management, 45(6), 1183–1194.
Keskin, H. (2006). Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs: An extended model. European Journal of Innovation Management, 9(4), 396–417. https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060610707849
Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (2012). Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications. Developing a Market Orientation, 54(2), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231426.n2
Kuada, J., & Buatsi, S. N. (2005). Market Orientation and Management Practices in Ghanaian Firms: Revisiting the Jaworski and Kohli Framework. Journal of International Marketing, 13(1), 58–88. https://doi.org/10.1509/jimk.13.1.58.58539 Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., Hornsby, J. S., Kuratko, D. F., Ireland, R. D., & Hornsby,
J. S. (2001). Entrepreneurship Strategy Improving firm performance through entrepreneurial actions : Acordia ’ s corporate entrepreneurship strategy. 15(4), 60–71.
Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
orientation, learning orientation and innovativeness. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 105(3), 325–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570510590147 Leiponen, Aija; Helfat, C. E. (2009). Innovation Objectives, Knowledge Sources, and the
Benefits of Breadth. Strategic Management Journal, 236(January 2007), 1–43. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj
Li, Y., Zhao, Y., Tan, J., & Liu, Y. (2008). Orientation on Market Evidence from Chinese Small Firms *. Journal of Small Business Management, 46(1), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2007.00235.x
Lumpkin, G . T ., Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172.
Lumpkin, G. T., & Dess, G. G. (1996). Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and linking it to performance. Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 135–172. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1996.9602161568
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J. T., & Özsomer, A. (2002). The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and market orientation on business performance. Journal of Marketing, 66(3), 18–32. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.66.3.18.18507
Miller, D. (1983). The Correlates of Entrepreneurship in Three Types of Firms Danny Miller THE CORRELATES OF ENTREPRENEURSHIP IN THREE TYPES OF FIRMS *. Management Science, 29(7), 770–791.
Jan ., 1998 ), pp . 115-132 Published by : Academy. 23(1), 115–132.
Morris, M. H., & Paul, G. W. (1987). The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing in established firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 2(3), 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-9026(87)90012-7
Murray, J. A. (1981). Marketing is home for the entrepreneurial process. Industrial
Marketing Management, 10(2), 93–99.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0019-8501(81)90002-X
Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The Effect of Market Orientation on Business Profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452231426.n3
Nasution, H. N., Mavondo, F. T., Matanda, M. J., & Ndubisi, N. O. (2011). Entrepreneurship: Its relationship with market orientation and learning orientation and as antecedents to innovation and customer value. Industrial Marketing Management, 40(3), 336–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2010.08.002 Ozkaya, H. E., Droge, C., Hult, G. T. M., Calantone, R., & Ozkaya, E. (2015). Market
orientation, knowledge competence, and innovation. International Journal of
Research in Marketing, 32(3), 309–318.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2014.10.004
Prahalad, C. K., & Hamel, G. (1994). Strategy as a field of study: Why search for a new paradigm? Strategic Management Journal, 15(2 S), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250151002
of young biotechnology ventures in the United States and in Scandinavia. Journal of Small Business Management, 47(3), 331–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-627X.2009.00274.x
Reuber, A. R., & Fischer, E. (1999). Understanding the consequences of founders’ experience. Journal of Small Business Management, 37(2), 30–45.
Rhee, J., Park, T., & Lee, D. H. (2010). Drivers of innovativeness and performance for innovative SMEs in South Korea: Mediation of learning orientation. Technovation, 30(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2009.04.008
Rodriguez Cano, C., Carrillat, F. A., & Jaramillo, F. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2003.07.001
Ruokonen, M., & Saarenketo, S. (2009). The strategic orientations of rapidly internationalizing software companies. European Business Review, 21(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1108/09555340910925166
Salavou, H., Baltas, G., & Lioukas, S. (2004). Organisational innovation in SMEs.
European Journal of Marketing, 38(9/10), 1091–1112.
https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560410548889
Salavou, Helen. (2005). Do Customer and Technology Orientations Influence Product Innovativeness in SMEs? Some New Evidence from Greece. Journal of Marketing Management, 21(3–4), 307–338. https://doi.org/10.1362/0267257053779082 Schindehutte, M., Morris, M. H., & Kocak, A. (2008). Understanding Market-Driving
Seo, R. (2019). Entrepreneurial orientation and innovation performance: insights from Korean ventures. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-01-2019-0023
Sinkula, J. M., Baker, W. E., & Noordewier, T. (1997). A framework for market-based organizational learning: Linking values, knowledge, and behavior. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science, 25(4), 305–318.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070397254003
Slater, Stanley F.; Narver, J. C. (1995). Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. Market Orientation and the Learning Organization, 59(3), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/cks-2016-0005
Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (2019). the Learning Organization. 59(3), 63–74.
Spanjol, J., Mühlmeier, S., & Tomczak, T. (2012). Strategic orientation and product innovation: Exploring a decompositional approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(6), 967–985. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00975.x Wang, C. L. (2008). Entrepreneurial Orientation, Learning Orientation, and Firm
Performance. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 44(0), 3–6.
Zahra, S. A., Kuratko, D. F., & Jennings, D. F. (1999). Guest Editorial: Entrepreneurship and the Acquisition of Dynamic Organizational Capabilities. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 23(3), 5–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/104225879902300301 Zhou, K. Z., Yim, C. K., & Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on
8 Appendix
8.1 Appendix A Measures of strategic orientations Market orientation
Market orientation includes market intelligence and the dissemination of intelligence within an organization. The three components of market orientation are customer and competitor orientation as well as interfunctional orientation. Mostly use scales to measure market orientation are MARKOR and MKTOR.
MARKOR is a 20-item scale with a 5-point Likert scale. MKTOR is a 15-item scale with a 7-point Likert scale.
Customer Orientation • The organization
• Values customer satisfaction • Exists to serve customers • Measures customer needs • Understands customer needs • Grasps customer complaints
• responds rapidly to customer complaints 7recognizes customer evaluation on organization
• checks if program and customer needs coincide
• changes programs according to the changes of customer needs • decides programs depending on fund, not on customer needs.
The organization
• grasps rapidly the changes of government policies • responds rapidly to the changes of government policies
• makes various efforts to recognize the demands of private foundations/trusts we receive grants
• discusses fund-raising and volunteering as main themes at meetings
• generates rapidly information about the grant of private foundations/ trusts • responds rapidly to the information about the grant of private foundations/ trusts.
Competitor orientation
• responds rapidly to competitors’ actions • monitors regularly competitor’s strategies
• discusses competitors’ changes as main themes at meetings
• is aware of the weakness and strength of our organization comparing to competitors
• keeps eyes on the new strategies of competitors • tries competitors’ strategies
Entrepreneurial orientation is mostly measured by a nine-item forced-choice developed by (Covin, J.G.; Slevin, 1989). This is based on the dimensions innovativeness, proactiveness and risk -taking conceptualized by (Miller, 1983).
• Proactiveness • Risk taking • Innovativeness
• autonomy
Learning orientation Commitment to learning:
• Managers agree that a firm’s ability to learn is key to competitive advantage • The basic values of an organization include learning as key to improvement • Employee learning is an investment, not an expense
• Learning is seen as a key commodity necessary to guarantee organizational survival
Shared vision
• There is a commonality of purpose existing within a firm.
• There is a total agreement on the organizational vision across several levels, functions and divisions.
• Employees are committed to the goals of the firm.
• Employees see themselves as partners in following the direction of the organization.
Open-mindedness
• Employees are not afraid to reflect critically.
• Personnel realizes that the way they perceive the marketplace must be continually measured.
Technology orientation • Product orientation
• Product or production orientation • service and technology orientation
8.2 Appendix B Results bivariate meta-analysis
