The effect of culture and institutional quality on the
market orientation-performance relationship across
regions: a meta-analysis
Author: Vincent Buikema Student number: S3854809 Supervisor: Dr. M.C. Sestu Co-assessor: Dr. C. Schlägel
Date of submission: 10 June 2020
Word count (excl. abstract & incl. tables): 14,924 University of Groningen
Abstract
Market orientation is believed to be one of the antecedents of superior firm performance. Companies therefore increasingly examine customers’ needs and competitors’ actions. Previous literature has demonstrated a positive relationship between market orientation and performance. However, regional differences as well as various country-specific factors that could affect the strength of the relationship have been quite under-researched. Based on the resource-based and institutional view, the purpose of this study is to connect culture and institutional quality with the market orientation-performance relationship. Culture is measured by Hofstede’s values long-term orientation and power distance, while institutional quality is measured by Krause’s index for 2017. By performing a meta-analysis which consisted of 82 studies conducted in all geographical areas, it was found that long-term orientation and institutional quality positively affect the relationship between market orientation and performance, whereas power distance has a negative effect. Several additional moderators were examined as well. Although correlation coefficients differed among firm size, industries, performance measurement and market orientation scale, these results were not significant. On the basis of the findings, theoretical contributions and several insights for practitioners are discussed.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ... 4
LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT ... 8
The Concept of Market Orientation ... 8
The Performance Implications of Market Orientation ... 9
Market Orientation and Performance across Geographical Regions ... 10
Market Orientation and Long-Term Orientation ... 12
Market Orientation and Power Distance ... 13
Market Orientation and Institutional Quality ... 15
Methodological and Additional Contextual Variables ... 16
METHODOLOGY ... 20
Literature Search ... 20
Sample and Coding ... 22
Analytic Procedure ... 27 RESULTS ... 29 Bivariate Results ... 29 Moderator Analysis ... 30 Robustness ... 33 DISCUSSION ... 37 Theoretical Implications ... 37 Managerial Implications ... 40
Limitations and Avenues for Future Research ... 43
CONCLUSION ... 46
INTRODUCTION
Nowadays, one of businesses’ fundamental challenges is to cope with extremely competitive markets at a global level. Firms’ ability to convert these challenges into opportunities heavily depends on their capability to understand and respond to customer needs. This organizational metric, market orientation, is believed to have enabled companies such as Amazon and Coca-Cola to achieve enduring superior performance (Anand, Aggrawal & Agarwal, 2020). These companies aim at the implementation of the marketing concept, which implies that the long-term goal of a firm is to satisfy customer needs for profit maximization (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). Firms that effectively respond to customer needs and identify other firms’ actions can create higher customer value than firm that are not able to do this (Day, 1994; Narver & Slater, 1990). Drawing on the resource-based view (Barney, 1991), market-oriented firms’ resources and capabilities are considered to give rise to superior organizational performance (Day, 1994). Market orientation has often been directly researched with firm performance (e.g., Baker & Sinkula, 1999; Greenley, 1995; Morgan, Vorhies, & Mason, 2009; Pelham, 1999). Although results are relatively divergent, prior research generally tends to confirm the argument from a resource-based perspective that market orientation has a positive effect on performance (e.g., Avlonitis & Gounaris, 1997; Cadogan, Diamantopoulos, & De Mortanges, 1999; Kohli, Jaworski, & Kumar, 1993; Slater & Narver, 1994; Wilson, Perepelkin, Zhang, & Vachon, 2014). However, one can still question whether the relationship is statistically robust enough, and whether regional differences are sufficiently considered.
Thus, the relationship between market orientation and performance continues showing conflicting results. One of the possible causes of this remaining ambiguity is the examination of different industries and countries (Shoham, Rose, & Kropp, 2005). Therefore, focusing on the latter of these potential causes, the overall aim of this study is to draw more thorough conclusions for the effects of market orientation across different regions based on Hofstede’s (1991) long-term orientation and power distance and the Institutional Quality Index (IQI) by Krause (2017). Moreover, several additional moderators that could have an impact on the relationship will be studied.
The central research question of this study is: “What is the effect of market orientation
on firm performance across different regions, cultures and institutions?”
The examination of these moderators as well as the direct relationship between market orientation and performance will be done through a meta-analysis that quantitatively aggregates the empirical findings of market orientation on performance. A meta-analysis in this field is of high importance as it increases the comprehensiveness of the effects of market orientation in different surroundings (i.e., cultures and institutional environments), as well as the generalizability of relationships (Deshpandé & Farley, 1999). As indicated, results remain relatively conflicting among the many studies that have been conducted worldwide. Moreover, a lot of studies have been conducted in this field already, so reflecting on the current knowledge by means of a meta-analysis instead of running additional studies is more useful at this stage. It is also high time to aggregate the findings of more recent studies, which had not been included in a meta-analysis yet.
2005). First, Rodriguez Cano et al. (2004), who solely studied the dimension individualism-collectivism, did not find any significant relationship between market orientation, performance and individualism-collectivism. Second, Kirca et al. (2005), who included multiple Hofstede dimensions, suggested to restudy the dimensions of culture in light of the market orientation-performance relationship. Due to multicollinearity, Kirca et al. (2005) did not assess the impact of long-term orientation on the market orientation-performance relationship at all. Hence, they argue this is the very first cultural variable that should be reassessed in the future. After all, the empirical evidence of culture on the relationship between market orientation and performance is too limited. Regarding institutional quality, no cross-national study has yet considered the influence of differences in institutional quality on the market orientation-performance relationship.
Thus, this study answers to the call of Kirca et al. (2005) by measuring the effect of long-term orientation. The central argument for the expectation that long-term orientation positively moderates the relationship between market orientation is built around the resource-based view and the marketing concept purpose. Argued is that high long-term orientation stimulates innovative resources and capabilities and aims for the most optimal resources deployment in order to achieve the goal of the marketing concept: long-term success and profitability. (Deshpandé & Farley, 1999; Hofstede, 1991; Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Selnes, Jaworski, & Kohli, 1996). For the expected negative moderating role of high power distance on the relationship between market orientation and performance, the main argument is that high power distance is associated with less innovation and fewer innovative resources (Kaasa, 2017; Strychalska-Rudzewicz, 2016). Moreover, power distance could lead to limited and less optimal resource usage due to lower trust and higher hierarchy (Oliver, 1997). Thus, the antecedents of market orientation may be hindered by a high degree of power distance and promoted by high degree of long-term orientation (Kaasa, 2017; Selnes et al., 1996).
This meta-analysis contributes to the existing body of literature in various ways. First, this meta-analysis provides a systematic overview of the empirical evidence on the market orientation-performance relationship and its potential moderators. This study manages to do this by deploying an even larger sample than previous meta-analysis on market orientation and performance (e.g., Shoham et al., 2005; Ellis, 2006; Rodriguez Cano et al., 2004), which leads to a more powerful systematic review and higher generalizability. Moreover, this study includes more recent studies that had not been included by the aforementioned meta-analysis. The inclusion of more recent studies contributes to the literature by shedding a different light on the relationship, while it also allows for an assessment of the market orientation-performance relationship over time. Furthermore, this study answers Ellis’ (2006) call to investigate additional moderators in the relationship between market orientation. In that light, one of the major contributions of this paper lies in the pioneering assessment of the role of institutional quality in the relationship between market orientation and performance, which had not been related to the market orientation-performance relationship by previous meta-analyses. Furthermore, regarding culture, this meta-analysis also answers the call by Kirca et al. (2005) to reassess the role of cultural values, especially long-term orientation, in the relationship. The role of this cultural dimension has never been examined yet in other meta-analyses. In addition, since the effect of power distance on the market orientation-performance relationship has been studied just sporadically, this study also contributes to literature by enhancing this small pool of evidence. Finally, this meta-analysis compares the market orientation-performance relationship across all continents, which has never been done that explicitly.
LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES DEVELOPMENT
The Concept of Market Orientation
(dissemination of information) and (3) responsiveness (implementation of strategic initiatives to satisfy market needs) (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). MKTOR and MARKOR are the most widely used measurement tools of market orientation. Figure 1 reports the main elements both MKTOR and MARKOR.
FIGURE 1a: MKTOR by Narver and Slater (1990) FIGURE 1b: MARKOR by Kohli et al. (1993)
In sum, market orientation enables firms to anticipate market changes and exploit customer needs due to the great knowledge about the external environment, which can lead to superior performance (Slater & Narver, 1995).
The Performance Implications of Market Orientation
provide them with a positional or competitive advantage leading to superior and enduring performance (Day, 1994; Hult & Ketchen, 2001). A market-oriented mindset can increase firms’ capability to compete in the market, while it can also lead to transformational activities within the other parts of the firm (e.g., human resource management) that can strengthen performance (Wei & Lau, 2008). Market orientation from a resource-based perspective has also been explained as an intangible capability that comes along with firms’ practices and cultures (Schweiger, Stettler, Baldauf, & Zamudio, 2019). These practices and cultures, Schweiger et al. (2019) state, improve organizational performance through developing intangible and inimitable specific resources. Moreover, market orientation has been considered a firm-level resource that enables firms to detect and satisfy both the expressed and latent needs of their customers (Voola, Casimir, Carlson, & Anushree Agnihotri, 2012). Day (1994) elaborated on the nature of the firm-level resources and capabilities market-oriented companies tend to have, and explained that they enable market-oriented firms to provide customers with better and more innovative products than competitors. Moreover, these firm-specific resources and capabilities allow firms to sense marketplace requirements and develop additional capabilities that enhances a firm’s connectedness to its external environment (Day, 1994; Song, Di Benedetto, & Nason, 2007). Thus, from a resource-based point of view, market-oriented firms’ resources enable them to obtain more accurate information quicker than competitors, which in turn allows these firms to better identify and satisfy customer needs, generally with more innovative solutions than non-market-oriented firms (Day, 1994; Slater & Narver, 1995; Song et al., 2007; Voola et al., 2012). Based on the arguments from a resource-based perspective, as well as the significant positive correlations previously found in meta-analysis (e.g., Kirca et al., 2005; Shoham et al., 2005), I expect a positive relationship between market orientation and performance.
Hypothesis 1. There is a positive and significant relationship between market orientation and performance.
Market Orientation and Performance across Geographical Regions
performance were more strongly correlated in the United States than in other countries. Next to these findings, literature shows various arguments for the divergent strength among regions. First, Jaworski and Kohli (1993) argued that market orientation has most benefits in countries with a dynamic and competitive marketplace. For instance, since the United States is perceived one of the most dynamic and competitive countries, the association between market orientation and performance may be greater there than elsewhere (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Shoham et al., 2005). On the other hand, countries that were economically distant from the United States (i.e., countries in Eastern Europe and Asia) reported weaker associations between market orientation and performance (Ellis, 2006, 2010). Similarly, countries with a mature market (e.g., United States and European countries) are more likely to score better on the market orientation-performance relationship than countries with developing markets (Ellis, 2006). Still, a handful studies (e.g., Baker & Sinkula, 2009; Sandvik & Sandvik, 2003) did not establish a positive relationship between market orientation and performance in the United States. For instance, Sandvik and Sandvik (2003) explained that the absence of a direct relationship between market orientation and performance can be attributed to the fact that market orientation is an expensive way to obtain superior customer value, which is only generates profits when a firm focuses on innovation as well. Second, countries’ cultural practices could impact firms’ strategies and business outcomes (Kirca et al., 2005; Rodriguez Cano et al., 2004). In that light, Rodriguez Cano et al. (2004), for instance, argued that collectivism increases the strength of the relationship between market orientation and performance. Third, technological intensity and turbulence in countries and firms’ resources in terms of innovation and technology can lead to regional differences in the relationship (Rose & Shoham, 2002; Slater & Narver, 1994a). Thus, from a resource-based point of view (Barney, 1991), the resources and capabilities firms can develop and possess depend on their location.
that certain regions generally outperform other regions. Thus, I hypothesize that market orientation and performance are not equally associated in each of the geographical regions.
Hypothesis 2. The strength of the relationship between market orientation and performance differs among geographical regions.
Market Orientation and Long-Term Orientation
A further factor that could have an impact on the strength of the relationship between market orientation and performance is culture. Nakata and Sivakumar (2001) raised awareness for the role of cultural values in the field of marketing by arguing that they shape, enable or hinder adoption and implementation of the marketing concept, which is the central starting point of market orientation. Similar to Rodriguez Cano, Carrillat, and Jaramillo (2004), who hypothesized that the relationship between market orientation and business performance is positively moderated by collectivism, long-term orientation is expected to have an influence on the relationship. Long-term orientation, as characterized by Hofstede (1991), is the desire to focus on potential future rewards and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances to achieve long-term growth. Short-term orientation, on the other hand, refers to a society’s focus on past and present (Hofstede, 1991). The ultimate of goal of market orientation, broadly defined as anticipating and satisfying customers’ needs, is to achieve long-term profitability (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990). Long-term profitability, in turn, is a characteristic of long-term oriented societies (Hofstede, 1991). Based on the definition and goal of market orientation and, it is hence not illogical to draw a line between market orientation and long-term orientation.
enhanced long-term performance (Naor, Linderman, & Schroeder, 2010; Prim, Filho, Zamur, & Di Serio, 2017; Selnes et al., 1996). Thus, from a resource-based perspective, market-oriented firms in long-term countries tend to possess more innovative capabilities, which enable them to design more innovative solutions for customers (Selnes et al., 1996), which is an important aspect of market orientation. These innovative capabilities can in turn lead to durable competitive advantages and superior performance (Day, 1994; Morgan et al., 2009).
In addition, compared to firms in short-term oriented countries, firms located in long-term oriented societies are more likely to build customer relationships and monitor competitors, which both are key aspects of market orientation (Selnes et al., 1996). From a resource-based perspective, this suggest that firms in long-term oriented countries aim for the most optimal long-term deployment of resources in order to achieve most optimal performance in the long run. Short-term oriented societies are more likely to sacrifice long-term efforts such as monitoring competition in order to achieve short-term profitability (Selnes et al., 1996). Hence, the capabilities and resources firms can generate may be greater in long-term oriented societies since these societies are more patient for superior long-term value (Hofstede, 1991). The statement by Selnes et al. (1996) regarding customer relationships is in line with the argument by Slater and Narver (1994b), who explained that market orientation enhances durable relationships, which may be more effective and long-term oriented cultures. Based on the literature that showed the link between long-term orientation and antecedents of market orientation, I expect that the association between market orientation and performance is stronger in long-term oriented countries.
Hypothesis 3. The relationship between market orientation and performance is positively moderated by long-term orientation.
Market Orientation and Power Distance
innovation and innovative resources, power distance may be an obstacle (Hurley & Hult, 1998). Kaasa (2017) presented similar findings by arguing low power distance cultures emphasize subordinates’ autonomy (and therewith motivation) in decision making, and promote innovation and inventions, which increases the effectiveness of market orientation. Second, lower power distance is associated with increased trust and decentralization, which have a positive impact on information sharing and the use of it, which are important elements of market orientation (Nakata & Sivakumar, 2001). In this vein, Oliver (1997) argued that firms are more likely to most optimally use their resources when the relationships between managers and employees are characterized by a high level of trust. So, in societies with higher power distance, the extent to which employees can make use of their skills, knowledge and resources may be limited, which can hinder the implementation of market-oriented practices.
development of market-oriented practices. The arguments presented in this paragraph could imply that high power distance imposes challenges on the effectiveness of market orientation and customer-oriented practices. Therefore, I expect that the benefits firms can reap from their market-oriented behaviour is hindered by power distance, and thus that studies conducted in countries with high power distance report a weaker market orientation-performance relationship.
Hypothesis 4. The relationship between market orientation and performance is negatively moderated by power distance.
Market Orientation and Institutional Quality
institutional quality generally have the necessary resources to develop strong media and communication infrastructures that enable firms to efficiently exchange information with customers (Webb, Ireland, Hitt, Kistruck, & Tihanyi, 2011). Based on these arguments, I expect that studies conducted in countries with high institutional quality report a stronger market orientation-performance relationship.
Hypothesis 5. The relationship between market orientation and performance is positively moderated by institutional quality.
Figure 2 represents the conceptual model combing all hypotheses.
FIGURE 2: Conceptual Model
Methodological and Additional Contextual Variables
In order to investigate whether the relationship between market orientation and performance is affected by other potential moderators beyond the ones previously hypothesized several contextual and methodological moderators were coded. These potential moderators can play an important role for managers.
Performance Measure
performance). Since studies typically measure performance either at the organizational level (e.g., Ngansathil, 2001; Pelham, 1999; Selnes et al., 1996) or financial level (e.g., Avlonitis & Gounaris, 1997; Morgan et al., 2009; Slater & Narver, 2000), detecting differences in the strength of the relationship due to the used performance measures can be useful.
Market Orientation Measurement
The second methodological moderator is the measurement moderator. Here, the difference in the market orientation-performance relationship if market orientation is measured by (1) MARKOR or (2) MKTOR will be examined. With respect to these two measurement scales, Narver and Slater (1990) and Oczkowski and Farrell (1998) argued that MKTOR will be more closely related to performance than MARKOR. Their argument was that MKTOR focuses more on the customer than MARKOR, which mainly focuses on the generation and dissemination of customer and market data. However, both Oczkowski and Farrell (1998) and Ellis (2006) found that MARKOR was stronger correlated with the market orientation-performance relationship than MKTOR. This analysis investigates whether this really is the case, or whether the measurement scales are more or less equally related to performance.
Study Recentness
performance. In terms of cultural change, the global tendency toward less power distance (Beugelsdijk, Maseland, & van Hoorn, 2015) is expected to contribute to an increasing strength of the market orientation-performance relationship over time. To test whether these assumptions hold for the market orientation-performance relationship and whether the importance of the marketing concept has changed over time, a moderator analysis will be conducted.
Industry
The first additional contextual moderator is the industry in which firms operate. Literature has generally argued that manufacturing firms are to a lesser extent associated with the market orientation-performance relationship than service firms (Gray & Hooley, 2002; Narver & Slater, 1990). Manufacturing firms focus more on sales than on customer practices and service firms are more closely connected to the customer than manufacturing firms (Avlonitis & Gounaris, 1997; Rodriguez Cano et al., 2004). Nevertheless, Kirca et al. (2005) found that the market orientation-performance correlation was higher for firms in the manufacturing industry. Given these contradictory results, a moderator analysis for industry is useful.
Firm Size
orientation-performance relationship. To test the aforementioned reasonings, firm size will be included as potential contextual moderator.
In order to provide a clear and complete picture of all variables and moderators in this meta-analysis, Table 1 presents an overview of these.
TABLE 1: Overview of all Variables
Variables Explanation Market orientation Performance Hypothesized moderators Region Long-term orientation Power distance Institutional quality Additional moderators Performance Measurement Year of study Industry Firm size
The degree to which firms are oriented towards their customers and competitors.
The organizational/business implications (e.g., market share and customer retention) or the financial implications (e.g., return on assets and profit) of market-oriented behaviour.
The geographical area in which the study was conducted: Africa, America, Asia, Australia, Europe & Latin-America.
Score on Hofstede's value long-term orientation. Score on Hofstede’s value power distance.
Score on Krause’s (2017) ratings for the quality of market and political institutions.
The performance measures included in the primary studies can be organizational/business or financial.
The measurement tool used in the primary studies in the included sample can be MARKOR, MKTOR or others.
The year in which the study was conducted was before or after the mean of all studies 2007.
The industry in which firms in the sample operate can be manufacturing and/or service and mixed industries.
METHODOLOGY
Literature Search
In order to conduct the meta-analysis, empirical studies which investigated the association between market orientation and organizational performance were consulted through a computerized literature search. In order to reach out to as many relevant studies as possible, the following online databases were used Google Scholar, SmartCat, and JSTOR. These databases give access to articles published in a wide array of journals. The keywords searched for were market orientation and its components from both the MKTOR model (customer
orientation, competitor orientation and inter-functional coordination) and MARKOR model
(intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination and responsiveness). These were searched in combination with other search terms including effects and (business and organizational)
performance. In addition to searching by means of keywords, the snowballing technique was
used. This implied that the search was complimented through exploring reference lists and citations in the articles initially found. The included studies were published in numerous journals (see Table 2 for an overview per journal and year), for instance Journal of Business
Research, Journal of Marketing, Industrial Marketing Management, European Journal of Marketing and Strategic Management Journal. The studies in this meta-analysis are
correlation coefficients reported in eligible studies were required to be reliable in that they should not diverge too much from the average correlation established in this meta-analysis and the averages established in other studies. For instance, meta-analyses conducted by Chang, Franke, Butler, Musgrove, and Ellinger (2014), Shoham et al. (2005) and Rodriguez Cano et al. (2004) all reported average correlation coefficients close to 0.3. Thus, correlation coefficients above 0.7 were not included since such correlation coefficient entails that market orientation and performance almost measure the same thing. Obviously, this is not the case and market orientation is just one of the factors that increases firm performance.
TABLE 2: Frequency of Journal and Year of Publication
Journal Frequency Year
Journal of Business Research Industrial Marketing Management European Journal of Marketing Journal of Small Business Management Journal of Marketing
European Journal of Innovation Management Industrial Management & Data Systems International Marketing Review
Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing Journal of Global Marketing
Journal of Market-Focused Management Strategic Management Journal
Academy of Marketing Conference Academy of Marketing Science Asian Social Science
Australasian Marketing Journal Australian Journal of Management British Journal of Management Family Business Review International Business Review
International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences
International Journal of Business & Social Science International Journal of Business & Society
Note: the total included is 78, since four studies were conducted in two countries and thus published in the same
journal and same year.
Sample and Coding
The initial pool of potentially usable studies for this meta-analysis was 125. After eliminating studies that did not meet the requirements explained in the previous section, 87 studies remained eligible. The main reason for excluding those 38 studies was the absence of correlation coefficients or other necessary information to calculate the correlation coefficients. A small proportion of studies was excluded due to the examination of different countries and
TABLE 2 (continued)
International Journal of Entrepreneurship & Small Business International Journal of Research in Marketing
International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management International Review of Retail, Distribution & Consumer Research
Journal of American Academy of Business Journal of Applied Economic Sciences Journal of Business Venturing Journal of Commercial Biotechnology
Journal of Enterprise Information Management Journal of Entrepreneurship
Journal of International Entrepreneurship Journal of Management Studies
Journal of Marketing Management Journal of Marketing Research
Journal of Product Innovation Management Journal of Retailing & Consumer Services Journal of Social Sciences
Journal of Strategic Marketing Management Research Review Management & Organization Review Marketing Intelligence & Planning Marketing Letters
Procedia Economics & Finance Scandinavian Journal of Management
Technology Analysis & Strategic Management Technovation
Transforming Government: People, Process & Policy
other forms of performance (e.g., innovation). From the 87 remaining studies, five studies were filtered out due to their outlying correlation coefficient. For instance, the correlation coefficients for the relationship between market orientation and performance reported in studies by Hussain and Ali (2016) and Rodriguez et al. (2016) were more than twice as great as the average correlation coefficient in this meta-analysis. After all, the final sample of this meta-analysis consists of 82 studies, of which 78 are published in different papers. Thus, four studies (Chen Ho Chao & Spillan, 2010; Jangl, 2015; Laukkanen, Nagy, Hirvonen, Reijonen, & Pasanen, 2013; Selnes et al., 1996) were conducted in two countries and both samples were included in this meta-analysis. The combined sample size of all 82 studies (N) amounts 18,401. The studies included in this meta-analysis originate from 34 countries from all continents, with a time span from 1990 until 2019.
some authors argue that Hofstede’s scores were already measured a couple of decades ago and therefore slightly outdated (Soares et al., 2007), Beugelsdijk, Maseland, and Van Hoorn (2015) argued that Hofstede’s values are still highly valuable today. They showed that cultural values may have changed slightly, but that countries have moved parallel. Obviously, cultures are quite persistent and changes occur gradually. For institutional quality, the Institutional Quality Index by Krause (2017) was consulted. The institutional quality was built upon a country’s political and market institutions with scores ranging from 0 to 1. For the variable firm size, coded was whether the firms included in the sample were small and/or SMEs, large, mixed or non-specified. For the market measurement tool, coded was whether the study measured market orientation by MARKOR or MKTOR. For industry type, coded was whether firms in the sample operate in the manufacturing and/or service industry, or whether firms were from multiple industries. Lastly, the recentness of the studies was determined based on the average of years all studies were conducted in. By summing up all included studies’ year of publication and dividing it by the number of studies, the average year in which a study was published was found to be 2007. Therefore, all studies published in years below the average of 2007 were classified older studies, whereas all studies from 2007 onwards were coded as recent studies.
TABLE 3: Summary of Studies Included in the Meta-Analysis
Reference N Country Size Industry LTO/PD IQ PM MOMS
Aloulou (2019) 292 Saudi Arabia X MS 36/95 0,4709 FP MKTOR
Ansah & Chinomona (2017) 163 Ghana - S 4/80 0,5042 OP MKTOR
Appiah-Adu & Ranchhod (1998)
62 U.K. SME MS 51/35 0,9257 OP MKTOR
Appiah-Adu & Singh (1998) 132 U.K. SME MS 51/35 0,9257 OP MKTOR
Armario et al. (2008) 112 Spain SME X 48/57 0,7661 OP MARKOR
Avlonitis & Gounaris (1997) 444 Greece X MS 45/60 0,5304 FP MARKOR
Baker & Sinkula (1999) 411 U.S. X X 26/40 0,9101 OP MARKOR
Baker & Sinkula (2009) 81 U.S. S S 26/40 0,9101 FP -
Bhuian et al. (2005) 231 U.S. X S 26/40 0,9101 OP -
Boso et al. (2013) 203 Ghana SME MS 4/80 0,5042 FP MARKOR
Breman & Dalgic (1998) 105 Netherlands L S 67/38 0,9364 OP MARKOR
Chen Ho Chao & Spillan (2010) 151 138 Taiwan U.S. SME SME M M 93/58 26/40 0,8521 0,9101 OP OP MARKOR MARKOR Do Hyung & Dedahanov
(2014)
347 South Korea SME M 100/60 0,7842 OP MKTOR
Ellinger et al. (2008) 123 U.S. L S 26/40 0,9101 OP -
Ellis (2005) 57 China X M 87/80 0,8521 FP MKTOR
Farrell & Oczkowski (2002) 340 Australia X M 21/38 0,9152 OP MKTOR
Filatotchev et al. (2017) 212 China X M 87/80 0,8521 FP MKTOR
Frishammar & Andersson (2009)
188 Sweden SME M 53/31 0,9384 OP -
Gaur et al. (2011) 315 India SME M 51/77 0,4940 OP MKTOR
Green et al. (2005) 173 U.S. - M 26/40 0,9101 FP -
Greenley (1995) 240 U.K. L X 51/35 0,9257 OP MKTOR
Harris & Ogbonna (2001) 322 U.K. L X 51/35 0,9257 OP MKTOR
Haugland et al. (2007) 101 Norway X S 35/31 0,9361 FP MKTOR
Hult & Ketchen (2001) 181 U.S. L S 26/40 0,9101 FP MKTOR
Jaakkola (2009) 1157 Finland X S 38/33 0,9451 FP MKTOR
Jangl (2015) 187 164 Germany Czech - - M M 83/35 70/57 0,9141 0,8181 FP FP - - Jiménez-Jiménez &
Cegarra-Navarro (2007)
451 Spain X X 48/57 0,7661 OP MARKOR
Kajalo & Lindblom (2015) 202 Finland SME S 38/33 0,9451 FP -
Keskin (2006) 157 Turkey SME X 46/66 0,4903 OP -
Koh et al. (2007) 141 Turkey SME M 46/66 0,4903 OP MARKOR
TABLE 3 (continued)
1 For Zimbabwe, Hofstede’s scores for Zambia were used to these countries’ similarity as sub-Saharan countries.
Kropp et al. (2006) 373 South Africa - X 34/49 0,5923 OP -
Langerak (2001) 72 Netherlands X M 67/38 0,9364 FP -
Länsiluoto et al. (2019) 122 Finland SME X 38/33 0,9451 FP MARKOR
Laukkanen et al. (2013) 820 300 Finland Hungary SME SME MS MS 38/33 58/46 0,9451 0,6731 OP OP - -
Ledwith & O’Dwyer (2009) 106 Ireland S M 24/28 0,9171 OP MKTOR
Li et al. (2008) 213 China SME X 87/80 0,8521 OP MKTOR
Liu et al. (2003) 304 China X MS 87/80 0,8521 OP -
Lonial et al. (2008) 145 Turkey X S 46/66 0,4903 FP MARKOR
Macdonald Morah et al. (2015) 258 Nigeria X X 13/80 0,2480 OP MKTOR
Matanda & Oly Ndubisi (2009) 244 Zimbabwe SME M 30/601 0,1096 FP MKTOR
Matsuno & Mentzer (2000) 364 U.S. X M 26/40 0,9101 FP MARKOR
Megicks & Warnaby (2008) 305 U.K. S S 51/35 0,9257 OP -
Merlo & Auh (2009) 112 Australia L M 21/38 0,9152 FP MKTOR
Mokhtar et al. (2014) 140 Malaysia SME S 41/100 0,6478 FP MARKOR
Morgan & Berthon (2008) 160 U.K. - X 51/35 0,9257 FP MARKOR
Morgan et al. (2009) 204 U.S. - S 26/40 0,9101 FP MARKOR
Nakos et al. (2019) 94 U.A.E. SME S -/90 0,6923 FP MKTOR
Narver & Slater (1990) 371 U.S. L S 26/40 0,9101 FP MKTOR
Ngansathil (2001) 147 Thailand X X 32/64 0,4790 OP MKTOR
Ngo & O’Cass (2012) 163 Australia X MS 21/38 0,9152 OP MARKOR
Olavarrieta & Friedmann (2008)
116 Chile X X 31/63 0,8198 OP MKTOR
Panigyrakis & Theodoridis (2007)
252 Greece - S 45/60 0,5304 FP MARKOR
Pelham (1997) 160 U.S. S M 26/40 0,9101 OP -
Pelham (1999) 229 U.S. S M 26/40 0,9101 OP -
Pulendran et al. (2000) 105 Australia L X 21/38 0,9152 OP MARKOR
Pulendran et al. (2003) 89 Australia X X 21/38 0,9152 OP MARKOR
Rhee et al. (2010) 333 South Korea SME X 100/60 0,7842 OP MKTOR
Rodrigues & Pinho (2010) 118 Portugal - S 28/63 0,7977 FP MARKOR
Rojas-Méndez et al. (2006) 199 Chile S S 31/63 0,8198 OP MARKOR
Šályova et al. (2015) 62 Slovakia X X 77/100 0,7220 FP MARKOR
TABLE 3 (continued)
N = total sample size, X (size) = mixed, SME = small and medium firms, S (size) = small firms, L = large firms, ML = medium and large firms, S (industry) = service industry, M = manufacturing industry, X = mixed, MS = manufacturing and service, LTO = long-term orientation, PD = power distance, IQ = institutional quality, PM = performance measure, FP = financial performance, OP = organizational performance, MOMS = market orientation measurement scale
Analytic Procedure
In this bivariate meta-analysis, the procedure recommended by Hunter and Schmidt (2004) was followed. This implies that prior to the analysis, there should be made a correction for measurement error and sampling error. The correction for measurement error was done through correcting effect sizes by dividing correlation coefficients by the square root of Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The formula used to calculate these adjusted coefficients is the following one: rmo-PM/√(αmo*αPM ). In this formula,
rmo-pm represents the correlation between market orientation and performance, whereas amo
and apm refer to the market orientation alpha and performance alpha. Moreover, for the best estimate in a meta-analysis, correction of sampling error is necessary (Hunter & Schmidt, 1990). Therefore, the correlation was calculated as a sample size weighted average. This was done since effect sizes in larger studies are more precise than in small studies due to the lower sampling error (Ellis, 2006). Averages for the performance alpha (0.83) and market orientation
Selnes et al., (1996) 222 237 U.S. Denmark, Norway, Sweden - - X X 26/40 27/42 0,9101 0,9441 OP OP MARKOR MARKOR
Shehu & Mahmood (2014) 511 Nigeria SME X 13/80 0,2480 OP -
Shoham & Rose (2001) 101 Israel ML X 38/13 0,7719 OP MARKOR
Slater & Narver (1994) 107 U.S. X M 26/40 0,9101 OP MKTOR
Slater & Narver (2000) 53 U.S. L S 26/40 0,9101 FP MKTOR
Smirnova et al. (2011) 158 Russia X M 93/83 0,3497 OP MKTOR
Soehadi et al. (2001) 159 Indonesia X S 62/78 0,5114 OP MARKOR
SØrensen (2009) 308 Denmark SME M 35/18 0,9579 OP MKTOR
Sukato (2014) 354 Thailand SME S 32/64 0,4790 OP MARKOR
Theodosiou et al. (2012) 316 Greece - S 45/60 0,5304 OP MKTOR
Tsiotsou & Vlachopoulou (2011)
216 Greece SME S 45/60 0,5304 OP MKTOR
Veidal & Korneliussen (2013) 213 Norway S M 35/31 0,9361 OP MARKOR
Voola et al. (2012) 189 Australia X MS 21/38 0,9152 OP -
Wilson et al. (2014) 81 Canada - M 36/39 0,9336 OP MKTOR
Zachary et al. (2011) 224 U.S. S MS 26/40 0,9101 FP MKTOR
alpha (0.83) were calculated to fill in for the studies where Cronbach’s alpha values were missing.
RESULTS
In the first section, the bivariate results for the relationship between market orientation and performance will be presented, whereas the second part will show the results of the moderator analysis.
Bivariate Results
Table 4 reports the results of the bivariate meta-analysis. The correlation coefficient in for this analysis, as indicated before, is sample-size weighted and measurement error adjusted. The Cochrane’s Q-test and I2 measure the heterogeneity of the results. More specifically, the Q-test refers to the variance between the observed and average effect (Hak, van Rhee, &
Suurmond, 2018). A high Q value, which is this case with a score of 682.03, implies that there is heterogeneity in the sample and that there should be tested for moderators. Similarly, the I2 measures the share of observed variance that reflects real differences in effect size (Hak et al., 2018: 9). Since 88.12% is a high percentage, there can be concluded that a large part of the results is attributable to heterogeneity and the studies in the meta-analysis cannot be considered studies of the same population (Hak et al., 2018: 9). After all, both the Q-test and I2 results prove that there should be tested for moderators in the relationship between market orientation and performance. Finally, the results were tested for the presence of a publication bias. This bias occurs when the studies available for inclusion in a meta-analysis are a biased representation of all existing studies (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Since #TF (trim and fill) equals zero, the studies included in this analysis do not differ systematically from studies that could have been included as well, and thus are a representative sample of all available evidence. Thus, this study is not affected by missing studies, implying that there is no publication bias.
TABLE 4: Results of the Bivariate Meta-Analysis
Relationship k N r SD(p) 95%CI Q (p) I² #TF Side PTF
MO-perf. 82 18401 .3 .37 .18 .33 .40 682.03 (0.000)
88.1 0 Left .38
Moderator Analysis
As indicated in the previous section, with a significant Q-statistic and I2, the market orientation-performance relationship is likely to be influenced by moderating variables. Thus, the moderators explained earlier were tested in light of the market orientation-performance relationship. For the first moderator (region), it was predicted in hypothesis 2 that there would be a difference in the correlation between market orientation and performance across regions. The results of the moderator analysis (Table 5), conducted by means of a subgroup analysis, show that the strength of the relationship between market orientation and performance indeed differs among regions. The region with the strongest relationship ( = ) is Australia, followed by fellow Anglo-Saxon region North-America ( = 0.43). For Australia, the confidence interval is quite broad due to the inclusion of fewer studies (k = 6). Europe ( = 0.37) and Asia ( = 0.36) report the strongest correlation coefficients after Australia and America. Latin-America, with just two included studies in this meta-analysis, reports a correlation coefficient of 0.29. The region with the lowest correlation coefficient ( = 0.16) is Africa. For both of the last two regions, due to a low number of studies included, the confidence intervals are large and include zero. Despite these insignificant correlation coefficients, the model shows, with a p-value of 0.033, that the differences across all six geographical regions are significant. This implies that hypothesis 2 is supported. The second moderator was Hofstede’s cultural dimension long-term orientation. The regression analysis (see Table 6) displays that relationship between market orientation and performance is positively moderated by long-term orientation with a beta coefficient of 0.14 and a coherent p-value of 0.000. The coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.0185) shows that the variance in the market
4 is supported. Hypothesis 5 predicted that institutional quality positively moderates the market orientation-performance relationship. The results from the regression analysis in Table 6 ( = 0.33, p = 0.000) indicate that higher institutional quality is significantly associated with a stronger market orientation-performance link. Furthermore, 10.78% of the variance of the model (R2 = 0.1078) in the relationship between market orientation and performance is explained by institutional quality. In sum, hypothesis 5 is supported as well.
TABLE 5: Moderator Analysis Region
TABLE 6: Moderated Regression Analysis
LTO = long-term orientation, PD = power distance, IQ = institutional quality
Relationship k N SD(p) 95% CI Q(р) I² #TF Side PTF
MO-perf. 82 18401 .37 .18 .33/.40 682.03 (0.000) 88.12 0 Left .38 Moderator Africa America Asia Australia Europe Latin-America 6 18 20 6 30 2 1752 3590 4000 998 7746 315 .16 .43 .36 .51 .37 .29 .23 .16 .19 . 21 .18 .11 -.08/.39 .34/.50 .28/.43 .31/.67 .30/.43 -.73/.91 12.12 (.033) 93.83 83.31 87.43 87.24 88.71 62.47 MO- perf.
Moderator LTO PD IQI
TABLE 7: Additional Potential Moderators
Robustness. For each of the hypotheses with continuous data, a robustness check was
done through a subgroup analysis. The first step for this analysis entailed calculating the average values for culture, institutional quality and the year of study across the entire sample. Based on this average, studies in a specific country were assigned dummy variables based on whether they exceeded the average or not. This method hence created two subgroups, one group
Relationship k N SD(p) 95%CI Q(p) I² #TF Side PTF
for studies conducted in a country below the average value of the moderator, and one group for studies conducted in a country above the average. Subsequently, the analysis brought two correlation coefficients forward, one for each group, as well as coherent p-values and other interpretable statistics.
In addition to testing robustness with a different method of analysis, a check for robustness with GLOBE (House, Hanges, Javidan, Dorfman & Gupta, 2004) cultural scores was conducted for the hypotheses regarding long-term orientation and power distance. This was perceived necessary since Hofstede’s cultural values are perceived relatively old (Soares et al., 2007). For long-term orientation, GLOBE’s dimension future orientation was used, whereas for power distance the eponymous dimension power distance was used. Instead of GLOBE’s cultural value scores, which did not diverge sufficiently among countries to run a meaningful robustness check, GLOBE’s cultural practice scores were used. These scores are the ones GLOBE’s cultural clusters are based on, and the ones that are more concise since they tell more about how societies and organizations really work and what their cultural norms are (Autio, Pathak, & Wennberg, 2013). Thus, cultural practice scores can be perceived more suitable for research (Autio et al., 2013; Chui & Kwok, 2009). In order to have as many studies included in the robustness check as possible, some countries that were not included in the GLOBE scores were assigned an average score of similar countries. This was the case for Saudi-Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which were assigned scores based on the average of Kuwait and Qatar. For Ghana, other sub-Saharan countries (i.e., Nigeria, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Namibia) were used due to their similarity compared with Ghana. For Norway, the average of Denmark, Finland and Sweden was used. In order for this method to be valid, the countries were required to score (nearly) equal scores on both Hofstede’s and GLOBE’s cultural dimensions. Therefore, for Chile, Czech Republic and Slovakia, this method was not useable due to major differences and lack of similar countries. The analytical methods were exactly the same for GLOBE’s scores. Thus, first a moderator regression analysis was conducted, followed by a subgroup analysis based on the average scores in the sample.
TABLE 8: Subgroup Analysis Robustness Test
LTO = long-term orientation, PD = power distance, (H) = Hofstede, FO = future orientation, (G) = GLOBE, IQ = institutional quality
TABLE 9: Moderated Regression Analysis Robustness Test (GLOBE)
FO = future orientation, PD = power distance
Relationship k N SD(p) 95% CI Q(р) I² #TF Side PTF
DISCUSSION
This study, with numerous innovative contributions to the field of market orientation, has provided meta-analytical evidence for the positive association between market orientation and performance. This confirms the general idea that firms can improve their performance through focusing on customers’ needs while taking competitors’ actions into account. In nearly any setting, firms that identify and respond to customer needs with products and services that are perceived superior to competitors will outperform firms that do not involve in these practices. Nevertheless, the degree to which benefits from this organizational practice can be reaped was found to be moderated by various factors. This brings several theoretical and managerial implications forward.
Theoretical Implications
Although previous literature debated on the performance effects of market orientation, the results of this bivariate meta-analysis show a positive and significant impact. This confirms that market orientation is a vital element of business performance and that the implementation of the marketing concept leads to superior performance. Herewith, the reasoning of the resource-based view related to market orientation is confirmed. The results of this paper are line with previous meta-analyses, for instance the ones by Ellis (2006) and Shoham et al. (2005) who also found a significant positive impact of market orientation on performance. The reported correlation coefficient for this study even exceeds the ones from the two aforementioned studies, proving the evident link between market-oriented practices and performance. Since this meta-analysis is composed of studies conducted in different countries, industries and firm sizes, generalizability across multiple research contexts is rather high. Apart from providing additional evidence for the positive association between market orientation and performance and the role of the resource-based view in this relationship, this study has several other contributions.
market orientation-performance relationship. An important finding from the analysis regarding regional differences, is Australia’s outstanding association with the market orientation-performance relationship. In line with Ellis’s (2006) meta-analysis, the relationship was very strong in the US as well. Also, it appeared that firms located in Africa reap considerably fewer benefits from market-oriented practices. This confirms Ellis’s (2006) finding that economically developing countries have a weaker association with the market orientation-performance relationship.
The most important innovative contribution of this paper’s model is the moderator institutional quality. By using a regression analysis, this moderator was found to have the strongest effect on the market orientation-performance relationship. From an institutional theory point of view (North, 1991) these findings imply that firms need good institutions to reap the benefits from their market-oriented behaviour since good institutions minimize corruption and asymmetric information while they promote economic activity, innovation and freedom. Moreover, high institutional quality increases the capacity and usage of strong media and communication infrastructures that allow firms to deal with customer data (Webb et al., 2011).
Farrell (1998) who argued that MKTOR focuses more on the customer-side of market orientation, and therefore is more positively associated with performance than MARKOR. Thus, this meta-analysis challenges previous empirical findings and arguments regarding the moderators of the market orientation-performance relationship. Furthermore, with the inclusion of many studies that had not previously been included in a meta-analysis, the regression showed that the effect of market orientation on performance is stable of time. This is an important contribution to market orientation theory, since this implies that older studies can be reproduced and the importance of market orientation has not weakened.
Finally, next to the findings of this meta-analysis, the usage of a moderated regression analysis of moderation effects is a contribution. Since a moderated regression analysis uses the precise values of a moderator, the results are more accurate than those obtained from a subgroup analysis which should be interpreted more carefully since the conversion of continuous data into dummy data is a rather artificial examination of a moderator. If only subgroup analyses would have been conducted, the way Rodriguez-Cano et al. (2004) mainly analysed their moderators, the effect of long-term orientation would have been insignificant. In that scenario, the role of long-term orientation would not be estimated at value, and we would be unaware of the variance in the relationship explained by long-term orientation. Moreover, by means of an additional robustness check with GLOBE cultural values, this meta-analysis provides evidence for the consistency between Hofstede’s and GLOBE scores for the market orientation-performance relationship.
Managerial Implications
Based on the results of the meta-analysis, there are multiple practical implications. First, since market orientation is an expensive and time-consuming strategy, managers should know when such an investment will generate the necessary and desired benefits.
should not be reluctant to invest in market-oriented practices in Australia since these can generate great benefits. Moreover, this study has shown that African firms report the weakest association between market orientation and performance. This is line with Ellis (2006), who found that economically developing countries had a weaker association with the market orientation-relationship. Thus, given the relatively low returns, managers in Africa should strongly consider whether investing in market-oriented practices will pay off, and whether other investments are more useful. In that vein, managers could better invest in innovative capabilities, which are prerequisites of successful market orientation (Selnes et al., 1996). Since African firms’ level of innovation generally is lower than that of firms from other parts of the world, managers should first try to improve this aspect. Without the necessary technological and innovative capabilities and resources, the positive effects of market-oriented practices will be rather limited. This is in line with the argument by Borges et al. (2009), who argued that firms that invest in capabilities and resources related to technology and information technology can better strengthen their market orientation than firms that do not. Thus, due to the general lack of prerequisites of market orientation in Africa, managers of firms located in Africa should firm invest in these, and not in market orientation.
distant and short-term oriented cultures can reap from market orientation should therefore be considered by managers in order to limit potential losses. Thus, I recommend managers to carefully invest in market orientation in countries where the development and deployment of resources may be constrained by culture (e.g., Sub-Saharan countries). On the other hand, managers in a long-term and non-hierarchical society can expect better results due to market orientation, implying that losses will most likely not occur. In these countries (e.g., Germanic countries), managers can more freely investment in market orientation since the expected benefits are significantly higher.
Furthermore, this study has shown the that institutional quality explains 10.78% of the variation in the relationship between market orientation and performance. The explained variance of more than ten percent by institutional quality should make managers sufficiently aware of the potential losses that could occur in countries with low institutional quality. So, in addition to local culture, managers should take institutional sensitivities into account when implementing market orientation activities, since these also have an influence on both consumer and firm behaviour. In effect, these streams of behaviour will have an impact on firms’ market oriented behaviour as well. Managers in countries with low institutional quality (e.g., African and Southeast Asian countries) should carefully invest in market orientation since low institutional quality, characterized by asymmetric information, weaker media infrastructures and fewer resources, could limit the benefits of market orientation. In countries with high institutional quality (e.g., Nordic and Anglo-Saxon countries), market orientation will generate greater benefits. After all, along with other factors, local culture and institutions are two of the factors that managers should take into account when considering the implementation of market orientation and its associated benefits.
the studies included in this meta-analysis report higher correlation coefficients for organizational performance than for financial performance. To a certain extent this is quite logical since organizational performance includes performance measures related to customers and the market such as customer retention and market share. Thus, when implementing market oriented activities, is it very likely that organizational performance (e.g., market share, new product success, productivity and customer retention) increases stronger than financial performance (e.g., ROI, ROA and profit). Finally, the methodological moderator analysis showed the market orientation concept has not lost importance, nor has it become more important. This is an important finding since it confirms that managers should continue paying attention for market orientation since it remains an important antecedent of performance. Thus, companies that want to reap the benefits of their market-oriented behaviour can follow the approach by Amazon and Coca-Cola (Anand et al., 2020), which are typical examples of a successful implementation of the marketing concept.
Limitations and Avenues for Future Research
Although this meta-analysis provided several useful implications and contributions, limitations are present as well. Part of these limitations present an opportunity for future research.
included in this meta-analysis. This could have a slight impact on the effect size report in this study.
Moreover, market orientation studies have traditionally been conducted in Anglo-Saxon countries (mostly United States) and highly developed countries in Europe. Although researchers slowly move away from these traditionally-studied countries, the empirical evidence from other countries is still quite limited. The results for countries such as the United States and Australia are much more robust than for countries such as Chile and Nigeria, which have been examined way less. Therefore, it is highly recommended to study the market orientation-performance relationship in under-researched parts of the world such as Latin-America. The measurement of institutional quality solely from 2017 is another limitation in this work. The initial purpose was to obtain the data from the average year of the studies (2007), but this data was inaccessible online. Furthermore, due to the corona crisis, the authors did not manage to reply to the email in which I asked whether they could provide me with the data from 2007. Due to the limited time scope of this thesis, just one year was taken for the assessment of institutional quality. Future research could more precisely look at institutional quality with data per year with a lag since the effects of a change in institutional quality requires about two years. Nevertheless, as well as cultures, institutions do not change overnight. Hence, the evidence provided in this paper is strong and could solely be slightly affected by changes in institutional quality over years.
further examination of the common and unique effects of the different dimensions of the market orientation concept in order to see whether the dimensions have divergent strength.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Aguinis, H., Pierce, C. A., Bosco, F. A., Dalton, D. R., & Dalton, C. M. 2011. Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2): 306– 331.
Aloulou, W. J. 2019. Impacts of strategic orientations on new product development and firm performances: Insights from Saudi industrial firms. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 22(2): 257–280.
Anand, A., Aggrawal, D., Agarwal, M. 2020. Market Assessment with OR Applications. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Ansah, M. O., & Chinomona, R. 2017. Analysis of Market Orientation on Business Performance in the Multinational Service Industries. Journal of Social Sciences, 13(1): 40–52.
Appiah-Adu, K. 1998. Market orientation and performance: Empirical tests in a transition economy. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 6(1): 25–45.
Appiah-Adu, K., & Ranchhod, A. 1998. Market orientation and performance in the biotechnology industry: An exploratory empirical analysis. Technology Analysis and
Strategic Management, 10(2): 197–210.
Appiah-Adu, K., & Singh, S. 1998. Market orientation and performance: An empirical study of British SMEs. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 7(1): 27–47.
Argandona, A. 2001. Corruption: the corporate perspective. Business Ethics: A European
Review, 10(2): 163–175.
Armario, J. M., Ruiz, D. M., & Armario, E. M. 2008. in Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises.
Journal of Small Business Management, 46(4): 485–511.
Autio, E., Pathak, S., & Wennberg, K. 2013. Consequences of cultural practices for entrepreneurial behaviors. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(4): 334–362. Avlonitis, G. J., & Gounaris, S. P. 1997. Marketing orientation and company performance:
Industrial vs. consumer goods companies. Industrial Marketing Management, 26(5): 385–402.
Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. 1999. Learning Orientation , Market Orientation , and Innovation : Integrating ... Journal of Market-Focused Management, 4(4): 295–308. Baker, W. E., & Sinkula, J. M. 2009. The complementary effects of market orientation and
entrepreneurial orientation on profitability in small businesses. Journal of Small Business
Management, 47(4): 443–464.
Barney, J. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of
Management, 17(1): 99–120.
Basabe, N., & Ros, M. 2005. Cultural dimensions and social behavior correlates: Individualism-Collectivism and Power Distance. International Review of Social Psychology, 18(1): 189–225.
Bernard, A. W., & Jones, C. I. 1996. Productivity and Convergence Across U.S. States and Industries. Empirical Economics, 21: 113–135.
223–240.
Bhuian, S. N. 1998. An Empirical Examination of Market Orientation in Saudi Arabian Manufacturing Companies. Journal of Business Research, 43(1): 13–25.
Bhuian, S. N., Menguc, B., & Bell, S. J. 2005. Just entrepreneurial enough: The moderating effect of entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance. Journal of Business Research, 58(1 SPEC.ISS): 9–17.
Borges, M., Hoppen, N., & Luce, F. B. 2009. Information technology impact on market orientation in e-business. Journal of Business Research, 62(9): 883–890.
Boso, N., Story, V. M., & Cadogan, J. W. 2013. Entrepreneurial orientation, market orientation, network ties, and performance: Study of entrepreneurial firms in a developing economy.
Journal of Business Venturing, 28(6): 708–727.
Breman, P., & Dalgic, T. 1998. The Learning Organization and Market Orientation: A Study of Export Companies in the Netherlands. Academy of Marketing Science, 214–231. Cadogan, J. W., Diamantopoulos, A., & De Mortanges, C. P. 1999. A Measure of export market
orientation: Scale development and cross-cultural validation. Journal of International
Business Studies, 30(4): 689–707.
Cantwell, J., Dodgson, M., & Rothwell, R. 1996. The Handbook of Industrial Innovation. The
Economic Journal, 106(436): 728-730.
Caruana, A., Ramaseshan, B., & Ewing, M. T. 1997. Market orientation and organizational commitment in the Australian public sector. International Journal of Public Sector
Management, 10(4–5): 294–303.
Chang, W., Franke, G., Butler, T., Musgrove, C., & Ellinger, A. 2014. Differential mediating effects of radical and incremental innovation on market orientation-performance relationship: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 22(3): 235– 250.
Chen Ho Chao, M., & Spillan, J. E. 2010. The journey from market orientation to firm performance: A comparative study of US and Taiwanese SMEs. Management Research
Review, 33(5): 472–483.
Chui, A. C. W., & Kwok, C. C. Y. 2009. Cultural practices and life insurance consumption: An international analysis using GLOBE scores. Journal of Multinational Financial
Management, 19(4): 273–290.
Day, G. S. 1994. The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4): 37–52.
Deshpandé, R., & Farley, J. U. 1999. Executive insights: Corporate culture and market orientation: Comparing Indian and Japanese firms. Journal of International Marketing, 7(4): 111–127.
Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U., & Webster, F. E. 1997. Factors affecting organizational
performance: A five-country comparison: 97-108. Marketing Science Institute.
Deshpande, R., & Webster, F. E. 1989. Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda. Journal of Marketing, 53(1): 3-15.
