Marketing orientation

1. Marketing Orientation
1
Mohammad Kashani Sep 2014

2. Recognition Customer
Competitor
Other factors
affecting market

5. Success
Key role
Recognition
Forecast
Strategy

6. The First Feature Of The New Marketing
Orientation
Customer
Needsmarket

7. Marketing
Orientation
Market Information
Customers Need
Information Transfer
Responsiveness

8. Production

9. Definition:
Marketing Orientation
Decision making
Focus on
long-term
Profitability
Behavioural
customer
orientation
Competitor
orientation
Generation &
dissemination

11. Articles: • MARKET ORIENTATION,
MARKETING CAPABILITIES,
AND FIRM PERFORMANCE
• The Diffusion of Market
Orientation Throughout the
Organization:A Social
LearningTheory Perspective

12. MARKET ORIENTATION, MARKETING CAPABILITIES AND
FIRM PERFORMANCE
Competitive
Micro-
environmental
factors
Factors relating to the
firm
Macro
environmental
factors.

13. Market
Orientation
Effective & Important Factor

14. Our study makes two main contributions
• we identify and empirically examine specific
market-relating organizational capabilities that
enable firms to effectively respond to the market
intelligence they generate and disseminate.
• we identify how both MO and the organizational capabilities
through which firms deploy their MO into the marketplace
are important sources of competitive advantage.

15. HYPOTHESES Hypothesis 1: A firm’s market orientation is positively
associated with its business performance.
Hypothesis 2: A firm’s marketing capabilities
are positively associated with its business performance.
Hypothesis 3: The interaction between a firm’smarket
orientation and marketing capabilitiesis positively associated
with the firm’s business performance.

17. RESEARCH
METHOD
748 U.S. firms
Accepted 230
31%
108 respondent firms from secondary
sources.

18. Measurement

19. RESULTS:

20. • we test our hypotheses using U.S. data which maylead to stronger
MO-firm performance relationships being observed.
• There are good reasons to expect bidirectional ‘cospecialization’
relationships between these variables since the literature indicates both that
market knowledge may be required to build individual marketing capabilities,
and that individual capabilities such as marketing planning, pricing, and
selling generate market intelligence that can enhance a firm’s MO.

21. • The Diffusion of Market Orientation Throughout the
Organization:A Social LearningTheory Perspective

23. Marketing Organizational Culture





24. MO Diffusion: A Social Learning
Theory Perspective
 Social learning theory (Bandura 1977) suggests that individual
behavior is determined by both the environment and a person’s
motivation to learn proactively from important social referents.

25. HYPOTHESES
H1: Top managers’ IMO positively influences middle managers’
IMO, which in turn positively influences the IMO of sales
representatives, including the expert peer
H2: Top managers’ IMO positively influences expert peers’ IMO,
which in turn positively influences sales representatives’ IMO.
H5: The weaker a middle manager’s OI, the stronger is the
transfer of IMO from the top manager to the expert peer.
H3: The higher a middle manager’s OI, the stronger is the
transfer of IMO (a) from the top manager to the middle manager
and (b) from the middle manager to the sales representatives,
including the expert peer
H6: The larger the top manager’s direct-report network, the
weaker is the transfer of IMO from the top manager to the
middle manager.
H4: The higher an expert peer’s OI, the stronger is the transfer of
IMO (a) from the top manager to the expert peer and (b) from
the expert peer to the other sales representatives.

26. HYPOTHESES H8: The larger the sales district’s network, the weaker is the
transfer of IMO (a) from the middle manager to the sales
representatives, including the expert peer, and (b) from the
expert peer to the other sales representatives.
H9: A sales representative’s IMO is positively related to his or her
performance.
H7: The larger the top manager’s indirect-report network, the
weaker is the transfer of IMO from the top manager to the expert
peer.

27. RESEARCH
METHOD
Total accept
sales representatives 43 43 100%
sales managers 302 285 94%
sales directors 2290 1528 67%

28. RESULTS:

30. • First, given the cross-sectional nature of the data, we could not
empirically demonstrate the causality of the relationships.
• we answer the call for more research in marketing using the network
perspective (Achrol and Kotler 1999). Here, we were able to capture only
network size and the attributes of the envoys-as-nodes in the
organizational structure. The inclusion of other social network variables
might push the theoretical envelope even further.