Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The effect of market orientation and its components on innovation consequences: a meta-analysis

  • Original Empirical Research
  • Published:
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While there is a rich body of research on market orientation’s effect on business performance, much little attention has been given to its effect on innovation consequences. This is the first meta-analytic effort to study the independent effects of market orientation components (customer orientation, competitor orientation, interfunctional coordination) on innovation consequences. Also, it is the first meta-analysis to study the impact of contextual characteristics on the way market orientation affects innovation consequences. The study finds that market orientation components positively affect innovation consequences but that competitor orientation’s effect depends on a minimum level of customer orientation. The study also suggests that the relationship between market orientation and innovation consequences is stronger in highly competitive environments but weaker in technology turbulent ones. Finally, findings suggest that the relationship is stronger in large firms, service companies, and in countries characterized by high individualism and high power distance national cultures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Twenty-two studies that test the effect of market orientation on innovation consequences could not be included in the meta-analysis because they did not meet the eligibility criteria (e.g., studies reporting multiple regression coefficients). Still, the inclusion rate—72% (56 of a total of 78 articles) is comparable to other meta-analyses in marketing (e.g., Geyskens et al. 1998; Kirca et al. 2005). Also, an outlier analysis confirmed that no independent study with very large sample contaminates the analysis (Hunter and Schmidt 1990). The complete list of studies employed in the analysis is available from the author.

  2. Given recent criticism of Hofstede’s cultural dimensions we also used the measures suggested in the increasingly cited GLOBE framework (e.g., House et al. 2004). This only slightly changed the nature of our results.

  3. The original items were standardized across countries (Gatignon et al. 1989). We used data from 2000 as this is the median year of the sampled studies.

  4. In a preliminary analysis we tested for the effects of potential control variables. We first wished to minimize sample bias due to differences in response styles across countries and cultures. We thus included a dummy variable for the country language, whether English or not. This factor can substantially affect the reliability of the market orientation measures studied as these were designed in the U.S. (Ellis 2006). We also tested for the effect of market orientation measure (Narver and Slater’s MKTOR (1990) vs. Kohli, Jaworski and Kumar’s MARKOR (1993)) and innovation consequences measure (innovativeness vs. new product performance). These variables were not significant and thus we excluded them from further analysis (Kirca et al. 2005).

  5. We run two analyses pertaining to two dependent variables: the reliability-corrected relationship (i.e., disattenuated) between market orientation and innovation consequences (e.g., Cano et al. 2004) and its Z-transformed value (e.g., Henard and Szymanski 2001; Kirca et al. 2005). The analyses yielded similar results and we thus report results only based on the latter approach.

  6. We identified 160 effects of market orientation on business performance reported in 98 studies appearing in 1990–2006 (N = 31,640). Business performance included overall performance (n = 79), profitability (n = 38), growth (n = 23), sales (n = 13), and market share (n = 7). The complete list of studies employed in this analysis is available from the author. For testing the relationships between market orientation components and business performance we obtained data on 23 effects of customer orientation (N = 4,910) reported in 21 studies; 18 effects of competitor orientation (N = 3,742) reported in 17 studies; and 15 effects of interfunctional coordination (N = 3,248) reported in 14 studies.

References

  • Agarwal, S., Erramilli, K., & Dev, C. (2003). Market orientation and performance in service firms: Role of innovation. Journal of Services Marketing, 17(1), 68–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995). An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new product performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12, 275–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the capability–rigidity paradox in new product innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 12, 275–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cadogan, J., Sanna, S., Risto, S., & Kaisu, P. (2002). Market-oriented behavior: Comparing service with product exporters. European Journal of Marketing, 36(9/10), 1076–1102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cano, C., Carrillat, F., & 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, 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C. (1997). The innovator’s dilemma. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, C., Cook, S., & Hall, T. (2005). Marketing malpractice. Harvard Business Review, 12, 74–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dwyer, S., Mesak, H., & Hsu, M. (2005). An exploratory examination of the influence of national culture on cross-national product diffusion. Journal of International Marketing, 13(2), 1–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, P. (2006). Market orientation and performance: A meta-analysis and cross-national comparisons. Journal of Management Studies, 43(5), 1089–1107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Field, A. (2001). Meta-analysis of correlation coefficients: A Monte Carlo comparison of fixed and random-effects methods. Psychological Methods, 6(2), 161–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frambach, R., Prabhu, J., & Verhallen, T. (2003). The influence of business strategy on new product activity: The role of market orientation. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 20, 377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freedom House (2000). http://www.freedomhouse.org/ (accessed March 2, 2007).

  • Gatignon, H., Eliashberg, J., & Robertson, T. (1989). Modeling multinational diffusion patterns: Am efficient methodology. Marketing Science, 8(3), 231–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J.-M. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34, 77–90. (February).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geyskens, I., Steenkamp, J.-B., & Kumar, N. (1998). Generalizations about Trust in Marketing Channel Relationships using meta-analysis. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 15, 223–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henard, D., & Szymanski, D. (2001). Why some new products are more successful than others. Journal of Marketing Research, 38, 362–375. (August).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultural consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • House, R., Hanges, P., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, J., & Schmidt, F. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Im, S., & Workman, J. (2004). Market orientation, creativity, and new product performance in high-technology firms. Journal of Marketing, 68, 114–132. (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B., & Kohli, A. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R., & Shane, S. (2005). When does lack of resources make new firms innovative?. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 814–829.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, D., Dalton, D., Daily, C., & Covin, J. (2004). Meta-analysis of post-acquisition performance: Indicators of unidentified moderators. Strategic Management Journal, 25, 187–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kirca, A., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden, W. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69, 24–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A., & Jaworski, B. (1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54, 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A., Jaworski, B., & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 30, 467–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lukas, B., & Ferrell, O. (2000). The effect of market orientation on product innovation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(2), 239–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J., & Slater, S. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J., Slater, S., & MacLachlan, D. (2004). Responsive and proactive market orientation and new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5), 334–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, R. (1993). National innovation systems: A comparative analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Porter, M. (1990). The competitive advantage of nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2), 73–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steenkamp, J.-B., Hofstede, F., & Wedel, M. (1999). A cross-national investigation into the individual and national cultural antecedents of consumer innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 63, 55–69. (April).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Bulte, C., & Stremersch, S. (2004). Social contagion and income heterogeneity in new product diffusion: A meta-analytic test. Marketing Science, 23(4), 530–544.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Everdingen, Y., & Waarts, E. (2003). The effect of national culture on the adoption of innovations. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (2000). http://devdata.worldbank.org/dataonline/ (accessed March 2, 2007).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Marketing Department, The Harvard Business School, Harvard University, Gallatin Building C1-3B, Soldiers Field Road, Boston, MA, 02163, USA

    Amir Grinstein

Authors
  1. Amir Grinstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amir Grinstein.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Grinstein, A. The effect of market orientation and its components on innovation consequences: a meta-analysis. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 36, 166–173 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0053-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0053-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation