Higher Education

, Volume 72, Issue 2, pp 131–151 | Cite as

Responsive and proactive stakeholder orientation in public universities: antecedents and consequences

  • María-del-Carmen Alarcón-del-Amo
  • Carme Casablancas-Segura
  • Joan Llonch
Article

Abstract

This study, based on institutional theory, dynamic capabilities, and stakeholder theory, investigates the relationships between the antecedents of responsive and proactive stakeholder orientation and their consequences in the public university context. The results obtained mainly stress that the mimetic effect of copying successful university actions, the emphasis of top university managers on both stakeholder orientations and better communication, and the relationship between managers of different university structures, have positive effects on responsive and proactive stakeholder orientation. The results suggest that those universities which are more responsive and/or proactive oriented towards stakeholders obtain better organisational performance in terms of beneficiary satisfaction, acquisition of resources, and reputation. Our findings show that to achieve specific goals in university performance, such as improving university reputation, a responsive stakeholder orientation is not sufficient, and a proactive stakeholder orientation is also needed.

Keywords

Stakeholder orientation Higher education management University performance Public universities 

References

  1. Aaker, D. A., & Shansby, J. G. (1982). Positioning your product. Business Horizons, 25(3), 56–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akonkwa, D. B. M. (2009). Is market orientation a relevant strategy for higher education institutions? Context analysis and research agenda. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(3), 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Marketing Association. (2013). Definition of marketing. https://www.ama.org/AboutAMA/Pages/Definition-of-Marketing.aspx. Accessed 23 Feb 2015.
  4. Auh, S., & Menguc, B. (2009). Broadening the scope of the resource-based view in marketing: The contingency role of institutional factors. Industrial Marketing Management, 38(7), 757–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bennett, R., & Kottasz, R. (2011). Strategic, competitive, and co-operative approaches to internationalisation in European business schools. Journal of Marketing Management, 27(11–12), 1087–1116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benneworth, P., & Jongbloed, B. W. (2010). Who matters to universities? A stakeholder perspective on humanities, arts and social sciences valorization. Higher Education, 59(5), 567–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjørkquist, C. (2008). Continuity and change in stakeholder influence: Reflections on elaboration of stakeholder regimes. Institute of Education, 4(2), 24–38.Google Scholar
  8. Bryson, J. M., Patton, M. Q., & Bowman, R. A. (2011). Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and program planning, 34(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Caruana, A., Ramaseshan, B., & Ewing, M. T. (1998). Do universities that are more market orientated perform better? International Journal of Public Sector Management, 11(1), 55–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cervera, A., Molla, A., & Sanchez, M. (2001). Antecedents and consequences of market orientation in public organisations. European Journal of Marketing, 35(11/12), 1259–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cheng, H. L., & Yu, C. M. J. (2008). Institutional pressures and initiation of internationalization: Evidence from Taiwanese small-and medium-sized enterprises. International Business Review, 17(3), 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Churchill, G. A, Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clark, B. R. (1986). The higher education system: Academic organization in cross-national perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  14. Clarkson, M. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analyzing and evaluating corporate social performance. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.Google Scholar
  15. D’Este, P., Tang, P., Mahdi, S., Neely, A., & Sánchez-Barrioluengo, M. (2013). The pursuit of academic excellence and business engagement: Is it irreconcilable? Scientometrics, 95(2), 481–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., & Veronay, G. (2010). Dynamic capabilities deconstructed: A bibliographic investigation into the origins, development, and future directions of the research domain. Industrial and Corporate Change, 19(4), 1187–1204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (Eds.). (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (Vol. 17). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  19. Donaldson, T., & Preston, L. E. (1995). The stakeholder theory of the corporation: Concepts, evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 65–91.Google Scholar
  20. Duque-Zuluaga, L. C., & Schneider, U. (2008). Market orientation and organizational performance in the nonprofit context: Exploring both concepts and the relationship between them. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 19(2), 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5(2), 155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernández, Z. (1999). El estudio de las organizaciones (la jungla dominada). Papeles de Economía Española, 78–79, 56–77.Google Scholar
  23. Ferrell, O. C., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Hult, G. T. M., & Maignan, N. I. (2010). From market orientation to stakeholder orientation. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29(1), 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferrer-Balas, D., Buckland, H., & de Mingo, M. (2009). Explorations on the university’s role in society for sustainable development through a systems transition approach. Case-study of the Technical University of Catalonia (UPC). Journal of Cleaner Production, 17(12), 1075–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Flavián, C., & Lozano, F. J. (2006). Organizational antecedents of market orientation in the public university system. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 19(5), 447–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fornell, C., & Bookstein, F. L. (1982). Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to consumer exit-voice theory. Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4), 440–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equations models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Frasquet, M., Calderón, H., & Cervera, A. (2012). University–industry collaboration from a relationship marketing perspective: An empirical analysis in a Spanish University. Higher Education, 64(1), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston: Pitman.Google Scholar
  30. Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 4, 409–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gainer, B., & Padanyi, P. (2005). The relationship between market-oriented activities and market-oriented culture: Implications for the development of market orientation in nonprofit service organizations. Journal of Business Research, 58(6), 854–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gairín, J. (2006). La cultura institucional y la universidad. In M. Tomàs (Ed.), Reconstruir la universidad a través del cambio cultural (pp. 9–45). Bellaterra: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Servei de publicacions UAB.Google Scholar
  33. Gómez Mendoza, J. (2010). Las universidades como dinamizadoras sociales. In D. Peña (Ed.), Propuestas para la Reforma de la Universidad Española. Madrid: Fundación Alternativas.Google Scholar
  34. Grau, F. X. (2012). La universidad pública española: Retos y prioridades en el marco de la crisis del primer decenio del siglo XXI. Tarragona: Universitat Rovira i Virgili.Google Scholar
  35. Handelman, J. M., Cunningham, P. H., & Bourassa, M. A. (2010). Stakeholder marketing and the organizational field: The role of institutional capital and ideological framing. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 29(1), 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hanson, M. (2001). Institutional theory and educational change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37(5), 637–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Harrison, J. S., Bosse, D. A., & Phillips, R. A. (2010). Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1), 58–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hemsley-Brown, J., & Oplatka, I. (2010). Market orientation in universities: A comparative study of two national higher education systems. International Journal of Educational Management, 24(3), 204–220.Google Scholar
  39. Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Jongbloed, B., Enders, J., & Salerno, C. (2008). Higher education and its communities: Interconnections, interdependencies and research agenda. Higher Education, 56, 303–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. Journal of Marketing, 54(2), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Laczniak, G. R., & Murphy, P. E. (2012). Stakeholder theory and marketing: Moving from a firm-centric to a societal perspective. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 31(2), 284–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Laplume, A. O., Sonpar, K., & Litz, R. A. (2008). Stakeholder theory: Reviewing a theory that moves us. Journal of Management, 34(6), 1152–1189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Llinàs-Audet, X., Girotto, M., & Solé-Parellada, F. (2011). University strategic management and the efficacy of the managerial tools: The case of the Spanish universities. Revista de Educacion, 355, 33–54.Google Scholar
  46. Lynch, R., & Baines, P. (2004). Strategy development in UK higher education: Towards resource-based competitive advantages. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 26(2), 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ma, J., & Todorovic, Z. (2011). Making universities relevant: Market orientation as a dynamic capability within institutions of higher learning. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 15(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  48. Macedo, I. M., & Pinho, J. C. (2006). The relationship between resource dependence and market orientation: The specific case of non-profit organizations. European Journal of Marketing, 40(5/6), 533–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2005). A stakeholder model for implementing social responsibility in marketing. European Journal of Marketing, 39(9), 956–1219.Google Scholar
  50. Maignan, I., Gonzalez-Padron, T. L., Hult, G. T. M., & Ferrell, O. C. (2011). Stakeholder orientation: Development and testing of a framework for socially responsible marketing. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 19(4), 313–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mainardes, E. W., Raposo, M., & Alves, H. (2014). Universities need a market orientation to attract non-traditional stakeholders as new financing sources. Public Organization Review, 14(2), 159–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.Google Scholar
  55. Modi, P., & Mishra, D. (2010). Conceptualising market orientation in non-profit organisations: Definition, performance, and preliminary construction of a scale. Journal of Marketing Management, 26(5/6), 548–569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mora, J.-G. (2001). Governance and management in the new university. Tertiary Education and Management, 7(2), 95–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mora, J.-G., & Vidal, J. (2000). Adequate policies and unintended effects in Spanish higher education. Tertiary Education and Management, 6(4), 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. Journal of Marketing, 55(4), 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2004). Responsive and proactive market orientation and new-product success. Journal of Production Innovation Management, 21, 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Navarro, J. R., & Gallardo, F. O. (2003). A model of strategic change: Universities and dynamic capabilities. Higher Education Policy, 16(2), 199–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Netemeyer, R. G., Krishnan, B., Pullig, C., Wang, G., Yagci, M., Dean, D., et al. (2004). Developing and validating measures of facets of customer-based brand equity. Journal of Business Research, 57(2), 209–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes. Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Oliver, C. (1997). Sustainable competitive advantage: Combining institutional and resource-based views. Strategic Management Journal, 18(9), 697–713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Padanyi, P., & Gainer, B. (2004). Market orientation in the nonprofit sector: Taking multiple constituencies into consideration. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, 12(2), 43–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Parmar, B. L., Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J. S., Wicks, A. C., de Colle, S., & Purnell, L. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Academy of Management Annals, 4(1), 403–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Patterson, G. (2001). The applicability of institutional goals to the university organisation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 23(2), 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Pavičić, J., Alfirević, N., & Mihanović, Z. (2009). Market orientation in managing relationships with multiple constituencies of Croatian higher education. Higher Education, 57(2), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rebolloso, E., Fernández-Ramírez, B., & Cantón, P. (2008). Responsibility of educational institutions for strategic change. Journal of Multidisciplinary Evaluation, 5(10), 5–20.Google Scholar
  70. Russo, A. P., van den Berg, L., & Lavanga, M. (2007). Toward a sustainable relationship between city and university: A stakeholdership approach. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(2), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Ryans, A. B. (1974). Estimating consumer preferences for a new durable brand in an established product class. Journal of Marketing Research, 11(4), 434–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Sargeant, A., Foreman, S., & Liao, M. (2002). Operationalizing the marketing concept in the nonprofit sector. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 10(2), 41–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Scott, W. R. (1987). The adolescence of institutional theory. Administrative Science Quarterly, 32(4), 493–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Scott, W. R. (1995). Institutions and Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  75. Teece, D. J. (2007). Explicating dynamic capabilities: The nature and microfoundations of (sustainable) enterprise performance. Strategic Management Journal, 28(13), 1319–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Teece, D. J., & Pisano, G. (1994). The dynamic capabilities of firms: An introduction. Industrial and Corporate Change, 3(3), 537–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Schuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Thornton, P. H., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Townley, B. (1997). The institutional logic of performance appraisal. Organization studies, 18(2), 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Van der Wende, M. (2007). Internationalization of higher education in the OECD countries: Challenges and opportunities for the coming decade. Journal of Studies in International Education, 11(3–4), 274–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Van Raaij, E. M., & Stoelhorst, J. W. (2008). The implementation of a market orientation: A review and integration of the contributions to date. European Journal of Marketing, 42(11/12), 1265–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Voola, R., & O’Cass, A. (2010). Implementing competitive strategies: The role of responsive and proactive market orientations. European Journal of Marketing, 44(1/2), 245–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zhou, Y., Chao, P., & Huang, G. (2009). Modeling market orientation and organizational antecedents in a social marketing context: Evidence from China. International Marketing Review, 26(3), 256–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Business DepartmentUniversitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations