Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm performance

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

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to determine market orientation’s relative impact on small-business performance, compared to other influences, in an integrated model using longitudinal data. Contrary to expectations based on the management literature, the results indicate weak causal relationships between market environment, small-firm structure, and small-firm strategy. The results further indicate weak influences of these variables, but strong and consistent influences of market orientation, on various measures of small-firm performance. Contrary to expectations based on business policy literature, relative product quality and new product success were not significant influences on profitability, perhaps due to the significant influence of market orientation on these variables. In addition, although increases in growth/share had a significant short-term influence on increases in profitability, high levels of previous years’ firm growth/share had a negative influence on current profitability. The previous year’s level of firm coordinating systems and market competitive intensity has a significant impact on the level of small-firm market orientation.

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

References

  • Aaker, David A. 1988.Strategic Market Management. 2nd ed. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barney, J. 1986. “Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?”Academy of Management Review 11:656–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourgeois, L. J. III. 1980. “Strategy and Environment: A Conceptual Integration.”Academy of Management Review 5:25–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzzell, Robert D. 1981. “Are There Natural Market Structures.”Journal of Marketing 45:42–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buzzell, Robert D. and Bradley T. Gale. 1987.The PIMS Principles. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buzzell, Robert D., Bradley T. Gale, and G. M. Sultan. 1975. “Market Share—A Key to Profitability.”Harvard Business Review 53 (January–February): 97–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chatman, J. A. and K. Jehn. 1994. “Assessing the Relationships Between Industry Characteristics and Organizational Culture: How Different Can Yours Be?”Academy of Management Journal 37:522–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, Robert G. 1984. “New Product Strategies: What Distinguishes the Top Performers.”Journal of Product Innovation Management 1 (June): 151–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L. and R. H. Lengel. 1986. “Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness, and Structural Design.”Management Science 32:554–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L. and Karl E. Weick. 1984. “Toward a Model of Organizations as Interpretive Systems.”Academy of Management Review 9:284–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, Duane, Michael Morris, and Jeff Allen. 1991. “Perceived Environmental Turbulence and Its Effect on Selected Entrepreneurship and Organizational Characteristics in Industrial Firms.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 19 (Winter): 43–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day, George S. 1990.Market Driven Strategy: Processes for Creating Value. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Day, George S. and Robin Wensley. 1983. “Marketing Theory With a Strategic Orientation.”Journal of Marketing 47 (Fall): 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ————— and —————. 1988. “Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority.”Journal of Marketing 52 (April): 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dennison, D. 1984. “Bringing Corporate Culture to the Bottom Line.”Organizational Dynamics 13 (2): 5–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpandé, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Frederick E. Webster, Jr. 1993. “Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis.”Journal of Marketing 57 (January): 23–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deshpandé, Rohit and Gerald Zaltman. 1982. “Factors Affecting the Use of Market Research Information: A Path Analysis.”Journal of Marketing Research 19 (February): 14–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dess, Gregory D. and Richard B. Robinson, Jr. 1984. “Measuring Organizational Performance in the Absence of Objective Measures: The Case of the Privately-Held Firm and Conglomerate Business Unit.”Strategic Management Journal 5 (July–September): 265–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D. 1971. “Path Analysis: Sociological Examples.” InCausal Models in the Social Sciences, edited by H. M. Blalock, 115–138. Chicago: Aldine-Atheson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galbraith, John R. 1973.Designing Complex Organizations. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilmore, Frank. 1971. “Formulating Strategy in Small Companies.”Harvard Business Review 47 (3): 71–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, George. 1991. “Industry Determinants of Organization Culture.”Human Resource Review 2:396–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, George G. and Nancy Tomaso. 1992. “Predicting Corporate Performance From Organizational Culture.”Journal of Management Studies 29 (November): 783–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grinyer, Peter H., Masoud Yasai-Ardekanii, and Shawki Al-Bazzaz. 1980. “Strategy, Structure, the Environment and Financial Performance in 48 United Kingdom Companies.”Academy of Management Journal 23:193–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, Anil K. and V. Govindarajan. 1983. “Business Unit Strategy, Managerial Characteristics, and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy Implementation.”Academy of Management Journal 27:25–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, Donald C. 1981. “Environment, Strategy, and Power Within Top Management Teams.”Administrative Science Quarterly 26:253–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ————— 1983. “High Profit Strategies in Mature Capital Goods Industries: A Contingency Approach.”Academy of Management Journal 26:687–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, C. W. L. and J. F. Pickering. 1986. “Divisionalization, Decentralization, and Performance in Large United Kingdom Companies.”Journal of Management Studies 1:26–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, Robert. 1988. “Distinguishing Among Competing Theories of the Market Share Effect.”Journal of Marketing 52:68–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, Bernard J. and Ajay Kohli. 1993. “Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences.”Journal of Marketing 57 (3): 53–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kets de Vries, M. 1980.Organizational Paradoxes. New York: Tavistock.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khandwalla, P. N. 1977.The Design of Organizations. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, Ajay K. and Bernard J. Jaworski. 1990. “Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial Implications.”Journal of Marketing 54 (April): 1–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lado, Augustine A., Nancy G. Boyd, and Peter Wright. 1992. “A Competency-Based Model of Sustainable Competitive Advantage: Toward a Conceptual Integration.”Journal of Management 18 (1): 77–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence, P. R. and J. Lorsch. 1967.Organizations and Environment. Boston: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lusch, Robert F. and Gene R. Laczniak. 1987. “The Evolving Marketing Concept, Competitive Intensity and Organizational Performance.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 15 (Fall): 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, Robert E. and Charles C. Snow. 1978.Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Danny. 1988. “Strategic Process and Content as Mediators Between Organizational Context and Structure.”Academy of Management Journal 31:544–569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Danny and Cornelia Droge. 1986. “Psychological and Traditional Determinants of Structure.”Administrative Science Quarterly 31 (December): 539–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Danny and Peter H. Friesen. 1984.Organizations: A Quantum View. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narver, John C. and Stanley F. Slater. 1990. “The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability.”Journal of Marketing 54 (October): 20–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neter, John, William Wasserman, and Michael H. Kutner. 1985.Applied Linear Statistical Models. Homewood, IL: Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, Myung-Ho and J. Barry Mason. 1990. “Toward an Integrated Model of Determinants of Business Performance.”Research in Marketing 10:157–201.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pelham, Alfred. 1993. “Mediating and Moderating Influences on the Relationship Between Market Orientation and Performance.” Ph.D. dissertation, Pennsylvania State University.

  • Peters, Thomas J. and Robert H. Waterman. 1982.In Search of Excellence: Lessons From America’s Best Run Companies. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, Lynn W., Dae R. Chang, and Robert D. Buzzell. 1983. “Product Quality, Cost Position and Business Performance: A Test of Some Key Hypotheses.”Journal of Marketing 47 (Spring): 26–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porter, Michael E. 1979. “How Competitive Forces Shape Strategy.”Harvard Business Review 57:137–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prescott, John E. 1986. “Environment as Moderators of the Relationship Between Strategy and Performance.”Academy of Management Journal 29:329–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, R. and R. DeFillippi. 1990. “Causal Ambiguity, Barriers to Imitation, and Sustainable Competitive Advantage.”Academy of Management Review 15 (1): 88–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, Richard B. 1982. “The Importance of Outsiders in Small Firm Strategic Planning.”Academy of Management Journal 25 (1): 80–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, Richard B. and John A. Pearce. 1984. “Research Thrusts in Small Firm Strategic Planning.”Academy of Management Review 9 (1): 128–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruekert, Robert W., Orville C. Walker, Jr., and Kenneth J. Roering. 1985. “The Organization of Marketing Activities: A Contingency Theory of Structure and Performance.”Journal of Marketing 49 (Winter): 13–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rumelt, Richard P. 1981. “Evaluation of Strategy: Theory and Models.” InStrategic Management: A New View of Business Policy and Planning, edited by Dan E. Schendel and Charles W. Hofer, 196–212. Boston: Little, Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saffold, Guy S. III. 1988. “Culture Traits, Strength, and Organizational Performance: Moving Beyond ‘Strong’ Culture.”Academy of Management Review 13:514–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sexton, Donald and Paul Van Auken. 1982. “Prevalence of Strategic Planning in Small Business.”Journal of Small Business Management 20 (3): 20–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shrivasta, P. 1985. “Integrating Strategy Formulation With Organization Culture.”Journal of Business Strategy 5:103–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slater, Stanley F. and John C. Narver. 1994. “Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market Orientation-Performance Relationship?”Journal of Marketing 58 (January): 46–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stampfl, Ronald W. 1978. “Structural Constraints, Consumerism, and the Marketing Concept.”MSU Business Topics 26 (Spring): 5–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. and John E. Prescott. 1990. “Environment-Strategy Coalignment: An Empirical Test of Its Performance Implications.”Strategic Management Journal 11:1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. and Vasudevan Ramanujam. 1987. “Measurement of Business Economic Performance: An Examination of Method Convergence.”Journal of Management 13 (1): 109–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Orville C., Jr. and Robert W. Ruekert. 1987. “Marketing’s Role in the Implementation of Business Strategies: A Critical Review and Conceptual Framework.”Journal of Marketing 51 (July): 15–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webster, Frederick. 1981. “Top Management’s Concern About Marketing Issues for the 1980’s.”Journal of Marketing 45 (Summer): 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weick, Karl. 1985. “The Significance of Corporate Culture.” InOrganizational Culture, edited by P. Frost, L. F. Moore, M. R. Louis, C. C. Lundberg, and J. Martin, 381–390. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaltman, Gerald, Robert Duncan, and Jonny Holbek. 1973.Innovations and Organizations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Grand Valley State University, USA

    Alfred M. Pelham

  2. Pennsylvania State University, USA

    David T. Wilson

Authors
  1. Alfred M. Pelham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David T. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pelham, A.M., Wilson, D.T. A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm performance. JAMS 24, 27–43 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02893935

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02893935

Keywords

Search

Navigation