Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Patterns and performance outcomes of innovation orientation

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

Abstract

Extant research has identified a broad set of antecedents of innovativeness, with the assumption that maximizing as many of them as possible leads to sustained innovativeness. However, companies usually face resource constraints and therefore must strive to identify and combine the most important drivers of superior innovativeness effectively. This research addresses this practical challenge by identifying typical patterns of innovation orientation and their associated performance outcomes. Drawing on configuration and boundary theory, the authors develop a framework and hypotheses, then use data from marketing managers, R&D managers, and customers to identify four patterns: integrated innovators, internally driven preservers, proactive customer-oriented innovators, and top-down innovators. The empirical results reveal performance differences across these patterns. An integrated approach leads to the highest innovativeness scores, but proactive customer-oriented innovators and top-down innovators enjoy the greatest financial success.

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

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Because marketing managers completed the items to measure both customer information acquisition activities and performance, common method variance may occur. To alleviate this concern, we used customer data to validate the managers’ NPP innovativeness assessments.

  2. We did not obtain objective financial performance measures from secondary sources because many companies in our data set were not publicly listed, and most companies have reservations about providing such data, so including these measures could have reduced the size of our multiple informant data set.

References

  • Aldrich, H., & Herker, D. (1977). Boundary spanning roles and organization structure. Academy of Management Review, 2(2), 217–230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1993). Proposed template for JMR measurement appendix. Working paper, J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University.

  • Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977). Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys. Journal of Marketing Research, 14(3), 396–402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996a). The influence of innovation orientation in human resource management of new product development: the moderating role of innovation type. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 1(1), 87–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K. (1996b). Differential potency of factors affecting innovation performance in manufacturing and services firms in Australia. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(1), 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Atuahene-Gima, K., Slater, S. F., & Olson, E. M. (2005). The contingent value of responsive and proactive market orientations for new product program performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 22(6), 464–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagozzi, R. P., Yi, Y., & Phillips, L. W. (1991). Assessing construct validity in organizational research. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(3), 421–458.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, D. E., & Ostroff, C. (2004). Understanding HRM-firm performance linkages: the role of the “strength” of the firm system. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 203–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brahma, S. S. (2009). Assessment of construct validity in management research. Journal of Management Research, 9(2), 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buganza, T., Dell’Era, C., & Verganti, R. (2009). Exploring the relationships between product development and environmental turbulence: the case of mobile TLC services. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(3), 308–321.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bunn, M. D. (1993). Taxonomy of buying decision approaches. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 38–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, M. J., Finkelstein, L. M., & Dusig, M. S. (1999). On average deviation indices for estimating interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 2(1), 49–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R. J., Garcia, R., & Dröge, C. (2003). The effects of environmental turbulence on new product development strategy planning. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 20(2), 90–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calantone, R. J., Chan, K., & Cui, A. S. (2006). Decomposing product innovativeness and its effects on new product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(5), 408–421.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannon, J. P. (1992). A taxonomy of buyer-seller relationships in business markets. Doctoral dissertation, Kenan-Flagler Business School, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.

  • Cannon, J. P., & Perreault, W. D., Jr. (1999). Buyer-seller relationships in business markets. Journal of Marketing Research, 36(4), 439–460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chan, L. L. M., Shaffer, M. A., & Snape, E. (2004). In search of sustained competitive advantage: the impact of organizational culture, competitive strategy and human resource management practices on firm performance. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 15(1), 17–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, H.-J., & Pucik, V. (2005). Relationship between innovativeness, quality, growth, profitability, and market value. Strategic Management Journal, 26(6), 555–575.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. A., Jr. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 64–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, A. V., Lee, R. P., & McCullough, J. (2007). Information use and new product outcomes: the contingent role of strategy type. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24(3), 259–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, T., Varadarajan, P. R., & Pride, W. M. (1994). Environmental management: the construct and research propositions. Journal of Business Research, 29(1), 23–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conner, K. R., & Prahalad, C. K. (1996). A resource-based theory of the firm: knowledge versus opportunism. Organization Science, 7(5), 477–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G. (1979). The dimensions of industrial new product success and failure. Journal of Marketing, 43(3), 93–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, R. G., & de Brentani, U. (1991). New industrial financial services: what distinguishes the winners. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(2), 75–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A. C., Woo, C. Y., & Dunkelberg, W. C. (1989). Entrepreneurship and the initial size of firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 4(5), 317.

    Google Scholar 

  • Danneels, E., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2001). Product innovativeness from the firm’s perspective: its dimensions and their relation with project selection and performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(6), 357–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Brentani, U. (2001). Innovative versus incremental new business services: different keys for achieving success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18(3), 169–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney, J. T., & Huselid, M. A. (1996). The impact of human resource management practices on perceptions of organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 949–969.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denning, S. (2005). Transformational innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 33(3), 11–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing LISREL: A guide for the uninitiated. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: an alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dollinger, M. J. (1984). Environmental boundary spanning and information processing effects on organizational performance. Academy of Management Journal, 27(2), 351–368.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drucker, P. (1970). Entrepreneurship in business enterprise. Journal of Business Policy, 1(1), 3–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duda, R. O., & Hart, P. E. (1973). Pattern classification and scene analysis. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, R. B. (1972). Characteristics of organizational environments and perceived environmental uncertainty. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17(3), 313–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Durisin, B., Calabretta, G., & Parmeggiani, V. (2010). The intellectual structure of product innovation research: a bibliometric study of the Journal of Product Innovation Management, 1984–2004. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 27(3), 437–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elenkov, D. S., Judge, W., & Wright, P. (2005). Strategic leadership and executive innovation influence: an international multi-cluster comparative study. Strategic Management Journal, 26(7), 665–682.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engelland, B. T., & Summey, J. H. (1999). An extended typology of strategic orientation and its linkages to product innovativeness. Journal of Marketing Management, 9(2), 19–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fader, P. S., & Lodish, L. M. (1990). A cross-category analysis of category structure and promotional activity for grocery products. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 52–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fang, E. (2008). Customer participation and the trade-off between new product innovativeness and speed to market. Journal of Marketing, 72(4), 90–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fennell, M. L., & Alexander, J. A. (1987). Organizational boundary spanning in institutionalized environments. Academy of Management Journal, 30(3), 456–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innovation typology and innovativeness terminology: a literature review. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gatignon, H., & Xuereb, J.-M. (1997). Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(1), 77–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilley, A., Dixon, P., & Gilley, J. W. (2008). Characteristics of leadership effectiveness: implementing change and driving innovation in organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 19(2), 153–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, A. (1997). ‘New age’ strategic planning: bridging theory and practice. Long Range Planning, 30(1), 125–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, A., & Venkatraman, N. (1985). Contingency perspectives of organizational strategy: a critical review of the empirical research. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 421–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant, R. M. (1997). The knowledge-based view of the firm: implications for management practice. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 450–454.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gresov, C., & Drazin, R. (1997). Equifinality: functional equivalence in organization design. Academy of Management Review, 22(2), 403–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grinstein, A. (2008). The effect of market orientation and its components on innovation consequences: a meta-analysis. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(2), 166–173.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (1983). Some tests of the effectiveness and functional attributes of miles and snow’s strategic types. Academy of Management Journal, 26(1), 5–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambrick, D. C. (1984). Taxonomic approaches to studying strategy: some conceptual and methodological issues. Journal of Management, 10(1), 27–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harmancioglu, N., Grinstein, A., & Goldman, A. (2010). Innovation and performance outcomes of market information collection efforts: the role of top management team involvement. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 27(1), 33–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, L. C., & Ogbonna, E. (2001). Strategic human resource management, market orientation, and organizational performance. Journal of Business Research, 51(2), 157–166.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauser, J., Tellis, G. J., & Griffin, A. (2006). Research on innovation: a review and agenda for marketing science. Marketing Science, 25(6), 687–717.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. M., & McAllaster, C. (2002). Want innovation? Then use cultural artifacts that support it. Organizational Dynamics, 31(1), 74–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., & Pflesser, C. (2000). A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture: measurement issues and performance outcomes. Journal of Marketing Research, 37(4), 449–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Homburg, C., Workman, J. P., Jr., & Krohmer, H. (1999). Marketing’s influence within the firm. Journal of Marketing, 63(2), 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, T.-C. (2000). Are the human resource practices of effective firms distinctly different from those of poorly performing ones? Evidence from Taiwanese enterprises. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2), 436–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., & Ketchen, D. J., Jr. (2001). Does market orientation matter?: a test of the relationship between positional advantage and performance. Strategic Management Journal, 22(9), 899.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hult, G. T. M., Hurley, R. F., & Knight, G. A. (2004). Innovativeness: its antecedents and impact on business performance. Industrial Marketing Management, 33(5), 429–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an integration and empirical examination. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 42–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyer, B., & Davenport, T. H. (2008). Reverse engineering Google’s innovation machine. Harvard Business Review, 86(4), 58–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1984). Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 69(1), 85–98.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Jaworski, B. J., Kohli, A. K., & Sahay, A. (2000). Market-driven versus driving markets. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 28(1), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jemison, D. B. (1984). The importance of boundary spanning roles in strategic decision-making. Journal of Management Studies, 21(2), 131–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kanter, R. M. (2006). Innovation: the classic traps. Harvard Business Review, 84(11), 72–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katila, R. (2002). New product search over time: past ideas in their prime? Academy of Management Journal, 45(5), 995–1010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, P., & Kranzberg, M. (1975). Technological innovation: A critical review of current knowledge. Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ketchen, J. D. J., Thomas, J. B., & Snow, C. C. (1993). Organizational configurations and performance: a comparison of theoretical approaches. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1278–1313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khatri, N. (2000). Managing human resource for competitive advantage: a study of companies in Singapore. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(2), 336–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B. J., & Kumar, A. (1993). Markor: a measure of market orientation. Journal of Marketing Research (JMR), 30(4), 467–477.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N., Stern, L. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Conducting interorganizational research using key informants. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1633–1651.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: the role of openness in explaining innovation performance among U.K. Manufacturing firms. Strategic Management Journal, 27(2), 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leifer, R., & Huber, G. P. (1977). Relations among perceived environmental uncertainty, organization structure, and boundary-spanning behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 22(2), 235–247.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lengnick-Hall, C. A. (1992). Innovation and competitive advantage: what we know and what we need to learn. Journal of Management, 18(2), 399.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, D. (2002). The limitations of listening. Harvard Business Review, 80(1), 93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magnusson, P. R., Matthing, J., & Kristensson, P. (2003). Managing user involvement in service innovation. Journal of Service Research, 6(2), 111–124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manu, F. A. (1992). Innovation orientation, environment and performance: a comparison of U.S. and European markets. Journal of International Business Studies, 23(2), 333–359.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menguc, B., & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on market orientation and innovativeness. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(1), 63–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, A. D., Tsui, A. S., & Hinings, C. R. (1993). Configurational approaches to organizational analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 36(6), 1175–1195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meznar, M. B., & Nigh, D. (1995). Buffer or bridge? Environmental and organizational determinants of public affairs activities in American firms. Academy of Management Journal, 38(4), 975–996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. C. (1978). Organizational strategy, structure, and process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D. (1987). The genesis of configuration. Academy of Management Review, 12(4), 686–701.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1983). Strategy-making and environment: the third link. Strategic Management Journal, 4(3), 221–235.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, D., & Mintzberg, H. (1988). The case of configurations. In H. Mintzberg, J. B. Quinn, & R. M. James (Eds.), The strategy process: Concepts, contexts, and cases (pp. 518–524). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milligan, G. W., & Cooper, M. C. (1987). Methodology review: clustering methods. Applied Psychological Measurement, 11(4), 329–354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miron, E., Erez, M., & Naveh, E. (2004). Do personal characteristics and cultural values that promote innovation, quality, and efficiency compete or complement each other? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(2), 175–199.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, S., Kim, D., & Lee, D. H. (1996). Factors affecting new product success: cross-country comparisons. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13(6), 530–550.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S. (2002). Designing virtual customer environments for new product development: toward a theory. Academy of Management Review, 27(3), 392–413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Narver, J. C., Slater, S. F., & MacLachlan, D. L. (2004). Responsive and proactive market orientation and new-product success. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(5), 334–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noble, C. H., Sinha, R. K., & Kumar, A. (2002). Market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: a longitudinal assessment of performance implications. Journal of Marketing, 66(4), 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, E. M., Walker, J. O. C., & Ruekert, R. W. (1995). Organizing for effective new product development: the moderating role of product innovativeness. Journal of Marketing, 59(1), 48–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ottum, B. D., & Moore, W. L. (1997). The role of market information in new product success/failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 14(4), 258–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paladino, A. (2008). Analyzing the effects of market and resource orientations on innovative outcomes in times of turbulence. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(6), 577–592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Jeong-Yeon, L., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prabhu, J. C., Chandy, R. K., & Ellis, M. E. (2005). The impact of acquisitions on innovation: poison pill, placebo, or tonic? Journal of Marketing, 69(1), 114–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Punj, G., & Stewart, D. W. (1983). Cluster analysis in marketing research: review and suggestions for application. Journal of Marketing Research, 20(2), 134–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rich, P. (1992). The organizational taxonomy: definition and design. Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 758–781.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, A. M., & Elola, L. N. (1991). Product innovation management in Spain. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 8(1), 49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzel, K., & Calantone, R. (2006). Creating market anticipation: an exploratory examination of the effect of preannouncement behavior on a new product’s launch. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(3), 357–366.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwab, R. C., Ungson, C. R., & Brown, W. B. (1985). Redefining the boundary spanning-environment relationship. Journal of Management, 11(1), 75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shipton, H., West, M. A., Dawson, J., Birdi, K., & Patterson, M. (2006). HRM as a predictor of innovation. Human Resource Management Journal, 16(1), 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shu, S.-T., Wong, V., & Lee, N. (2005). The effects of external linkages on new product innovativeness: an examination of moderating and mediating influences. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 13(3), 199–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siguaw, J. A., Simpson, P. M., & Enz, C. A. (2006). Conceptualizing innovation orientation: a framework for study and integration of innovation research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 23(6), 556–574.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, J. (1998). Striking a balance in boundary-spanning positions: an investigation of some unconventional influences of role stressors and job characteristics on job outcomes of salespeople. Journal of Marketing, 62(3), 69–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1999). Market-oriented is more than being customer-led. Strategic Management Journal, 20(12), 1165–1168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Song, M., & Parry, M. E. (2009). The desired level of market orientation and business unit performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 37(2), 144–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorescu, A., Shankar, V., & Kushwaha, T. (2007). New product preannouncements and shareholder value: don’t make promises you can’t keep. Journal of Marketing Research, 44(3), 468–489.

    Google Scholar 

  • Souder, W. E., Sherman, J. D., & Davies-Cooper, R. (1998). Environmental uncertainty, organizational integration, and new product development effectiveness: a test of contingency theory. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15(6), 520–533.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, J. C., & Kessler, E. H. (1995). Managing the uncertainties of innovation: extending Thompson (1967). Human Relations, 48(1), 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, D. W., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Enhancing marketing theory in academic research. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 477–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, R. M. (2006). Interorganizational teams as boundary spanners between supplier and customer companies. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 34(4), 588–599.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, R. M. (2010). How does product program innovativeness affect customer satisfaction? A comparison of goods and services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science. doi:10.1007/s11747-010-0215-4.

  • Stock, R. M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2002). Leadership style as driver of salespeople’s customer orientation. Journal of Market-Focused Management, 5(4), 355–376.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, R. M., & Hoyer, W. D. (2005). An attitude-behavior model of salespeople’s customer orientation. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33(4), 536–552.

    Google Scholar 

  • Subramanian, A., & Nilakanta, S. (1996). Organizational innovativeness: exploring the relationship between organizational determinants of innovation, types of innovations, and measures of organizational performance. Omega, 24(6), 631–647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szymanski, D. M., Kroff, M. W., & Troy, L. C. (2007). Innovativeness and new product success: insights from the cumulative evidence. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 35(1), 35–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Census Bureau (2006). Number of firms, number of establishments, employment, and annual payroll by employment size of the enterprise for the United States, all industries 2006. Retrieved October 10, 2009, from http://www2.census.gov/econ/susb/data/2006/us_6digitnaics_2006.xls.

  • Van Bruggen, G. H., Lilien, G. L., & Kacker, M. (2002). Informants in organizational marketing research: why use multiple informants and how to aggregate responses. Journal of Marketing Research, 39(4), 469–478.

    Google Scholar 

  • Veliyath, R., & Srinivasan, T. C. (1995). Gestalt approaches to assessing strategic coalignment: a conceptual integration. British Journal of Management, 6(3), 205–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venkatraman, N. (1989). The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and statistical correspondence. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 423–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vorhies, D. W., & Morgan, N. A. (2003). A configuration theory assessment of marketing organization fit with business strategy and its relationship with marketing performance. Journal of Marketing, 67(1), 100–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, J. H., Jr. (1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 58(301), 236–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ward, P. T., Bickford, D. J., & Leong, G. K. (1996). Configurations of manufacturing strategy, business strategy, environment and structure. Journal of Management, 22(4), 597–626.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav, M. S., Prabhu, J. C., & Chandy, R. K. (2007). Managing the future: CEO attention and innovation outcomes. Journal of Marketing, 71(4), 84–101.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zahra, S. A., & Nielsen, A. P. (2002). Sources of capabilities, integration and technology commercialization. Strategic Management Journal, 23(5), 377–397.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, K. Z., Gao, G. Y., Yang, Z., & Zhou, N. (2005). Developing strategic orientation in china: antecedents and consequences of market and innovation orientations. Journal of Business Research, 58(8), 1049–1058.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuniga-Vicente, J.-A., de la Fuente-Sabata, J. M., & Suarez-Gonzalez, I. (2004). Dynamics of the strategic group membership-performance linkage in rapidly changing environments. Journal of Business Research, 57(12), 1378–1390.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Gisela Bieling, Joe Cannon, Julia Roederer, Lisa Scheer, and Björn Six for their helpful comments on a prior draft of this article. Financial support from the “Vereinigung von Freunden der Technischen Universität zu Darmstadt e.V.” (Association of Supporters of the Technische Universität Darmstadt) is gratefully acknowledged. We thank three anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions throughout the review process.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Marketing and Human Resource Management, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Hochschulstr. 1, 64289, Darmstadt, Germany

    Ruth Maria Stock & Nicolas Andy Zacharias

Authors
  1. Ruth Maria Stock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nicolas Andy Zacharias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ruth Maria Stock.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 6 Scale items for construct measures
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stock, R.M., Zacharias, N.A. Patterns and performance outcomes of innovation orientation. J. of the Acad. Mark. Sci. 39, 870–888 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0225-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-010-0225-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation