بررسی معنا و پیامدهای بازارگرایی با مشتری تعریف شده
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||تعداد صفحات مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی|
|18694||2000||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید|
نسخه انگلیسی مقاله همین الان قابل دانلود است.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله بر اساس تعداد کلمات مقاله انگلیسی محاسبه می شود.
این مقاله تقریباً شامل 6446 کلمه می باشد.
هزینه ترجمه مقاله توسط مترجمان با تجربه، طبق جدول زیر محاسبه می شود:
|شرح||تعرفه ترجمه||زمان تحویل||جمع هزینه|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت عادی||هر کلمه 90 تومان||10 روز بعد از پرداخت||580,140 تومان|
|ترجمه تخصصی - سرعت فوری||هر کلمه 180 تومان||5 روز بعد از پرداخت||1,160,280 تومان|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Business Research, Volume 48, Issue 2, May 2000, Pages 101–112
To date the marketing literature has failed to substantiate the linkage between market orientation and customer satisfaction. This is surprising particularly when considering the attention that has been given to the implementation of the marketing concept in recent years. Furthermore, market orientation is not yet commonly positioned as a customer-defined organization state, despite the literature strongly promoting the importance of customer perceptions when determining extent of organization success. The exploratory research reported here supports the customer-defined position and seeks to redress this gap in the context of the services industry. An analysis of customer perceptions of market orientation suggests that a reduced and amended version of a well-known market orientation measurement instrument can meaningfully be applied to customers, and that a strong relationship exists between customer-defined market orientation and both service quality and customer satisfaction. The discussion of findings is facilitated through the adoption of an amended satisfaction/dissatisfaction motivation theory model. In addition, areas for further research are proposed. The key to a firm's economic success is developing a sustainable competitive advantage (SCA) (Porter, 1985), and the key to developing a competitive advantage is consistently creating superior value for customers Slater and Narver 1992 and Narver, Slater, and Tietje 1998. The marketing literature suggests that a necessary prerequisite to achieving a competitive advantage and providing superior value for customers is the development of a market orientation (e.g., Kohli and Jaworski 1990, Narver and Slater 1990 and Pitt, Caruana, and Berthon 1996). However, past research has almost exclusively considered a market orientation as an “employee-perceived phenomenon,” and as a result, subsequent studies pertaining to a firm's market orientation generally have been based on employee self-reports. Although Drucker's (Drucker, 1954) comment that marketing is not a specialized activity, but rather “the whole business seen from the customer's point of view,” was made over four decades ago, only recently has a customer-defined market orientation position been proposed. Adopting a customer-centered view of market orientation, Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster (1993) used the term “customer orientation” synonymously with “market orientation” to argue that the evaluation of a firm's level of customer-orientation should come from customers rather than the company itself. They emphasize that it is the customers'—as opposed to the sellers'—perceptions of the level to which a firm is customer oriented that will be the critical measure of business performance. Indeed, their empirical rejection of the hypothesis stating that marketer self-reported customer orientation is related positively to business performance, and their acceptance of the hypothesis stating that customer self-reported customer orientation is related positively to business performance adds further testimony to the importance of a customer-defined market orientation. Furthermore, in a contrasting model assessment incorporating three market orientation measurement instruments (i.e., those advanced by Kohli and Jaworski 1990, Narver and Slater 1990 and Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster 1993), a factor analysis resulted in a synthesized 10-item marketing orientation scale (Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster, 1993). The authors note that the 10 items seem to have intuitive integrity because they all regard a customer-focused notion of market orientation. Thus, drawing on Drucker's (Drucker, 1954) comment and Deshpandé and colleagues' Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster 1993 and Deshpandé and Farley 1998 research, it seems not only intuitively logical but also necessary to view market orientation from a customer vantage. This view appears even more compelling in cases where organization “perceptions of reality” are out of sync with those of its customers (Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster, 1993). In such cases, defining and evaluating market orientation from an employee vantage appears even more tenuous. The research reported here advances the customer-defined position and argues that the adoption of the employee-defined view of market orientation is one-sided and myopic in that it ignores the vital role of customers in terms of value recognition. We suggest that an organization can be described as market-oriented only when the firm's total product offer is both recognized and described by customers in value terms. In other words, a firm can be accurately labeled as “market-oriented” only when customers perceive it as such and when they perceive that the firm offers considerable value to them. We advance therefore that market orientation, as an organization state, is not wholly definable by employees, and that beneficial strategic insights can be gained by firms when they view market orientation from a customer vantage. In addition, acceptance of the proposed relationship between market orientation and customer satisfaction is more appealing where both constructs are measured from a customer vantage. In other words, if consumers view a firm as being highly market oriented, they are more likely to have a high level of satisfaction with that particular firm. While the explication of the market orientation and customer satisfaction relationship may first appear somewhat tautological, it is important to note that the relationship has not been empirically investigated. If market orientation is a form of organization culture (as proposed by Narver and Slater 1990, Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster 1993 and Day 1994; and Narver, Slater, and Tietje, 1998), then we forward that the empirical validation of its proposed linkage to customer satisfaction deserves explicit consideration. Should a positive relationship result, rationalizing the necessity for the development of a market-oriented culture would become all the more palatable for organizations. Given the considerable extent to which customer satisfaction is discussed as a key strategic issue in the business literature, it is surprising to find that no empirical study has yet explicitly examined the relationship between customer-defined market orientation (CDMO) and customer satisfaction. The current study adds to the existing literature in several ways. First, the market orientation and organization outcome framework is extended by offering a conceptual model in which CDMO is positioned both as an antecedent of service quality (SQ) and customer satisfaction (CS). Second, a market orientation scale is modified to accommodate a customer-defined position. Third, the validity and reliabilty of a number of competing customer-defined market orientation models are examined. And fourth, the relationships between a CDMO and both CS and SQ are investigated. We begin by reviewing the literature on the conceptualization and implementation of the marketing concept and the linkages among market orientation, service quality, and outcomes (performance and customer satisfaction).
For decades, the marketing concept has been heralded by marketing academicians and practitioners to the extent that its acceptance as the optimal marketing management philosophy has been almost universal (Houston, 1986). However, many have expressed concern about the implementation of the marketing concept, declaring it is not a practical basis for managing a business (e.g., Kotler 1991 and Day 1994). Perhaps the difficulty associated with the practice of the marketing concept stems from a lack of consensus regarding its meaning, what it means to implement the concept, and the term to describe the latter. In general, the meaning and implementation of the marketing concept has been referred to as being “customer oriented,” “market driven,” “market oriented,” and “marketing oriented.” The terms “market driven” and “customer oriented” are considered as interchangeable concepts by Shapiro (1988). Moreover, he emphasizes that for a company to be considered market driven or customer oriented, three characteristics must be evident. First, information on salient buying influences must permeate each corporate function. Second, strategic and tactical decisions must be made interfunctionally and interdivisionally. And third, divisions and functional units must make coordinated decisions and execute them with a sense of commitment. The terms “market driven” and “market oriented” are viewed synonymously by Slater and Narver 1992 and Slater and Narver 1994. They propose that these two terms refer to the development and maintenance of an organization culture that most effectively and efficiently creates superior value for consumers and continuous, superior performance for the firm. They propose further that a market orientation consists of three key dimensions: a customer orientation, a competitor orientation, and interfunctional coordination (coordinated utilization of company resources in creating superior value for target customers). On the other hand, market driven and market oriented are viewed as different constructs by other authors. For example, Day (1994) applies the term “market driven” to firms that maintain close contact with their customers, more specifically arguing that such firms are superior in their market-sensing and customer-linking capabilities. Shapiro (1988) views being “market oriented” in a more comprehensive manner and posits that it represents a set of processes touching on all aspects of the company. He emphasizes that a market orientation is much more than “getting close to the customer.” Similarly, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) argue that a market orientation is an overall organizational value system, one that provides strong norms for the generation, dissemination, and responsiveness to intelligence. The terms “market orientation” and “customer orientation” are perceived to be synonymous by Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster (1993). Dissimilar to the view mentioned earlier, these authors distinguish a market orientation from a competitor orientation, arguing that it can be antithetical to a customer orientation when the focus is on the strengths of the competitor rather than on the unmet needs of the customer. Furthermore, they position customer orientation as part of an overall fundamental corporate culture. Although the terms “market orientation” and “marketing orientation” have been used interchangeably in the literature, the former term is considered to be the better descriptor for three reasons (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). First, the term implies that the construct is not exclusively a concern of the marketing function; whereas, “marketing orientation” is restrictive and misleading in this respect (Shapiro, 1988). Second, the term “market orientation” is less politically charged because it does not overemphasize the importance of the marketing function in the organization. And third, the label focuses on markets, which include customers and the forces affecting them. This is consistent with the broader “management of markets” orientation proposed by Park and Zaltman (1987) and the “competitor orientation” dimension proposed by Narver and Slater (1990). In summary, the conceptualized dimensions of customer orientation, competitor orientation, and interfunctional coordination (Narver and Slater, 1990), share a similar nomological network with the dimensions of intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination, and responsiveness (Kohli and Jaworski, 1995). However, though similarities in definition, content, and operationalization are evident, consensus with respect to the importance and positioning of “information,” “value,” and “competitors” has yet to be reached.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
Analysis commenced with an assessment of the market orientation scale for unidimensionality and internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test three competing positions advocated in the literature. The first position, replicating a first-order single factor representation of the data, assesses the unidimensional validity and reliability of an adapted version of the original Narver and Slater (1990) market orientation measurement instrument. Thus, the first position examines the proposition stated earlier. The second position, replicating a first-order two-factor structure of the data, recognizes the similarity drawn between a combined customer-competitor representation and the “management of markets” position advanced by Park and Zaltman (1987). Thus: • P2: Customer orientation and competitor orientation are indicative of one dimension representing information and acquisition activities, and interfunctional coordination is representative of a separate dimension corresponding to managerial action in the creation of value. And finally, the third position (Figure 2) tests the validity of a three-dimensional representation of market orientation (Narver and Slater, 1990) and proposes that: Chi-square was used to test the null hypothesis that each of the positions (hereinafter referenced as models, that is, position 1 = model 1 [M1], etc.) reproduce the population covariance matrix of the included observed variables. By convention, an acceptable model is one where the p-value is greater than or equal to 0.05 (Bagozzi and Foxall, 1996). In addition to the chi-square test and its associated p-values, the comparative fit index (CFI) is reported as a test of model fit. Bentler (1990) suggests that CFI values of above 0.95 indicate a good overall fit, while values of between 0.90 and 0.95 suggest adequate fit. The analysis reveals that each of the models demonstrate to some extent unsatisfactory results with chi-square and p-values below the desired level in all cases (M1 − M2) and unacceptable to low goodness-of-fit (CFI) values for models 1 (M1) and 2 (M2), respectively. Consequently, M1 and M2 are not presented within the text; however, associated results are documented in Table 1. In summary, the goodness-of-fit indexes for the 2 and 3 factor representations reveal an improved model fit for these models over the single factor representation with CFI values falling in the Bentler (1990) proposed “adequate fit” band (Table 1, M2 and M3 CFI values > 0.90). As stated previously, however, chi-square values and their associated p-values reveal a degree of model misspecification. A technique of partial disaggregation is used to minimize the effect that low sample size to parameter estimate ratios has on the calculation of the chi-square statistic. Partial disaggregation involves the formation of indices by summing random items within each construct to form pairs or clusters of composite indicators (Bagozzi and Foxall, 1996). Items were selected on the basis of the magnitude of the factor loadings in each model. In total, two models incorporating the partially disaggregated sets of items were assessed. Model 4 (Figure 3) depicts a first-order two-factor structure with items 1 to 8 paired (CC1 − CC4) as indicators of one latent factor (labeled “CCorn”, customer and competitor orientation), and items 9 to 11 as indicators of a second latent factor (labeled “FCoord”, interfunctional coordination). Model 5 (Figure 4), depicting a first-order three-factor structure, includes customer orientation (CusOrn), competitor orientation (CompOrn), and interfunctional coordination (FCoord) as independent latent factors. Indicators are identical to those explored in Model 3 (Figure 2), with the exception of “CusOrn” where items 1 to 6 are paired to create a set of three indicators (CusOrn 1 to 3). Models 4 (Figure 3) and 5 (Figure 4) thus replicate models 2 and 3 in composition. Chi-square test statistics reveal an excellent model fit in each case with χ2, p-value, and CFI indexes of the desired magnitude (model 4: − χ2 = 20.66, df = 13, p = 0.07, CFI = 0.98; model 5: − χ2 = 16.19, df = 17, p = 0.51, CFI = 1.00). Comparing the results, the three-factor solution for model 5 (Figure 4) appears to represent the model of best fit. Lagrange multiplier (LM) and multivariate Wald (W) tests revealed that no further changes to the parameterization of the model's structure would yield a significant improvement in χ2 values. Thus, model 5 was accepted as representative of the structure of market orientation. Convergent and Discriminant Validity Convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated by calculating the average variance extracted (AVE) for each factor. Convergent validity is established if the shared variance accounts for 0.50 or more of the total variance. Discriminant validity is evident when the AVE for each construct is greater than the squared correlation between that construct and any other construct in the model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The results presented in Table 2 confirm both the convergent and discriminant validity of model 5. Internal consistency was assessed by means of the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. Values were calculated for each of the three factors included in model 5. The results presented in Table 2 attest to the high internal consistency of the instrument in that all values are above the suggested 0.70 level for scale robustness (Nunnally, 1978). The results presented in the above sections offer support for the psychometric soundness of the CDMO measurement instrument at a three-factor level. Propositions 1 and 2, which explore the structure of market orientation at the single and two factor levels are rejected. However, proposition 3, which stated that “the market orientation components of customer orientation, competitor orientation, and interfunctional coordination are discrete constructs,” is accepted. On the evidence of the above results we concur with Narver and Slater (1990) that the structure of market orientation is best represented by three unique dimensions, that is, customer orientation, competitor orientation, and interfunctional coordination.