چشم انداز اجرای راهبرد جهتگیری بازار

The authors conceptually and empirically explore the role of market orientation in the context of strategy implementation. Specifically, market orientation plays a key role for the successful implementation of a premium product differentiation (PPD) strategy. This result is based on the empirical findings from an international study that shows the performance effect of a PPD strategy is to a significant extent mediated through the construct of market orientation. Implications for future research and managerial practice are discussed.

Since the classic statement by Chandler (1962) that “structure follows strategy,” there has been interest in the relationship between strategy and organizational dimensions such as structure. The relationship between the strategy and organizational dimensions has typically been explained in a sequential model where firms decide on a strategy and then put in place appropriate organizational choices such as structure, systems, rewards, and processes that support this strategy Galbraith and Nathanson, 1978, Govindarajan, 1988 and Govindarajan and Gupta, 1985. This research stream is generally referred to as “strategy implementation” (Ginsberg and Venkatraman, 1985), which Varadarajan (1999) defines as “the actions initiated within the organization and in its relationships with external constituencies to realize the strategy.” Varadarajan (1999) points out that “much of the research in marketing strategy has focused on strategy content issues with a much more limited amount of research attention devoted to implementation and formulation process issues.” The strategy implementation research done in the strategy and management fields has historically focused on the “harder” dimensions of structure and systems. However, with the growing interest in resource-based theories of the firm (Barney, 1991), there has been increased interest in the role of intangible factors such as skills, capabilities, leadership style, and culture in strategy implementation. At the core of the strategy implementation approach is the recognition that different types of capabilities, organizational processes, and systems need to be adjusted in order to implement the selected strategy. Within marketing, there has been great interest in market orientation as an intangible factor that has an effect on organizational performance, with prior research addressing topics such as conceptualization of the construct (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990), measurement of the construct Kohli et al., 1993 and Narver and Slater, 1990, antecedents of market orientation Day, 1994 and Jaworski and Kohli, 1993, and consequences of market orientation Jaworski and Kohli, 1993 and Slater and Narver, 1994. One issue not addressed by prior research is the role of market orientation in the implementation of certain types of strategy. The purpose of this paper is to examine the role of market orientation in the implementation of a premium product differentiation (PPD) strategy. Implementation means to adapt organizational variables to a strategy, which then leads to increased performance. These organizational variables take a facilitating role in the relationship between strategy and performance. Market orientation as such an organizational variable facilitates strategy implementation if it intervenes between strategy and performance. If it does, it is a mediator in the link between strategy and performance where strategy leads to performance via market orientation. More specifically, we study the strategy→market orientation→performance causal chain, and examine both direct and indirect (through market orientation) effects of strategy on performance. If a significant part of the effect of strategy on performance is mediated via market orientation, then it plays an important role in strategy implementation.

After establishing the structure of the measurement model, we analyzed the overall causal model consisting of the structural relations among latent variables shown in Fig. 2 and 29 indicator variables, excluding the direct effects of differentiation strategy on the two performance measures. Although the significant chi-square statistic [χ2(371)=900.97, P<.01] suggests discrepancies between the data and the proposed overall model in Fig. 2, other indicators suggest an adequate fit of that model: (1) GFI was .97, AGFI was .96, and CFI was .97, (2) RMSEA was .05, and (3) the Q-plot was approximately linear with a slope near 1 suggesting the absence of major model misspecifications Bagozzi and Yi, 1988, Bentler, 1990 and Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993. Finally, we calculated the explained variances for the endogenous variables (intelligence generation=.47; intelligence dissemination=.62; responsiveness=.88; effectiveness=.67; efficiency=.19). The relatively low explained variance for efficiency (which in our study primarily reflects profitability) can be explained by the consideration that profitability depends on so many other factors such as industry structure and competitive pressures, which are not integrated in our model. In Fig. 2, we report standardized parameter estimates corresponding to the hypotheses in our model. For all hypotheses, the corresponding parameter is significant at the .01 level. All hypotheses are clearly supported. Emphasis on a differentiation strategy positively affects intelligence generation (γ11=.69), intelligence dissemination (γ21=.14), and responsiveness (γ31=.34). The impact of a PPD strategy is strongest on intelligence generation and weakest on intelligence dissemination. Between the components of market orientation, we find a causal chain with intelligence generation positively influencing intelligence dissemination (β21=.69), which leads to higher responsiveness (β32=.69). Responsiveness shows strong positive effects on effectiveness (β43=.82) and efficiency (β53=.43), the two dimensions of business performance in our study. Because intelligence generation and intelligence dissemination, the two other components of market orientation, increase responsiveness, it follows that market orientation as a whole has a positive impact on business performance. Overall, our findings indicate that a PPD strategy has strong indirect effects on business performance through the construct of market orientation. Furthermore, in order to find out to which extent our findings generalize across countries, we conducted a multiple group causal analysis (Jöreskog and Sörbom, 1993) with two groups corresponding to the two countries in our study. The parameter estimates in both groups were nearly identical, which indicates that our theoretical reasoning is supported not only in the pooled sample but also in the two subsamples. This result offers support for the generalizability of our findings. Analyzing the indirect effects of a PPD strategy on performance via market orientation represents an empirical test of mediation: Market orientation mediates between strategy and performance, i.e., market orientation intervenes in the relationship between strategy and performance helping to explain why an association between strategy and performance exists. This test of the mediating role of market orientation is the empirical equivalent of the concept of strategy implementation via market orientation (see also Venkatraman, 1989). Given these considerations, we can empirically show the important role of market orientation in the implementation of a PPD strategy, if the indirect effects of a PPD strategy on the two performance dimensions via market orientation (mediation effects) are important compared to the direct effects of strategy on performance. To compare the direct and indirect (via market orientation) effects of a PPD strategy on performance, we analyzed two additional models. Each model contained a direct effect of a PPD strategy on one performance dimension. This was achieved by freeing the corresponding parameter and obtaining an estimate of it. We compared the chi-square values of the more general models with the chi-square value of the more restrictive model. That test is based on a chi-square distribution with one degree of freedom (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988). For both of the alternative models, the improvement in fit achieved through the generalization was significant. Therefore, a PPD strategy had direct effects both on effectiveness and on efficiency. Further insight is provided by looking at the comparative strength of the indirect and direct effects of a PPD strategy on effectiveness and on efficiency. The total effect of a PPD strategy on efficiency is .47 with an indirect effect of .10 (γ11β21β32β53+γ21β32β63+γ31β53) and a direct effect of .37 (γ51). For efficiency, the direct effect of a PPD strategy is more important than the indirect effect through market orientation. The total effect of a PPD strategy on effectiveness is .73 with an indirect effect of .39 (γ11β21β32β43+γ21β32β43+γ31β43) and a direct effect of .34 (γ41). On an overall basis, our findings provide clear support for the importance of market orientation as a partial mediator in the differentiation strategy–performance relationship.