جهت گیری بازار در زمینه جهت گیری ذینفعان چندگانه: مفاهیم برای قابلیت بازاریابی و دارایی

Does a market orientation approach focus too heavily on customers at the expense of other stakeholders? Managers also need to address the interests of other stakeholders when making marketing decisions. This gives an orientation to each stakeholder group, which exist simultaneously, giving a multiple stakeholder orientation profile (MSOP). In the reported empirical study of senior marketing executives, this weakness is addressed, by taking a simultaneous multiple stakeholder orientation approach. The study identified where marketing capabilities and assets are both different and similar among executives with a market focus in their MSOPs, and those with other MSOPs.

Does a market orientation approach focus too heavily on customers at the expense of other stakeholders? Managers also need to address the interests of other stakeholders when making marketing decisions (Donaldson and Preston, 1995, Greenley and Foxall, 1998, Miller and Lewis, 1991 and Ogden and Watson, 1999). In this article, we address market orientation within the context of multiple stakeholder orientation. Managers have orientations toward each of their stakeholder groups, which exist simultaneously. We propose that this constitutes a multiple stakeholder orientation profile (MSOP), which is the simultaneous ordering of attitudes towards each set of stakeholder interests and allocated managerial behaviour to serve these interests. However, there will be variation in MSOPs, such as a market focus MSOP that emphasizes customers, and an internal focus MSOP that emphasizes employees. As a market focus MSOP simultaneously addresses the interests of customers along with those of other main stakeholders, it is a more comprehensive and realistic approach than the restricted market orientation approach. Therefore, managers with different MSOPs will address different sets of stakeholder interests when making marketing decisions. Central to marketing decision making are the marketing capabilities of managers for making decisions, and the marketing assets that they deploy in implementing these decisions (Day, 1994, Fahy and Smithee, 1999 and Hooley et al., 1998). However, managers with a market MSOP will have different attitudes and behaviour in their decision making compared to managers with other MSOPs. Therefore, the key research question explored in this study is, will these different attitudes and behaviour of market MSOP managers mean that they have different marketing capabilities and that they deploy different marketing assets? As a contribution to addressing the weakness of the market orientation approach, and given that there is no empirical evidence, we empirically test this question. Such evidence would extend our understanding of the role of multiple stakeholder orientations with respect to marketing capabilities and assets, taking a simultaneous and more comprehensive approach, and would provide some practical guidance.

Consistent with the MSOP theory development in this paper, four different types of MSOPs were identified, based on four key primary stakeholders; competitors, customers, employees and shareholders. Differences and similarities in marketing capabilities and assets were found among marketing executives with a market MSOP and marketing executives with different emphases in their MSOPs. The MSOP approach is based on managers simultaneously considering the interests of several key stakeholders, rather than the market orientation approach, which focuses on customers. 5.1. Implications of differences Clearly there are some major differences between marketing executives with a market MSOP and marketing executives with other MSOPs. For marketing capabilities, the major differentiator is outside-in capabilities, where market MSOP marketing executives are seemingly superior; they have greater superiority of inside-out and networking capabilities than predicted; and, as predicted, they also have superior spanning capabilities. For marketing assets, the major differentiator is supply chain assets, where market MSOP companies are seemingly superior. Their customer-based assets are superior as predicted, while their internal and alliance assets have greater superiority than predicted. The results have implications for the theory of competitive advantage. As the results show where market MSOP marketing executives are different to other marketing executives with respect to their marketing capabilities and the marketing assets they deploy, the results suggest ways of formulating idiosyncratic management and firm heterogeneity, based on combinations of marketing capabilities, marketing assets and an MSOP. As particular sets of attitudes and behaviours about stakeholder interests are developed to form an MSOP, this development will also contribute to idiosyncratic management and heterogeneity. However, competing companies addressing similar market needs, but with different emphases in their MSOPs, will pursue competitive advantage in different ways, by developing different sets of marketing capabilities and deploying different sets of marketing assets. In the same market there may not be an ideal combination of MSOP, marketing capabilities and assets for pursuing a competitive advantage. Indeed, for idiosyncratic management to be effective in sustaining a competitive advantage, certain conditions need to be achieved (such as inimitability of capabilities and assets). As orientations are about the attitudes and behaviour of marketing managers, the results show how a market focus in an MSOP relates to marketing capabilities and assets. However, unlike the market orientation approach, the multiple stakeholder orientation approach also incorporates attitudes and behaviour about other key primary stakeholders, and therefore does not ignore these aspects of marketing decision making. Indeed, even the most market focused company needs to also address other stakeholders, so that decision making cannot be fully loaded in favour of customers. Therefore, although there are these differences that relate to a market MSOP, these executives also need to use their marketing capabilities and assets to address other stakeholder interests. 5.2. Implications of similarities There are also some similarities among marketing executives with different MSOPs. For marketing capabilities, the market MSOP is similar to the shareholder MSOP with respect to inside-out and networking capabilities, and to the employee MSOP for spanning capabilities. For marketing assets, the market MSOP is similar to the shareholder MSOP with respect to customer-based, internal and alliance assets. Such similarities among marketing executives with different MSOPs have implications for the theory of competitive advantage. Where marketing capabilities and assets are similar, they will be unable to contribute to idiosyncratic management and heterogeneity, and therefore, it is unlikely that they can be used to create a competitive advantage. Indeed, the conditions needed to achieve and sustain a competitive advantage will not be present. Achieving superior customer value from these comparable marketing capabilities and assets is unlikely; there will be no identification and imitation problems for competitors; and capabilities and assets are probably easily transferred and traded among competitors. However, it is still important to have strength in these comparable capabilities and assets in order to effectively address prioritised stakeholder interests, but it is unlikely that they will contribute to competitive advantage. In competitive situations where many or most marketing capabilities and assets are similar, then a competitive advantage will need to be pursued in different ways, such as positioning in different segments or using a different marketing mix. 5.3. Limitations and research directions This study has a number of limitations, which also provide research directions. First, as the study was limited to senior marketing executives, further research could incorporate other executives, to give a firm level perspective. Second, as the study was limited to four key primary stakeholders, MSOP measurement could be extended to include other primary or secondary stakeholders. Third, as the study was limited to differences and similarities among marketing capabilities and assets, further comparisons could be investigated, such as detail about how marketing capabilities and assets are established and sustained with respect to different MSOPs. Fourth, there was no investigation about the extent to which marketing capabilities and assets are deliberately planned in relation to particular MSOPs, or are allowed to emerge. This could be a research direction. Fifth, the study did not include the conditions necessary for sustaining a competitive advantage (such as inimitability), which could be a further direction. Sixth, although there was evidence of discriminant validity in the measures, a minority of loadings were below 0.5, suggesting research to further refine some scales.