اثر عملکرد یادگیری سازمانی و جهت گیری بازار

In recent decades an important set of articles on management has focused upon the marketing concept and the related construct of market orientation. The next challenge is to understand how this organizational orientation can be achieved and maintained. Using data from 451 companies and through structural equation models, this study considers that organizational learning represents the capacity of a company to move from a given situation to another desired situation of market orientation and performance. The results suggest that the influence of market orientation on performance is only significant when it is mediated by organizational learning. The results also indicate that organizational learning has a positive effect on performance.

Over the last few decades there have been an increasing number of studies focusing upon the fields of organizational learning and market orientation as precursors of organizational performance (Hult & Ketchen, 2001), and both can be viewed as resources that a firm might employ to attain competitive advantage (Baker and Sinkula, 1999b, Celuch et al., 2002, Day, 1994a, Day, 1994b, Dickson, 1996 and Hunt and Morgan, 1996) and a key to successful product innovation and performance (Dickson, 1996 and Slater and Narver, 1995). The relationships among organizational learning, market orientation and organizational performance can be explored from the resource-based view of the firm (Barney, 1986a, Barney, 1986b, Prahalad and Hamel, 1990 and Wernerfelt, 1984). The resource-based view perceives the firm as a unique bundle of idiosyncratic resources and capabilities where the primary task of management is to maximize value through the optimal deployment of existing resources and capabilities, while developing the firm's resource base for the future (Grant, 1996). Thus, the resource-based view provides a firm-specific perspective wherein the importance of tangible and intangible resources and capabilities that are valuable, rare and not easily imitated or substituted by a firm (Barney, 1991) are emphasized as the source of competitiveness. In this context, market orientation (Day, 1994b and Hult and Ketchen, 2001) and organizational learning (Grant, 1996 and Spender, 1996) are some of the capabilities that allow firms to attain a stronger positional advantage. On one hand, ‘market orientation’ could be understood as a philosophy and behavior directed toward determining and understanding the needs of the target customer and adapting the selling organization's response in order to satisfy those needs better than the competition, thereby creating a competitive advantage (Saxe & Weitz, 1982). On the other hand, ‘organizational learning’ is a mechanism by which the organization transforms the individual knowledge of employees into social knowledge (Grant, 1996 and Spender, 1996). Although there are many overlaps between a market orientated company and a learning organization (Baker and Sinkula, 1999b and Slater and Narver, 1995), the two constructs are not identical. The purpose of this paper is to contribute to the understanding of the links between these constructs and their effects in performance. Specifically, we show how organizational learning is considered to be a main factor in the achievement competitive advantage. This paper is organized as follows: Firstly, we briefly review organizational learning and market orientation and their relationships with organizational performance. Next, we present the model and the hypotheses that are going to be tested in the last part of this research. Finally, the results, discussion of their implications and future research directions are presented.

The proposed structural model is presented in Fig. 1. This model incorporates the three hypotheses developed previously relating to the relationship of market orientation, organizational learning and performance. Conventional maximum likelihood estimation techniques were used to test the model (Joreskog & Sorbom, 1996). The fit of the model is satisfactory (χ2 = 771.06, df = 360, p < 0.001; GFI = 0.89; RMSEA = 0.051; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.93; IFI = 0.93), thereby suggesting that the nomological network of relationships fits our data — another indicator of support for the validity of these scales (Churchill, 1979). Although p value is small, it is highly unlikely that non-significant test statistics would be obtained with large sample sizes (Kelloway, 1998).To provide greater confidence in our model specification, we tested our theoretical model (MT) against three alternative model specifications (MA). In the first model market orientation was considered to be a second-order construct. The second and third models did not treat organizational learning or performance respectively as second order constructs. This procedure is recommended by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and suggests the use of the chi-square difference test (CDT) to test the null hypothesis; MT − MA = 0. Compared with a less parsimonious MA, a non-significant CDT would lead to acceptance of the more parsimonious MT. Table 5 reports a significant change in chi-square between our model and the other models. In each case, the CDT presents a p < 0.01 which permits the conclusion to be drawn that the fit of the alternative model is significantly worse than that of the original model.In terms of our hypotheses (Table 6), the findings for H1 (market orientation → organizational learning) suggests that intelligence generation (γ11 = 0.48, p < 0.01) and intelligence dissemination (γ42 = 0.22, p < 0.01) have a positive and significant effect on the knowledge creation process in the organization. However, no significant effect has been found for responsiveness (γ13 = 0.07, non-significant). Furthermore, we have found indirect effects of intelligence generation (κ11 = 0.34, κ21 = 0.39, κ31 = 0.40, κ41 = 0.23, p < 0.01) and intelligence dissemination (κ12 = 0.16, κ22 = 0.18, κ32 = 0.19, κ42 = 0.11, p < 0.01) over each organizational learning phase. Globally, these findings support the thesis presented in the literature that the acquisition of information about markets contributes to the generation of new organizational knowledge.Secondly, the relationship between organizational learning and performance is supported in H3 (organizational learning → performance; β94 = 0.70, p < 0.01). It can be observed that those companies which foster organizational learning improve their competitive position and efficiency. So organizational learning has a direct impact on performance. Finally, there is not enough evidence to accept H2 (market orientation → performance). In this case, we have not found a significant and direct effect of intelligence generation (γ61 = 0.07, non-significant), intelligence dissemination (γ62 = − 0.15, non-significant) or responsiveness (γ63 = − 0.03, non-significant). However, the test of the link between market orientation and performance is taken in the context of testing the link between organizational learning and performance. It might well be that market orientation has an effect on performance that is masked due to the fact that both links are estimated simultaneously. Although we have not found a direct effect on performance, results show an indirect effect of both intelligence generation (κ61 = 0.34, p < 0.01) and intelligence dissemination (κ62 = 0.15, p < 0.05) on performance. These results show that market orientation has a positive influence on performance through organizational learning.