Entreprenurship and MO

European Journal of Marketing
Role of entrepreneurship and market orientation in firms' success

scar Gonzlez-Benito Javier Gonzlez-Benito Pablo A. Muoz-Gallego
Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)
Article information:
To cite this document:
scar Gonzlez-Benito Javier Gonzlez-Benito Pablo A. Muoz-Gallego, (2009),"Role of entrepreneurship
and market orientation in firms' success", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 43 Iss 3/4 pp. 500 - 522
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560910935550
Downloaded on: 24 August 2016, At: 00:07 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 57 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 3010 times since 2009*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(2008),"The relationships between market orientation and alternative strategic orientations:
A meta-analysis", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 42 Iss 1/2 pp. 115-134 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560810840934
(2006),"Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs: An
extended model", European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 Iss 4 pp. 396-417 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14601060610707849
(2003),"Marketing planning, market orientation and business performance", European Journal of Marketing,
Vol. 37 Iss 3/4 pp. 476-497 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090560310459050
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:581774 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.
*Related content and download information correct at time of download.
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0309-0566.htm
EJM
43,3/4
Role of entrepreneurship and

market orientation in firms
success
500
Oscar Gonzalez-Benito, Javier Gonzalez-Benito and

Pablo A. Munoz-Gallego
Received February 2007

Revised November 2007,
January, 2008
Accepted January 2008
Dpto. Administracion y Economa de la Empresa, Universidad de Salamanca,

Salamanca, Spain
Abstract
Purpose This article aims to offer empirical evidence pertaining to the relationship among
entrepreneurship, market orientation and business performance within the context of disadvantaged
socio-economic regions of the European Union.
Design/methodology/approach Two groups of hypotheses investigate the relationship between
entrepreneurship and market orientation and the joint effect of these dimensions on performance. All
questions are approached using survey data from 183 firms located in the Castilla y Leon region,
Spain.
Findings A strong relationship exists between entrepreneurship and market orientation. Although
these orientations may be implemented separately, firms emphasise entrepreneurship when they are
market-oriented. Therefore, the strong relationship and complementarities between entrepreneurship
and market orientation reduce the effort involved in the joint adoption of both orientations. Both
orientations also demonstrate a strong relationship with performance, such that each contributes
specifically.
Originality/value The article shows that, despite little evidence of synergic effects of the joint
adoption of both orientations, the specific aspects that differentiate entrepreneurship and market
orientation both contribute to improving performance, and therefore, firms should foster a
market-oriented, entrepreneurial organisational culture.
Keywords Entrepreneurialism, Market orientation, Business performance, Disadvantaged groups,
Europe
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The recent expansion of the European Union, which includes entry by countries from
Eastern Europe, has posed a challenge for the least advantaged regions of existing
members. For example, the region of Castilla y Leon, located in the Northwest of inland
Spain, is a disadvantaged area that traditionally has been classified as priority
objective 1 in the regional policy for economic and social cohesion of the European
Union. This distinction implies low rates of productivity, employment and
European Journal of Marketing

Vol. 43 No. 3/4, 2009
pp. 500-522
q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0309-0566
DOI 10.1108/03090560910935550
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their insightful commentaries and suggestions
in previous versions of this paper. The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of
the Spanish Ministry of Science and Technology and FEDER funds (Research Project
SEJ2006-06162). The authors also acknowledge the efforts of Fundacion de Cajas de Ahorro
(FUNCAS) to stimulate Spanish research; this paper is based on Working Paper No. 406,
prepared by the authors for the Working Paper Collection of this non-profit organisation.
technological development in relation to other regions of the European Union. That is,
firms located in Castilla y Leon compete within a global developed economy but do so
from a comparatively disadvantaged local environment. The recent entrance of
Eastern European countries into the European Union will modify the relative
classification of this region as of 2007, which will entail a reduction in the resources
devoted to it and a particular challenge for its firms, which have grown accustomed to
institutional support from European Union funds.
In this context, firms push even harder to redefine their positions in the competitive
environment. They must revise their competitive strategies to attain sustainable
performance levels, which means they must move their organisational cultures
towards successful models. Therefore, understanding the role of entrepreneurship,
market orientation and other aspects of organisational culture represents a key
objective for both business interests, in their efforts to face the new situation, and local
government and institutions, in their efforts to promote business development in such
regions. In response, this paper provides empirical evidence regarding the suitability of
different cultural orientations and, specifically, the relationship among
entrepreneurship, market orientation and business performance.
These relationships have received significant research attention in recent decades,
especially from those interested in identifying the cultural and strategic determinants
of competitiveness and firm viability. Prior work generally attributes a positive effect
of entrepreneurship and market orientation on performance. Entrepreneurship implies
the development of creative, innovative projects that beat those of competitors and
thus should lead to competitive advantages, profitability and long-term viability.
Market orientation refers to the persistent search for market opportunities and the
development of congruent response strategies that enable firms to optimise their
performance. However, the relationship among these cultural orientations and their
complementarities, inseparability and joint effects on performance have not been
clearly explained. Research efforts mostly are based on different theoretical
frameworks, provide different empirical results and, in short, cause confusion.
Furthermore, the great diversity of economic contexts and competitive environments
studied aggravates this circumstance.
With this paper, we attempt to contribute additional empirical evidence that
clarifies the relationship among entrepreneurship, market orientation and business
performance in the context defined by a least advantaged region of the European
Union. Previous research suggests and empirically shows that the incidence of
entrepreneurship and market orientation, as well as their inter-relations and
consequences for business performance, may depend on the cultural and economic
context in which firms compete. Therefore, studying this phenomenon for firms faced
with a globalised economy from a disadvantaged region may provide additional
insights into the role of entrepreneurship and market orientation.
Our research questions can be grouped into two main clusters. First, we focus on the
relationship between both cultural orientations and try to ascertain whether they can
be adopted separately or if any orientation represents a necessary antecedent to the
other. Second, we consider the relationship between both orientations and business
performance and ask the following questions:
.
What are the contributions of entrepreneurship and market orientation to
performance?
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
501
EJM
43,3/4
.
.
502
Is there a direct effect of each orientation on performance?

Is the effect of entrepreneurship completely mediated by the effect of market
orientation, or vice versa?
Do synergic effects on performance derive from complementarities between both
orientations?
Answering these questions for Castilla y Leon, or similar disadvantaged regions, is key
to the decision-making efforts of interested firms and institutions. Because the
adoption of both entrepreneurship and market orientation requires an important effort
to transform an organisational culture, as well as the norms and practices derived from
it, it is fundamental to understand the relationship and complementarities between
them, as well as their contribution to improving performance.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Relationship between entrepreneurship and market orientation
Entrepreneurship can be interpreted as a characteristic of individual business
managers and owners, in that an entrepreneur challenges environmental uncertainty
by developing innovative responses. However, Miller (1983) suggests a broader
interpretation of the concept that has motivated most academic attention, namely that
entrepreneurship represents a characteristic of the firm that goes beyond the efforts of
one key manager, especially when the size of the firm increases and its organisational
structure becomes more complex.
Most contributions in the academic literature recognise the composite nature of
entrepreneurship and differentiate three key components:
(1) innovativeness;
(2) risk taking; and
(3) proactiveness (e.g. Miller, 1983; Morris and Paul, 1987; Covin and Slevin, 1989;
Miles and Arnold, 1991; Naman and Slevin, 1993; Kemelgor, 2002).
Innovativeness entails an interest in new ideas, experiences and creative processes that
may result in new products/services or technological developments. Risk taking refers
to a disposition to support projects with a calculated probability of failure.
Proactiveness involves pioneering behaviour undertaken to face future contingencies
and overcome competitors actions. Lumpkin and Dess (1996) suggest two additional,
narrowly related components: autonomy, or the independence to bring forth and
implement new ideas and ventures, and competitive aggressiveness, or a challenging
attitude towards competitors that attempt to achieve entry or improve their position. In
short, entrepreneurial firms tend to develop creative and innovative projects in
anticipation of the opportunities in the environment and to beat competitors actions,
and their expectations of reward involve significant but calculated risks. In contrast,
non-entrepreneurial firms tend to adopt a reactive, risk-averse posture based on a
policy of following and imitating competitors. In the words of Barringer and Bluedorn
(1999), firms without entrepreneurial orientation adopt a wait and see posture.
However, the multidimensional nature of entrepreneurship orientation remains a
subject of debate. Covin and Slevin (1989) claim the three components of
entrepreneurship innovativeness, risk taking and proactiveness act together by
constituting a basic, unidimensional strategic orientation. In contrast, Lumpkin and
Dess (1996) suggest that the components of entrepreneurship may vary independently
of one another in many situations, so that a unidimensional interpretation would veil
the unique contributions of each component of entrepreneurship in the entrepreneurial
process. More recent contributions empirically support the latter posture (Stetz et al.,
2000; Kreiser et al., 2002). According to these studies, a unidimensional interpretation
and measurement of entrepreneurial orientation is appropriate only when simplicity is
of greater concern than accuracy and precision. In this respect, Covin et al. (2006) claim
that existing evidence cannot resolve the dimensionality debate because it refers to a
different sort of construct. These authors conceive of entrepreneurship as a formative
construct that cannot be decomposed into its constituent elements. In addition, they
argue that, in practice, its components tend to exhibit moderate to high correlations. In
line with these latter arguments, we interpret entrepreneurship as a composite,
unidimensional orientation. That is, the concept of entrepreneurship, though based on
innovativeness, risk taking and proactiveness, captures a distinctive orientation.
Nevertheless, we also acknowledge that the separate consideration of each component
could provide additional insights into the role of entrepreneurship on firms strategic
behaviour and performance.
Zahra et al. (1999) call for comparative entrepreneurship studies across multiple
countries and cultures, with the underlying premise that different cultural and
economic contexts may lead to differential intensities of entrepreneurial orientation
and its antecedents and consequences. Cultural attributes could affect the formation
and incidence of entrepreneurial behaviours, because culture affects individual
behaviour, which links directly to the formation of a firm-level entrepreneurial
orientation (Knight, 1997; Kreiser et al., 2002). Contributions such as those by McGrath
et al. (1992) and Mueller and Thomas (2001) provide supporting empirical evidence.
Along the same lines, uncertain and complex environments may necessitate strong
entrepreneurial postures in strategy making (Dess et al., 1997). Therefore, the study of
different regions, cultures, economies and environments becomes a research priority if
we want a full understanding of the nature and role of entrepreneurship.
Moreover, the notion of market orientation relates to the adoption of the marketing
concept as a business philosophy. In this respect, market orientation can be defined as
an organizational culture that comprises a set of beliefs that put the customers interest
first to develop long-term profitability (Deshpande et al., 1993). Alternatively, a market
orientation can be defined as the set of activities, processes and behaviours derived
from the implementation of the marketing concept (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990).
Therefore, the conceptualisation of market orientation can be approached from both
cultural and managerial perspectives (Lafferty and Hult, 2001).
Two approaches have dominated the conceptualisation of market orientation. On
the one hand, Narver and Slater (1990) propose three key components customer
orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination, which must be
combined with an emphasis on profit and a long-term focus. On the other hand, Kohli
and Jaworski (1990) split the practices related to market orientation into three
purposes:
(1) intelligence generation;
(2) intelligence dissemination; and
(3) responsiveness.
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
503
EJM
43,3/4
504
Intelligence generation refers to the collection of relevant information from the

environment, whereas intelligence dissemination pertains to its distribution and
sharing across different departments within the firm. Finally, responsiveness reflects
the use of this information to develop and implement strategies that have been adapted
to the opportunities and threats in the external environment. Even though previous
literature indicates that the separate analysis of each component of market orientation
provides additional insights into its nature and role within firms, we interpret market
orientation as a basic, unidimensional orientation.
Specifically, previous studies in strategic management and marketing literature
establish firmly that firms should consider environmental characteristics in their
choice, development and implementation strategy, particularly with a market
orientation strategy (Slater and Narver, 1994). Therefore, differences should be
expected across environments and contexts. For example, Hooley et al. (2000) and
Deshpande and Farley (2004) find significant differences in the degree of market
orientation across countries. The economic and cultural context in which firms operate
may cause these differences; many research contributions provide empirical evidence
pertaining to the incidence and implications of market orientation in transition,
developing or ideologically different economies (e.g. Appiah-Adu, 1998; Hooley et al.,
2000; Subramanian and Gopalakrishna, 2001; Singh, 2003; Sin et al., 2005; Dwairi et al.,
2007). In summary, researchers need to analyse market orientation in different
economic and competitive environments, and some recent literature has undertaken
this objective. Nevertheless, economic contexts generally have been outlined according
to country, so little evidence exists regarding regions within countries or globalised
markets characterised by economic and social disadvantages.
The relationship between entrepreneurship and market orientation was actually
theorised and empirically tested two decades ago (Morris and Paul, 1987; Miles and
Arnold, 1991). According to this research, entrepreneurship and market orientation are
complementary orientations, such that entrepreneurship needs a market orientation to
target its innovative actions successfully in the market, and market orientation needs
entrepreneurship to attain fast responses to market opportunities. Morris et al. (2002)
suggest the term entrepreneurial marketing to refer to this integrated notion of
entrepreneurship and market orientation.
The relationship between market orientation entrepreneurship and market
orientation also has been corroborated in different contexts, including emerging
economies (Liu et al., 2003). In this respect, the role of the environment, and particularly
the economic context, has been pointed out in the literature (Knight, 2000). Economic
conditions may influence the complementarities, interactions and synergies between
both orientations.
Some authors insist that entrepreneurship serves as an antecedent of market
orientation. For example, Matsuno et al. (2002) support the effect of the components of
entrepreneurship on market orientation. Innovativeness requires firms to gather and
analyse information from the environment (Menon and Varadarajan, 1992), which are
typical practices of a market-oriented firm. Calculated risk taking facilitates actions in
response to market opportunities and threats another quality related to a market
orientation. For example, Jaworski and Kohli (1993) posit an inverse relationship
between risk aversion and market orientation, which they empirically confirm for the
responsiveness component of market orientation. Finally, proactiveness involves
identifying market opportunities and taking advantage of them before competitors,

actions that are narrowly linked to information generation and dissemination and
responsiveness to information in short, market orientation. The assertion that
entrepreneurship precedes market orientation also matches Dess et al.s (1997) and
Knights (2000) suggestion that the pursuit of a marketing strategy receives support
when management adopts an entrepreneurial orientation.
Still other authors suggest that market orientation functions as a determinant of
entrepreneurship. Murray (1981) presents market orientation as an ideal climate in
which to develop entrepreneurial processes. A similar posture has been posed with
regard to innovativeness, which represents a component of entrepreneurship. Jaworski
and Kohli (1996) consider innovativeness a consequence of market orientation because
market orientation involves new, differentiating actions designed to take advantage of
market opportunities. Hurley and Hult (1998) go further and argue that market
orientation entails an organisational culture characterised by innovativeness. In a
similar sense, Han et al. (1998) present innovation as an intermediate construct in the
path by which market orientation contributes to performance.
In any case, previous empirical evidence implies an intense relationship between
both cultural orientations, as we advance in the following hypothesis:
H1. Entrepreneurship relates positively to market orientation, such that the
higher the degree of entrepreneurship, the higher the degree of market
orientation will be, and the lower the degree of entrepreneurship, the lower the
degree of market orientation will be.
In addition to this relationship between entrepreneurship and market orientation, we
investigate whether each orientation has differential aspects. In this respect, Miles and
Arnold (1991) conclude that, despite their relationship, the orientations do not appear to
be founded on the same business philosophy. Even more relevant to the effort to help
managers adjust their organisational culture is whether the orientations can be
adopted separately or if either orientation needs the other to be implemented. In other
words, does high market orientation require high entrepreneurship, or does high
entrepreneurship require high market orientation? Existing arguments suggest both
causal directions, with market orientation as a consequence of entrepreneurship and
entrepreneurship as a consequence of market orientation. Barrett and Weinstein (1998)
also acknowledge the reciprocity of effects. These arguments lead us to expect that
neither causal direction is necessary; both orientations can be adopted separately, and
neither is a necessary antecedent of the other. This possibility is supported by
Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001), who establish a typology of firms by combining
high/low degrees of entrepreneurship and market orientation. In turn, this reasoning
leads us to our next hypotheses:
H2a. Entrepreneurship is not a necessary antecedent of market orientation; that is,
a high degree of market orientation does not require a high degree of
entrepreneurship.
H2b. Market orientation is not a necessary antecedent of entrepreneurship; that is, a
high degree of entrepreneurship does not require a high degree of market
orientation.
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
505
EJM
43,3/4
506
2.2 Effect of entrepreneurship and market orientation on performance

Research interest in entrepreneurship centres mainly on the positive consequences of
this aspect of organisational culture on performance. Many theoretical and empirical
contributions suggest that entrepreneurially oriented companies tend to outperform
other organisational types (e.g. Bourgeois, 1980; Snow and Hrebiniak, 1980, Covin and
Slevin, 1989; McKee et al., 1989; Barrett and Weinstein, 1998; Kemelgor, 2002; Matsuno
et al., 2002). In this respect, Zahra and Covins (1995) findings suggest that this
relationship is more visible when considering long- instead of short-term performance.
In some cases, the intensity of the relationship depends on the context in which
firms operate. For example, Covin and Slevin (1989) find that the relationship between
entrepreneurship and performance is higher when environmental hostility increases.
Analogously, McKee et al. (1989) reveal that the relationship tends to be stronger in
volatile environments. Dess et al. (1997) also argue that entrepreneurial orientation may
be especially useful in uncertain or turbulent environments. In short, the relationship
between entrepreneurship and improved performance seems stronger in environments
characterised by high competitive intensity; a lack of readily exploitable market
opportunities; great competitive-, market- and product-related uncertainties; and
general vulnerability to influence by factors external to and uncontrollable by the firm.
In this respect, because globalisation relates to the interdependence of regional and
national economies and gives rise to market turbulence, increased competition from
multinational firms, loss of protected markets through trade liberalisation and the
emergence of international marketing opportunities, Knight (2000) suggests that
entrepreneurship may be especially useful for firms strongly affected by globalisation,
especially small and medium-sized firms. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect higher
rewards from entrepreneurship for those (generally small and medium-sized) firms
that compete in the globalised European Union economy from the context of a least
advantaged region.
In the case of market orientation, academics and practitioners tend to presume its
positive effect on market position, long-term viability and performance. Recent reviews
(e.g. Langerak, 2003; Rodrguez-Cano et al., 2004; Gonzalez-Benito and Gonzalez-Benito,
2005; Kirca et al., 2005; Shoham et al., 2006) suggest that most studies find a positive
relationship between market orientation and performance, which has provoked
empirical generalisations. However, some empirical exceptions find no such
relationship or even detect a negative relationship. In addition, various contributions
support a positive relationship but disagree about the market orientation and
performance dimensions involved, as well as the intensity of the relationship.
Early studies by Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Slater and Narver (1994) consider
moderators of the market orientation-performance relationship, including those linked to
the competitive environment and economic context. In particular, economic weakness
and low market growth may enhance the positive consequences of market orientation on
performance. Yet subsequent literature reviews reveal contradictory indications. The
meta-analysis carried out by Rodrguez-Cano et al. (2004) concludes that cultural
dimensions and gross domestic product per capita do not explain differences in the
market orientation-performance relationship across countries. In contrast, the
meta-analysis by Ellis (2006) reveals that cultural and economic characteristics,
especially the degree of economic development, influence the effects of market
orientation on business performance. Specifically, the market orientation-performance
link appears significantly stronger in studies set in mature markets instead of

developing economies. However, Deshpande and Farley (2004) report across-country
differences in the market orientation-performance relationship and suggest greater
strength outside industrial markets. In this respect, they argue that marketing is less
developed and investments in marketing may have higher payoffs. In spite of these
diverging findings about the role of the economic context, many studies of transition,
developing or ideologically different economies show that the positive relationship
between market orientation and performance remains (e.g. Appiah-Adu, 1998; Hooley
et al. 2000; Subramanian and Gopalakrishna, 2001; Singh, 2003).
Therefore, previous research leads us to propose the following hypotheses for our
analysis of a least advantaged region of the European Union:
H3a. Entrepreneurship relates positively to business performance, such that the
higher the degree of entrepreneurship, the better is performance, and the
lower the degree of entrepreneurship, the lower is performance.
H3b. Market orientation relates positively to business performance, such that the
higher the degree of market orientation, the better is performance, and the
lower the degree of market orientation, the lower is performance.
However, though the relationships between performance and both entrepreneurship
and market orientation have been extensively corroborated, their joint role has rarely
been addressed. We therefore consider whether both orientations exert a direct effect
on performance or, in contrast, if the effect of one orientation may be captured by the
other. Some previous research suggests the latter possibility. On the one hand,
Matsuno et al. (2002) conclude that the effect of entrepreneurship on performance is not
direct but rather completely mediated by market orientation. On the other hand, Han
et al. (1998) conclude that innovation, as a key component of entrepreneurship,
completely captures the effect of market orientation on performance.
Because the arguments presented in the previous section suggest specific connotations
of entrepreneurship and market orientation, it is logical to expect that the aspects that
differentiate them will be manifest in their contribution to performance. Therefore, we
may anticipate direct effects of both orientations on performance that are not explained by
their relationship. This conclusion stems from the findings of Hult and Ketchen (2001),
who indicate the significant, simultaneous contribution of entrepreneurship and market
orientation to developing positional advantage and thus improving performance.
Similarly, Hult et al. (2003) compare several models that represent the contributions of
entrepreneurship, market orientation and other characteristics of business culture and
find that they obtain the best fit when they assume direct effects of all orientations. On the
basis of these arguments, we propose another set of hypotheses:
H4a. The relationship between market orientation and performance remains even
after the role of entrepreneurship is accounted for; that is, the relationship is
not completely captured by the relationship between entrepreneurship and
performance.
H4b. The relationship between entrepreneurship and performance remains even
after the role of market orientation is accounted for; that is, the relationship is
not completely captured by the relationship between market orientation and
performance.
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
507
EJM
43,3/4
508
In turn, this discussion points to potential complementarities between

entrepreneurship and market orientation. Therefore, another relevant question we
consider is whether such complementarities significantly contribute to performance. In
other words, does the simultaneous adoption of entrepreneurship and market
orientation imply a synergic effect on performance? This question requires us to test
for a positive interaction effect of both orientations on performance.
In this context, Slater and Narver (1995) point out that a market orientation with
entrepreneurial values enhances the prospects for organisational learning and thereby
improves performance. They suggest that the challenge for firms is to create a climate
in which market-oriented entrepreneurship can flourish. Research by
Atuahene-Gima and Ko (2001) also supports this idea; they suggest differences in
new product performance depend on the degree of entrepreneurship and market
orientation. Bhuian et al. (2005) suggest a more complex interaction, in which
entrepreneurship moderates the relationship between market orientation and
performance, so that the relationship becomes more intense at mean levels and
weaker at extreme levels of entrepreneurship.
Our proposed argument alternatively holds that market orientation moderates the
relationship between entrepreneurship and performance. Many actions derived from
innovativeness, calculated risk taking and proactiveness require the ultimate
satisfaction of customers for improved performance. A market orientation facilitates
a firms understanding of markets and consumers and thus a successful focus of
entrepreneurial efforts. Therefore, market orientation should act as a driving force of
the relationship between entrepreneurship and performance. As Matsuno et al. (2002)
suggest, market orientation acts as a systematic safeguard against undue risk-taking
tendencies. Therefore, we propose the final working hypothesis:
H5. There is a synergic effect of entrepreneurship and market orientation on
performance, such that market orientation moderates the relationship
between entrepreneurship and performance, and the higher the degree of
market orientation, the stronger is the relationship.
3. Empirical analysis
3.1 Research scenario and data
The study region for our empirical analysis is the Castilla y Leon region in Spain. The
Report on the Economic and Social Situation of Castilla y Leon 2005 (Consejo
Economico y Social) facilitates our comparison of Castilla y Leon with the rest of Spain
and the European Union overall. This region has a surface area of 94,225 km2 and low
population density (26.1 inhabitants/km2) compared with Spain (78 inhabitants/km2)
and the European Union (115 inhabitants/km2). In addition, since 1960, the population
has been decreasing continually. Its activity rate is 49.21 per cent, lower than the
Spanish rate and far below the overall European rate. The gross domestic product
(GDP) per inhabitant reaches only 75.3 per cent of the European Unions mean (15
countries), and the GDP per inhabitant growth during 1995-2004 was 32.63 per cent,
lower than the Spanish average (38.21 per cent). Regarding the workforce distribution
across sectors, more people work in the agriculture sector (10.2 per cent) and fewer in
the service sector (58.5 per cent) than in the European Union.
The population studied includes firms based in Castilla y Leon with more than 20
employees. According to the Dun & Bradstreet 2004 database, 1,025 firms meet these
criteria; all were contacted by telephone during the second half of 2005 to ask the
general manager for the companys collaboration in completing a questionnaire. Those
firms that decided to collaborate could either fill out the questionnaire online or receive
it by mail. Most firms provided an e-mail address, to which we sent a link to a website
with the questionnaire, which they could complete and save in just a few minutes. The
remaining firms received the questionnaire at the postal address they provided, along
with a postage-paid return envelope. This procedure yielded 183 valid questionnaires,
for a response rate close to 18 per cent.
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
509
3.2 Measurements
3.2.1 Entrepreneurship. We measure entrepreneurship by asking respondents to
score their degree of agreement on seven-point Likert scales (1 completely
disagree, 7 completely agree) with six practices related to entrepreneurial
behaviour. These six items are based on previous literature, especially the popular
contribution of Covin and Slevin (1989). They cover the three main components of
entrepreneurship, namely:
(1) innovativeness;
(2) risk taking; and
(3) proactiveness.
We provide the descriptive statistics for each item and a reliability analysis of the
complete multi-item scale in Table I. On the basis of the usual standards of internal
consistency and the results, we assume unidimensionality. For our analysis, we define
the market orientation measurement as the average score across items.
3.2.2 Market orientation. We measure market orientation by asking respondents to
score their degree of agreement on seven-point Likert scales (1 completely disagree,
7 completely agree) with nine practices related to market-oriented behaviour. These
nine items appear in previous literature and follow the sequence suggested by Kohli
and Jaworski (1990), namely
Cronbachs
a
Entrepreneurship
We have launched many new
products/services on the market during the
last five years
The changes introduced in our
products/services are usually important
We usually beat our competitors in
developing innovative actions
We usually adopt an aggressive attitude
towards our competitors
We are prone to carry out risky projects
when they involve profitable opportunities
When uncertainty is high, we adopt a
brave and aggressive attitude to exploit
possible opportunities
Item-to-total a if item
correlation deleted
Mean
SD
3.46
2.051
0.720
0.876
3.55
1.946
0.757
0.869
3.75
1.864
0.806
0.861
3.28
1.737
0.755
0.870
2.82
1.663
0.658
0.884
3.32
1.637
0.613
0.891
0.894
Table I.
Measurement of
entrepreneurship:
reliability analysis
EJM
43,3/4
.
.
.
510
intelligence generation;
intelligence dissemination; and
responsiveness.
We provide the descriptive statistics for each item and the reliability analysis of the
complete multi-item scale in Table II. On the basis of the usual standards of internal
consistency and the results, we assume unidimensionality. For our analysis, we define
the market orientation measurement as the average score across items.
3.2.3 Business performance. To analyse the consequences of market orientation on
performance, we first define performance. We choose four types of performance measures:
(1) profitability, or firm economic performance (profit, margin, return on investment
(ROI)), measured with a single item;
(2) market response, or the reaction of demand to the firms marketing effort (sales,
sales growth, market share), measured with two items related to sales and
market share growth;
(3) market position value, defined as achieving an advantaged position in
consumers minds (customer satisfaction, image, reputation, customer loyalty)
and measured with two items related to satisfaction and the firms
image/reputation; and
(4) new product success, which we measure with a single item.
Cronbachs
a
Table II.
Measurement of market
orientation: reliability
analysis
Market orientation
We continuously gather information about
the trends in our target market
We continuously gather information about
our competitors strategies
We collect information about our
customers satisfaction
We use internal reports about the structure
and trends of the market
We regularly contact marketing/sales
managers to discuss the trends in the
market
We are promptly informed about any
complaint or suggestion from our
customers
We frequently meet other functional units
in order to anticipate a response to the
changing environment
Our strategies are based on market
knowledge rather than on productive
capabilities
Our premise for new product development
is customer satisfaction, instead of taking
advantage of our productive capabilities
Item-to-total a if item
correlation deleted
Mean
SD
4.56
1.762
0.832
0.928
4.37
1.755
0.795
0.930
5.39
1.734
0.761
0.932
4.36
1.837
0.822
0.928
4.41
2.009
0.824
0.928
5.40
1.677
0.767
0.931
4.33
1.919
0.813
0.929
4.41
1.745
0.604
0.940
4.59
1.779
0.679
0.936
0.939
Respondents rated their firms in relation to their main competitor according to a list of
performance indicators on seven-point Likert-type scales (1 much worse than
competitors; 7 much better than competitors). We provide the descriptive statistics
and reliability analyses for these scales in Table III. We also assume unidimensionality
in the market response and market position value scales and therefore measure them
according to their respective mean values across items. The four performance
measures are highly correlated but include sufficient uncommon variance to suggest
different performance nuances that would not emerge from an overall measurement of
performance. In Table III, we also present factor loadings from a principal components
analysis on all performance items. The four-factor solution matches the proposed
performance dimensions and summarises 95.06 per cent of variance.
The scope of these performance dimensions follows two classification criteria
commonly used in the literature:
(1) Walker and Ruekert (1987) distinguish among effectiveness, efficiency and
adaptability measurements of performance. Effectiveness measurements
quantify market success (sales, market share, customer satisfaction, perceived
quality), whereas efficiency measures compare the market effectiveness of firms
with the resources required to achieve that effectiveness (profit margin, ROI), and
adaptability measures capture a firms ability to respond to changes and
opportunities in the environment (new product success, share of new products in
total revenue). Our market response and market position value dimensions of
performance consist of effectiveness measurements, the new product success
dimension relates to adaptability measurements, and our profitability dimension
refers to efficiency measurements. Whereas the former two dimensions focus on
the respondent firms performance from a market perspective, the latter also
entails the resources involved.
(2) Venkatraman and Ramanujam (1986) distinguish between financial and
operational measurements of performance. The former consist of observable
accounting indicators of economic performance, such as sales, profit or ROI.
The latter refer to intermediate results that should lead to economic success,
such as customer satisfaction, perceived quality and pace of new product
development. Our profitability and market response dimensions relate to
Correlation Mean
Performance-profitability
Profitability
Performance-market response
Sales growth
Market share growth
Performance-market position value
Customer satisfaction
Image/reputation
Performance-new product success
New product success
SD
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
511
Principal components analysisa

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
4.44
1.212
0.425
0.256
0.176
0.850
4.61
4.60
1.213
1.236
0.859
0.849
0.295
0.308
0.203
0.182
0.268
0.292
5.31
5.42
1.206
1.228
0.271
0.295
0.878
0.854
0.201
0.258
0.191
0.172
4.78
1.462
0.219
0.293
0.918
0.151
0.930
0.908
Note: a95.07 per cent of variance explained
Table III.
Measurements of
performance: reliability
analysis
EJM
43,3/4
512
financial measurements, whereas our market position value and new product
success dimensions apply operational measurements. In this case, the former
dimensions focus mainly on the short term, whereas the latter provide insights
about medium- and long-term viability.
3.2.4 Control variables. Although we measure performance in relation to competitors to
facilitate comparative analyses across industry sectors, we control for the role of sector
and size because of their possible relationships with our explanatory variables (i.e.
entrepreneurship and market orientation). We distinguish four sectors in the economic
structure of our studied region:
(1) agriculture;
(2) industry;
(3) building; and
(4) services (which includes distribution services, such as retailing and wholesaling).
We measure size as the number of employees, divided into four categories:
(1) fewer than 50;
(2) 50-100;
(3) 100-250; and
(4) more than 250 employees.
For simplicity, we assume the size variable is metric in our subsequent analyses.
3.3 Analysis and results
Regarding the relationship between entrepreneurship and market orientation, both
orientations show a significant positive correlation (0.609; p , 0:01). In line with
previous research, this result supports H1. Nevertheless, the observed relationship
could be spurious, caused by either sector or size. Therefore, we conduct two regression
analyses to isolate any relationship from the explanatory role of the control variables.
Table IV shows the estimation results of regressing market orientation as a dependent
variable on the entrepreneurship and control variables as the independent variables.
Analogously, it shows the estimation results of regressing entrepreneurship on the
Table IV.
Relationship between
entrepreneurship and
market orientation:
regression analysis
Market orientation
Entrepreneurship
2.742 * * *
2 0.238
0.033
2 0.326
2 0.048
0.650 * * *
0.379
21.573 * * *
20.243
0.681 * *
20.089
1.000 * * *
0.264 * * *
0.550 * * *
0.457
31.601 * * *
Constant
Manufacturing sector
Building sector
Services sector
Size
Market orientation
Entrepreneurship
R2
ANOVA F
Notes: *p , 0:10; * * p , 0:05; * * * p , 0:01
market orientation and control variables. In both cases, the relationship between
orientations remains positive and highly significant (p , 0:01). Consequently, this
analysis corroborates the previously found support for H1.
The relationship between entrepreneurship and market orientation thus ratifies
previous research. Next, to assess the possibility of separately adopting either
orientation, we analyse the correlations between the absolute residuals of the
regressions in Table IV and entrepreneurship and market orientation, respectively.
These correlations were also analysed both with and without obviating control
variables in the regression analyses. Table V summarises these correlations. If it were
common to adopt one orientation before the other, we should find significant
correlations. Because the correlations for entrepreneurship are negative and significant
(p , 0:01), our findings support H2a, though they inject some doubt into the veracity
of H2b. This analysis shows that highly entrepreneurial firms tend to be highly market
orientated, but highly market-oriented firms are not necessarily highly entrepreneurial
firms. This circumstance emerges clearly in Figure 1, which contains an
entrepreneurship by market orientation plot. There are few firms plotted in the
bottom-right area; that is, there are few firms with high entrepreneurial orientation but
low market orientation. Therefore, this analysis suggests that the sequence market
orientation ! entrepreneurship represents the most common way to adopt these
orientations.
Regarding the contribution of entrepreneurship and market orientation to business
performance, we employ a multiple regression and provide the estimation results in
Table VI. For each performance measure, we estimate five models. Model 1 includes
only control variables as the independent variables, and models 2 and 3 add market
orientation and entrepreneurship, respectively. Thus, we can assess the role of both
orientations on performance separately. Model 4 includes both orientations and thus
enables us to assess the extent to which their contribution to performance may be
explained by their commonalities; that is, if the direct effects remain significant after
accounting for the role of both orientations. Finally, model 5 includes the interaction
between both orientations, which clarifies whether the joint adoption of both
orientations entails synergistic performance improvements.
The estimation results related to model 1 indicate a weak relationship between
performance and the control variables. Most significant effects emerge when the
performance measure focuses on market response. Size seems directly related to sales
and market share growth (p , 0:01), but the industry and building sectors
demonstrate poorer performance in this respect (p , 0:01). This result probably
Absolute value of residual

Regression
Regression
Regression
Regression
MO E CV
E MO CV
MO E
E MO
Market orientation
513
Entrepreneurship
20.205 * * *
0.071
20.227 * * *
0.120
Notes: E, entrepreneurship; MO, market orientation; CV, control variables. *p , 0:10; * *p , 0:05;
* * *p , 0:01
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
Table V.
Relationship between
entrepreneurship and
market orientation:
analysis of residuals
EJM
43,3/4
514
Figure 1.
Plot of entrepreneurship
against market orientation
reflects the greater globalisation of the markets in these sectors, which makes their
region of origin a more severe drawback. Size also relates positively to performance
measured as market position value (p , 0:05) and new product success (p , 0:10).
Finally, the building sector appears characterised by poorer performance when it
comes to new product success (p , 0:10).
According to model 2, the contribution of market orientation to performance is
positive and highly significant (p , 0:01) for all performance measurements.
Analogously, model 3 indicates that entrepreneurship contributes positively and
highly significantly (p , 0:01) to all performance measures. Consequently, and in line
with many published contributions in this field, our findings support H3a and H3b.
When analysed separately, both cultural orientations contribute to the improvement of
performance.
Model 4 assesses the joint role of both orientations for business performance, and as
we expected, their relationship implies a loss of significance of the direct effect of each.
Thus, part of their effect stems from the commonalities between the orientations.
However, except for performance based on market position value, both direct effects
remain significant (at least p , 0:10), and only the significant effect of
5.50 * * *
20.55
20.29
20.52
0.19 * *
0.036
1.66
Market position value

Constant
Building sector
Services sector
Size
Market orientation
Entrepreneurship
Interaction
R2
ANOVA F
4.00 * * *
20.67 * *
20.28
20.71 * *
0.12
0.37 * * *
0.251
11.9 * * *
3.57 * * *
20.30
20.43
20.31
0.09
3.42 * * *
Notes: *p , 0:10; * *p , 0:05; * * *p , 0:01
4.46 * * *
20.23
20.44
20.20
0.13
0.82
Probability
Constant
Building sector
Services sector
Size
Entrepreneurship
Interaction
ANOVA F
4.94 * * *
20.79 * *
20.26
20.89 * *
0.08
0.28 * * *
0.142
5.87 * * *
3.96 * * *
20.44
20.41
20.52
0.04
0.25 * * *
3.74 * * *
4.02 * * *
20.71 * *
20.27
20.78 * *
0.10
0.33 * * *
0.06
0.255
10.0 * * *
3.61 * * *
20.41
20.42
20.48
0.05
0.17 * *
3.65 * * *
3.42 * * *
20.71 * *
20.26
20.74 * *
0.10
0.46 * * *
0.29
20.04
0.261
8.85 * * *
New product success

4.84 * * *
3.04 * * *
2 0.22
2 0.37
2 0.86 *
2 0.84 *
2 0.46
2 0.69 *
0.21 *
0.13
0.44 * * *
0.052
0.249
2.42 *
11.7 * * *
Market response
4.79 * * *
3.85 * * *
2 0.85 * *
2 0.93 * * *
2 0.79 * *
2 0.78 * *
2 0.48
2 0.59 *
0.27 * * *
0.23 * *
3.38 * *
6.40 * * *
Model
4.54 * * *
20.41
20.43
20.54
0.05
20.18
0.07 *
3.58 * * *
4.01 * * *
2 0.58
2 0.81 *
2 1.00 * *
0.06
0.41 * * *
0.197
8.66 * * *
4.31 * * *
2 1.06 * * *
2 0.76 * *
2 0.78 * *
0.18 *
0.24 * * *
6.03 * * *
5
3.88 * * *
21.03 * * *
20.77 * *
20.73 * *
0.19 * *
0.14
0.00
5.10 * * *
3.05 * * *
20.50
20.82 *
20.88 * *
0.08
0.34 * *
0.20
20.00
0.270
9.24 * * *
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
4
3.88 * * *
2 1.03 * * *
2 0.77 * *
2 0.73 * *
0.19 * *
0.14 *
5.98 * * *
3.08 * *
2 0.50
2 0.82 *
2 0.89 * *
0.08
0.34 * *
0.19 *
0.270
10.8 * * *
515
Table VI.
Relationship market
orientationentrepreneurshipperformance: regression
analysis
EJM
43,3/4
516
entrepreneurship disappears when image and customer satisfaction serve as measures

of performance. Consequently, our findings support H4a for all performance
measurements and support H4b, with the exception of performance based on market
position value (i.e. achieving an advantaged position in consumers minds).
With regard to the loss of significance for entrepreneurship, compared with that for
market orientation, in the case of performance based on market response and new
product success, we note that this finding is consistent with Matsuno et al. (2002), who
demonstrate that market orientation completely mediates the relationship between
entrepreneurship and performance. However, the opposite effect happens for our
performance measure based on profitability; the higher loss of significance occurs for
market orientation. Consequently, it appears the effect of entrepreneurship is well
captured by market orientation when the analysis is based on efficacy (market
response and market position value) and adaptability (new product success) but not
when performance pertains to efficiency (profitability). In turn, the specific
contribution of entrepreneurship may be especially relevant with regard to the
reduction of economic resources involved in achieving an advantaged position and
favourable market responses. We also note that entrepreneurship can involve
implementing projects that are not inspired by market opportunities but rather by
technological developments designed to improve internal production processes and
reduce costs. Our findings suggest that the contribution of these innovative projects for
performance is independent of market orientation.
Finally, model 5 shows only one significant, positive interaction effect (p , 0:10) for
performance based on profitability, in support of H5 for this measure. Market
orientation seems to facilitate the contribution of entrepreneurial efforts to
profitability, but because of the modest confidence level, this result should be
accepted only cautiously. Nevertheless, though it is reasonable to expect that the
moderating effect of market orientation will be stronger for performance measures that
rely on efficacy, especially those that capture the extent to which firms maintain a
position of advantage (e.g. market position value, market response), the only evidence
of this moderation effect comes from performance measures that centre on efficiency
(profitability)
4. Conclusions
This study contributes empirical evidence about the relationship among
entrepreneurship, market orientation and performance. Because the adoption of
entrepreneurship and market orientation as part of a firms organizational culture
requires great effort, it is crucial to understand the relationship of these orientations in
terms of their implementations and implications for performance. Our analysis focuses
on a specific socio-economic context: a least advantaged region of the European Union.
Our findings pertain to the relationship between entrepreneurship and market
orientation, and the empirical results demonstrate a strong relationship. Both
orientations share common elements and consequently facilitate each others
implementation. Moreover, though each orientation could be adopted separately, our
results suggest that the implementation of market orientation generally constitutes a
first step towards adopting entrepreneurship.
Our findings also relate to the role of entrepreneurship and market orientation in
terms of performance. We find a positive contribution of both orientations to a broad
range of performance measurements and observe positive contributions to both

financial measures, which focus on the short term, and operational measurements,
which cover a long-term scope. Analogously, we observe a positive contribution for
both efficacy and adaptability measurements, which centre on performance in the
market, and efficiency measurements, which also take into account the resources
involved in such performance. Our results furthermore imply that, in general, the
contributions of entrepreneurship and market orientation may be specific and not due
to their commonalities. Consequently, adopting the second orientation after the first
further improves performance. Finally, our results provide little evidence of a
synergistic effect of the joint adoption of both orientations on performance.
Some implications for management clearly can be drawn from our findings. First,
the strong relationship and complementarities between entrepreneurship and market
orientation reduce the effort involved in the joint adoption of both orientations.
Entrepreneurship, defined as an innovative attitude that makes the firm ready to
assume calculated risk to achieve market leadership, requires an understanding of the
environment, quick responses to market opportunities and, ultimately, a market
orientation. In this respect, market orientation sets the basis for the entrepreneurial
behaviour of firms.
Second, efforts to adopt both orientations will be rewarded with improved
performance. Moreover, though our results are not optimistic regarding synergic
effects derived from the joint adoption of both orientations, they suggest that their joint
adoption may add value beyond that provided by the adoption of only one. In other
words, the specific aspects that differentiate entrepreneurship and market orientation
both contribute to improving performance, and therefore, firms should foster a
market-oriented, entrepreneurial organisational culture.
The socio-economic context in which we pose these implications makes our results
especially relevant for establishing guidelines about how to achieve competitiveness
and viability in disadvantaged regions within a broader competitive environment. For
example, entrepreneurship and market orientations are successful cultural models in
this context. Although a market orientation entails commitment to the consumer, it can
be translated straightforwardly into specific practices related to gathering information
from the environment, then analysing such information to develop strategies to take
advantage of emerging opportunities and dodge potential threats. An entrepreneurial
cultural orientation involves rather more complexity in translation into specific
practices, because it requires carrying out creative and innovative projects centred on
both exploiting market opportunities and improving internal production processes.
Therefore, it requires an assumption of calculated risk instead of a reactive posture.
Our findings are also relevant to government policymakers in that, as Covin and
Slevin (1991) note, entrepreneurship stimulates not only the economic performance of
individual firms, but also general economic development. Therefore, policies aimed at
enhancing entrepreneurial orientation and exploiting its complementarities with
market orientation constitute an appropriate way to promote economic growth and
welfare. Training in entrepreneurial and market orientation principles and actions, as
well as awards for successful, innovative, proactive business behaviours, could be
useful initiatives in this respect. As far as entrepreneurship and innovation are
concerned, local governments should also make an effort to facilitate companies in
accessing competitive research funding. The development and empowerment of
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
517
EJM
43,3/4
518
agencies devoted to providing administrative and technical support in this matter

could help companies to break down the initial fear of and resistance to exploiting new
opportunities.
Governments could also promote companies self-assessment according to
excellence models such as the European Foundation for Quality Management
(EFQM), which clearly fosters the development of a market orientation culture. In
general, any total quality management approach poses customers and competitors as
major references in the search for opportunities and the definition of strategies.
However, some limitations of our study also remain. We note in particular our small
sample size. With smaller samples, the power of the tests decreases, which makes it
more difficult to detect possible moderating effects. A replication of our analysis with
larger sample sizes would facilitate a more precise description of these phenomena. In
addition, the methodology we use to measure the constructs could generate fictitious
relationships through a halo effect. Our measurements involve single respondents
within each firm, which can reinforce relationships between constructs. Therefore, our
research could be improved with the use of different information sources to measure
different constructs. Finally, it would be interesting to delve deeper into this issue by
considering more sophisticated measures of the constructs. For example, researchers
could break down the market orientation measurement into intelligence generation,
intelligence dissemination and response, which would offer a more detailed view of the
role of market orientation. The same could be done to the entrepreneurship
measurement, which comprises innovativeness, risk-taking and proactiveness
components.
References
Appiah-Adu, K. (1998), Market orientation and performance: empirical test in a transition
economy, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 6, pp. 25-45.
Atuahene-Gima, K. and Ko, A. (2001), An empirical investigation of the effect of market
orientation and entrepreneurship orientation alignment on product innovation,
Organization Science, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 54-75.
Barrett, H. and Weinstein, A. (1998), The effect of market orientation and organizational
flexibility on corporate entrepreneurship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 23
No. 1, pp. 57-70.
Barringer, B.R. and Bluedorn, A.G. (1999), The relationship between corporate entrepreneurship
and strategic management, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 20, pp. 421-44.
Bhuian, S.N., Menguc, B. and Bell, S.J. (2005), Just entrepreneurial enough: the moderating effect
of entrepreneurship on the relationship between market orientation and performance,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58, pp. 9-17.
Bourgeois, L. (1980), Strategy and the environment: a conceptual integration, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 5, January, pp. 25-39.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1989), Strategic management of small firms in hostile and benign
environments, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 75-87.
Covin, J.G. and Slevin, D.P. (1991), A conceptual model of entrepreneurship as firm behaviour,
Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 16, Fall, pp. 7-25.
Covin, J.G., Green, K.M. and Slevin, D.P. (2006), Strategic process effects on the entrepreneurial
orientation-sales growth rate relationship, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 30,
January, pp. 57-81.
Deshpande, R. and Farley, J.U. (2004), Organizational culture, market orientation,

innovativeness, and firm performance: an international research odyssey, International
Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21, pp. 3-22.
Deshpande, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. Jr (1993), Corporate culture, customer orientation,
and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57,
pp. 23-7.
Dess, G., Lumpkin, G. and Covin, J. (1997), Entrepreneurial strategy making and firm
performance: tests of contingency and configurational models, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 2-23.
Dwairi, M., Bhuian, S.N. and Jurkus, A. (2007), Revisiting the pioneering market orientation
model in an emerging economy, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 41 Nos 7/8,
pp. 713-21.
Ellis, P.D. (2006), Market orientation and performance: a meta-analysis and cross-national
comparisons, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43, July, pp. 1089-107.
Gonzalez-Benito, O. and Gonzalez-Benito, J. (2005), Cultural vs. operational market orientation
and objective vs subjective performance: perspective of production and operations,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 35, pp. 797-829.
Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, R.K. (1998), Market orientation and organizational
performance: is innovation a missing link?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 30-45.
Hooley, G., Cox, T., Fahy, J., Shipley, D., Beracs, J., Fonfara, K. and Snoj, B. (2000), Market
orientation in the transition economies of Central Europe: test of the Narver and Slater
market orientation scales, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50, pp. 273-85.
Hult, G.T.M. and Ketchen, D.J. Jr (2001), Does market orientation matter? A test of the
relationship between positional advantage and performance, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 1899-906.
Hult, G.T.M., Snow, C.C. and Kandemir, D. (2003), The role of entrepreneurship in building
cultural competitiveness in different organizational types, Journal of Management, Vol. 29
No. 3, pp. 401-26.
Hurley, R.F. and Hult, T.M. (1998), Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning:
an integration and empirical examination, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 42-54.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), Market orientation: antecedents and consequences,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, pp. 53-70.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1996), Market orientation: review, refinement and roadmap,
Journal of Market-Focused Marketing, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 119-35.
Kemelgor, B.H. (2002), A comparative analysis of corporate entrepreneurial orientation between
selected firms in The Netherlands and the USA, Entrepreneurship and Regional
Development, Vol. 14, pp. 67-87.
Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S. and Bearden, W.O. (2005), Market orientation: a meta-analytic
review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69, April, pp. 24-41.
Knight, G. (1997), Cross-cultural reliability and validity of a scale to measure firm
entrepreneurial orientation, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 12, pp. 213-25.
Knight, G. (2000), Entrepreneurship and marketing strategy: the SME under globalization,
Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 12-32.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,
and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 1-18.
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
519
EJM
43,3/4
520
Kreiser, P.M., Marino, L.D. and Weaver, K.M. (2002), Assessing the psychometric properties of
the entrepreneurial orientation scale: a multi-country analysis, Entrepreneurship Theory
and Practice, Vol. 26, pp. 71-92.
Lafferty, B.A. and Hult, G.T.M. (2001), A synthesis of contemporary market orientation
perspectives, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 Nos 1/2, pp. 92-109.
Langerak, F. (2003), An appraisal of research on the predictive power of market orientation,
European Management Journal, Vol. 21 No. 4, pp. 447-64.
Liu, S.S., Luo, X. and Shi, Y.-Z. (2003), Market oriented organizations in an emerging
economy: a study of missing links, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 56, pp. 481-91.
Lumpkin, G.T. and Dess, G.G. (1996), Clarifying the entrepreneurial orientation construct and
linking it to performance, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 135-72.
McGrath, R.G., MacMillan, I.C., Yang, E.A. and Tsai, W. (1992), Does culture endure, or is it
malleable? Issues for entrepreneurial economic development, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 7, pp. 441-58.
McKee, D.O., Varadarajan, P.R. and Pride, W.M. (1989), Strategic adaptability and firm
performance: a market-contingent perspective, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, July,
pp. 21-35.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T. and Ozsomer, A. (2002), The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and
market orientation on business performance, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, pp. 18-32.
Menon, A. and Varadarajan, P.R. (1992), A model of marketing knowledge use within firms,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 56, pp. 53-71.
Miles, M.P. and Arnold, D.R. (1991), The relationship between marketing orientation and
entrepreneurial orientation, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, Vol. 15 No. 4,
pp. 49-65.
Miller, D. (1983), The correlates of entrepreneurship in three types of firms, Management
Science, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 770-91.
Morris, M.H. and Paul, G.W. (1987), The relationship between entrepreneurship and marketing
in established firms, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 2, pp. 247-59.
Morris, M.H., Schindehutte, M. and LaForge, R.W. (2002), Entrepreneurial marketing: a construct
for integrating emerging entrepreneurship and marketing perspectives, Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 1-19.
Mueller, S.L. and Thomas, A.S. (2001), Culture and entrepreneurial potential: a nine-country
study of locus of control and innovativeness, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 16 No. 1,
pp. 51-75.
Murray, J.A. (1981), Marketing is home for the entrepreneurial process, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 10, pp. 93-9.
Naman, J.L. and Slevin, D.P. (1993), Entrepreneurship and the concept of fit: a model and
empirical test, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 137-53.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), The effect of a market orientation on business profitability,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, October, pp. 20-35.
Rodrguez-Cano, C., Carrillat, F.A. and JaramilloCarrillat, F. (2004), A meta-analysis of the
relationship between market orientation and business performance: evidence from five
continents, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 179-200.
Shoham, A., Rose, G.M. and Kropp, F. (2006), Market orientation and performance: a meta-analysis,
Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 435-54.
Sin, L.Y.M., Tse, A.C.B., Yau, O.H.M., Chow, R.P.M. and Lee, J.S.Y. (2005), Market orientation,
relationship marketing orientation, and business performance: the moderating effects of
economic ideology and industry type, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 36-57.
Singh, S. (2003), Effects of transition economy on the market orientation-business performance
link: the empirical evidence from Indian industrial firms, Journal of Global Marketing,
Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 73-96.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1994), Does competitive environment moderate the market
orientation performance relationship?, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 46-55.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), Market orientation and the learning organization, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 63-74.
Stetz, P.E., Howell, R., Stewart, A., Blair, J.D. and Fottler, M.D. (2000), Multidimensionality of
entrepreneurial firm-level processes: do the dimensions covary?, in Reynolds, P.D., Autio,
E., Brush, C.G., Bygrave, W.D., Manigart, S., Sapienza, H.J. and Sexton, D.J. (Eds),
Frontiers in Entrepreneurship Research 2000, Vol. 2000, Babson College, Wellesley, MA.
Snow, C. and Hrebiniak, L. (1980), Strategy, distinctive competence, and organizational
performance, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 25, June, pp. 317-36.
Subramanian, R. and Gopalakrishna, P. (2001), The market orientation-performance
relationship in the context of a developing economy: an empirical analysis, Journal of
Business Research, Vol. 53, pp. 1-13.
Venkatraman, N. and Ramanujam, V. (1986), Measurement of business performance in strategy
research: a comparison of approaches, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 801-8.
Walker, O.C. Jr and Ruekert, R.W. (1987), Marketings role in the implementation of business
strategies: a critical review and conceptual framework, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, July,
pp. 15-33.
Zahra, S.A., Jennings, D.F. and Kuratko, D.F. (1999), The antecedents and consequences of
firm-level entrepreneurship: the state of the field, Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
Vol. 24, pp. 45-65.
Zahra, S.A. and Covin, J.G. (1995), Contextual influences on the corporate
entrepreneurship-performance relationship: a longitudinal analysis, Journal of Business
Venturing, Vol. 10, pp. 43-58.
About the authors
Oscar Gonzalez-Benito has a degree in Mathematics from the University of Salamanca (1995), a
MSc degree in Marketing from UMIST (UK) (1997) and a PhD in Economics and Management
Sciences from the University of Salamanca (1999). He is currently Professor of Marketing at the
University of Salamanca. In addition to several published papers in some of the most recognised
Spanish marketing and management academic journals, he has published articles in
international journals such as Journal of Retailing, Journal of Business Research, Industrial
Marketing Management, International Journal of Market Research, British Journal of
Management, Marketing Letters, OMEGA, Journal of the Operational Research Society,
International Journal of Production Economics, International Journal of Production Research and
Small Business Economics. Oscar Gonzalez-Benito is the corresponding author and can be
contacted at: oscargb@usal.es
Javier Gonzalez-Benito has a degree in Mathematics from the University of Salamanca (Spain)
(1995), which he joined as an Assistant Professor of Management after taking a MPhil degree in
Management Studies at the University of Cambridge (UK) (1997), a MSc degree in Operations
Entrepreneurship
and market
orientation
521
EJM
43,3/4
522
Management from UMIST (UK) (1998) and a PhD in Economic and Management Sciences at the
University of Salamanca (Spain) (1999). He has published articles in journals such as Journal of
Operations Management, British Journal of Management, OMEGA, International Journal of
Production Economics, International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
International Journal of Production Research, Industrial Marketing Management and European
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management.
Pablo A. Munoz Gallego has a degree in Business Administration from the University of
Oviedo (1981) and a PhD in Economics and Management Sciences from the University of Oviedo
(1986). He is currently Professor of Marketing at the University of Salamanca. He was President
of the Economic and Social Council of Castilla y Leon, an independent advisory institution for the
Regional Government, from 1996 to 2000. In addition to several published papers in some of the
most recognised Spanish marketing and management academic journals, he has published
articles in international journals such as Journal of Retailing, Marketing Letters and Journal of
Retailing and Consumer Services.
To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints
This article has been cited by:

1. scar Gonzlez-Benito, Pablo A. Muoz-Gallego, Evelyn Garca-Zamora. 2016. Role of collaboration
in innovation success: differences for large and small businesses. Journal of Business Economics and
Management 17:4, 645-662. [CrossRef]
2. Sandeep Vij Department of Management, DAV University, Jalandhar, India Harpreet Singh Bedi
Department of Management, Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, India . 2016. Are subjective
business performance measures justified?. International Journal of Productivity and Performance
Management 65:5, 603-621. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
3. Joanne Ho, Carolin Plewa, Vinh Nhat Lu. 2016. Examining strategic orientation complementarity using
multiple regression analysis and fuzzy set QCA. Journal of Business Research 69:6, 2199-2205. [CrossRef]
4. Saeed Najafi-Tavani, Hossein Sharifi, Zhaleh Najafi-Tavani. 2016. Market orientation, marketing
capability, and new product performance: The moderating role of absorptive capacity. Journal of Business
Research . [CrossRef]
5. Muslim Amin King Saud University Ramayah Thurasamy School of Management, Universiti Sains
Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia Abdullah M. Aldakhil Management Department, College of Business
Administration, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Aznur Hafeez Bin Kaswuri
International Business School Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Interntional Campus, Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia . 2016. The effect of market orientation as a mediating variable in the relationship between
entrepreneurial orientation and SMEs performance. Nankai Business Review International 7:1, 39-59.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
6. Abdulrahman Alsughayir. 2016. Regulatory Role of TQM between the Marketing Orientation,
Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Organizational Performance and Competitiveness. American Journal
of Industrial and Business Management 06:05, 655-664. [CrossRef]
7. Syed Mohsin Ali Shah, Hatem El-Gohary, Javed Ghulam Hussain. 2015. An Investigation of Market
Orientation (MO) and Tourism Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) Performance in Developing
Countries: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 32:8, 990-1022. [CrossRef]
8. Helen Reijonen, Saku Hirvonen, Gbor Nagy, Tommi Laukkanen, Mika Gabrielsson. 2015. The impact
of entrepreneurial orientation on B2B branding and business growth in emerging markets. Industrial
Marketing Management 51, 35-46. [CrossRef]
9. , . 2015. A Study on the Relationships between Demographic Characteristics of Entrepreneurial
Candidates, their Developmental Level of Entrepreneurial Traits and Choice of Business Field. Asia-Pacific
Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship 10:5, 1-13. [CrossRef]
10. Jung-Su Song. 2015. The Effect of Corporate Entrepreneurship on the Organizational Performance:
Focused on the Mediating Effects of Market Orientation and Radical Innovation. Journal of the Korea
Safety Management and Science 17:3, 343-353. [CrossRef]
11. Heon-Young Yuk, Jong-Hyen Seo. 2015. An Empirical Study on the Business Performance of the SelfEmployed Creative Companies - Focused on the Relational Characteristics-. Journal of the Korea Safety
Management and Science 17:3, 297-306. [CrossRef]
12. SCAR GONZLEZ-BENITO, PABLO A. MUOZ-GALLEGO, EVELYN GARCA-ZAMORA.
2015. ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND MARKET ORIENTATION AS DETERMINANTS OF
INNOVATION: THE ROLE OF BUSINESS SIZE. International Journal of Innovation Management
19:04, 1550035. [CrossRef]
13. Michael Valos, Michael Jay Polonsky, Felix Mavondo, John Lipscomb. 2015. Senior marketers insights
into the challenges of social media implementation in large organisations: assessing generic and electronic
orientation models as potential solutions. Journal of Marketing Management 31:7-8, 713-746. [CrossRef]
14. Bedman Narteh, Raphael Odoom. 2015. Does Internal Marketing Influence Employee Loyalty? Evidence
From the Ghanaian Banking Industry. Services Marketing Quarterly 36:2, 112-135. [CrossRef]
15. Moses Acquaah, Ahmed Agyapong. 2015. The Relationship between Competitive Strategy and Firm
Performance in Micro and Small Businesses in Ghana: The Moderating Role of Managerial and Marketing
Capabilities. Africa Journal of Management 1:2, 172-193. [CrossRef]
16. Doohwan Roh, Ho-Young Park. 2015. The Influence of Core Competence on Organizational Performance
of IT Small and Medium Enterprises : The Moderating Role of Entrepreneurship and Government
Support. Journal of the Korea society of IT services 14:1, 23-40. [CrossRef]
17. Feder EmkeSzidnia. 2015. International Entrepreneurial Orientation and Performance of Romanian
Small and Medium-sized firms: Empirical Assessment of Direct and Environment Moderated Relations.
Procedia Economics and Finance 32, 186-193. [CrossRef]
18. Sung-Hee Jang. 2014. The Effects of Entrepreneurial Orientation, Market Orientation, and Corporate
Social Responsibility on Performance in Social Enterprise. The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
14:6, 355-366. [CrossRef]
19. Stanley Kam-Sing Wong Faculty of Business and Law, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia .
2014. Impacts of environmental turbulence on entrepreneurial orientation and new product success.
European Journal of Innovation Management 17:2, 229-249. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
20. Paul Chad. 2014. Organizational change within charities: improved performance via introduction of
market orientation and other strategic orientations. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing
11:1, 89-113. [CrossRef]
21. . 2014. The Effects Social Entrepreneurship and CSR Activities on Performance of Social Enterprise.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Venturing and Entrepreneurship 9:2, 117-127. [CrossRef]
22. Chang Soo Sung, David Y. Choi, Daeeop Kim, Woo Jin Lee. 2014. Do Entrepreneurial Companies Make
Good Corporate Citizens? Exploring the Relationships Between Entrepreneurial Orientation, Market
Orientation, and Corporate Citizenship. Journal of Enterprising Culture 22:01, 1-25. [CrossRef]
23. , , Sung-Sik Bahn. 2014. The Effects of Women Entrepreneurs Characteristics, Organizational
Culture, and Entrepreneurship on Business Performance. Productivity Review 28:1, 187-215. [CrossRef]
24. Moonjong Choi, Dongman Lee. 2013. Effects of Entrepreneur Characteristics and Software
Innovativeness on Performance of Software Company: The Moderating Effects of Institutional Pressure.
The Journal of Information Systems 22:4, 23-48. [CrossRef]
25. Tommi Laukkanen Department of Business, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland Gbor Nagy
Institute of Marketing and Media, Corvinus University of Budapest, Budapest, Hungary Saku Hirvonen
Department of Business, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland Helen Reijonen Department
of Business, University of Eastern Finland, Joensuu, Finland Mika Pasanen Centre for Business and
Engineering, North Karelia University of Applied Sciences, Joensuu, Finland . 2013. The effect of strategic
orientations on business performance in SMEs. International Marketing Review 30:6, 510-535. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
26. Vera Hinz, Stefan Ingerfurth. 2013. Does Ownership Matter Under Challenging Conditions?: On the
relationship between organizational entrepreneurship and performance in the healthcare sector. Public
Management Review 15:7, 969-991. [CrossRef]
27. Rosalind Jones and Zubin SethnaMar SolDepartment of Business Economics, Universitat Autnoma
de Barcelona,Cerdanyola del Valls, Spain. 2013. Entrepreneurial marketing: conceptual exploration and
link to performance. Journal of Research in Marketing and Entrepreneurship 15:1, 23-38. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
28. Evelyn Garca-Zamora, scar Gonzlez-Benito, Pablo A Muoz-Gallego. 2013. Organizational and
environmental factors as moderators of the relationship between multidimensional innovation and
performance. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 15:2, 224-244. [CrossRef]
29. Ian Chaston. 2013. Independent financial advisors: open innovation and business performance. The Service
Industries Journal 33:6, 636-651. [CrossRef]
30. Hsiang Ling Chen, Chun-Hui Hsu. 2013. Entrepreneurial orientation and firm performance in nonprofit service organizations: contingent effect of market orientation. The Service Industries Journal 33:5,
445-466. [CrossRef]
31. Hyokjin Kwak, Anupam Jaju, Marina Puzakova, Joseph F. Rocereto. 2013. The Connubial Relationship
Between Market Orientation and Entrepreneurial Orientation. The Journal of Marketing Theory and
Practice 21:2, 141-162. [CrossRef]
32. Ian R. Hodgkinson, Paul Hughes, Mathew Hughes. 2012. Re-examining the deployment of market
orientation in the public leisure sector. Journal of Marketing Management 28:11-12, 1249-1269.
[CrossRef]
33. Mateja Bodlaj, Germa Coenders, Vesna Zabkar. 2012. Responsive and proactive market orientation
and innovation success under market and technological turbulence. Journal of Business Economics and
Management 13:4, 666-687. [CrossRef]
34. Christina DonnellySchool of Business, NUI Maynooth, Maynooth, Ireland Geoff SimmonsUlster
Business School, University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK Gillian ArmstrongUlster Business School,
University of Ulster, Newtownabbey, UK Andrew FearneKent Business School, University of Kent,
Canterbury, UK. 2012. Marketing planning and digital customer loyalty data in small business. Marketing
Intelligence & Planning 30:5, 515-534. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
35. Evelyn Garca-Zamora, scar Gnzalez-Benito, Pablo A. Muoz-Gallego. 2012. Organizational and
environmental factors as moderators of the relationship between multidimensional innovation and
performance. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice 2364-2387. [CrossRef]
36. Andrew IntiharRichmond, Virginia, USA Jeffrey M. PollackDepartment of Management, University of
Richmond, Richmond, Virginia, USA. 2012. Exploring small familyowned firms competitive ability.
Journal of Family Business Management 2:1, 76-86. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
37. Dennis PittaDavid LingelbachMarketing & Entrepreneurship, University of Baltimore, Baltimore,
Maryland, USA Anthony PatinoMarketing & Entrepreneurship, University of Baltimore, Baltimore,
Maryland, USA Dennis A. PittaMarketing & Entrepreneurship, University of Baltimore, Baltimore,
Maryland, USA. 2012. The emergence of marketing in Millennial new ventures. Journal of Consumer
Marketing 29:2, 136-145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Peter S. Whalen, Samuel S. Holloway. 2012. Effectual marketing planning for new ventures. AMS Review
2:1, 34-43. [CrossRef]
39. Rahab. 2012. Innovativeness Model Of Small And Medium Enterprises Based On Market Orientation
and Learning Orientation: Testing Moderating Effect Of Business Operation Mode. Procedia Economics
and Finance 4, 97-109. [CrossRef]
40. Sung-Hee Jang. 2011. The Effects of Internal, External Environment and Entrepreneurship on the
Performance of Social Enterprise: Focused on the Network Activity. Journal of the Korea AcademiaIndustrial cooperation Society 12:11, 4801-4811. [CrossRef]
41. Mohammad Suleiman AwwadDepartment of Business and Marketing, Mutah University, Mutah, Jordan
Djouhara Ali Mohammad AgtiDepartment of Business and Marketing, Mutah University, Mutah,
Jordan. 2011. The impact of internal marketing on commercial banks' market orientation. International
Journal of Bank Marketing 29:4, 308-332. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Entreprenurship and MO

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Entreprenurship and MO

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

European Journal of Marketing

Role of entrepreneurship and market orientation in firms' success

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Role of entrepreneurship and

Oscar Gonzalez-Benito, Javier Gonzalez-Benito and

Received February 2007

Dpto. Administracion y Economa de la Empresa, Universidad de Salamanca,

European Journal of Marketing

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Is there a direct effect of each orientation on performance?

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Intelligence generation refers to the collection of relevant information from the

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

identifying market opportunities and taking advantage of them before competitors,

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

2.2 Effect of entrepreneurship and market orientation on performance

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

link appears significantly stronger in studies set in mature markets instead of

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

In turn, this discussion points to potential complementarities between

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Principal components analysisa

Note: a95.07 per cent of variance explained

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Absolute value of residual

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Market position value

Notes: *p , 0:10; * *p , 0:05; * * *p , 0:01

New product success

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

entrepreneurship disappears when image and customer satisfaction serve as measures

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

range of performance measurements and observe positive contributions to both

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

agencies devoted to providing administrative and technical support in this matter

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Deshpande, R. and Farley, J.U. (2004), Organizational culture, market orientation,

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

This article has been cited by:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Downloaded by UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA At 00:07 24 August 2016 (PT)

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen

Notes: p , 0:10; p , 0:05; * *p , 0:01