European Journal of Marketing

Product-market Strategy and Performance: An Analysis of the Miles and Snow Strategy Types
Stanley F. Slater John C. Narver

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

Article information:

To cite this document:

Stanley F. Slater John C. Narver, (1993),"Product-market Strategy and Performance: An Analysis of the Miles and Snow
Strategy Types", European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 Iss 10 pp. 33 - 51 Permanent link to this document:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/03090569310045870

Downloaded on: 03 November 2016, At: 16:13 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 5322 times since 2006*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:

(1998),"Customer orientation and performance: a study of SMEs", Management Decision, Vol. 36 Iss 6 pp. 385-394 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/00251749810223592
(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

Universidad
de Navarra

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-srm:199902 []

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.

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

Product-market Strategy and

Performance:
An Analysis of the Miles and Snow
Strategy Types
Stanley F. Slater

University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, USA, and

John C. Narver

33
Received March
1993 Revised June
1993

University of Washington, Seattle, USA

Introduction
The Miles and Snow[l] typology of strategic behaviour has recently been the subject of
much debate and research in strategic management and marketing. This typology has
important implications for managers and scholars because it seems to represent generic
approaches to business strategy very well and the theory tells us that there are important
market-level and business-specific factors which determine the effectiveness of the
strategy types. Since 1987, over a dozen empirical studies (see[2] for an extensive
review) and'several conceptual pieces (e.g.[3, 4]) have been published in the
management and the marketing literature. However, previous research has been
predominantly descriptive (e.g.,[5-7D. In this study, we examine the business
characteristics which lead to superior performance for the Prospector, Analyser and
Defender strategy types.

The Miles and Snow Strategy Typology

Miles and Snows strategy types are primarily differentiated by the manner in which
each solves the entrepreneurial problem, the strategic management of its productmarkets [8, p. 6], Defenders attempt to create a stable domain by aggressively
protecting their product-market. In contrast, Prospectors approach their environment
more proactively and seek to identify and exploit new opportunities through both
product and market development. Occupying the middle position, Analysers carefully
explore new product and market opportunities while maintaining a core of skills,
products, and customers.
After a business determines its product-market strategy, it must create a system for
producing and distributing its products (the engineering problem), and must develop
and implement organizational structures and processes which support its entrepreneurial
and engineering solutions (the administrative problem). According to theory,
Defenders invest heavily in
The comments of Sully Taylor and Mike Hitt are gratefully acknowledged.
European Journal of Marketing, Vol.
27 No. 10,1993, pp. 33-51. CO MCB
University Press, 0309-0566

European
Journal of
Marketing
27,10
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

34

technological efficiency and manage the organization with a functional structure and
centralized control. Prospectors invest in multiple, flexible technologies, and utilize
product management and decentralized control. Analysers invest in both stable and
flexible technologies, and utilize matrix structures and complex co-ordinating
mechanisms.
A fourth usually unsuccessful type, the Reactor, has not been consistently described.
In research on the Miles and Snow typology, the Reactor often has been characterized
as having unique strategic qualities (e.g.[9-ll]) which rank below the Defender in such
attributes as proactiveness, attitude towards growth, and intensity of environmental
monitoring[5,7], However, Miles et al. [12, p. 553] say that it is the Prospector and
Defender which occupy the opposite ends of a continuum of adjustment strategies, and
elaborate further that [1, p. 557], the Reactor is a residual strategy, arising when one
of the other three strategies is improperly pursued. In an analysis of businesses in the
adhesives and sealants industry, Wright et al.[ 13] found that a three-cluster solution
which roughly corresponds with the strategy types was superior to a four-cluster
solution, thus supporting the proposition that there are three natural entrepreneurial
archetypes, rather than four.

Performance Analysis
Performance of the Miles and Snow strategy types is not clearly understood. Miles and
Snow[l] propose that Prospectors, Analysers and Defenders have the opportunity to be
equally successful, and that these three will consistently outperform Reactors. In
support of the theory, Wright et a/.[13] present counterpropositions for how different
strategy types could achieve superior performance. However, in their review of
research on the typology, Zahra and Pearce[2] concluded that support for equal
effectiveness among Prospectors, Analysers and Defenders was mixed. And, in contrast
to the theory, Snow and Hrebeniak[9] found that Reactors outperformed Prospectors
and Defenders in the air transport industry.

Research Objective

The primary objective of this paper is to describe the influence on profitability of

theoretically important business-specific variables for the Prospector, Analyser, and
Defender types. This is accomplished in two stages. In the first stage, we cluster
business units based on the proactiveness, basis for competitive advantage, and market
focus dimensions of entrepreneurial strategy as suggested by Walker and Ruekert[4]
and Segev[14] and validate the clustering using other theoretically related variables. In
the second stage, we analyse the relationships between organizational characteristics
and profitability in the strategy types. We include important market structure variables
in the model as controls.

Characteristics of the Miles and Snow Strategy Typology

Consistent with Miles and Snow[l] and Wright et al{ 13], we expect to find that
a three-cluster solution will effectively summarize the data and that the profiles

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

of the clusters will correspond with the characteristics of the Prospector, Analyser, and
Defender strategy types as described below.
Proactiveness. Proactiveness, the aggressiveness with which businesses pursue
growth opportunities in their product-markets, is the foundation for the Miles and
Snow typology[8]. Defenders isolate and protect a relatively stable market and seek
growth through market penetration. In contrast, the Prospectors distinctive
competence is in identifying and exploiting new product and market opportunities. The
Analyser extends into new products from a relatively stable base of customers and
products. Thus, its growth can come from further market penetration as well as from
new product and market development. Shortell and Zajac[ll, p. 826] found that the
strategy types could be differentiated from one another based on the overall emphasis
placed on new services and markets.
Basis for competitive advantage. Prospectors may use either low-cost or
differentiation-based competitive advantage[4, p. 17]. Being first-movers, Prospectors
have the opportunity to achieve a sustainable cost advantage from learning or
experience effects[15, p. 133; 16, p. 42; 17, p. 406] or by pre-empting rivals in the
acquisition of scarce assets such as raw materials or plant and equipment[17, p. 44],
While Defenders are generally thought to place the greatest importance on low cost,
Smith et al.[7] found no significant difference between Prospectors and Defenders
emphasis on low cost.
However, pioneering new markets also requires high quality, high service;, or the
development of new product technologies[15, p. 133], which are characteristics of
differentiation-based competitive advantage[18]. Prospectors must also differentiate
their offerings from offerings by competitors in threatened industries as was the case
when the compact disc player was introduced to compete with the traditional turntable.
Low cost and differentiation are not inconsistent with each other[17], Porters[18]
definition of stuck-in-the-middle notwithstanding. Consequently, Prospectors may rely
on either differentiation-based competitive advantage or low-cost-based competitive
advantage, or both.
Analysers are followers. They usually enter new markets or introduce new products
only after their viability has been demonstrated by Prospectors. This requires that
Analysers maintain a dual technological core to continue to serve existing customers
with existing products and also to be sufficiently technologically flexible to follow
Prospectors rapidly with new products. Miles and Snow[l] suggest that since the
Analysers operations can never be completely effective or efficient due to this dual
focus, they must rely primarily on differentiation to distinguish their offerings from
competitors offerings and achieve competitive advantage.
The Defenders focus is on solving its engineering problem: how to produce and
distribute goods or services as efficiently as possible[12, p. 551]. This is accomplished
by focusing on a highly cost-efficient core technology and by developing highly
efficient administrative systems. Thus, low cost is the Defenders basis for competitive
advantage.

35

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

European
Journal of
Marketing
27,10
36

Market focus. Because of their sensitivity to market needs, Prospectors and

Analysers define their market scope rather narrowly. This enables them to understand
the needs of individual market segments better and to develop new products and
services to satisfy those needs. This does not preclude them from serving multiple
market segments nor from realizing economies of scope from offering related products.
In contrast to Miles and Snows view that Defenders direct their efforts at a narrow
segment of the total market, we believe that Defenders must take a broader view of the
market to offer standardized products and to attain sufficient economies of scale to
achieve a low-cost position. Smith et al.[7] found, on average, that Defenders take a
broader view of the market than do Analysers or Prospectors. Conant et al.[5] also
found that, on average, Defenders have lower skill at market segmentation. This makes
the Defender strategy type similar to Porters overall low-cost strategy.
New product development and success. Product development differs between
Prospectors and Analysers. Prospectors, being pioneers, seek to develop innovative new
products, sometimes at the expense of short-term profitability[15]. Analysers, being
early followers, take an imitative approach to new product development and pursue
effectiveness through the well-conceived addition of new products...[l, p. 77].
Consequently, growth through product development is essential to the success of both
these organizations. McDaniel and Kolari[10] found no significant difference between
Prospectors and Analysers emphasis on new product development, and Shortell and
Zajac[ll] found no significant difference between the types in the actual number of new
services offered by health care organizations in the past two years.
Defenders, on the other hand, grow primarily through market penetration and
engage in little new product development. Product development in a Defender is
usually a simple extension of the current product line...[l, p. 37]. McDaniel and
Kolari[10] and Shortell and Zajacfll] found that Defenders put significantly less
emphasis on new product development than either Prospectors or Analysers.
Furthermore, even when they do develop new products, Defenders are unlikely to have
the necessary organizational capabilities for successful new product management.
Profitability. Both Miles and Snow, and Porter, suggest that effective
implementation of any one of their strategy types could lead to acceptable performance.
Consistent with the coalignment perspective[19] that inadequate performance is the
result of poor co-ordination between strategy and environment or strategy and
organizational capability, we expect there to be greater profitability variation within
groups than between groups. In other words, poor performance may be experienced by
Prospectors, Analysers or Defenders which either do not have the requisite
organisational capabilities or which are pursuing the strategy in an inhospitable
environment.
Table I summarizes the expected profiles of the Prospector, Analyser, and Defender
strategy types.

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

Defender

Prospector

Analyser

High
High
High
Narrow

Medium
High
Low
Narrow

Validation variables
New product importance
New product responsibility
New product success rate
Average profitability

High
High
High

High
High
High
.....No difference-

Low
Low
Low

Performance analysis
HI: SBU Autonomy
H2: Market orientation H3:
HRM emphasis

+
+

+
+
4-

NR
+

Clustering
variables
Proactiveness
Differentiation strategy
Low-cost strategy
Market focus

IvOW
Low
High
Broad

H4: Relative cost NR = No

relationship

Determinants of Performance
SBU autonomy. Decision-making autonomy of strategic business units (SBUs) puts
responsibility close to the market, allows decisions to be made rapidly, and enables the
business unit to be flexible and adaptable[4]. Prospector and Analyser business units are
concerned with maintaining flexibility both in locating new market opportunities and in
developing new technology. These business units will be more effective when they
operate with few restrictions from headquarters and when they have low
interdependency with other SBUs in the corporation, as any constraints will restrict
their ability to respond rapidly to changes in their environment[20].
In Defender business units, the focus on low cost requires close attention to
operational details, including the relentless pursuit of cost economies and productivity
improvements through standardization of components and processes, routinization of
procedures, and the integration of functional activities across business units [4, p. 21].
These activities are likely to be accomplished most effectively when there are costreducing interdependencies among business units[20] and when decision making and
control are centralized[4].
Hla: There is a positive relationship between SBU autonomy and
profitability for Prospector and Analyser business units.
Hlb: There is a negative relationship between SBU autonomy and
profitability for Defender business units.

37

Table I.
Summary of
Propositions and
Hypotheses

European
Journal of
Marketing
27,10
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

38

Market orientation. Market orientation is the business culture which is committed to

the continuous creation of superior value for customers[21-22]. Market- oriented
businesses continuously monitor their external environments for opportunities and
threats. In that both Prospector and Analyser business units depend on product
development and market development for growth, both strategy types engage in
customer and competitor analysis in their market scanning efforts. Both customer and
competitor analysis are integral to market orientation.
On the other hand, with their internal focus on low cost and efficiency, Defenders
gain relatively little benefit from a high magnitude of market orientation. In fact, a
substantial investment of resources in market-oriented activities could distract the
Defender from its primary preoccupation with low cost, causing it to become a Reactor.
H2a\ There is a positive relationship between market orientation and
profitability for Prospector and Analyser business units.
H2b\ There is no relationship between market orientation and profitability
for Defender business units.
HRM emphasis. HRM emphasis is a businesss concern for employee welfare, work
conditions, and employee development. It has been found to be positively related to
performance in a broad sample of firms[23]. However, as Zahra and Pearce [2, p. 752]
note, managers will emphasize different human resource philosophies depending on
the strategic type of the organization.
While concern for employees is certainly humane management practice, it could
interfere with the Prospectors need for flexibility. Employee opportunities in the
Prospector businesses are most likely to come from the SBUs growth rather than from
formal programmes for employee advancement and development[24]. Also, Prospector
businesses frequently hire key individuals from the outside and disproportionately use
professionals who do not require formal career development [1, p. 61,62,65], This
suggests that a high level of HRM emphasis could be counterproductive for
Prospectors.
Owing to their dual technological core, Analysers require extensive coordination
and conflict resolution mechanisms. Co-ordination and conflict resolution will be
facilitated when employees feel that they are being fairly treated. Thus, HRM emphasis
should lead to a more effective Analyser organization. Because Defenders rarely are
able to offer employees opportunities for advancement based on organizational growth,
they must have a clear and proactive human resource management programme to
maintain job satisfaction and retain high performers[19],
H3a: There is a negative relationship between HRM emphasis and
profitability for Prospector business units.
H3b: There is a positive relationship between HRM emphasis and
profitability for Analyser and Defender business units.

European
Journal of
Marketing
27,10
Downloaded
Downloaded by
byUNIVERSIDAD
UNIVERSIDAD DE
DE NAVARRA
NAVARRAAt
At 16:13
16:13 03
03 November
November 2016
2016 (PT)
(PT)

40

Relative cost. Achieving low cost is the result of the effectiveness of a businesss
engineering decisions. Relative cost has a very strong theoretical influence on
business profitability[25]. A low relative cost implies a cost advantage, thus, we
expect a negative relationship between relative cost and business profitability for all
strategy types, but it will be most important to Defenders.
H4a: There is a negative relationship between relative cost and profitability for
Prospector, Analyser, and Defender business units.
H4b: Achievement of low relative cost is most important to Defenders.
Table I also displays the performance-based hypotheses as the form of the relationship
between the organizational characteristic and performance for the strategy types. In the
analysis, we also control for market growth rate, buyer power, and rate of product
innovation as these variables have been found to influence performance for the strategy
types[e.g. 2,8].

Research Design
Instrument Development
The Business Practices Survey is composed of existing scales and scales which were
developed to measure constructs which are important to this study.
The instrument was pre-tested with six current or former SBU
managers of the corporation from which our sample would be
drawn. On the basis of their comments, we refined some items and
developed the final instrument.
The Sample
The sampling units in this study are 140 SBUs of a major, highly
diversified, forest-products corporation. These SBUs vary from
mills to wholesale distribution centres to value-added
manufacturing operations. Thus, while all the SBUs operate in the
forest-products industry, they face substantially different productmarket conditions. Within each SBU the top management team
was identified by the responsible group executive and each
member was sent a questionnaire titled Business Practices
Survey with questions about the SBUs competitive practices and
strategies, competitive environment, and performance in its
principal served market.
There is a trade-off between using SBUs from one corporation
as the sampling frame and sampling from a broader group of
businesses. Our approach produces high response rates and access
to multiple respondents within each SBU. The reduction in
measurement error[26-27] increases the internal validity of the
study. However, the generalizability of the study may be reduced.
We believe that internal validity should be the primary concern in
the early stages of research.
The number of useable questionnaires returned was 371, a response rate of 84 per
cent. Within each SBU, top management team responses were aggregated and an
average score on the constructs of interest was calculated for the SBU. Averaging
responses within an SBU allows measurement errors to cancel out each other and thus
the reliability of the measure is increased[26]. There was a
total of 116 SBUs (83per cent) with useable data, averaging three respondents perSBU.
Clustering Variables
Proactiveness. Consistent with Miles and Snows emphasis on the different approaches
to growth which are employed by the different strategy types, we measured
proactiveness based on a SBUs relative emphasis on market penetration, market
development, product development, and introduction of new products into new markets.
The Prospectors distinctive competence is in identifying and exploiting new product
and market opportunities. In contrast, the Analyser extends into new products from a
relatively stable base of customers and products. Thus, its growth can come from
further market penetration as well as from new product and market development.

39

Defenders seek to isolate and protect a relatively stable market, thus their growth is
generated through additional market penetration.
Following Gupta and Govindarajan[28], we constructed a weighted-average strategy
index based on each strategys importance to the SBU and its magnitude of
proactiveness. They offer evidence of the validity of a similar measure of SBU strategy
based on its correlation with the SBUs market share. As proactiveness is a measure of
the aggressiveness of the SBUs growth strategy, it should be strongly related to the
SBUs sales growth rate. The correlation coefficient for the relationship between
Proactiveness and sales growth is 0.3923 (p = 0.0001).
Differentiation-based and low-cost-based competitive advantage. Drawing on
Porter[18] and Dess and Davis[29], we developed a five-item scale to measure
differentiation-based competitive advantage and a six-item scale to measure low-costbased competitive advantage (see Appendix for a description). A similar measurement
approach was employed by Govindarajan and Fisher[20] and was demonstrated to have
convergent validity as well as adequate reliability.
Market focus. Similar to the approaches of Smith et al.[7] and Conant et al.[5], we
use a single item, the importance to overall competitive strategy of segmenting the
[SBUs] served market, to measure market focus.

Cluster Validation Variables

New product development importance. This is measured using a seven-point scale of
the importance in your strategy of developing new products.
New product responsibility is assessed by the extent to which our business unit is
responsible for its own new-product development.
New product success rate. This is measured as top managements assessment of the
SBUs new product success rate relative to all other competitors in the SBUs principal
served market over the past year. Relative performance was used to control for
performance differences among the SBUs different industries and served markets.
Subjective measures of performance

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

are commonly used in research on private companies or on business units of large

companies and have been found to correlate strongly with their objective counterparts
(e.g.[30]).
Profitability. An SBUs profitability is top managements assessment of the SBUs
return on assets relative to all other competitors in the SBUs principal served market
over the past year. Previous comments about relative measures and subjective
assessments apply here also.

Independent Variables and Control Variables

SBU autonomy. Autonomy is measured by the extent to which respondents agree with
the statement, our management team has the autonomy to manage our business with
minimal interference from higher management.
Market orientation. We use Narver and Slaters[22] measure of market orientation
which is based on a businesss customer orientation, competitor orientation, and
interfunctional co-ordination (see Appendix). Narver and Slater offer evidence of
discriminant validity, convergent validity, and concurrent validity for their measure.
HRM emphasis. We use Hitt and Irelands[31] six-item scale for assessing the
importance which a business attaches to policies and activities for recruiting,
motivating, and rewarding employees (see Appendix).
Relative cost. Relative cost is the average total operating costs of a business relative
to those of its largest competitor in its principal served market segment (on a 1 to 8
Likert-type scale).
Market growth. Market growth is the approximate average annual growth rate of
total sales in your principal served market segment over the past three years, measured
on a 1 to 7 Likert-type scale.
Buyer power. Using a seven-point Likert-type scale, respondents were asked to
indicate, the extent to which buyers are able to negotiate lower prices from
sellers.[18]
Rate of product innovation. We used Millers[32] scale for rate of product
innovation. On a 7-point scale, respondents indicated the extent to which the rate of
innovation of products or services in their principal served market had increased or
decreased.

Analysis and Results

Tables II and III contain descriptive statistics and intercorrelations for the variables used
in the cluster analysis and the regression analysis respectively.
Reliabilities are reported on the diagonals of the correlation matrices. Reliability for
variables measured with multi-item scales (differentiation, low cost, market orientation,
and HRM emphasis) is assessed with Cronbach s alpha and exceeds 0.68 for all multiitem scales. For single-item scales we use the single-item estimator of interrater
reliability[33] and find median intra-SBU reliabilities ranging from 0.74 for market
focus to 0.90 for relative cost. Thus, we have confidence in the reliability of our
measures.

41

2. Differentiation

4.523
(1.023)
5.046
(0.688)

3. Low cost

4.478
(0.687)

4. Market focus

4.639
(1.052)

5. New product
importance

4.461
(1.164)

6. New product responsibility 4.923 '

(1.090)

(2)

0.494*
**

(7) (8)

0.76a

0.385*
**

0.673
***

0.270
**

0.74b

0.616*
**

0.663
***

0.161
*

0.424

0.75b

0.119

0.119

-0.007

-0.025

0.245*
*

0.77b

-0.082

0.295*
*

0.513*
**

0.1692
*

0.78b

0.215*
*

0.146

0.014

0.063 0.88b

0.449
***

8. Profitability

4.437
(1.432)

0.116

0.258
**

P
* p< 0.10 ** p < 0.01 *** p
< 0.001

(6)

0.357
***

-0.0581

0.551*
**

= Cronbachs alpha
= Median interior
reliability

(5)

0.76a

4.133
(1.397)

(4)

0.81b

7. New product success

(3)

European Journal
of Marketing 27,10

1. Proactiveness

(1)

42

Table II.
Correlation Matrix.
Reliability Measures on
the Diagonal

Mean
(SD)

European
Journal of
Marketing
27,10

0.086

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

1. Autonomy
2. Market orientation
3. HRM emphasis
4. Relative cost
5. Market growth
6. Product innovation
7. Buyer power
8. Profitability

Mean
(SD)

(1)

5.080
(1.000)

0.88b

4.610
(0.630)
4.600
(0.740)
3.880
(1.100)
3.780
(1.360)
4.780
(0.620)
3.920
(0.740)
4.410
(1.470)

(2)

(3)

0.196
*

0.92a

0.276
**

0.473*
**

0.8P

0.002

0.260**

0.07
8

0.013
0.15C
0.080

0.142

0.027
0.353*
**

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

0.90b
0.77b

-0.071
0.001

0.154

(4)

0.008
0.09
2

-0.032

0.03
5

0.050

-0.005

0.059
0.88b
0.034

0.085
0.88b

0.434**
*

-0.214*

0.058

0.17
3

0.88b

= Cronbachs alpha b= Median

interrior reliability
* p < 0.10 ** p< 0.01
*** p < 0.001 i NS -= not
significant

: go O

rt> o W
:3 3
o i 33 _j

ill

SXM

4-

00

Prod
uctmark
et
Strat
egy

European
Journal of
Marketing
27,10
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

44

Forming Strategic Types: Cluster Analysis

SBUs are classified by strategic type using cluster analysis based on a businesss
approach to the entrepreneurial problem. After scores on proactiveness, DCA, LCCA,
and market focus were standardized, a complete linkage algorithm[34] was used to
cluster the business units. To determine the appropriate cluster solution, the
agglomeration schedule was examined for a large increase in the squared Euclidean
distance. Relatively small, regular increases in the squared Euclidean distances
occurred until a large increase between the three-cluster and two-cluster solutions (from
31.7 to 48.3) indicated that the three-cluster solution was most appropriate. The threecluster solution is also consistent with our a priori expectation that there would be
three archetypal entrepreneurial strategy types.
Determining Group Profiles: ANOVA and Multiple Comparison Tests Differences
between characteristics of the Prospector, Analyser, and Defender strategy types were
assessed using analysis of variance and the Scheffe multiple comparison test. To
validate the cluster solution[35], we also assessed characteristics of the clusters on
independent variables which are not used in forming the clusters, but which are
theoretically associated with the strategy types.
From Table IV we see that the characteristics of the strategy types are highly
consistent with the profiles suggested in Table I. The Prospector is significantly more
proactive, places greater importance on differentiation, and more aggressively segments
its markets than either the Analyser or Defender. The Prospector puts more emphasis on
low cost than does the Analyser, and places greater emphasis on new product
development than either the Analyser or Defender and enjoys a higher new product
success rate than the Defender. The Prospectors profitability is not different from the
mean.
The Analyser is moderately proactive, places a moderate emphasis on differentiation
and market segmentation. The Analysers new product success rate is substantially
higher than that of the Defender but its profitability is not significantly different from
the sample mean. The Defender is minimally proactive, emphasizes low-cost-based
competitive advantage and defines its market broadly to take advantage of economies
of scope and scale. The Defenders profitability also is not different from the sample
mean.
The three-cluster solution and the profiles of the strategic types produced in the
cluster analysis are strongly consistent with Miles and Snows theory. Both our theorydriven, a priori expectations of the relationships among the constructs and the
consistency of our results with the findings from previous studies lead to high
confidence in the validity of our classification procedure.
Performance Analysis
Table V contains results of the regression analysis. We utilize step-wise regression to
determine the set of independent variables that best explains

Strategy types3
Prospectors Analysers Defenders
H2: Proactiveness
H3a: Differentiation
H3b: Low cost
H4: Market focus
H5a: New product importance
H5b: New product responsibility
H5c: New product success
H6: Profitability
Number of cases

Comparison of meansc
1-2
1-3
5.197
(0.771)
5.653
(0.411)
5.016
(0.534)
5.353
(0.666)
5.192
(0.905)
5.120
(0.947)
4.644
(1.116)
4.588
(1.229)
37

4.594
(0.
80
4.907
(0.
54
4.011
(0.
48
4.543
(0.
95
4.549
(0.
81
4.957
(1.
03
4.402
(1.
09
4.380
(1.
48
58

2-3

3.140
(0.500)

***

***

***

4.359
(0.444)

***

***

***

***

4.821
(0.494)

***

***

NS

***

3.642
(0.968)

***

***

***

***

(2.931)
(0.965)

***

**

***

***

NS

NS

NS

***

NS

***

***

NS

NS

NS

NS

4.484
(1.378)
2.525
(1.482)
4.338
(1.656)
21
a

Means and standard deviations bFrom

ANOVA
c
From Scheffe multiple comparison test

a
O'
35

m2
n HI .

5?

3. cr ft

4cn

Prod
uctmark
et
Strat
egy

European
Journal of
Marketing
27,10
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

46

Prospector (n =
33)

Strategy

SBU autonomy
Market orientation
HRM emphasis
Relative cost
Market growth
Rate of product innovation
\Buyer Power

F-value
Table V.
Results of Multiple
Regression Analysis.
Regression Coefficient
(Standard Error).
Dependent Variable =
ROI

Defende
Analyser (nProductr (n =
= 56)
market
21)

0.289*
(0.138)
0.618**
(0.240)

0.386**
(0.300)

-1.201***
0(.262)
-0.487***
(0.130)
-0.449***
(0.111)

-.390*
(0.170)

0.427*
(0.215)
0.411**
(0.141)
10.165***
0.641

-0.955***
(0.221)

0.651*
(0.290)
11.679***
0.273

Adjusted R2 * p< 0.05 **

<0.01 *** <0.001
Note:
Step-wise regression employed. Significant (<0.10) coefficients
reported.

12.693***
0.539

Profitability and Defenders. The explanatory power of the Defender model is also
substantial (adjusted R2 = 0.54). As hypothesized, this power primarily is due to
relative cost.

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

Discussion of Performance Analysis and Suggestions for Future

Research
The Prospector strategy type appears to be a complex business to manage. Not
surprisingly, strong market orientation is essential to the Prospectors success. This
means that innovation is externally, rather than internally, motivated. This finding
contrasts with the warnings from Hayes and Wheelwright[36] and Bennett and
Cooper[37] that market-driven product development primarily leads to imitative
products and line extensions. Recent evidence[21,22] seems to confirm that marketdriven businesses enjoy superior new product success. Von Hippel[38] suggests that
innovators should work with lead users, those early adopters who are most likely to
see and appreciate product development.
Under conditions of rapid market change, proactive business units must be free to
modify or alter their strategies to take advantage of opportunities or deter threats[39].
Market orientation and autonomy are positively related[40] and both are important to
the fast-moving Prospector. Thus, if being market oriented is important to Prospectors
and autonomy is important to achieving a high degree of market orientation,
Prospector business units should benefit from being relatively autonomous.
Prospector businesses are exciting, but highly demanding, places to work. Recent
high-profile examples such as Microsoft and Apple bring to mind internally
motivated, dedicated employees working very long hours. While there is the risk of
burnout in this environment, there is often the possibility of substantial financial
reward. Thus, overmanaging employees could be counterproductive for Prospectors.
Further research on motivation systems and human resource management practices in
Prospector businesses would be very useful.
While the findings that rate of innovation is positively associated with profitability
and that market growth is negatively related to profitability confirms Hambricks[8]
findings about Prospector businesses, these results are still somewhat perplexing in
that both market characteristics are associated with uncertainty. While it is likely that
there is a lagged relationship between innovation and profitability, a longitudinal study
would provide more insight into this relationship.
As creative imitators, Analysers need to have very broad and intensive market
scanning efforts, which explains the significance of market orientation. Analysers
must maintain a continuous dialogue with customers to assess the shortcomings of
pioneering offerings, and thus to identify opportunities for themselves. Furthermore,
they must monitor constantly the activities of their competitors to ascertain their
competitors successes and failures.
However, Analysers should also find opportunity in pursuing cost advantages over
Prospectors. Consistent with Aaker and Days[41] proposition

47

European
Journal of
Marketing
27,10
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

48

that Analysers have the opportunity to enter markets with lower costs than those of the
pioneering Prospectors, there is a strong, and expected, relationship between low
relative cost and profitability. Unfortunately, this study gives little insight into the type
of organization which can manage this dual external- internal focus. A study that helps
to understand the requisite organizational characteristics would be a major
contribution.
Based on the results of this study and the underlying theory, low cost is the name of
the game for Defenders. As we now have substantial confidence in the relationship
between low cost and profitability, it is time to shift the focus of future research on
Defenders to the determinants of low cost. Perhaps it is not too surprising that the old
paradigm of centralized decision making and rigid personnel policies is not related to
success. It is becoming accepted that achievement of a low-cost position requires high
quality and continuous process improvement. Total quality management addresses
these issues by recognizing the innovative capabilities of line workers and by
empowering them to take action without authorization from supervisors or managers.
Other managerial issues include the areas in the value chain which offer the greatest
potential for cost reduction; contributions by the marketing function to reduce total
cost without diminishing organizational effectiveness; and how marketing can best
convey the low-cost message without jeopardizing a pr emium quality image.
As one of the few analyses of within-types profitability, the present study sheds
light on some questions and raises other questions. Thus, research on understanding
the reasons for within-groups performance variation should proceed. We believe that
future studies should recognize that Reactors are not unique strategy types. Reactors
are Prospectors, Analysers or Defenders which are not aligned with appropriate
organizational structures and processes, or market conditions. Analysis within the
Prospector, Analyser, and Defender types should include structure, process, and
technology variables suggested by Miles and Snow[l], As in the current study, the
influence of theoretically important market structure variables on performance should
be examined and controlled.

Conclusion
This study has important implications for managers and scholars. As one of the few
studies to assess the characteristics which lead to superior profitability for the
Prospector, Analyser, and Defender types, it provides guidance to the managers of
businesses with different strategic orientations. However, it leaves a number of
questions open to further study. Specifically, what marketing programmes are most
effective for the different strategy types, what organizational processes allow
Analysers to manage their dual internal- external focus effectively, and what are the
best routes to achieving low cost for Defenders? These are important questions which
marketing and strategy scholars should pursue.

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

References
1. Miles, R.E. and Snow, C.C., Organizational Strategy, Structure, and Process, McGrawHill, New York, NY, 1978
2. Zahra, S.A. and Pearce, II, J.A., Research Evidence on the Miles-Snow Typology,
Journal of Management, Vol. 16 No. 4,1990, pp. 751-68.
3. Govindarajan, V., Decentralization, Strategy, and Effectiveness of SBUs in
Multibusiness Organizations, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 11 No. 4,1986, pp.
844-56.
4. Walker, O.C. and Ruekert, R.W., Marketings Role in the Implementation of Business
Strategies: A Critical Review and Conceptual Framework, Journal of Marketing, Vol.
51, 1987, pp. 15-33.
5. Conant, J.S., Mokwa, M.P. and Varadarajan, PR., Strategic Types, Distinctive Marketing
Competencies, and Organizational Performance: A Multiple Measures-based Study",
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No. 5,1990, pp. 365-84.
6. McKee, D.O., Varadarajan, PR. and Pride, W.M., Strategic Adaptability and Firm
Performance: A Market-contingent Perspective, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 53, July
1989, pp. 21-35.
7. Smith, K.G., Guthrie, J.P. and Chen, M., Strategy, Size, and Performance,
Organization Studies, Vol. 10 No. 1,1989, pp. 63-81.
8. Hambrick, D.C., Some Tests of the Effectiveness and Functional Attributes of Miles and
Snows Strategic Types, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 1,1983, pp. 526.
9. Snow, C.C. and Hrebeniak, L., Strategy, Distinctive Competence, and Performance,
Administrative Science (Quarterly, Vol. 25,1980, pp. 317-36.
10. McDaniel, S.W. and Kolari, J.W., Marketing Strategy Implications of the Miles and
Snow Strategic Typology, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51,1987, pp. 19-30.
11. Shortell, S.M. and Zajac, E.J., Perceptual and Archival Measures of Miles and Snows
Strategic Types: A Comprehensive Assessmant of Reliability and Validity, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4,1990, pp. 817-32.
12. Miles, R.E., Snow, C.C., Meyer, A.D. and Coleman, H.J., Organizational Strategy,
Structure, and Process, Academy of Management Review, July 1978, pp. 546-62.
13. Wright, P Kroll, M., Chan, P. and Hamel, K., Strategic Profiles and Performance: An
Empirical Test of Select Key Propositions, Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, Vol. 19 No. 3,1991, pp. 245-54.
14. Segev, E., A Systematic Comparative Analysis and Synthesis of Two Business-level
Strategic Typologies, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 487-505.
15. Lambkin, M., Order of Entry and Performance in New Markets, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 9 (Special Issue), 1988, pp. 127-40.
16. Lieberman, M.B., and Montgomery, D.B., First-mover Advantages, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 9 (Special Issue), 1988, pp. 41-58.
17. Hill, C.W.L., Differentiation versus Low Cost or Differentiation and Low Cost: A
Contingency Framework, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 13 No. 3,1988, pp.
401-12.
18. Porter, M.E., Competitive Strategy, The Free Press, New York, NY, 1980.
19. Venkatraman, N. and Prescott. J.E., Environment-strategy Coalignment: An Empirical
Test of Its Performance Implications, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 11 No.
1,1990, pp. 1-23.
20. Govindarajan, V. and Fisher, J., Strategy, Control Systems, and Resource Sharing:
Effects on Business Unit Performance, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 33 No.
2, 1990, pp. 259-85.
21. Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J., Market Orientation: The Construct, Research
Propositions, and Managerial Implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 2,1990,
pp. 1-18.

49

European
Journal of
Marketing
27,10
Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

50

22. Narver, J. and Slater, S., The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business
Profitability, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4,1990, pp. 20-35.
23. Hansen, G.S. and Wernerfelt, B., Determinants of Firm Performance: The Relative
Importance of Economic and Organizational Factors, Strategic Management
Journal, Vol. 10 No. 5,1989, pp. 399-411.
24. Slocum, J.W. Jr, Cron, W.L., Hansen, R.W. and Rawlings, S., Business Strategy and
the Management of Plateaued Employees, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 28
No. 1, 1985, pp. 133-54.
25. Scherer, F.M., Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Rand
McNally, Chicago, IL, 1980.
26. Peter, J.P., Reliability: A Review of Psychometric Basics and Recent Marketing
Practices. Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 16, February 1979, pp. 6-L7.
27. Huber, G.P. and Power, D.J., Retrospective Reports of Strategic-level Managers:
Guidelines for Increasing Their Accuracy", Strategic Management Journal, Vol.
6,1985, pp. 171-80.
28. Gupta, A. and Govindarajan, V., Business Unit Strategy, Managerial Characteristics,
and Business Unit Effectiveness at Strategy Implementation, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 1,1984, pp. 25-41.
29. Dess, G.G. and Davis, P.S., Porters (1980) Generic Strategies As Determinants of
Strategic Group Membership and Organizational Performance, Academy of
Management Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3,1984, pp. 467-88.
30. Dess, G.G. and Robinson, R.B. Jr, Measuring Organizational Performance in the
Absence of Objective Measures: The Case of the Privately Held Firm and
Conglomerate Business Unit, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 5,1984, pp. 26573
31. Hitt, M.A. and Ireland, R.D:, Relationships among Corporate-level Distinctive
Competencies, Diversification Strategy, Corporate Structure, and Performance,
Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 23 No. 4,1986, pp. 401-16.
32. Miller, D., The Structural and Environmental Correlates of Business Strategy,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 8 No. 1,1987, pp. 66-76.
33. James, L.R., DeMaree, R.G. and Wolfe G., Estimating Within-group Rater
Reliability with and without Response Bias, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol.
69,1984, pp. 85-98.
34. Norusis, M.J., SPSS-X Advanced Statistics Guide, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY, 1988.
35. Aldenderfer, M.S. and Blashfield, R.K., Cluster Analysis, Sage. Beverly Hills, CA,
1984.
36. Hayes, R.H. and Wheelwright. S.C., Restoring Our Competitive Edge, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY, 1984..
37. Bennett, R. and Cooper, R., Beyond the Marketing Concept, Business Horizons,
June 1979, pp. 76-83.
38. von Hippel, E., Lead Users: A Source of Novel Product Concepts, Management
Science, Vol. 32 No. 7,1986, pp. 352-66.
39. Day, G.S., Learning about Markets, Marketing Science Institute Commentary,
Report, No. 91-117,1991.
40. Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K., Market Orientation: Antecedents and
Consequences. Marketing Science Institute Working Paper, Report No. 92-104,1992.
41. Aaker, D.A. and Day, G.S., The Perils of High Growth Markets, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 7,1986, pp. 409-421.

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

Appendix: Scale Items

Competitive Advantage Scales

Differentiation-based competitive advantage: (1) Product quality; (2) Differentiation;

(3) Customer service; (4) Marketing research; and (5) Broad product line.

Low cost-based competitive advantage: (1) Manufacturing cost; (2) Manufacturing

modernization; (3) Plant layout; (4) Capacity utilization; (5) Raw material value
analysis; and (6) Special advantage access to raw materials.
HRM emphasis: (1) Develop and maintain effective policies for hiring, training, and promotion;
(2) Optimize employee turnover; (3) Constantly work to improve employee motivation, job
satisfaction, and morale; (4) Stimulate and reward employee creativity; (5) Develop and
maintain responsive grievance procedures; (6) Encourage employee education.
Market Orientation Subscales

Customer orientation: (1) Customer commitment; (2) Create customer value; (3)
Understand customer needs; (4) Customer satisfaction objectives; (5) Measure customer
satisfaction; (6) After-sales service.

Competitor orientation: (1) Salespeople share competitor info; (2) Respond rapidly to
competitor actions; (3) Top management discusses competitor strategies; (4) Target
opportunities for competitive advantage.

Interfunctional co-ordination: (1) Interfunctional customer calls; (2) Information shared

among functions; (3) Functional integration in strategy; (4) All functions contribute to
customer value.

51

1.

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

2.
3.

4.

5.
6.

7.
8.
9.

10.
11.
12.

13.
14.

15.

16.
17.

18.

19.

20.

Carlos Eduardo Carvalho, Carlos Ricardo Rossetto, Miguel Angel Verdinelli. 2016. Strategic Orientation as a Mediator Between
Environmental Dimensions and Performance: A Study of Brazilian Hotels. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management
25:7, 870-895. [CrossRef]
Roya Golmoradi, Farzad Sattari Ardabili. 2016. The Effects of Social Capital and Leadership Styles on Organizational Learning.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 230, 372-378. [CrossRef]
Cevahir Uzkurt, Halil Semih Kimzan, Cengiz Yilmaz. 2016. A Case Study of the Mediating Role of Innovation on the
Relationship Between Environmental Uncertainty, Market Orientation, and Firm Performance. International Journal of
Innovation and Technology Management 1750003. [CrossRef]
Eric Monroe Olson College of Business, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA Rebecca Duray College of
Business, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA Cary Cooper Manchester Business School, University of
Manchester, Manchester, UK Kai Monroe Olson College of Business, Colorado State University, Colorado Springs, Colorado,
USA . 2016. Strategy, structure, and culture within the English Premier League. Sport, Business and Management: An
International Journal 6:1, 55-75. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Ana Isabel Polo Pena, Dolores Maria Frias Jamilena, Miguel Angel Rodriguez Molina. 2016. The effects of perceived value on
loyalty: the moderating effect of market orientation adoption. Service Business . [CrossRef]
Ana Perez-Luno, Patrick Saparito, Shanti Gopalakrishnan. 2016. Small and Medium-Sized Enterprise's Entrepreneurial versus
Market Orientation and the Creation of Tacit Knowledge. Journal of Small Business Management 54:1, 262-278.
[CrossRef]
Dean C.H. Wilkie, Lester W. Johnson, Lesley White. 2015. Overcoming late entry: the importance of entry position, inferences
and market leadership. Journal of Marketing Management 31:3-4, 409-429. [CrossRef]
Mina Tajvidi, Azhdar KaramiLiterature Review 15-44. [CrossRef]
Yahya Al-Ansaari, Simon Pervan, Jun Xu. 2014. Exploiting Innovation in Dubai SMEs: The Effect of Strategic Orientation on
Organizational Determinants. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 11:06, 1450039.
[CrossRef]
###, Moon-Goo Huh. 2014. Configurations of Strategy, Environment, and Structure in Korean Hidden Champions:Analysis and
Performance Implications. Journal of Strategic Management 17:3, 139-161. [CrossRef]
Zokirzhon Saidov. 2014. How Russian Companies Are Coping with a Turbulent Environment: Insights into the Dynamics of
Strategic Fit. Journal of East-West Business 20:4, 225-242. [CrossRef]
Jeou-Shyan Horng, Chih-Hsing Liu, Sheng-Fang Chou, Yu-Shih Yin, Chang-Yen Tsai. 2014. Developing a Novel Hybrid Model
for Industrial Environment Analysis: A Study of the Gourmet and Tourism Industry in Taiwan. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism
Research 19:9, 1044-1069. [CrossRef]
Sangmi Choi, Jae-Sung Choi. 2014. Dynamics of Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations: The Pathways from Innovativeness to
Innovation Outcome. Human Service Organizations Management, Leadership & Governance 38:4, 360-373. [CrossRef]
Melih Madanoglu College of Business, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida, USA Fevzi Okumus Rosen College of
Hospitality Management, The University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida, USA Umut Avci School of Tourism and
Hospitality Management, Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Mugla, Turkey . 2014. Building a case against strategic equifinality.
Management Decision 52:6, 1174-1193. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Kristin Reichborn-Kjennerud Work Research Institute, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo,
Norway Helge Svare Work Research Institute, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, Oslo, Norway . 2014.
Entrepreneurial growth strategies: the female touch. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 6:2, 181-199.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Carlo Bagnoli, Marco Vedovato. 2014. The impact of knowledge management and strategy configuration coherence on SME
performance. Journal of Management & Governance 18:2, 615-647. [CrossRef]
Gabriele Troilo, Luigi M. De Luca, Kwaku Atuahene-Gima. 2014. More Innovation with Less? A Strategic Contingency View
of Slack Resources, Information Search, and Radical Innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management 31:2, 259-277.
[CrossRef]
Oscar Gonzalez-Benito, Javier Gonzalez-Benito, Pablo A. Munoz-Gallego. 2014. On the Consequences of Market Orientation
across Varied Environmental Dynamism and Competitive Intensity Levels. Journal of Small Business Management 52:1, 1-21.
[CrossRef]
CEVAHIR UZKURT, RACHNA KUMAR, NURCAN ENSARI. 2013. ASSESSING ORGANIZATIONAL READINESS FOR
INNOVATION: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY ON ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF INNOVATIVENESS.
International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 10:04, 1350018. [CrossRef]
Louis Raymond, Franfois Bergeron, Anne-Marie Croteau. 2013. Innovation Capability and Performance Of Manufacturing
SME s : The Paradoxical Effect of IT Integration. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce 23:3, 249272. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

21. Chris StoreyCass Business School, City University, London, UK Matthew HughesNottingham University Business School,
University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2013. The relative impact of culture, strategic orientation and capability on new
service development performance. European Journal of Marketing 47:5/6, 833-856. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
22. John A. Parnell. 2013. Uncertainty, Generic Strategy, Strategic Clarity, and Performance of Retail SMEs in Peru, Argentina, and
the United States. Journal of Small Business Management 51:2, 215-234. [CrossRef]
23. Mitchell RossGriffith University, South Brisbane, Australia Debra GraceGriffith University, South Brisbane, Australia. 2012. An
exploration and extension of the Value Discipline Strategy (VDS) typology in educational institutions. Marketing Intelligence &
Planning 30:4, 402-417. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
24. Shunzhong Liu. 2012. The relationship between strategic type and new service development competence: a study of Chinese
knowledge intensive business services. Service Business 6:2, 157-175. [CrossRef]
25. Ana Isabel Polo Pena, Dolores Maria Frias Jamilena, Miguel Angel Rodriguez Molina. 2012. Validation of a market orientation
adoption scale in rural tourism enterprises. Relationship between the characteristics of the enterprise and extent of market
orientation adoption. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31:1, 139-151. [CrossRef]
26. Stephan Stubner, W. Henning Blarr, Christian Brands, Torsten Wulf. 2012. Organizational Ambidexterity and Family Firm
Performance. Journal of Small Business & Entrepreneurship 25:2, 217-229. [CrossRef]
27. Ana Perez-Luno, Johan Wiklund, Ramon Valle Cabrera. 2011. The dual nature of innovative activity: How entrepreneurial
orientation influences innovation generation and adoption. Journal of Business Venturing 26:5, 555-571. [CrossRef]
28. Ghasem Zaefarian, Stephan C. Henneberg, Peter Naude. 2011. Resource acquisition strategies in business relationships.
Industrial Marketing Management 40:6, 862-874. [CrossRef]
29. Bindu Guptalnstitute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad, India. 2011. A comparative study of organizational strategy and
culture across industry. Benchmarking: An International Journal 18:4, 510-528. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
30. Ana Isabel Polo Pena, Dolores Maria Frias Jamilena, Miguel Angel Rodriguez Molina. 2011. Impact of Market Orientation and
ICT on the Performance of Rural Smaller Service Enterprises*. Journal of Small Business Management 49:3, 331-360.
[CrossRef]
31. Andreas Engelen. 2011. Which department should have more influence on organization-level decisions? A strategy-dependent
analysis. Journal of Strategic Marketing 19:3, 229-254. [CrossRef]
32. Daniel Jimenez-Jimenez, Raquel Sanz-Valle. 2011. Innovation, organizational learning, and performance. Journal of Business
Research 64:4, 408-417. [CrossRef]
33. Nor Liza Abdullah, Abdul Latif Salleh. 2011. To continue prospecting: Performance implications of combinative capabilities and
explorative learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 24, 1107-1123. [CrossRef]
34. Roger J. Calantone, Nukhet Harmancioglu, Cornelia Droge. 2010. Inconclusive Innovation Returns: A Meta-Analysis of
Research on Innovation in New Product Development*. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27:7, 1065-1081.
[CrossRef]
35. Corinna M. Lindow, Stephan Stubner, Torsten Wulf. 2010. Strategic fit within family firms: The role of family influence and the
effect on performance. Journal of Family Business Strategy 1:3, 167-178. [CrossRef]
36. Namwoon Kim, Kwaku Atuahene-Gima. 2010. Using Exploratory and Exploitative Market Learning for New Product
Development *. Journal of Product Innovation Management 27:4, 519-536. [CrossRef]
37. Maria J. OltraDepartment of Business Administration and Marketing, Universitat Jaume I, Castellon de la Plana, Spain M. Luisa
FlorDepartment of Business Administration and Marketing, Universitat Jaume I, Castellon de la Plana, Spain. 2010. The
moderating effect of business strategy on the relationship between operations strategy and firms' results. International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 30:6, 612-638. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
38. Jeremy GalbreathGraduate School of Business, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia. 2010. The impact of strategic
orientation on corporate social responsibility. International Journal of Organizational Analysis 18:1, 23-40. [Abstract]
[Full Text] [PDF]
39. Louis Raymond, Josee St-Pierre. 2010. R&D as a determinant of innovation in manufacturing SMEs: An attempt at empirical
clarification. Technovation 30:1, 48-56. [CrossRef]
40. Avni Zafer Acar, Cemal Zehir. 2010. The harmonized effects of generic strategies and business capabilities on business
performance. Journal of Business Economics and Management 11:4, 689-711. [CrossRef]
41. Silvia Massa, Stefania Testa. 2009. How do Miles and Snow's strategic types differ in their knowledge assets? Evidence from
Italian SMEs. Knowledge Management Research & Practice 7:4, 377-386. [CrossRef]
42. Adebayo AgbejuleVaasa University of Applied Sciences, Vaasa, Finland Annukka JokipiiDepartment of Accounting and Finance,
University of Vaasa, Vaasa, Finland. 2009. Strategy, control activities, monitoring and effectiveness. Managerial Auditing
Journal 24:6, 500-522. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
43. Michael Song, Mark E. Parry. 2009. The desired level of market orientation and business unit performance. Journal of the
Academy of Marketing Science 37:2, 144-160. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

44. Louis Raymond, Anne-Marie Croteau. 2009. Manufacturing Strategy and Business Strategy in Medium-Sized Enterprises:
Performance Effects of Strategic Alignment. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 56:2, 192-202. [CrossRef]
45. Nukhet HarmanciogluFaculty of Business Administration, Bilkent University, Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey Cornelia
DrogeDepartment of Marketing, Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA Roger
J. CalantoneDepartment of Marketing, Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA.
2009. Theoretical lenses and domain definitions in innovation research. European Journal of Marketing 43:1/2, 229-263.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
46. Michael T. Manion, Joseph Cherion. 2009. Impact of Strategic Type on Success Measures for Product Development Projects *.
Journal of Product Innovation Management 26:1, 71-85. [CrossRef]
47. Bulent Menguc, Seigyoung Auh. 2008. The asymmetric moderating role of market orientation on the ambidexterity-firm
performance relationship for prospectors and defenders. Industrial Marketing Management 37:4, 455-470. [CrossRef]
48. Louis RaymondDepartement des sciences de la gestion, Universite du Quebec a Trois-Rivieres, Trois-Rivieres, Canada Franfois
BergeronDepartement Travail, Economie et Gestion, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 2008. Enabling the
business strategy of SMEs through e-business capabilities. Industrial Management & Data Systems 108:5, 577-595.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
49. Paul Hughes, Robert E. Morgan. 2008. Fitting strategic resources with product-market strategy: Performance implications.
Journal of Business Research 61:4, 323-331. [CrossRef]
50. John E. Spillan, John A. Parnell, Nitish Singh. 2008. Competitive Strategies in Emerging Economies. Journal of Transnational
Management 12:4, 55-76. [CrossRef]
51. Ruzita JusohDepartment of Management Accounting and Taxation, Faculty of Business and Accountancy, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia John A. ParnellSchool of Business, University of North Carolina-Pembroke, Pembroke, North Carolina,
USA. 2008. Competitive strategy and performance measurement in the Malaysian context. Management Decision 46:1, 5-31.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
52. Nicholas ORegan, Abby Ghobadian, S. Jaseem Ahmad Chapter 14 Drivers of Strategic Direction in High Technology Small
FirmsNicholas ORegan et al.Drivers of Strategic Direction in High Technology Small Firms 219-237. [ Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF] [PDF]
53. Ruzita Jusoh Daing Nasir Ibrahim Yuserrie Zainuddin. 2007. Moderating Effect of Balanced Scorecard Measures Usage on
Strategy-performance Relationship: An Empirical Study of Manufacturing Firms. Journal of Financial Reporting and
Accounting 5:1, 87-118. [Abstract] [PDF]
54. Sertan Kabadayi, Nermin Eyuboglu, Gloria P Thomas. 2007. The Performance Implications of Designing Multiple Channels to
Fit with Strategy and Environment. Journal of Marketing 71:4, 195-211. [CrossRef]
55. Ulf Elg. 2007. Market Orientation as Inter-firm Cooperation:. European Management Journal 25:4, 283-297. [CrossRef]
56. Larry P Pleshko. 2007. Strategic orientation, organisational structure, and the associated effects on performance. Journal of
Financial Services Marketing 12:1, 53-64. [CrossRef]
57. Ana Perez-Luno Ramon Valle Cabrera Johan Wiklund. 2007. Innovation and Imitation as Sources of Sustainable Competitive
Advantage. Management Research: Journal of the Iberoamerican Academy of Management 5:2, 71-82. [Abstract] [PDF]
58. Aron O'Cass, Liem Viet Ngo. 2007. Balancing external adaptation and internal effectiveness: Achieving better brand
performance. Journal of Business Research 60:1, 11-20. [CrossRef]
59. M.a J. Oltra Mestre, M. a L. Flor Peris. 2007. El efecto de la estrategia de operaciones en los resultados empresariales y su
moderacion por la estrategia de negocio. Cuadernos de Econom^a y Direction de la Empresa 10:31, 203-222. [CrossRef]
60. Stanley F. Slater, Eric M. Olson, G. Tomas M. Hult. 2006. The moderating influence of strategic orientation on the strategy
formation capability-performance relationship. Strategic Management Journal 27:12, 1221-1231. [CrossRef]
61. Judy A. Siguaw, Penny M. Simpson, Cathy A. Enz. 2006. Conceptualizing Innovation Orientation: A Framework for Study and
Integration of Innovation Research. Journal of Product Innovation Management 23:6, 556-574. [CrossRef]
62. Mohd Ashari Idris, Mohamed Zairi. 2006. Sustaining TQM: A Synthesis of Literature and Proposed Research Framework. Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 17:9, 1245-1260. [CrossRef]
63. Munsung Rhee, Satish Mehra. 2006. Aligning operations, marketing, and competitive strategies to enhance performance: An
empirical test in the retail banking industry. Omega 34:5, 505-515. [CrossRef]
64. Sungho Lee, Sung-Joon Yoon, Sanguk Kim, Jong-Whan Kang. 2006. The integrated effects of market-oriented culture and
marketing strategy on firm performance. Journal of Strategic Marketing 14:3, 245-261. [CrossRef]
65. Yuan Li, YongFeng Sun, Yi Liu. 2006. An empirical study of SOEs' market orientation in transitional China. Asia Pacific Journal
of Management 23:1, 93-113. [CrossRef]
66. Bjorge Timenes Laugen, Harry Boer, Nuran Acur. 2006. The New Product Development Improvement Motives and Practices of
Miles and Snow's Prospectors, Analysers and Defenders. Creativity and Innovation Management 15:1, 85-95. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

67. Oscar Gonzalez-Benito, Javier Gonzalez-Benito. 2005. Cultural vs. operational market orientation and objective vs. subjective
performance: Perspective of production and operations. Industrial Marketing Management 34:8, 797-829. [CrossRef]
68. Eric M. Olson, Stanley F. Slater, G. Tomas M. Hult. 2005. The Performance Implications of Fit Among Business Strategy,
Marketing Organization Structure, and Strategic Behavior. Journal of Marketing 69:3, 49-65. [CrossRef]
69. Antonio Aragon-Sanchez, Gregorio Sanchez-Marin. 2005. Strategic Orientation, Management Characteristics, and Performance:
A Study of Spanish SMEs. Journal of Small Business Management 43:3, 287-308. [CrossRef]
70. Akin KofakThe Faculty of Political Science, Ankara University, Cebeci, Ankara, Turkey Vincent EdwardsBuckinghamshire
Business School, Buckinghamshire Chilterns University College, Chalfont St Giles, UK. 2005. Independence and co-operation
among small businesses. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behaviour & Research 11:3, 186-200. [Abstract] [Full
Text] [PDF]
71. Marguerite Moore. 2005. Towards a confirmatory model of retail strategy types: an empirical test of miles and snow. Journal of
Business Research 58:5, 696-704. [CrossRef]
72. Nicholas O'ReganCentre for Interdisciplinary Strategic Management Research, Middlesex University Business School, London,
UK Abby GhobadianCentre for Interdisciplinary Strategic Management Research, Middlesex University Business School,
London, UK. 2005. Innovation in SMEs: the impact of strategic orientation and environmental perceptions. International Journal
of Productivity and Performance Management 54:2, 81-97. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
73. Petri Suomala LIFE CYCLE PERSPECTIVE IN THE MEASUREMENT OF NEW PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
PERFORMANCE 523-700. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
74. Fernando J. Garrigos-SimonUniversitat Jaume I, Departamento de Administracion de Empresas y Marketing, Castellon de la
Plana, Spain Daniel Palacios MarquesUniversitat Jaume I, Departamento de Administracion de Empresas y Marketing, Castellon
de la Plana, Spain Yeamduan NarangajavanaInstitute of Management Science, Walailak University, Thasala, Thailand. 2005.
Competitive strategies and performance in Spanish hospitality firms. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management 17:1, 22-38. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
75. Spiros P. GounarisAthens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece George J. AvlonitisAthens University of
Economics and Business, Athens, Greece Paulina PapastathopoulouAthens University of Economics and Business, Athens,
Greece. 2004. Managing a firm's behavior through market orientation development: some empirical findings. European Journal
of Marketing 38:11/12, 1481-1508. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
76. Beom Jong Kim. 2004. ### ### ### ## ## ### ## ####: Miles and Snow# ##### Porter# ##### ####. Journal of Global
Academy of Marketing Science 14:1, 81-100. [CrossRef]
77. Paul James HarrisonSenior Associate, Deakin University, Malvern, Victoria, Australia Robin N. ShawProfessor and Chair of
Marketing, Deakin University, Malvern, Victoria, Australia. 2004. Intra-organisational marketing culture and market orientation:
a case study of the implementation of the marketing concept in a public library. Library Management 25:8/9, 391-398.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
78. G.Tomas M. Hult, Robert F. Hurley, Gary A. Knight. 2004. Innovativeness: Its antecedents and impact on business performance.
Industrial Marketing Management 33:5, 429-438. [CrossRef]
79. Daniel F Jennings, Kevin G Hindle EQUIFINALITY, CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND STRATEGYSTRUCTURE-PERFORMANCE RELATIONSHIPS 101-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF]
80. Marouane Ben Bechir Trimeche. 2003. Export Problems and Stimuli Associated with Performance in the Arab Market Context:
Insights from the Japanese Managerial Perceptions. Journal of Transnational Management Development 8:1-2, 53-81.
[CrossRef]
81. Syed Aziz AnwarFaculty of Business Studies, Arab Open University, Kuwait M. Sadiq SohailDepartment of Management and
Marketing, College of Industrial Management, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 2003.
Testing market orientation of bank managers in the emerging economy of Brunei. International Journal of Bank Marketing
21:6/7, 289-295. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
82. Robert E. MorganSchool of Management and Business, University of Wales Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth, UK Carolyn A.
StrongCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK, and Tony McGuinnessSchool of Management and Business,
University of Wales Aberystwyth, Aberystwyth, UK. 2003. Product-market positioning and prospector strategy. European
Journal of Marketing 37:10, 1409-1439. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
83. Douglas W. Vorhies, Neil A. Morgan. 2003. A Configuration Theory Assessment of Marketing Organization Fit with Business
Strategy and Its Relationship with Marketing Performance. Journal of Marketing 67:1, 100-115. [CrossRef]
84. Aviv ShohamUniversity of Haifa, Haifa, Israel Felicitas EvangelistaUniversity of Western Sydney, Nepean, Kingswood, New
South Wales, Australia Gerald AlbaumUniversity of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA. 2002. Strategic firm type
and export performance. International Marketing Review 19:3, 236-258. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
85. Nigel F Piercy, Lloyd C Harris, Nikala Lane. 2002. Market orientation and retail operatives' expectations. Journal of Business
Research 55:4, 261-273. [CrossRef]

Downloaded by UNIVERSIDAD DE NAVARRA At 16:13 03 November 2016 (PT)

86. Lloyd C. HarrisCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK Emmanuel OgbonnaCardiff Business School,
Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, UK. 2001. Leadership style and market orientation: an empirical study. European Journal of
Marketing 35:5/6, 744-764. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
87. Lloyd C. Harris, Emmanuel Ogbonna. 2001. Strategic human resource management, market orientation, and organizational
performance. Journal of Business Research 51:2, 157-166. [CrossRef]
88. Enrique BigneProfessor in Marketing in the Department of Business and Management of Enterprises at the University of
Castellon, Spain.Natalia Vila-LopezAssistant Professor of Marketing, Department of Business and Management of Enterprises at
the University of Valencia, Spain.Ines Kuster-BoludaAssistant Professor of Marketing, Department of Business and Management
of Enterprises at the University of Valencia, Spain.. 2000. Competitive positioning and market orientation: two interrelated
constructs. European Journal of Innovation Management 3:4, 190-198. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
89. Ken Matsuno, John T. Mentzer. 2000. The Effects of Strategy Type on the Market Orientation-Performance Relationship. Journal
of Marketing 64:4, 1-16. [CrossRef]
90. Stanley F. Slater, Eric M. Olson. 2000. Strategy type and performance: the influence of sales force management. Strategic
Management Journal 21:8, 813-829. [CrossRef]
91. Richard D. Teach, Robert G. Schwartz. 2000. Methodology to Study Firms Strategies and Performance Over Time. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice 8:3, 32-40. [CrossRef]
92. Lloyd C. HarrisCardiff Business School, Cardiff University, UK. 2000. The organizational barriers to developing market
orientation. European Journal of Marketing 34:5/6, 598-624. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
93. Robert E. MorganCardiff Business School, University of Wales, Cardiff, UK Carolyn A. StrongCardiff Business School,
University of Wales, Cardiff, UK. 1998. Market orientation and dimensions of strategic orientation. European Journal of
Marketing 32:11/12, 1051-1073. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
94. Mehmet OktemgilBirmingham Business School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Gordon GreenleyAston Business
School, Aston University, Birmingham, UK. 1997. Consequences of high and low adaptive capability in UK companies.
European Journal of Marketing 31:7, 445-466. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
95. Stanley F. Slater, Eric M. Olson, Venkateshwar K. Reddy. 1997. Strategy-based performance measurement. Business Horizons
40:4, 37-44. [CrossRef]
96. Stanley F. Slater. 1997. Developing a customer value-based theory of the firm. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science
25:2, 162-167. [CrossRef]
97. Constantine S. KatsikeasCardiff Business School, University of Wales, Cardiff, UK Nigel F. PiercyCardiff Business School,
University of Wales, Cardiff, UK Chris IoannidisCardiff Business School, University of Wales, Cardiff, UK. 1996. Determinants
of export performance in a European context. European Journal of Marketing 30:6, 6-35. [Abstract] [Full Text]
[PDF]
98. Stanley F. Slater, John C. Narver. 1996. Competitive strategy in the market-focused business. Journal of Market-Focused
Management 1:2, 159-174. [CrossRef]
99. Stanley F. Slater. 1995. Issues in conducting marketing strategy research. Journal of Strategic Marketing 3:4, 257-270.
[CrossRef]
100. Jose Antonio Rosa, Scott G. Dacko. 1995. The role of retentions in how marketing managers change their strategic orientation.
Journal of Marketing Management 11:6, 525-546. [CrossRef]
101. Rosalind Jones, Susan SisayStrategic Management in SMEs 1-21. [CrossRef]
*** p < 0.001