Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
To cite this article: Van R. Wood & Shahid N. Bhuian (1993) Market
Orientation and Nonprofit Organizations, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector
Marketing, 1:1, 7-32, DOI: 10.1300/J054v01n01_03
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study
purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,
reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 15:24 02 January 2015
Shahid N. Bhuian
future needs and the factors affecting them, (b) sharing of this
understanding across departments, and (c) various departments
engaging in activities designed to meet select customer needs.
(Kohli and Jaworski 1990, p. 3)
_-
A common denominator in both the theoretical and practitioner
perspectives is the notion of "market intelligence." More specifi-
cally, the concept of market orientation refers to the organization-
wide generation, dissemination, and responsiveness to market in-
telligence. Recently, Narver and Slater (1990) have linked these
dimensions of market orientation to performance in their studies of
for-profit organizational success. 1n-the present paper, we propose
that market intelligence generation (to understand customers), dis-
semination (to sh&e understanding of customers), and responsive-
ness (to meet customer needs) also form the core of a market orien-
tation in NP organizations. Likewise, having a market orientation
leads to high performance in NP organizations.
Based on these notions, an NP version of market orientation has
been developed as shown in Figure 1. As discussed below, this NP
conceptualization of "market orientation" is offered as an explor-
atory attempt to articulate the specific nature of market intelligence
in NP organizations.
1 NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS'
MARKET ORIENTATION I
MARKET INTELLIGENCE
I
I J I
INTELLIGENCE GENERATION INTELLIGENCE DISSENINATION INTELLIGENCE RESPONSIVENES
I I
I
I
,,
I I
a. Gathering, monitoring,
and analysis of information
I.Sharing of information . Developing, designing,
mncerning: mplementing, and
concerning: Itering:
-donors and clients
-donors and clients -programs, products
-external forces and sewices
-exogenous factors
outside the industry -systems to promote,
price and distribute
-competition I. Ensuring: programs, products,
and services
b. Generating information -horizontal and vertica.
using: information flows b. Utilizing:
-formal means -participation of all
departments and
-informal means personnel -product/service
differentiation
-other marketing
tools
Adapted from: Andreasen 1982, Unterman h Davis 1984, Hansler 1986, Kotler 6 Andreasen 1991,
Hansler 1988, Schwartz 1989, ~ o h l i5 Jaworski 1990. Narver & Slater 1990.
..
12 JOURNAL OF NONPROFlT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
ANTECEDENTS OUTCOMES
SENIOR MANAGEMENT
CHARACTERISTICS
Risk Aversion
I
Management
Training
Professionalism
Attitude Towards
t MARKET ORIENTATION
Generation
PERFORMANCE
r--l
ORGANIZATIONAL
CHARACTERISTICS Intelligence Qualitative
oissemination h puantitative
t
Entrepreneurship
Measures
Organizational
Structure
Intelligence
Ingratiation
Acceptance
Market-Based
EXTERNAL FACTORS
Competition
I
Macro Environmental
Changes
Market Environment
t-
-
18 JOURNAL O F NONPROFlT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING
Risk Aversion
Manugement Training
Professionalism
During the past three decades a considerable amount of research
has focused on professionalism in organizations. Different views
exist in which professionalism is seen as both a global, uni-
dimensional concept (see Sorenson and Sorenson 1974), and a
multidimensional construct (see Bart01 1979). Most observers agree
that professionalism is an attitude containing five components,
Van R. Wood and Shahid N. Bhuian 19
ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Downloaded by [York University Libraries] at 15:24 02 January 2015
Entrepreneurship
Traditionally, entrepreneurship has been identified with a domi-
nant organizational personality, generally an independent minded
owner-manager who typically makes critical decisions (Leibenstein
1968). However, entrepreneurship has also been conceptualized at
the fm level (Miller 1983, Moms and Paul 1987). Entrepreneur-
ship as a fm phenomenon is defined as an organization's willing-
ness to encourage and support creativity, flexibility, and risk taking,
and to strive for organizational renewal through the pursuit of new
ventures and opportunities (Stevenson, Roberts, and Grousbeck
1985). Entrepreneurial organizations typically are more aggressive
in dealing with competitors, emphasis research and development,
value rapid or steady growth over stability and actively seek unusu-
al or novel solutions to problems (Ginsberg 1985).
High levels of organizational entrepreneurship and high levels of
market orientation have been said to represent responses to an in-
cmsingly complex and turbulent environment (Drucker 1974,1980,
1985). In the context of NP organizations, an association between
entrepreneurship and market orientation has been demonstrated in
a number of situationally specific studies. For example, Hansler
(1986) noted organizations with entrepreneurial orientation tend to
Van R. Wood and Shahid N . Bhuian 21
Organizational Structure
Ingratiation Acceptance
EXTERNAL FACTORS
MARKET ORIENTATION
AND PERFORMANCE ASSOCIATIONS
IN NP ORGANIZATIONS
Performance measurements used in NP organizations vary wide-
ly. Many are qualitative and tend to be highly organizational specif-
ic, for example "benefits," "mission accomplishment," "critical
response by media," and "improved administrative practices" (see
Gruber and Mohr 1982, and Wolf 1984). Quantitative performance
measures are by far more numerous and have included "number of
clients." "financial returns,' ' "donation increases," and a series of
ratios such as "administrative cost ratio," "fund-raising cost ra-
tio," and "programs funding ratio" (see Feigenbaum 1987, Kumer
and Pereira 1988). While several attempts have been made to devel-
op a common means to evaluate performance across NP organiza-
tions, few have been truly successful or widely accepted (Smith
1988).
In general a consensus exists that any comprehensive perfor-
mance measure should reflect both quantitative and qualitative
Von R. Wood and Shahid N. Bhuian 27
members gained.
2. Percentage increase (or decrease) in the number of grants or
revenues received.
3. Increases (or decreases) in the cost effectiveness for each
individual beneficiary.
4. Decreases (or increases) in the fixed cost requirements to ac-
complish the organization's mission.
5. Total increase (or decrease) in the number of hours given by
volunteers.
6. The percentage increase (or decrease) in the number of volun-
teers.
7. The increase (or decrease) in time spent by board members.
8. Percent over (or under) set expenditure budgets.
9. Increase (or decrease) in the number of favorable (or unfavor-
able) articles in newspapers, and other public relations media
(related to the organization).
Their qualitative measures are also time period specific and in-
clude:
1. Improvement (or not) in the relationships among board mem-
bers.
2. Improvement (or not) in relationships between board members
and the executive director of the organization.
3. Improvement (or not) in the relationships of staff to the exec-
utive director.
4. Improvement (or not) in the quality of the relationships be-
tween volunteers and the executive director as well as the
board members.
28 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBWC SECTOR MARKETING
CONCLUSIONS
In their study of for-profit organizations, Narver and Slater
(1990) "hold that market orientation is relevant in every market
environment" (p. 33). This paper explores market orientation in a
unique market environment, namely NP, and elaborates on its na-
t&and dimensions (Figure 1). model is developed to explain
both the determinants (antecedents) and outcomes (~erformance)of
market orientation ( ~ i & 2). In &, fourteen proiositions
the various aspects of the model are posed in an attempt to concep-
tualize the dynamics of the market orientation development process
in NP organizations.
Three fundamental questions are addressed in this paper.
First-what is the essence of a market orientation in NP organiza-
tions? Second-how do NP organizations acquire a market orienta-
tion? And third-does the presence of a market orientation influence
NP performance? Grappling with the first question led to the details
Van R. Wood and Shahid N. Bhuian 29
REFERENCES
Cliffs.
Bartol, KM. (1979). "Professionalism as a Rediction of Organizational Comrnit-
rnent, Role Stress, and Turnover: A Multidimensional App~oach," Academy of
Management Journal, 22 (December), 815-821.
Deshpande, Rohit and Frederick E. Webster, Jr. (1989), "Organizational Culture
and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda," Journal of Marketing. 53
(January), 3-15.
Drucker, Peter F. (1974). Management Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices. New
York, Harper & Row Publishers.
- (1980), Managing in Turbulent Times, New York: Harper & Row.
(1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship, New York: Harper & Row.
Espy, Siri N. (1986), Handbook of Strategic Planning for Nonprofit Organiza-
tions, New York, Raeger.
Faherty. Vicent Edward (1985), " F i t Steps Fist: Developing a Marketing Plan-
Case Example: Senior Care Corporation, Inc.," Health Marketing Quarterly,
v2n4 (Summer), 25-33.
Feigenbaum, Susan (1987). "Competition and Performance in the Nonprofit Sec-
tor: The case of US Medical Research Charities," The Journal of Industrial
Economics. xxxv, (March), 241-253.
F i e , Seymour (1983), "Concept Sector Within The Economy," in Philip Kotler,
O.C. Ferrell, and Charles Lamb, eds., Cases and Readings for Marketing for
Nonprofit Organizations, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Ginsberg, A. (1985), "Measuring Changes in Entrepreneurial Orientation Follow-
ing Indushy Deregulation: TheDevelopment of a Diagnostic Inshwnent," Pro-
ceedings, Annual Meetings, International Council of Small Business. 50-57.
Glisson, C.A. and P.Y. Martin (1980). "Productivity and Efficiency of Human
Service Organizations in Relation to Structure, Size, and Age," Academy of
Management Journal. 23, 21-37.
Gmber, Robert E. and Mary Mohr (1982), "Strategic Management for Multi-
Program Nonprofit Organizations," California Management Reviav, xxiv, 3,
(Spring), 15-22.
Hambrick, Donald C. and Phyllis A. Mason (1984). "Upper Echelons: The Orga-
nization as a Reflection of Its Top Managers," Academy of Management Re-
view, 9 (2). 193-206.
Hansler, Daniel F. (1986), "Must Non-Profits Be Market-Driven?" Fund Raising
Management, 17n10 (December), 78-79.
Van R. Wood and Shahid N. Bhuian 31