Measuring Market Orientation in the Context of Service Organizations: A Context-specific Study

This study examines the market orientation–performance link in the context of service organizations by comparing different approaches for measuring market orientation. Focusing on 54 shops of a Japanese automobile dealership firm, this study measures market orientation through both managers’ and salespersons’ perceptions as well as both the MKTOR and MARKOR scales. The results of the analysis reveal that market orientation measured through salespersons’ perceptions, particularly its cultural components, positively affects sales productivity. In fact, qualitative evidence suggests that salespersons’ perceptions of market orientation indicate their internalization of market-oriented values, which in turn leads to continuous improvement behavior.


Introduction
Since the late 1980s, marketing scholars have conceptualized market orientation as an organizational culture dedicated toward delivering superior customer value (Narver & Slater, 1990) or organizational-level behavior regarding generating, disseminating, and responding to customer and competitor information (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990).A number of previous studies have empirically examined antecedents and consequences of market orientation, measuring market orientation through the MKTOR (Narver & Slater, 1990) or MARKOR (Kohli, Jaworski, & Kumar, 1993) scales.
One issue that has not been thoroughly addressed in the literature is how market orientation should be captured and measured to examine the market orientation-performance link in the context of service organizations.Through a meta-analysis of the literature, Kirca et al. (2005) indicate that market orientation-performance link is weaker in service firms (r = .26)than in manufacturing firms (r = .37).The authors attribute the variance to the higher levels of customization that service firms require and to the subsequent costs involved.However, note that there has been no consensus regarding the manner in which market orientation should be measured (González-Benito, & González-Benito, 2005).Particularly in the context of service organizations, a critical issue emerges regarding who should be the respondent.Although some studies reveal that different respondents have different perceptions of market orientation (e.g., Jaworski & Kohli, 1993), only few studies have focused on both managers' and front-line employees' perceptions of market orientation in the context of service organizations (Kosuge, 2007b) .Besides, there has not been a definitive agreement on which type of scale (i.e., MKTOR or MARKOR) is the more appropriate in the context of service organizations.Note that while the MARKOR scale focuses only on the behavioral aspects of market orientation, the MKTOR scale emphasizes some cultural aspects of market orientation as well.In this regard, the choice of the scale affects what aspects of market orientation are highlighted.
This study explores the market orientation-performance link by comparing different approaches for measuring market orientation.This is a context-specific study that measures market orientation by focusing on 54 shops of a Japanese automobile dealership firm.
Based on the analysis results, a possible mechanism behind the link is discussed.

Methodology
An automobile dealership firm in Japan was chosen because interesting observations were expected.That is, it was shifting toward market orientation from selling orientation that was widely adopted in the industry.The automobile dealer business typically comprises both new car sales and maintenance services.Although the latter are performed by technicians, this study focuses only on salespersons as front-line employees.
Data were obtained in 2007 through a questionnaire survey to both shop managers and salespersons belonging to the 54 shops.These respondents were asked to assess their shops using both the MKTOR and MARKOR scales.As for managers, 109 out of 118 questionnaires were returned from 51 shops (average 2.14 per shop).As for salespersons, 482 out of 506 questionnaires were returned from the 54 shops (average 8.93 per shop).By aggregating responses, while checking the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) as suggested by James (1982), four different scores of market orientation were obtained for each shop (i.e., Manager-MKTOR, Manager-MARKOR,

Salesperson-MKTOR, Salesperson-MARKOR).
As for performance, previous studies use either subjective or objective measures without clear guidelines.Although it has become clear that market orientation-performance link is stronger when subjective performance measures are used (Kirca et al., 2005), common method variance caused by collecting data from the same respondent has been cautioned (Harris, 2001).In this view, this study uses an objective performance measure: average sales productivity per employee over the past 12 months.This reflects both customer-perceived values and operational efficiency of the shops, and therefore indicates the overall capability of the service organization.

Analysis and Results
Table 1 presents a summary of descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations of the four different scores.It is evident that the degree of manager-perceived market orientation is higher than that of salesperson-perceived market orientation.Among the four different scores, only Salesperson-MKTOR showed a significant positive correlation with sales productivity (r = .39).
Notably, the correlation between manager-perceived and salesperson-perceived market orientation is relatively weak, although significant (r = .46with the MKTOR scale and .32 with the MARKOR scale).This result is consistent with the existing research suggesting that managers and salespersons differently perceive market orientation (e.g.,Jones, Busch, & Dacin, 2003).
Tables 2 and 3 present the results of an item-level analysis for the MKTOR and MARKOR scales respectively.
It is shown that sales productivity is related more with cultural components as included in the MKTOR scale than with behavioral

Discussions
The results of this study suggest that market orientation, implement team-based customer contact in the shop.This would result in higher customer-perceived value, operational efficiency, and capacity utilization.Such a mechanism is consistent with the concept of "lean," or continuous improvement, that emphasizes the identification of customer value and creation of smooth value flow toward the customer (Fujimoto, 2012;Kosuge, 2014a;Womack & Jones, 1996).
As this is a context-specific study, the results of this study need to be tested using samples from different service industries.
Nonetheless, the results seem to have potentially important implications for both theory and management practices.While some of the existing studies seem to assume that managers are able to capture organizational culture as a variable in an objective manner (Kosuge, 2007a), this study suggests that market orientation in the context of service organizations is based on front-line employees' perceptions.This is in accordance with the perspective that focuses on employees' cognition as the basis of organizational culture (Deshpandé & Webster, 1989).In order to develop market orientation as an organizational culture (Narver, Slater, & Tietje, 1998), particularly the cultural components perceived by front-line employees, positively affects sales productivity.Qualitative data collected from eight shops around the time of the link.In brief, observations and interviews revealed that salespersons come to perceive their shop's market orientation when they internalize market-oriented values as espoused by managers, which in turn leads to continuous improvement behavior.This implies that market-oriented values drive them to improve effectiveness and efficiency of operations.For example, at one of the shops that exhibited a high score of salesperson-perceived market orientation, unlike many other shops, salespersons proactively collaborated with technicians to develop promotion plans, facilitate demand leveling for services, and are recommended to focus on the reality faced by frontvalues through training, coaching, and mentorship.

Table 1 .
Descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations

Table 3 .
MARKOR scale items: Descriptive statistics and pairwise