The Effect of Market Orientation on the Performance of Small and Medium Enterprises in Case of Amhara Region,Ethiopia

Abstract

The study investigated the effect of market orientation on the performance of small and medium enterprises in case of Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Primary data was collected from a total of 250 owners/managers of small and medium enterprises using structured questionnaire. A multivariate data analysis technique of structural equation modelling was employed to analyse the data. The result indicated that customer orientation and interfunctional coordination dimensions of MO are significantly and positively affected small and medium enterprises performance. However, competitor orientation dimension was not found to have a positive and significant effect on the performance. The findings revealed that small and medium enterprises need to be more market oriented to realize superior performance. In addition, the different beta coefficient of market orientation indicated that new business ventures are highly recommended to conduct a market orientation profile and take care in investing their scarce resources. Moreover, the mixed results indicate that firms are advised to replicate market orientation to score superior performance with due care in considering the contexts and time in the industry they are operating and match strategies with their internal resources and core competencies. Finally, this study contributed to the almost wholly overlooked research on market orientation and performance linkages in Ethiopian case and the empirical context of this study is quite novel and helpful for developed nations firms who are trying to operate in emerging economies such as Ethiopia.

Keywords

Market orientation firm performance small and medium enterprises structural equation modelling

Introduction

Small- and medium-business enterprises are considered contributing to economic development and studying their performance is essential for understanding the health of the economy. For the last some decades, the strategic orientation of businesses such as learning orientation, technology orientation, entrepreneurial orientations market orientation and customer orientation has gained considerable attention from management, marketing and entrepreneurship scholars since these orientations are assumed as principles which direct and impact the activities of a firm and generate the behaviours intended to ensure its sustainability & performance (Hakala, 2011). According to Narver and Slater (1990), market orientation has three dimensions—customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination and they named it instrument MKTOR scale.

Several previous researchers such as Horng and Chen (1998), Kara et al. (2005) and Pelham (2000) have examined the linkage between market orientation and organizational performance and have proposed different mechanisms how market orientation could enhance organizational performance (Blankson et al., 2006). For instance, Langerak et al. (2004) claimed that market orientation could enhance the success of a new product and ultimately results increased organizational performance. Moreover, market orientation help firms to select an attractive product mixes; create increased customer market intelligence, which is positively linked to small firms’ performance (Pelham & Wilson, 1996; Verhees & Meulenberg, 2004).

Significant and positive association among market orientation, new product performance, and organizational performance have been observed (Ledwith & O’Dwyer, 2009). However, such linkages are discovered in more detail, only competitor orientation is found significantly linked with new product performance. Firms who are unable to adopt market and entrepreneurial orientations soon out of the market (Miles & Arnold, 1991). From a resource-based view (RBV), market and entrepreneurial orientations are the two unique but complementary strategic orientations. Hussain et al. (2015a, 2015b) reported that market orientation has a significant effect on performance of SMEs. In addition, the multiple regression results revealed all three market orientation dimensions significantly influenced firm the performance.

Meta-analysis employed by Vieira (2010) on the linkage between MO and firm performance by using a sample of 4,537 in 27 research papers. The result indicated the presence of positive and strong association (r = 0.39) between MO and business performance. The findings recommended that market orientation has emerged as a significant antecedent of organizational performance that contributed a lot to the long-term success and survival of a firm. Similar results also reported by Hussain et al. (2015b), Mokhtar et al. (2009), Jyoti and Sharma (2012) and Webster et al. (2014). However, contradicting findings also reported by Shehu and Mahmood (2014), Au and Tse (1995), Demirbag et al. (2006) and Harris (2001).

The dimensions of market orientation are not equally related to market-led organizational culture and although create superior performance in the western economies, in other countries such as developing countries especially, the implementation still leaves some gaps in both the theory and practice of marketing (Mohd Mokhtar et al., 2009). In addition, according to Jabeen et al. (2013), SMEs are highly recommended to embrace market orientation concept in developing economies to cope with the challenges of dynamic business environment. Suliyanto and Rahab (2012) studies of market orientation and performance are still insufficient and ignored, and also its implementation suffers from some gaps in the developing economies such as Asian and African (Mohd Mokhtar et al., 2009). The findings of studies discussed in the above are inconsistent, and similar studies in Ethiopian context are scarce and the context in which firms are operating is different from nation to nation. Thus, this study investigated the effect of market orientation on the performance of SMEs in Amhara region, Ethiopia.

Literature Review

The Concept of Market Orientation (MO)

The concept of MO described from two angles: According to Kohli and Jaworski (1990), MO is behavioural defined as an organization-wide generation of market intelligence, dissemination of market information across the departments and organization-wide responsiveness to market intelligence called MARKOR. And according to Narver and Slater (1990), MO has three behavioural components (customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination) named as MKTOR scale. The scale has a strong convergent as well as discriminant validity than MARKOR scale (Harris, 2001). Hence, this study adopted MKTOR scale which is the cultural perspective of marketing orientation (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Source: Adapted from Previous Literatures.

Market Orientation and Performance Linkage

Polat and Mutlu (2012) cited in Shehu and Mahmood (2014) stated that market orientation is seen as a firm’s ability that is extremely valuable, rare, and that cannot easily be imitated, with emphasis of placing the customer in the centre of firms’ strategy and operations. MO adoption is linked to the marketing concept and as such market orientation is the foundation of specifically ‘Responsiveness’ to customers’ need and the actions of competitors (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993).

Strong consumer orientation encourages firms to steadily recognize and cater their customers’ needs and expectations and continual adaptation and subsequently improve on the organization performance (Day, 1994; Hult & Ketchen, 2001; Kirca et al., 2005; Prajogo & Sohal, 2003). However, contradicting result was reported by Carlos (2008) where consumer orientation was not directly related to firm performance.

Owners/managers’ entrepreneurial skills are highly a substantial resource for small firms to be successful and survive in the marketplace. In addition, both MO and EO allow firms to absorb the shocks created by the dynamic and complex business environments and to gain the benefits of the new business opportunities. On the contrary, firms who are unable to adopt such orientations will early disappear from the market (Hussain et al., 2015b).

A study conducted by Attia (2013) on the extent to which Egyptian firms satisfy customers and how sensitive they are to rivals’ reactions and the practice of MO components and long-term perspective indicates that MO components (customer, competitor and interfunctional orientation) were significant. On the top of that, interfunctional orientation has the highest beta, followed by customer orientation and then competitor orientation. However, long-term perspectives were not found to be significant. And market orientation’s dimensions are not equally related to market-led organisational culture. Understanding customers, competitors and even employees had been considered the most effective differentiation tools in achieving excellent organisational competitive advantage for survival.

Liao et al. (2011) examined 38 articles MO and performance relationship over a different range of contexts: 22 articles are on the direct impact of MO on firm performance, 6 are on moderators of the relationship and the rest 10 are on the mediating variables. The finding indicated that out of 38 published articles only two articles found insignificant relationship between MO and firm performance, and two others revealed MO and performance have weak relationship. They also stated that adopting MO help firms to create customer value improve salesforce performance and enhance trust.

Raju et al. (2011) developed a conceptual framework after exploring the major antecedents of MO in the context of small- and medium-sized enterprises using an in-depth review of previous literature which explains the MO–performance relationship, and the key mediators and environmental moderators of this relationship. Their review result indicated that out of 16 studies 13 studies revealed a significant association between MO and firm performance. Oudan (2012) studied on the role of market orientation on trade and firm performance in United States and Europe. The result indicates the presence of positive and significant linkage between MO and business performance. Moreover, market orientation is a reliable construct and a necessary strategic direction to dramatically improve firm performance and for change in all types of organization and institutions.

From resource-based view (RBV), market and entrepreneurial orientations are the two unique but complementary strategic orientations (Miles & Arnold, 1991). Generally, previous studies show a positive and significant relationship between MO, and firm performance. Considering the existence of contextual variations in developed and developing nations in which SMEs are operating and scanty availability of literature on MO, this study investigates the effect of MO on performance of SMEs. After an extensive literature review was conducted on the study area, the following conceptual framework and research hypothesis were developed.

H ₁: Customer orientation has a significant effect on SMEs performance.

H ₂: Competitor orientation has a significant effect on SMEs performance.

H ₃: Interfunctional coordination has a significant effect on SMEs performance.

Methodology of Research

This study is a cross-sectional study used sample of 250 small and medium enterprises (SMEs) working under wood and metal works; textile and leather and agro-processing sectors in Amhara regional State, Ethiopia. The samples were selected using simple random sampling technique and data was collected from owner and/managers of SMEs using structured questionnaire and analysed using structural equation modelling (SEM).

Variables of the Study

The independent variable of the study is market orientation and its dimensions, and the dependent variable is the performance of small and medium enterprise. All variables were measured using Likert 5 scales (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree, 3 = neutral).

Data Analysis

Descriptive Statistics of Sample Respondents and Their Enterprises

The characteristics of the sample respondents’ and their business background information are presented in Table 1.

Respondents were requested about their gender, age, highest attained academic qualification and the role they have in the business. The above findings show that, most of small and medium enterprises managers and/owners are young and male (87.2%), the majority (88%) of respondents’ educational level is below college diploma and the majority (74.4%) of respondents are at least owners in their enterprise.

In Table 2, the statistics related to sector, ownership, access to support get, type of support obtained and the level of competition operating about SMEs are presented. From the table, it can be understood that 56.7 per cent of enterprises are from wood and metal works; most of (80.8%) enterprises are owned by a single person or they are sole proprietorship ownership; more than 57.8 per cent enterprises obtained support and of those who obtained support, 12 per cent have got market linkage, 14.8 per cent got training, 26.8 per cent got working premises, 13.7 per cent have got loan, 1 per cent got consultancy services and the rest 31.7 per cent have got more than one type of support listed before. In addition, 76.8 per cent enterprises are operating in medium to high level of business competition environment. Generally, the result shows that many of the enterprise ownership are sole proprietorships and the government is advised to encourage partnership and cooperative types in order to mobilize more capital. In addition, a lot must be done towards delivering support for SMEs. Finally, SMEs are recommended to enhance their level of competition since many of the enterprises are operating under stiff competition business environment.

Table 1.

Background of Respondents

Age	Frequency	%	Cumulative %
Below 20 years	3	1.2	1.2
20–30	102	40.8	42.0
31–40	76	30.4	72.4
41–50	67	26.8	99.2
Above 50 years	2	0.8	100.0
Total	250	100.0
Gender	Frequency	%	Cumulative %
Male	218	87.2	87.2
Female	32	12.8	12.8
Total	250	100.0
Educational level	Frequency	%	Cumulative %
Elementary	58	23.2	23.2
High school	84	33.6	56.8
Certificate	44	17.6	74.4
College diploma	36	14.4	88.8
Degree and above	28	11.2	100
Total	250	100
Role in the Business	Frequency	%	Cumulative %
Owner and manager	82	32.8	32.8
Owner	57	22.8	55.6
Manager	111	44.4	100
Total	250	100.0

Source: Researcher’s own survey (2019).

Table 2.

Background of Businesses

Sector of the Business	Frequency	%	Cumulative %
Wood and metal	177	56.7	56.7
Agro-processing	61	19.6	76.3
Textile and leather	74	23.7	100
Total	312	100.0
Ownership of the Business	Frequency	%	Cumulative %
Sole proprietorship	202	80.8	80.8
Partnership	43	17.2	98
Cooperatives union	5	2.0	100
Total	250	100.0
Access to Support	Frequency	%	Cumulative %
Yes	142	56.8	56.8
No	108	43.2	100
Total	250	100.0
Type of Support	Frequency	%	Cumulative %
Market linkage	17	12	12
Training	21	14.8	26.8
Working premises	38	26.8	53.6
Loan	19	13.7	67.3
Consultancy service	2	1.0	68.3
More than one type of support	45	31.7	100
Total	142	100.0
Level of competition	Frequency	%	Cumulative %
Low	58	23.2	23.2
Medium	78	31.2	54.4
High	114	45.6	100
Total	250	100

Source: Researcher’s own survey (2019).

Measurement Model

In this study, before testing the research hypothesis, measurement model fitness indices were examined.

Confirmatory factory analysis (CFA) was employed to test the measurement model properties (model fitness, reliability and validity) of constructs.

Fit indices values (normed Chi-square (X²/df), GFI, CFI root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and others) generated from CFA were examined to assess the measurement models of the study. Table 3 exhibited the summary of indices of goodness of measurement model. The model exhibited adequate model fit with Chi-square (X²) = 133.433; df = 146; χ²/df = 914 (<3); GFI = 0.948; CFI = 1.000; NFI = 1.000; IFI = 1.000, and these are above the suggested value of 0.90. The value of P-value is 0.764 which is insignificant and desired, and SRMR (0.0345) and RMSEA (0.016) values are also <0.08 and desirable. Therefore, all the major goodness-of-fit indices met the minimum requirement of 0.9 (Byrne, 2010; Rex, 2007). Moreover, all measured variables are significantly loaded on their respective latent construct (>0.7). Therefore, it was concluded that the model confirms that three MO latent constructs and one dependent latent variable (performance) are valid (Figure 2).

Table 3.

Goodness-of-Fitness Indices of Measurement Model

X² (df)	P-value	ϰ² /df	GFI	CFI	SRMR	NFI	IFI	RMSEA
133.433 (146)	.764	0.914	0.948	1.000	0.0345	1.000	0.993	0.016

Source: Researcher’s own survey (2019).

Figure 2.

Source: Researcher’s Own Survey (2019).

Construct Validity

Once confirmatory analysis of the model was examined, convergent validity and discriminant validities of constructs were evaluated. As suggested by Hair et al. (2010, 2013) factor loadings, composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) are used to examine convergent validity. According to Barclay et al. (1995), 0.5 is the minimum recommended for factor loading and AVE and CR must be ≥0.7 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981; Hair et al., 2010). Discriminant validity is the degree to of measured items measure unique concepts of the construct. It existed when each construct’s squared root of AVE is greater than the correlation of another construct in row and column.

Table 4.

Convergent Validity of Constructs

Construct	Items	Factor Loadings	Cronbach Alpha Coefficient	Composite Reliability (CR)^a	Average Variance Extracted (AVE)^b
Customer orientation	CSTOR02	0.837***	0.895	0.893	0.625
	CSTOR01	0.842***
	CSTOR03	0.742***
	CSTOR05	0.740***
	CSTOR06	0.787***
Competitor orientation	COR02	0.815***	0.871	0.872	0.630
	COR01	0.832***
	COR03	0.787***
	COR04	0.738***
Interfunctional coordination	IF02	0.833***	0.888	0.889	0.615
	IF01	0.737***
	IF03	0.802***
	IF04	0.753***
	IF05	0.795***
Performance	PERF01	0.808***	0.879	0.879	0.593
	PERF02	0.803***
	PERF03	0.758***
	PERF04	0.751***
	PERF05	0.727***

Source: Researcher’s own survey (2019).

Notes: *** Significant at 0.01.

^aCR = (∑factor loading)²/{∑(factor loading)²) + ∑ (variance of error)}.

^bAVE = ∑ (factor loading)²/{(∑ (factor loading) + ∑ (variance of error)}.

As it can be seen from Table 4, the CR values of constructs are ranged from 0.872 to 0.893, which are above the minimum acceptable value. Cronbach’s coefficient of 0.7 is the minimum values, which show the inter-item consistency in the scale (Cronbach, 1946). Therefore, a reliability analysis on MO and performance variables were conducted by using software of SPSS 23.0 and the result is shown in Table 5, Cronbach’s coefficients are higher than 0.7, which indicates good reliability of the measures. The AVE values are ranged between 0.593 and 0.630 that shows an accepted level of construct validity of the measures (Barclay et al., 1995). These results justify the convergent validity of the study constructs.

Table 5.

Discriminant Validity of Constructs

Construct	Customer Orientation	Competitor Orientation	Interfunctional Coordination	Performance
Customer orientation	0.791
Competitor orientation	0.504	0.794
Interfunctional coordination	0.586	0.418	0.784
Performance	0.625	0.342	0.411	0.770

Source: Researcher’s Own Survey (2019).

Note: The boldface values in diagonal values are the square root of AVE of each construct.

Figure 3.

Source: Researcher’s Own Survey (2019).

Table 6.

Fitness Indices of Structural Model of Figure 3

X² (df)	P-value	ϰ²/df	GFI	CFI	SRMR	NFI	IFI	RMSEA
133.433 (146)	.746	0.914	0.948	1.000	0.036	1.000	1.000	0.000

Source: Researcher’s own survey (2019).

Table 7.

The Regression Weights for Every Path Estimate in Figure 3

Construct	Path	Construct	Estimate	SE	CR	P	Result
Performance	←	Customer orientation	0.222	0.083	2.662	.008	Significant
Performance	←	Competitor orientation	0.099	0.085	1.167	.243	Insignificant
Performance	←	Interfunctional coordination	0.208	0.102	2.027	.043	Significant

Source: Researcher’s own survey (2019).

The result in Table 5 indicates that each construct’s AVE values are higher than the correlation among the associated constructs which justifies each constructs of the study have good discriminant validity. Therefore, we can say that the convergent, discriminant and reliability of variables/constructs of the study are achieved.

Structural Equation Model of the Study

The model fitness index values in Table 6 are above the minimum required level. X²(df) = 133.433 (146), P-value = 0.746; GFI = 0.948; CFI = 1.000; NFI= 1.000; IFI = 1.000; normed chi-square = 0.914; SRMR = 0.034 and RMSEA = 0.000, all these justifies the data is fit to the model. In the following Table 7, the effect of each exogenous construct on the respective endogenous construct along with the significance of every path coefficient presented as follows.

Results and Discussion

According to Mohd Mokhtar et al. (2009) market orientation dimensions are not equally related to market-led organizational culture. Previous studies reported that individual MO dimensions are contributing equally to enhance firm performance. For instance, Daud et al. (2013) reported that the three constructs of MO jointly explained 39 per cent of the variation in the performance. In addition, the results indicate only customer orientation and interfunctional coordination have significant and positive effect on performance. However, competitor orientation not found to significantly affect performance. On the top of that, interfunctional coordination achieved the highest impact on performance followed by customer orientation. Based on their findings, they recommended that firms are recommended to upgrade their marketing strategy to realize enhanced performance. Hence, in this study the effect of individual MO dimensions/constructs were assumed to have a significant effect on SMEs’ performance.

As can be seen in Figure 3 of structural model of the study, 22 per cent variance in performance was estimated or explained jointly by the three dimensions of MO, which is considered as medium/moderate using the criteria given by Chin (1988) for assessing the model predictive relevance a value of cross-validated relevance of (a) 0.02 is small; (b) 0.15 is medium and (c) 0.35 is large. Table 8 shows the causal effects of all exogenous constructs on endogenous construct (performance) in the model. Thus, this study contributed significantly to the development and validation of a model of market orientation.

The study tested the effect of customer orientation on SMEs performance. As can be seen in Table 7, customer orientation has a positive and significant on SMEs’ performance at the significance level of 0.05 (β = 0.222, t = 2.662, p = .008). Thus, an increase in customer orientation activities among SMEs will lead to an increase in their performance if all things being equal and other independent variables (interfunctional coordination and competitor orientation) are held constant. The hypothesis H₁ is therefore supported. This result is consistent with the previous studies such as Attia (2013), Brockman et al. (2012), Asikhia (2010), Khamwon and Speece (2005) and Dawes (2000) argued that understanding customers, competitors and even employees had been considered the most effective differentiation tools in achieving excellent organisational competitive advantage for survival. Thus, for SMEs in Ethiopia to achieve superior performance, SMEs practitioners must focus on customers’ needs and fulfilling better than competitors because this time consumers are more informed about products available in the market and they can compare one offering with other offering.

Table 8.

The Results of Hypothesis Testing for the Respected Paths

Hypothesis Statement	Estimate	P-Value	Hypothesis Result
H_1: Customer orientation has a positive and significant effect on SMEs’ performance	0.222	.008	Supported
H_2: Competitor orientation has a positive and significant effect on SMEs’ performance	0.099	.243	Not supported
H_3: Interfunctional coordination has appositive and significant effect on SMEs’ performance	0.208	.043	Supported

Source: Researcher’s own survey (2019).

In this study, it was also hypothesized that Interfunctional coordination has significant effect on SMEs’ performance. The empirical finding indicates interfunctional coordination has positive and significant effect on SMEs’ performance at the significance level of 0.05 (β = 0.208, t = 2.027, p = .043). Thus, an increase in interfunctional coordination activities among SMEs will lead to an increase in their performance if all things being equal and other independent variables (customer orientation and competitor orientation) are held constant. H3 was supported and similar result was reported by Attia (2013). In addition, the beta coefficient of interfunctional coordination is strongest of the three constructs which is in line with the finding of Gray et al. (1998) who reported that interfunctional coordination has the strongest correlation with company performance. Therefore, based on the result we can conclude that for SMEs under study must properly integrate the various business functions and acknowledge the value of customers and best serve the target market needs and then outperform rival firms. In addition, firms need to restructure them, internally, so that all the departments of the firms can function in a harmonized manner.

However, competitor orientation was not found to have a significant effect on SMEs’ performance at the significance level of 0.05 (β = 0.099, t = 1.167, p = .243). Therefore, an increase in competitor orientation among SMEs does not lead to an increase in their performance if all things being equal and other independent variables (customer orientation and interfunctional coordination) are held constant, competitor orientations does not significantly affect SMEs performance and the hypothesis H₂ was rejected. This implies that, SMEs under study by their nature do not engaged in competitor orientation activities. The finding coined with the results of previous studies such as Yadav and Tripathi (2014), Khamwon and Speece (2005) and Tan (2005). However, this result contradicts the findings of Salman and Zain (2011). Though competitor orientation was found insignificant in this study, theoretically we acknowledge that competitor orientation is important for firm’s performance however; practically firms are considering competitors as far as their orientation is concern and SMEs are known to operate in niche areas, so that they can avoid competition from the bigger firms (Singh & Gaur, 2009). However, SMEs are recommended to consider competitor orientation or responding to the competitor moves as far as they have enough resources. In addition, firms successfully access their rival business information could be able to create differentiation and gain value for their company (Zhang & Edward, 2007). Generally, the mixed results of MO dimensions effects on performance indicate that firms are advised to replicate market orientation to score superior performance with due care in considering the contexts and time in the industry they are operating and match strategies with their internal resources and core competencies.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The results of this study indicate that hypothesises of customer orientation and interfunctional coordination have significant effect on SMEs performance were supported with different level beta coefficient on firm performance. Hence, SMEs are suggested to setup customer focused strategies to ensure a long-term business success. Moreover, firms are suggested not only focus on customer need, but they should also consider their interfunctional coordination/information sharing so that they could survive in the fierce business environments and realize superior business performance.

In addition, the findings of this study coined with the learning orientation standpoint that organisations with more collaboration, obtain better market information and search for new market opportunities will perform better. The different beta coefficient of the MO dimensions shows that newly started business ventures should prepare a MO profile and being careful in investing their scarce resources and being involved in activities that leverage MO in a way that creating trust on their customers and then contributes enhanced performance, consistent growth and being sustainable in turbulent market conditions and fierce competition in their specific industry. For instance, the strong beta coefficients of interfunctional coordination followed by customer orientation indicates new business ventures are highly suggested to create strong coordination among the internal functional areas and then carefully understand their target customers’ needs and respond quickly. More importantly, the different level of MO dimensions effect on performance is believed to be due to the nature of firm’s internal resource availability and external environmental conditions.

To conclude, firms must be market oriented to exploit new market opportunities and to achieve superior performance and strongly suggested to create interfunctional coordination so as to understand their customers’ demands. The findings of this study will help policymakers understand the MO level of SMEs and develop a strategy to make them more market oriented. From a practical perspective, this study has meaningful implications for firms to understand the level of their enterprise’s MO culture, adopt appropriate MO dimensions in their business strategies and appropriately assign resources to achieve greater business performance. Moreover, the findings indicated that firms by being market oriented they can have growth and sustained market base. Finally, for academicians and government and non-government organisations, the results of this study could serve as an input to conduct further research and expand on this topic in other business sectors particularly in developing nations. Methodologically, the study used structural equation modelling (SEM), which is uncommon in least developed nations like Ethiopian case and not yet used in the same topic of the study.

Limitation and Suggestions Future Study

This study is cross-sectional in nature; further longitudinal research is suggested to see impact of MO in the long term. In addition, other characteristics of SMEs such as organisational culture and strategic flexibility as a mediating variable and environmental context, government support, company age and access to support as moderating variables could be considered. Finally, further studies are also suggested on other types of SMEs.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Asikhia

(2010). Customer orientation and firm performance among Nigerian small and medium scale businesses. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 2(1), 197–212.

Attia

S. T. M.

(2013). Market orientation in an emerging economy—Egypt. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 21(3), 277–291.

Barclay

, Higgins

, & Thompson

(1995). The partial least squares (PLS) approach to casual modeling: Personal computer adoption and use as an illustration.

Blankson

, Motwanti

J. G.

, & Levenburg

N. M.

(2006). Understanding the patterns of market orientation among small businesses. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 24(6), 572–590.

Brockman

B. K.

, Jones

M. A.

, & Becherer

R. C.

(2012). Customer orientation and performance in small firms: Examining the moderating influence of risk-taking, innovativeness, and opportunity focus. Journal of Small Business Management, 50(3), 429–446.

Carlos Pinho

(2008). TQM and performance in small medium enterprises: The mediating effect of customer orientation and innovation. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 25(3), 256–275.

Chin

W. W.

(1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Modern Methods for Business Research, 295(2), 295–336.

Daud

W. N. W.

, Remli

, & Muhammad

(2013). Market orientation and performance: A study of takaful performance in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 9(4), 240.

Dawes

(2000). Market orientation and company profitability: Further evidence incorporating longitudinal data. Australian Journal of Management, 25(2), 173–199.

10.

Demirbag

, Lenny Koh

S. C.

, Tatoglu

, & Zaim

(2006). TQM and Market orientations Impact on SME’s performance. Industrial Management and Data System, 106(8), 1206–1228.

11.

Gray

B. J.

, & Hooley

G. J.

(2002). Guest editorial: Market orientation and service firm performance—A research agenda. European Journal of Marketing, 36(9/10), 980–989.

12.

Hakala

(2011). Strategic orientations in management literature: Three approaches to understanding the interaction between market, technology, entrepreneurial and learning orientations. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(2), 199–217.

13.

Hakala

(2013). Entrepreneurial and learning orientation: Effects on growth and profitability in the software sector. Baltic Journal of Management, 8(1), 102–118.

14.

Harris

L. C.

(2001). Market orientation and performance: Objective and subjective empirical evidence from UK companies. Journal of Management Studies, 38(1), 17–43.

15.

Horng

S. C.

, & Chen

A. C. H.

(1998). Market orientation of small and medium-sized firms in Taiwan. Journal of Small Business Management, 36(3), 79–85.

16.

Hussain

, Ismail

, & Akhtar

C. S.

(2015a). Market orientation and organizational performance: Case of Pakistani SMEs. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review, 5(5), 1–6.

17.

Hussain

, Ismail

, & Shah

F. A.

(2015b). The effect of market and entrepreneurial orientations on organizational performance: Study of Malaysian SMEs. City University Research Journal, 5(2), 203–218.

18.

Jabeen

, Alekam

J. M. E.

, Aldaoud

K. A. M.

, Zureigat

N. K. N.

,, Mat

B. N. I.

, , Nahi

A. K.

, & al Junaidi

A. M. F.

(2013). Antecedents of firms performance: Empirical evidence from Yemeni SME’s. American Journal of Economics, 3(1), 18–22.

19.

Jaworski

B. J.

, & Kohli

A. K.

(1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

20.

Jyoti

, & Sharma

(2012). Impact of market orientation on business performance: Role of employee satisfaction and customer satisfaction. Vision, 16(4), 297–313.

21.

Kara

, Spillan

J. E.

, & DeShields Jr

O. W.

(2005). ‘The effect of a market orientation on business performance: A study of small-sized service retailers using MARKOR scale. Journal of Small Business Management, 43(2), 105–118.

22.

Khamwon

, & Speece

(2005). Market orientation and business performance in the veterinary care industry: An empirical analysis. BU Academic Review, 4(1), 1–10.

23.

Kirca

A. H.

, Jayachandran

, & Bearden

W. O.

(2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 24–41.

24.

Kohli

A. K.

, & Jaworski

B. J.

(1990). Market orientation: The construct, research propositions, and managerial implications. The Journal of Marketing, 1–18.

25.

Langerak

, Hultink

E. J.

, & Robben

H. S.

(2004). The impact of market orientation, product advantage, and launch proficiency on new product performance and organizational performance. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 21(2), 79–94.

26.

Lawrence

(2001). Persistence of web references in scientific research. Computer, 34(2), 26–31.

27.

Ledwith

, & O’Dwyer

(2008). Product launch, product advantage and market orientation in SMEs. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Development, 15(1), 96–110.

28.

Ledwith

, & O’Dwyer

(2009). Market orientation, NPD performance, and organizational performance in small firms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(6), 652–661.

29.

Liao

S. H.

, Chang

W. J.

, Wu

C. C.

, & Katrichis

J. M.

(2011). A survey of market orientation research (1995–2008). Industrial Marketing Management, 40(2), 301–310.

30.

Miles

M. P.

, & Arnold

D. R.

(1991). The relationship between marketing orientation and entrepreneurial orientation. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 15(4), 49–66.

31.

Mohd Mokhtar

S. S.

, Yusoff

R. Z.

, & Arshad

(2009). Market orientation critical success factors of Malaysian manufacturers and its impact on financial performance. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 1(1), 77–84.

32.

Narver

J. C.

, & Slater

S. F.

(1990). The effect of a market orientation on business profitability. The Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.

33.

Oudan

(2012). Market orientation-transforming trade and firm performance. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 4(2), 3–8.

34.

Pelham

A. M.

(2000). Market orientation and other potential influences on performance in small and medium-sized manufacturing firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 38(1), 48–67.

35.

Pelham

, & Wilson

(1996). A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of performance. Journal of The Academy of Marketing Science, 24(1), 27–43.

36.

Prajogo

D. I.

, & Sohal

A. S.

(2003). The relationship between TQM practices, quality performance, and innovation performance: An empirical examination. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20(8), 901–918.

37.

Raju

P. S.

, Lonial

S. C.

, & Crum

M. D.

(2011). Market orientation in the context of SMEs: A conceptual framework. Journal of Business Research, 64(12), 1320–1326.

38.

Salman

, & Zain

U. A.

(2011). Few determinants of product and firm performance: A case of FMCG industry. European Journal of Social Sciences, 19(4), 561–572.

39.

Shehu

A. M.

, & Mahmood

(2014). An empirical analysis of market orientation and business performance relationship in the context of developing economy. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 4(9), 457–470.

40.

Sin

L. Y.

, Tse

A. C.

, Yau

O. H.

, Chow

R. P.

, & Lee

J. S.

(2005). Market orientation, relationship marketing orientation, and business performance: The moderating effects of economic ideology and industry type. Journal of International Marketing, 13(1), 36–57.

41.

Singh

D. A.

, & Gaur

A. S.

(2009). Business group affiliation, firm governance, and firm performance: Evidence from China and India. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 17(4), 411–425.

42.

Suliyanto

, & Rahab

(2012). The role of market orientation and learning orientation in improving innovativeness and performance of small and medium enterprises. Asian Social Science, 8(1), 134–145.

43.

Verhees

F. J.

, & Meulenberg

M. T.

(2004). Market orientation, innovativeness, product innovation, and performance in small firms. Journal of Small Business Management, 42(2), 134–154.

44.

Vieira

V. A.

(2010). Antecedents and consequences of market orientation: A Brazilian meta-analysis and an international mega-analysis. BAR-Brazilian Administration Review, 7(1), 40–58.

45.

Webster

R. L.

, Hammond

K. L.

, & Rothwell

J. C.

(2014). Market orientation effects on business performance: Views from inside and outside the business school. American Journal of Business Education, 7(1), 9–20.

46.

Yadav

S. K.

, & Tripathi

(2014). Market orientation and SMEs performance. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management, 3(3), 27–34.

47.

Zhang

D. D.

, & Edward

R. B.

(2007, January). The mediating role of knowledge management in translating the firm’s learning orientation and market orientation to business performance. Proceedings of the 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Waikoloa, HI.