Developing a Market Oriented Culture: A Critical Evaluation

Journal of Management Studies 36:2 March 1999 0022-2380 DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE: A CRITICAL EVALUATION LLOYD C. HARRIS EMMANUEL OGBONNA Cardi€ Business School ABSTRACT This paper presents a critical evaluation of the notion that a market oriented culture can be developed and managed. It documents a critique of prescriptivebased literature of market oriented culture and argues that such literature is ¯awed in that its conceptualization of organizational culture is incomplete. The paper suggests and discusses ®ve principal areas which are either ignored or insuciently addressed by extant literature on market oriented culture. These are: (1) the view that organizational culture is pluralistic, (2) the understanding that market oriented culture can be viewed as a family of concepts, (3) the notion of cultural dominance, (4) the question of whether culture can be managed, and (5) the problems of cultural entrenchment. The paper develops a series of conclusions and implications centred on the need for further conceptual and empirical development of the content and processes of a market oriented culture. INTRODUCTION Within the ®elds of marketing and general management practice and theory few issues arouse as much interest as `market orientation' (Greenley and Foxall, 1996; Harris, 1996a). Management literature and company annual reports are littered with references to the importance of `market orientation', and companies being `market-led' or `market focused', while theoretical and empirical research on the subject has burgeoned (for example, Greenley, 1995b; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Ruekert, 1992; Slater and Narver, 1994). The attention to market orientation is equalled by the interest of practitioners and theorists to the concept of `organizational culture' (Deshpande and Webster, 1989). Despite much theoretical criticism during the 1980s (see, for example, Carrol, 1983; Hitt and Ireland, 1987; Mitchell, 1985; Soeters, 1986), recent years have witnessed a resurgence of interest in culture as an organizational concept (for instance, Frost et al., 1991; Hop¯ et al., 1992; Martin, 1992; Willmott, 1993). Given the increasing popularity and topicality of `market orientation' to corporate enterprises and `organizational culture' to practitioners and theorists, it is perhaps Address for reprints: Lloyd C. Harris, Cardi€ Business School, Cardi€ University, Colum Drive, Cardi€ CF1 3EU, UK. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. 178 LLOYD C. HARRIS AND EMMANUEL OGBONNA not surprising to ®nd the integration of the two concepts in a stream of research which analyses the components and processes of developing and sustaining that which has become known as a `market oriented culture'. This paper contributes to an important and growing area. Indeed, contemporary managerial discourse has been dominated by the notion of customer sovereignty (du Gay, 1996; du Gay and Salaman, 1992; Fuller and Smith, 1991; Keat and Abercrombie, 1991). It is arguable that the customer has become paramount and that the satisfaction of customer needs viewed as the leitmotif of organizations (Mans®eld and Poole, 1991). In this context there has been a greater acknowledgement of developing a market oriented culture within general management literature (see, for example, Greenley (1995a) and Whittington et al. (1994) in the Journal of Management Studies, Greenley and Foxall (1996) and Webster (1993) in the Journal of Business Research and a number of papers in a special issue of the British Journal of Management in 1995). While these developments are perhaps desirable it is important to evaluate critically the foundations of what is rapidly becoming a dominant assumption in organizational research and practice. This is founded on the premise that the inappropriate and narrow conceptualizations of organizational culture, promulgated by marketing studies, is severely undermining the contributions of research into the development of a market oriented culture. Given this rationale, the audience of this paper is both management and marketing academics and practitioners who have an interest in the conceptual diculties of developing a culture which is geared towards the needs, wants and demands of the market. The aim of this paper is to evaluate critically the conceptual diculties of developing a market oriented culture with a speci®c reference to contemporary organizational culture theory. This paper ®rstly reviews extant conceptualizations of market orientation, including an analysis of potential antecedents and consequences and an examination of existing research into the development of market orientation. Thereafter, this paper will forward a series of inter-linked arguments which form a comprehensive critique of the potential for the development of a market oriented culture. These arguments lead to a number of conclusions and implications centred on a series of suggestions of possible ways through which researchers interested in studying market oriented cultures might gain from appreciation of the intricacies of contemporary organizational culture research. AN OVERVIEW OF RESEARCH INTO MARKET ORIENTATION Shapiro (1988) argues that labels such as `market focused', `market-led', `marketing orientation' and `market orientation' are so similar that little di€erence between the terms exist. Hence, authors tend to either use the terms interchangeably or to use a single term without an explicit consideration of the rationale for their choice. However, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) contend that the term `market orientation' is preferable because of the avoidance of political charge while implicitly referring to organization-wide orientation (marketing orientation inferring a functional bias). Similarly, marketing and general management theorists tend to use the labels `market oriented culture', `marketing culture' and `customer culture' synonymously # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE 179 to infer an organizational culture focused on the market (an example being the marketing culture label utilized by Webster (1993)). Therefore, in concordance with the work of other authors, this paper uses the terms `market orientation', `orientation towards the market' and `market oriented culture' as generic phrases for ease of comprehension and consistency. The marketing concept is posited as the philosophical foundation of the marketing discipline. Market orientation is said to refer to the operationalization of the marketing concept into a management orientation. After an extensive review of pertinent literature, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) conclude that de®nitions of the marketing concept are commonly based on three themes: a full focus on customers, departmental co-ordination, and pro®t growth. While there are frequently limitations of de®nitions or typologies, the view of Kohli and Jaworski (1990) has met with general acceptance (for example, Ruekert, 1992). Prior to the 1990s the focus of theory in this area was the analysis of the marketing concept. Initial attempts at codi®cation (see Drucker, 1954; Felton, 1959) have been criticized as limited, provoking numerous attempts at broadening, re-de®ning or modernizing the concept (for example, Bell and Emory, 1971; Hirschman, 1983; Kotler and Levy, 1969; Webster, 1988, 1994b). Furthermore, researchers have noted a number of conceptual and theoretical limitations of the marketing concept as a management philosophy (for instance, Brownlie and Saren, 1992, 1995; Dickinson et al., 1986; Dixon, 1992). This issue is important and will be discussed more fully later in this paper. The comparatively limited academic attention to the ®eld of market orientation, prior to the 1990s, has been redressed by a burgeoning number of studies into the conceptualization and utility of a market orientation. This relatively new focus of research was triggered by the seminal contributions of Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990). These two studies have become the cornerstones of contemporary research in this area, providing the conceptual foundation of a plethora of subsequent studies (a small sample including Cadogan and Diamantopoulos, 1995; Greenley, 1995b; Liu, 1995; Pitt et al., 1996; Pulendran and Speed, 1996; Siguaw and Diamantopoulos, 1995). The importance of the Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) conceptualizations is such that a detailed understanding is required. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Jaworski and Kohli (1993) present market orientation as a three component construct comprising: market information generation; intra-organizational dissemination of such information; and responsiveness to generated and disseminated market intelligence. Market intelligence generation is portrayed as the ®rst stage of market orientation, including not only the information on customer needs but also data pertaining to the factors which in¯uence these needs. Intelligence dissemination refers to the need to communicate, disseminate and even sell market intelligence within the organization. Dissemination is thus a dynamic two-way process involving both lateral and horizontal communication. Responsiveness refers to the ability of the organization to respond to generated and disseminated information. The responsiveness component is divided into two types of activity: response design (that is, using market intelligence to develop plans) and response implementation (that is, plan execution). Similarly, Narver and Slater (1990, p. 21) examine market orientation at the business level, but in contrast claim that market orientation is a speci®c form of # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 180 LLOYD C. HARRIS AND EMMANUEL OGBONNA organizational culture (that is, the culture which `creates the necessary behaviour' for creating value). Hence, while Narver and Slater (1990) utilize the term `market orientation', their de®nition indicates their belief that `market orientation' is synonymous with `market oriented culture'. Narver and Slater (1990) conduct a major review of conceptual literature and an empirical study which leads them to conclude that a market oriented culture comprises three main behaviours: an orientation towards the customer, a focus on competitors, and co-ordination between functions. Notwithstanding the increasing number of organizational culture studies which heavily criticize the view that culture and performance are linked (see, for example, Hop¯ et al., 1992; Linstead and Grafton-Small, 1991; Siehl and Martin, 1990), the majority of marketing theorists claim a link between market orientation/market oriented culture and performance (cf. Atuahene-Gima, 1996; Greenley, 1995a). Indeed, Jaworski and Kohli (1993) conclude that the link between orientation and performance is consistent, irrespective of environmental conditions. Similarly, Narver and Slater (1990), Pitt et al. (1996), Ruekert (1992), Selnes et al. (1996) and Slater and Narver (1994) ®nd that a clear statistical association exists between the extent of market orientation/market oriented culture and the performance of an organization. Indeed, a number of these authors claim that the crucial issue is not whether to adopt market orientation but is rather the level of market orientation which is appropriate (see, for example, Harris, 1996a; Narver and Slater, 1990; Selnes et al., 1996). Given the statistical evidence of an orientation±performance link in the marketing literature, it is perhaps not surprising to ®nd a body of theory and research into the means of developing an organizational orientation towards the market. Studies of the means and barriers to developing an orientation towards market needs constitute a signi®cant theme of research within the ®eld of marketing. Studies of the barriers to market orientation/market oriented culture tend either to concentrate on the identi®cation of tangible organizational creations or people issues as principal impediments (with a small number of holistic studies discussing both types, as noted by Harris (1996b)). Identi®ed tangible organizational creations include: structure (Lear, 1963); systems (Ruekert, 1992); control mechanisms (Liu, 1995); and, strategy (Pulendran and Speed, 1995, 1996). Peopleoriented barriers have been theorized to include imperfect decision making (Felton, 1959), top management ability (Chaganti and Sambharya, 1987), irrationality (Kelley, 1990) and over-concentration on marketing personnel (Gummesson, 1991a). Studies pertaining to the processes of developing an organizational orientation towards the market typically focus on types of individual people (such as `managers') or the broader issue of culture change. People-focused studies have identi®ed management development (Payne, 1988), eliciting employee support (Judd, 1987) and the improvement of marketing employee professional status (Whittington and Whipp, 1992) as means of market orientation development. Culture-based means of improving organizational orientation have been argued to centre on political manoeuvring (Piercy, 1989), gaining cultural acceptance (Kelley, 1992), and improving organizational capabilities (Day, 1994). However, while academic attention is ¯ourishing in the area of market orientation or market oriented culture, much research ®nds comparatively limited # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE 181 adoption. A number of researchers comment on low but increasing levels of adoption in certain sectors of industries. For example, Morgan and Morgan (1991) ®nd limited adoption of the marketing concept in the consultant engineering industry, Whittington et al. (1994) ®nd limited but increasing adoption in the professional services sector, and Graham (1995) ®nds increased adoption in the public sector. In contrast, Egan and Shipley (1995) contend that ®nancial service organizations tend to be `marketing myopic'. Furthermore, a number of theorists refer to the limited adoption of a market orientation due to the limited understanding of practitioners. For example, Greenley and Foxall (1996) note that many practitioners believe that they are oriented to the consumer despite evidence to the contrary, while Wilson and McDonald (1994) and Doyle (1995) refer to problems in the practice of marketing partly due to the limited extent of organizational orientation towards the needs of the market. In summary, recent theory has emphasized the importance of developing market orientation. This is largely based on a claim that there is an association between market orientation and performance. Such claims have provided the rationale for an increasing number of studies which have urged organizations to develop a market oriented culture. Moreover, a growing body of literature identi®es and discusses the barriers and processes of market orientation development, possibly in an e€ort to improve the low levels of the adoption of a market oriented culture. AN ANALYSIS OF THE CONCEPTUAL DIFFICULTIES IN DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE The central argument of this paper is that while considerable theoretical advances have been made in this area of study, marketing researchers have typically ignored or overlooked a substantial body of broader organizational culture and management theory while promulgating their research into mainstream management theory (see earlier). This paper will demonstrate that such theory has important implications for the development of a market oriented culture. In particular, ®ve main areas indicate limitations of existing conceptualizations: (1) the view that organizational culture is pluralistic, (2) market oriented culture can be viewed as a family of concepts, (3) the notion of cultural dominance, (4) the question of whether culture can be managed, and (5) the issue of cultural entrenchment. Cultural Pluralism Marketing studies pertaining to the content, barriers and processes of developing an orientation towards market needs, tend to assume or prescribe cultural unity (for example, Cadogan and Diamantopoulos, 1995; Deng and Dart, 1994; Greenley, 1995b; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Menguc, 1996; Ram and Schlegelmilch, 1995; Webster, 1994a). Indeed, the majority of de®nitions of the philosophical foundation of marketing, the marketing concept, explicitly refer to organization or company-wide application (for instance, King, 1985; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Kotler et al., 1996; McNamara, 1972; Webster, 1994b). Hence, it can be argued that two core concepts within marketing theory (the marketing concept and market orientation) are based on the assumption that organizational unity is not only possible but is also the ideal. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 182 LLOYD C. HARRIS AND EMMANUEL OGBONNA A number of researchers have noted that a market orientation may not be wholly appropriate in certain exceptional circumstances (see, for example, Houston, 1986; Luck, 1969). However, not withstanding such exceptional contingencies, where the marketing concept and market orientation are viewed as appropriate, marketing theorists frequently prescribe the marketing concept as universally applicable (for instance, Kotler et al., 1996; Wong et al., 1989). The continuing prescription of the marketing concept is somewhat surprising given (an albeit limited) ®eld of critical marketing theory which undermines the underlying assumptions of the marketing concept (Dickinson et al., 1986; Dixon, 1992; Ennew et al., 1993; Knights et al., 1994; Lascu et al., 1996; Sachs and Benson, 1978). Many of these studies contend that the unsubstantiated assumptions and inherent contradictions of the marketing concept preclude the organizational implementation of the concept (see, for example, the excellent review of Knights et al., 1994). Therefore, while many marketing authors argue that the marketing concept is appropriate for the majority of organizations, and where appropriate is capable of being translated into an organization-wide philosophy, this clearly contradicts much contemporary organizational culture theory. Indeed, while the marketing concept is commonly treated as a universal cultural trait, culture theory typically presents organizational cultures as unique (Gregory, 1983; O'Reilly et al., 1991; Ott, 1989). The contradictions between marketing and organizational culture theory are further demonstrated by an examination of the view that culture is pluralistic and not a unitary concept. The prevalence of a unitary perspective on culture within marketing literature is possibly understandable given that many studies which popularized organizational culture extol the virtues of cultural unity (see, for example, Deal and Kennedy, 1982; Pascal and Athos, 1981; Peters and Waterman, 1982). Indeed, it has been argued that many early studies of organizational culture focus on the exploration of commonalities and consistencies within cultures (Bartunek and Moch, 1992). More recently, there has been marked resurgence in research into culture as a pluralistic concept, rejecting the previous uni-dimensionality (see, for example, Harris and Ogbonna, 1998; Martin and Meyerson, 1988; Ogbonna, 1993; Sackmann, 1992; Van Maanen, 1991; Young, 1989). This view is exempli®ed by Gregory (1983) who contends that any given organization is likely to comprise multiple cultures which she labelled `native views'. Multiple cultures are not simply presented as subcultures on a departmental basis but also as background cultures (for example, geographic), occupational cultures (for instance, professional ideologies) or cultures which are ethnic in origin; the crucial point being that they cut across a given organization. Overall, the majority of contemporary theorists take a pluralistic perspective of organizational culture with researchers adopting di€erent labels to highlight the notion of cultural pluralism. For example, Morgan's (1986) `mosaics', Bartunek and Moch's (1992) `constituencies', Ouchi's (1981) `clans', and Sackmann's (1992) more conventional `subcultures'. The tradition of multiple views of organizational culture is furthered by the seminal three perspective framework developed by Martin (1992). Martin (1992, chapter 1) claims that studies of organizational culture can frequently be classi®ed into one of three categories: integration, di€erentiation or fragmentation. While all three perspectives are always present simultaneously in organizations, usually # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE 183 studies either uncover or researchers adopt a single dominant prospective to the detriment of their understanding of the depth and complexity of the other two perspectives of that culture. The integrative perspective concentrates on organization-wide consistency, the di€erentiation perspective focuses on dichotomous subcultural con¯ict, while the fragmentation perspective views organizations as ¯uid and characterized by ambiguity and complexity. Given that all three perspectives are present simultaneously, Martin (1992) argues that, to varying degrees, all cultures are characterized by di€erentiation. A full and complete understanding of an organizational culture is highly unlikely without the analysis of each of these perspectives. As discussed above, Martin (1992, p. 185) notes that `many researchers consistently utilize only one perspective in their published culture studies'. This is clearly the case for the vast majority of marketing theorists researching market oriented culture. Utilizing Martin's (1992) framework, marketing theory on the content and processes of developing a market oriented culture can be classi®ed as based on integrative assumptions (that is, they focus on organization-wide prescription and con¯ict is viewed as irrational). This tendency is possibly explained by the work of Harris and Ogbonna (1998) who ®nd that hierarchical position is associated with cultural perspective. Harris and Ogbonna (1998) present detailed empirical evidence that the nature of hierarchical position, shapes and conditions organizational members' perspectives on culture (top management taking an integrative perspective, middle management taking a di€erentiation perspective, and shop¯oor workers viewing culture as fragmented). Hence, given the concentration of marketing theorists on the study of top management (see, for instance, Webster, 1981), it is possible to propose tentatively that the resulting perspectives are informed by an incomplete appreciation of organization dynamics. Thus, the comparatively close ties between marketing academics and top managements provides a possible explanation of the frequent adoption of an integrative perspective. The ®nding of a predominantly integrative perspective on organizational culture in studies pertaining to market orientation calls into question the ability to develop that which marketing theorists propose is a market oriented culture. That is, if market oriented culture theory is premised on the prescription of integrative culture, but multiple subjective perspectives are present (as evidenced by Harris and Ogbonna, 1998), the possibility of developing the marketing theorist's view of market oriented culture is extremely low. Hence it seems likely that the conceptualization of market oriented culture developed by marketing theorists are at best incomplete and at worst wrong. Cultural Dominance The marketing concept and market orientation as discussed earlier in this paper both stress the importance of organization-wide belief or orientation towards market needs (see, for example, Deng and Dart, 1994; King, 1985; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; McNamara, 1972; Webster, 1994b). However, given the previously presented argument that organizational culture is pluralist in nature, it follows that a market oriented culture must constitute a form of organization-wide cultural dominance where the subculture of market orientation dominates and controls other organizational subcultures (Harris, 1998). Indeed, the vast majority of marketing theory on the subject of developing a market oriented culture # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 184 LLOYD C. HARRIS AND EMMANUEL OGBONNA assumes that cultural dominance is achievable dependent purely on management ability (see, for example, Felton, 1959; Kelley, 1992; Messikomer, 1987; Payne, 1988; Webster, 1994b). This prevalent, managerial biased assumption is clearly contrary to contemporary organizational theory and wholly misguided in its simplistic view of culture as managerially imposed. The prescription of cultural dominance raises two important questions which require further discussion. Can the views of a single subculture (such as top management or the marketing department) be imposed and dominate the broader organizational culture? Furthermore, assuming that cultural dominance is theoretically possible, which contextual factors in¯uence the probability of market oriented dominance? Firstly, if we consider that organizational culture is the lived work experience of all employees and not simply the strategy articulated by a subculture, then the potential for cultural dominance is suspect. Thus, if organizational culture is subject to each organizational member, the rhetoric of management or the ideology of market orientation, will be interpreted in a variety of ways (if at all) and result in a range of employee reactions (if any). Secondly, assuming that cultural dominance is possible (which is far from certain), a range of contextual factors could in¯uence subcultural interaction. Harris (1998) presents ®ve conceptual arguments which detail the contingencies which in¯uence the ability of a market oriented culture to control and dominate other cultures. This argument is premised on the assumption that a market oriented culture initiative is incongruent with other aspects of the culture. First, Harris (1998) argues that developing a dominant market oriented culture is dependent on the ability to identify other organizational subcultures and elements or components of those cultures which contradict the market oriented subculture. Thus, if a market oriented culture requires cultural dominance, then an initiative geared towards dominance must appreciate and overcome subcultural inconsistency. Second, cultural dominance is founded on the assumption that subcultures are comparatively `weak' and hence susceptible to some form of manipulation. Third, based on the work of Martin (1985), it is argued that the ability of a market oriented culture to govern other subcultures is dependent on the favourability of organizational conditions (organizational culture being more susceptible to cultural control and suggestion during periods of crisis, leadership turnover and formation). Fourth, it is contended that the ability of market oriented culture domination depends on the adaptability of the components of other organizational subcultures. Finally, Harris (1998) proposes that market oriented culture development hinges on cultural transferability. Cultural transferability refers to the capability of conveying the essence of a cultural component across subcultural boundaries so that shared meaning of the conveyed component remains constant. Hence, Harris (1998) argues that the greater the similarity between the market oriented culture and the other organizational subcultures, the greater the probability of market oriented change. Overall, the notion that cultural domination is the vehicle for achieving a market oriented culture highlights the weakly founded assumption of broad marketing theory that the development of market orientation is solely contingent upon management ability (Harris, 1998). Furthermore, this re-emphasizes the importance of applying contemporary organizational culture theory to broader areas of management in an e€ort to illuminate conceptual and practical diculties. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE 185 Market Orientation as a `Family of Concepts' Organizational culture theorists generally accept the notion of culture as a `family of concepts' (Pettigrew, 1979). Foremost components of Pettigrew's (1979) `family of concepts' include commonly shared `assumptions', `values', `symbols', `myths', `beliefs' and `rituals'. However, an analysis of conceptualizations of market orientation/market oriented culture ®nds that marketing theory tends to concentrate on that which Schein (1992) would label the lower levels of culture or the manifestations of culture (Harris, 1996b). As discussed previously, the two conceptualizations of Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) have provided the foundation for much of the subsequent research into market orientation. Hence, the remainder of this section is dedicated to a critical analysis of the cultural depth and breadth of their conceptions. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) portray market orientation as generating, disseminating and responding to market intelligence. Analysed from an organizational culture perspective, the Kohli and Jaworski (1990) view of market orientation is limited in terms of cultural depth and breadth. The focus on the operationalizing market orientation as quantitatively measurable organizational artefacts, severely limits the depth of cultural interpretation. Market orientation is presented as the objective existence of employee behaviours of information generation, dissemination and response to market intelligence. Furthermore, such information-oriented behaviours require the presence of more tangible organizational creations to support information gathering, circulation and reply (for example, an organizational structure which provides resources for such behaviour and the tangible systems to facilitate information ¯ow). Similarly, the conceptualization and operationalization of Narver and Slater (1990) limits the depth of cultural interpretation. In keeping with the view of Kohli and Jaworski (1990), Narver and Slater (1990) argue that market orientation is manifested in the form of organizational member behaviour. However, Narver and Slater (1990) explicitly argue that such behaviours are dependent on the culture of the organization. Furthermore, Narver and Slater (1990) imply that from their perspective, organizational culture implies values and attitudes. Thus, from an organizational culture perspective, Narver and Slater (1990) present market orientation as a series of speci®c behaviours driven by cultural values. The limitations of these conceptualizations are compounded by their measurement of merely a few types of cultural manifestations. This clearly limits the breadth of understanding of the culture of an organization. Indeed, just focusing on the behaviours and systems of generating and disseminating information (as is the case in Kohli and Jaworski, 1990) is insucient to reveal the breadth of an organization's culture. Cultural breadth can only be gained by the examination of a wider range of the facets of culture (including, for example, stories, rights, rituals, etc.). Indeed, cultural theorists have frequently noted that culture should not be examined in such shallow terms but should be analysed in such a way that reveals cultural breadth and depth. A potential explanation for the comparatively narrow cultural scope of marketing theory can be found in methodological tradition. While organizational culture research is typically qualitative in nature, the methodological tradition of marketing research is quantitative (Deshpande, 1983; Gummesson, 1991b; Hunt, 1994; Rust, 1993). A detailed examination of the `qualitative versus quantitative' # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 186 LLOYD C. HARRIS AND EMMANUEL OGBONNA debate is beyond the scope of this paper. However, it is pertinent to note that the characteristics and limitations of some forms of quantitative research preclude the exploration of certain aspects of organizational culture. Indeed, it has been argued that some components of culture (for example, language and symbols) are organizational speci®c and cannot be meaningfully uncovered and gauged using quantitative measure (see, for example, Daft's (1983) interpretative treaties on organizational symbolism). Hence, the concentration of many marketing studies of culture on quantitative measure, applied to large samples (for instance, Deshpande et al., 1993; Narver and Slater, 1990) restricts the cultural domain of enquiry and provides an explanation of the cultural myopia of much of marketing research and theory. Can Organizational Culture be Managed? The fundamental weakness of the literature extolling the virtues of market orientation is that it is founded on the assumption that organizational culture can be managed. This is evident in the work of the majority of marketing writers, including, for example, Day (1994), Ruekert (1992) and Webster (1994a). Collectively, such researchers explicitly and implicitly contend that the development of organization-wide market-oriented culture is not only desirable and attainable but also controllable. Two principal ¯aws can be seen in such an argument. First, if we accept that organizational culture is subjective and interpreted in a variety of ways, including di€erentiation and fragmentation (Martin, 1992), then assuming that cultural unity is always attainable is overly simplistic. This is not to argue that cultural unity cannot or does not exist, but rather to imply that researchers intent on uncovering integrated cultures may focus on issues which may only re¯ect certain sections or aspects of the organization (for example, top management concerns) at the expense of others. The second ¯aw relates to the assumption that organizational culture is susceptible to conscious manipulation by executives. A brief discussion of the theories of cultural change is useful in order to shed light on some of the criticisms of prescriptions of market orientation based on the management of culture. Theories of cultural change can be considered under two main headings; revolutionary or managed change and evolutionary or incremental change. Revolutionary change refers to the processes wherein environmental conditions force organizational members intentionally or unintentionally to `manage' culture. Studies which have reviewed the potential for revolutionary organizational culture change have reached diverse conclusions and implications. A number of writers have contended that organizational culture is a variable and as such is subject to management and control. For example, some texts elude to managing culture and typically refer to `organizational change models' (see, for example, Bate, 1994; Bowman and Faulkner, 1997; Dawson, 1994; Mabey and Mayon-White, 1993; Silverzweig and Allen, 1976). However, the majority of organizational culture researchers have reached di€erent conclusions. Such researchers conclude that organizational culture is not something the organization has but is rather something an organization is, a line of reasoning which follows Smircich's (1983) paradigmatic classi®cation. A number of these writers have suggested that the alteration of an organization's culture is not so much a question of change but rather one of manipulation during conditions # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE 187 which culture can, to an extent, be in¯uenced (for instance, Martin, 1985; Robbins, 1987). Martin (1985) asserts that such contingencies include crises, leadership turnover, and organization formation. However, a more extreme view is taken by a small proportion of culture purists. These purists argue that managing culture is an impossibility, the manipulation of culture unlikely and that change can only be natural and not the consequence of conscious management action (Ackroyd and Crowdy, 1990; Anthony, 1990; Knights and Willmott, 1987; Legge, 1994; Ogbonna, 1993). In contrast to studies of revolutionary change, a number of researchers have developed conceptualizations of culture change which centre on the evolutionary nature of cultural change. Harrison and Carrol (1991) study the transmission of culture within organizations, asserting that due to variables such as worker turnover, socialization intensity and decay, organizational culture has a tendency to evolve due to transmission diculties. This ®nding echoes the earlier work of Sathe (1983) who develops a model of how culture perpetuates itself. Sathe's (1983) model focuses on how new organizational members `acquire' culture (socialization) and how culture is reinforced through behaviour and communication. Thus, Sathe (1983) asserts that culture tends to perpetuate itself and thus the change of culture should focus on the alteration of means of perpetuation (for example, communication). Interestingly, the vast majority of marketing theorists examining the means of developing a market oriented culture, appear to assume that culture is an organizational variable and as such can be governed by astute managements. This is evident in a number of studies on the development of a market oriented culture which refer to `managing' culture (see, for example, Narver and Slater, 1990; Payne, 1988; Webster, 1994b). However, a small minority of studies on the subject of market oriented culture change imply that culture cannot be directly managed, but can be manipulated under certain circumstances. Piercy (1989) and Whittington and Whipp (1992) argue that market oriented change is best accomplished via the political manoeuvring of marketing or general management personnel. Political manoeuvring is contended to involve such issues as improving the credibility of the marketing function and the restriction of information dissemination in an e€ort to evoke a dependency on the marketing function. Hence, to an extent, Piercy (1989) and Whittington and Whipp (1992) present the creation of a form of organization crisis as a means of enabling market oriented change (a view consistent with that of Martin (1985) and Robbins (1987)). However, marketing studies of the means of developing a market oriented culture generally fail to appreciate the arguments of organizational culture researchers. Without exception, marketing theorists appear to reject the arguments of organizational culture writers (for instance, Anthony, 1990; Hop¯ et al., 1992; Ogbonna, 1993; Willmott, 1993) who contend that change can only be natural. This rejection of contemporary organizational culture theory is also evident in the lack of reference within marketing studies to the issue of evolutionary culture change. Indeed, no reference is found to the notion of cultural evolution and perpetuation beyond occasional inference to the need for market oriented learning organizations (for example, Slater and Narver, 1995). In summary, the literature on market orientation is based on the assumption # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 188 LLOYD C. HARRIS AND EMMANUEL OGBONNA that managers can create, sustain and even abandon a market oriented culture. In this way culture is viewed by marketing theorists, in integrationalist terms, as an organizational variable which can be manipulated, a line of reasoning which only focuses on one part of the debate on culture change (revolutionary change). It is, however, evident that such a view ignores a potentially grounded view of culture change. That is, the values, beliefs and basic assumptions of organizational members transcend the boundaries of organizations and cannot be easily managed. While this latter view holds that organizational cultures can and do change, the de®ning di€erence is that change is evolutionary and frequently di€erent from what may be desired by the espoused management plan. Cultural Entrenchment Linked to the previously discussed issues of cultural change and cultural dominance is the notion of cultural entrenchment. For the purposes of this paper, cultural entrenchment refers to the extent to which the culture of an organization is ®rmly established. As such, cultural entrenchment can be viewed as akin to that which previous researchers have labelled cultural strength (for example, Pascale, 1985; Sathe, 1983; Schall, 1983; Weick, 1985; Weiner, 1988). However, the distinction between the broad labels `strength' and `entrenchment' requires clari®cation. A number of academics have made suggestions about the relative strength of cultures and the consequences for organizational change which this entails (Deal and Kennedy, 1982; DiTomaso, 1987; Louis, 1985; Pascale, 1985; Sathe, 1983; Schall, 1983; Weick, 1985; Weiner, 1988). Such writers commonly examine the cultural strength±performance link and often implicitly outline how a strong culture is `acquired' or maintained. However, it has been noted that such writers fail to de®ne `strength' adequately (Sa€old, 1988), with each writer using di€erent terms to mean culture strength (for example, Schall's (1983) congruence, Sathe's (1983) thickness and Weick's (1985) coherence). Nevertheless, there is signi®cant value in such di€erences since discrepancies can be attributed to the writers' explicit or even unintentional concentration on speci®c cultural components. Thus, Sathe's (1983) `thickness' can be seen to apply best to cultural values, Louis's (1985) `psychological penetration' to basic assumptions, Ouchi and Price's (1978) `homogeneity' to symbols and Schall's (1983) `congruence' to cultural artefacts. Cultural entrenchment is a label used here to infer a synthesis of such conceptualizations, `entrenchment' thus encompasses past views of cultural `strength' resulting in a wider concept which encapsulates the extent of depth, consistency and consensus of each aspect of organizational culture. Marketing theory pertaining to the development of a market oriented culture fails to appreciate the dimensions of cultural strength inferred in the concept of cultural entrenchment (over-concentrating on certain narrow and shallow organizational artefacts). Given this, it is possible that what they are managing in reality is purely behavioural change and not wider or deeper cultural change. Thus, in e€ect marketing theory has succumbed to what Legge (1994) terms a `cultural paradox'. That is, change initiatives degenerate and `act out surface signals' (Legge, 1994, p. 421) or merely result in `resigned behaviour compliance' (Ogbonna and Wilkinson, 1990, p. 14) rather than change in deep-seated values. This is akin to what has been labelled `emotional labour' (Hochschild, 1983) # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE 189 wherein workers `act' in a manner consistent with the espoused organizational values, pretending rather than genuinely believing (Ashforth and Humphrey, 1993). Furthermore, the assumption by managers that values relating to market orientation can be widely shared opens itself to a number of criticisms. For example, Alvesson and Melin (1987) raise questions regarding the extent to which organizational values can be genuinely shared and internalized. They note an alternative interpretation which could be that behaviours perceived to be arising from such a value are simply `acted' or complied with as individuals seek to justify their existence and survival within the organization. Other researchers have also raised the concern that the drive for shared values may be reducing the uniqueness of organizations (and therefore their distinctive competencies) as the search for uniformity turns organizations into clones to the point that they becomes `fakes' to both themselves and the outsiders who perceive them (see, for example, Linstead and Grafton-Small, 1991). Similarly, research into the notion of emotional labour indicates that employees `surface' or `deep' acting may experience the feelings of falseness or `emotional dissonance' (Hochschild, 1983) or `emotional numbness' (Van Maanen and Kunda, 1989). Indeed, there is a diculty arising from the assumption that shared values or manifesting these values through behaviours, ultimately leads to success/performance (Hop¯ et al., 1992; Linstead and GraftonSmall, 1991). The implications for management and marketing researchers of the concepts of cultural entrenchment and other issues discussed, constitute the remainder of this paper. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS The selective utilization of culture theory by marketing researchers has led to a number of assumptions. First, a market oriented culture is assumed or prescribed to be unitary in nature. Secondly, such a culture is frequently presented as susceptible to conscious management by executives. Thirdly, an orientation towards market needs is commonly conceptualized as comprising organizational artefacts. Fourthly, marketing theorists assume that cultural dominance by a market oriented subculture is achievable under any circumstance. A review of pertinent organizational culture theory ®nds that researchers studying market oriented culture have frequently under-emphasized ®ve important issues. Contemporary culture theory demonstrates that organizational culture is not necessarily integrated or unitary in nature. Thus, the accomplishment of a market oriented culture which is dependent on the development of cultural dominance may be dicult, if not impossible. Moreover, a considerable wealth of culture theory indicates that conscious culture management is problematic. Furthermore, the e€ective study of organizational culture requires broad research and deep analysis of a range of cultural attributes. Finally, the over-concentration of marketing theory on artefact strength limits conceptualization and development of market oriented culture theory. As mentioned previously, a major problem arises from marketing theorists' narrow and confused understanding of the components and processes of culture. It is arguable that this derives from the positivist tradition which dominates much of # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 190 LLOYD C. HARRIS AND EMMANUEL OGBONNA marketing theory and research. For example, the study of organizational culture using positivist methodology may not suciently uncover the interpretations which organizational members ascribed to their domain. Furthermore, many components of culture cannot adequately be studied using the predominant methodologies of the marketing discipline (for instance, basic assumptions). The absence of these components limits the completeness of market orientation conceptualization and theoretical development in the area. Moreover, the study of organizational culture requires a detailed appreciation of the richness and complexities of organizational interaction and as such the understanding of depth and uniqueness. These issues are frequently considered secondary by marketing theorists, who traditionally stress the importance of the study of representativeness rather than exception. The ®ndings of this study provide a possible partial explanation for the comparatively limited levels of the adoption of market orientation found by previous researchers (for example, Greenley and Foxall, 1996). A potential reason stems from the weak theoretical development of conceptualizations of market oriented culture found in extant literature. Furthermore, it is feasible that practitioners are experiencing the diculties of developing a market oriented culture which are identi®ed and discussed in this paper. The limitations of existing conceptualizations and theories of developing a market oriented culture indicate that further theoretical development is required to extant knowledge. In particular, the examination of the components and processes of a market oriented culture requires the incorporation and integration of more contemporary and comprehensive analyses of organizational culture. Indeed, there would appear to be a need for marketing theorists to recognize and acknowledge the complexities and diversities inherent to organizational cultures. Rather than treating culture purely in integrationalist terms, researchers should appreciate multiple interpretations (such as, di€erentiation and fragmentation) and incorporate such views into their conceptualizations and studies. Furthermore, researchers interested in market oriented culture should recognize that cultural dominance may be impossible or, at least, very dicult to achieve (depending on many organizational contingencies). Hence, there is an imperative to develop advanced conceptualizations of market oriented culture which appreciate cultural incongruence and inconsistency. Similarly, conceptualizing market oriented culture requires the inclusion of a broad scope of cultural elements (providing breadth) and the acknowledgement of the signi®cance of the requirement of depth in analysis and interpretation (arguably not feasible using a quantitative methodology). Thus, the continued utilization of conceptualizations of market oriented culture which fail to account for the co-existence of multiple, dynamic and potentially contrasting cultural elements can only be theoretically and pragmatically incomplete. In addition to weak conceptualizations, extant research into developing a market oriented culture also requires a more contemporary approach. Such research should elude to the range of organizational conditions which in¯uence (or arguably prevent) management manipulation of intra-organizational contingencies leading to the development of market oriented culture. Furthermore, while the potential for cultural manipulation may or may not exist, theories of market oriented change should incorporate the established notion of natural cultural change. Indeed, it is possible that the documented diculties of maintaining and # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE 191 sustaining market oriented change may be a result of cultural erosion by natural (and frequently unobserved) cultural change. Finally, analyses of impediments and obstacles to a market oriented culture should recognize the issues of cultural depth, consistency and consensus. The study of a market oriented culture in a manner which is consistent with contemporary marketing and organizational culture theory could be achieved in a number of ways. Firstly, marketing theorists may ful®l the recommendation of Deshpande and Webster (1989, p. 15) who argue that coherent advances in the theory of marketing and organizational culture are dependent on marketing researchers delving into `the rapidly developing literature on organizational culture and understand(ing) the various de®nitional, conceptual, and methodological issues'. Secondly, a more informed and complete view of a market oriented culture could emerge from collaborative research between organizational culture theorists and marketing researchers. Finally, researchers interested in the area of market oriented culture would bene®t from a greater utilization of inductive approaches to theory development in order to develop conceptually sound yet empirically grounded conceptualizations of market oriented culture. REFERENCES ACKROYD, S. and CROWDY, P. (1990). `Can culture be managed? Working with ``raw'' material: the case of the English slaughtermen'. Personnel Review, 19, 5, 3±13. ALVESSON, M. and MELIN, L. (1987). `Major discrepancies and contradictions in organizational culture'. Paper presented at the Third International Conference on Organizational Symbolism and Corporate Culture, Universita Cattolica, Milan. ANTHONY, P. D. (1990).` The paradox of the management of culture or ``he who leads is lost'' '. Personnel Review, 19, 4, 3±8. ASHFORTH, B. E. and HUMPHREY, R. H. (1993). `Emotional labor in service roles: the in¯uence of identity'. Academy of Management Review, 18, 1, 88±115. ATUAHENE-GIMA, K. (1996). `Market orientation and innovation'. Journal of Business Research, 35, 93±103. BARTUNEK, J. M. and MOCH, M. K. (1992). `Multiple constituencies and the quality of working life: intervention at FoodCom'. In Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundburg, C. C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Reframing Organizational Culture. London: Sage. BATE, P. (1984). `The impact of organizational culture on approaches to organizational problem solving'. Organization Studies, 5, 1, 43±66. BELL, M. L. and EMORY, C. W. (1971). `The faltering market concept'. Journal of Marketing, 35, October, 37±42. BOWMAN, C. and FAULKNER, D. (1997). Competitive and Corporate Strategy. London: Irwin. British Journal of Management (1995). 6, Special issue. BROWNLIE, D. and SAREN, M. (1992). The four P's of the marketing concept: prescriptive, polemical, permanent and problematical'. European Journal of Marketing, 26, 4, 34±47. BROWNLIE, D. and SAREN, M. (1995) `On the commodi®cation of marketing knowledge: opening themes'. Journal of Marketing Management, 11, 619±27. CADOGAN, J. W. and DIAMANTOPOULOS, A. (1995). `Narver and Slater, Kohli and Jaworski and the market orientation construct: intergration and internationalization'. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 3, 41±60. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 192 LLOYD C. HARRIS AND EMMANUEL OGBONNA CARROL, D. T. (1983). `The disappointing search for excellence'. Harvard Business Review, 61, 6, 78±88. CHAGANTI, R. and SAMBHARYA, R. (1987). `Strategic orientation and characteristics of top management'. Strategic Management Journal, 8, 393±401. DAFT, R. L. (1983). `Symbols in organizations; a dual-content framework of analysis'. In Pondy, L. R., Frost, P. J., Morgan, G. and Dandridge, T. C. (Eds), Organizational Symbolism. London: JAI Press. DAWSON, P. (1994). Organizational Change: A Processual Approach. London: Chapman. DAY, G. S. (1994). `The capabilities of market-driven organizations'. Journal of Marketing, 58, October, 37±52. DEAL, T. E. and KENNEDY, A. A. (1982). Corporate Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life. Reading: Addison-Wesley. DENG, S. and DART, J. (1994). `Measuring market orientation: a multi-factor, multi-item approach'. Journal of Marketing Management, 10, 8, 725±42. DESHPANDE, R. (1983). `Paradigms lost: on theory and method in research in marketing'. Journal of Marketing, 47, Fall, 101±10. DESHPANDE, R. and WEBSTER, F. E. (1989). `Organizational culture and marketing: de®ning the research agenda'. Journal of Marketing, 53, January, 3±15. DESHPANDE, R., FARLEY, J. U. and WEBSTER, F. E. (1993). `Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese ®rms: a quadrad analysis'. Journal of Marketing, 57, January, 23±7. DICKINSON, R., HERBST, A. and O'SHAUGHNESSY, J. (1986). `Marketing concept and customer orientation'. European Journal of Marketing, 20, 10, 18±23. DITOMASO, N. (1987). `Symbolic media and social solidarity: the foundations of corporate culture'. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5, 105±34. DIXON, D. F. (1992). `Consumer sovereignty, democracy and the marketing concepts: a macromarketing perspective'. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 9, 2, 34±49. DOYLE, P. (1995). `Marketing in the new millennium'. European Journal of Marketing, 29, 13, 23±41. DRUCKER, P. F. (1954). The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Row. DU GAY, P. (1996). Consumption and Identity at Work. London: Sage. DU GAY, P. and SALAMAN, G. (1992). `The cult[ure] of the customer'. Journal of Management Studies, 29, 5, 615±33. EGAN, C. and SHIPLEY, D. (1995). `Dimensions of customer orientation: an empirical investigation of the UK ®nancial services sector'. Journal of Marketing Management, 11, 807±16. ENNEW, C. T., FILATOCHEV, I., WRIGHT, M. and BUCH, T. W. (1993). `Constraints on the adoption of the marketing concept: the case of the former Soviet Union'. European Journal of Marketing, 27, 11 & 12, 21±34. FELTON, A. P. (1959). `Making the marketing concept work'. Harvard Business Review, 37, July/August, 55±65. FROST, P. J., MOORE, L. F., LOUIS, M. R., LUNDBERG, C. C. and MARTIN, J. (1991). Reframing Organizational Culture. London: Sage. FULLER, L. and SMITH, V. (1991). `Consumers' report: management by customers in a changing society'. Work, Employment and Society, 5, 1±16. GRAHAM, P. (1995). `Are public sector organizations becoming customer oriented?'. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 13, 1, 35±47. GREENELY, G. E. (1995a). `Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from UK companies'. British Journal of Management, 6, 1, 1±14. GREENLEY, G. E. (1995b). `Forms of market orientation in UK companies'. Journal of Management Studies, 32, 1, 47±66. GREENLEY, G. E. and FOXALL, G. R. (1996). `Consumer and nonconsumer stakeholder orientations in UK companies'. Journal of Business Research, 35, 105±16. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE 193 GREGORY, K. (1983). `Native view paradigms; multiple cultures and culture con¯icts in organizations'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 359±76. GUMMESSON, E. (1991a). `Marketing orientation revisited: the crucial role of the part-time marketer'. European Journal of Marketing, 25, 2, 60±75. GUMMESSON, E. (1991b). Qualitative Methods in Management Research. London: Sage. HARRIS, L. C. (1996a). `Benchmarking against the theory of market orientation'. Management Decision, 34, 2, 34±9. HARRIS, L. C. (1996b). `Cultural obstacles to market orientation'. Journal of Marketing Practice: Applied Marketing Science, 4, 2, 36±52. HARRIS, L. C. (1998). `Cultural domination: the key to a market oriented culture?'. European Journal of Marketing, 32, 3/4, 354±73. HARRIS, L. C. and OGBONNA, E. (1998). `A three perspective approach to understanding culture in retail organizations'. Personnel Review, 27, 1/2, 104±23. HARRISON, J. R. and CARROL, G. R. (1991). `Keeping the faith: a model of cultural transmission in formal organizations'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36, 552±82. HIRSCHMAN, E. C. (1983). `Aesthetics, ideologies and the limits of the marketing concept'. Journal of Marketing, 47, 2, 45±55. HITT, M. and IRELAND, D. (1987). `Peters and Waterman revisited: the unending quest for excellence'. Academy of Management Executive, 1, 2, 91±8. HOCHSCHILD, A. R. (1983). The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. HOPFL, H., SMITH, S. and SPENCER, S. (1992). `Values and valuations: corporate culture and job cuts'. Personnel Review, 21, 1, 24±38. HOUSTON, F. S. (1986). `The marketing concept: what it is and what it is not'. Journal of Marketing, 50, April, 81±7. HUNT, S. D. (1994). `On rethinking marketing: our discipline, our practice, our methods'. European Journal of Marketing, 28, 3, 13±25. JAWORSKI, B. J. and KOHLI, A. K. (1993). `Market orientation: antecedents and consequences'. Journal of Marketing, 57, July, 53±70. JUDD, V. C. (1987). `Di€erentiate with the 5th P: people'. Industrial Marketing Management, 16, 4, 241±7. KEAT, R. and ABERCROMBIE, N. (Eds) (1991). Enterprise Culture. London: Routledge. KELLEY, S. W. (1990). `Customer orientation of bank employees'. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 8, 6, 25±9. KELLEY, S. W. (1992). `Developing customer orientation among service employees'. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 20, 1, 27±36. KING, S. (1985). `Has marketing failed or was it never really tried?'. Journal of Marketing Management, 1, 1, 1±19. KNIGHTS, D. and WILLMOTT, H. (1987). `Organizational culture as management strategy: a critique and illustration from the ®nancial services industry'. International Studies of Management and Organization, 17, 3, 40±63. KNIGHTS, D., STURDY, A. and MORGAN, G. (1994). `The consumer rules? An examination of the rhetoric and ``reality'' of marketing in ®nancial service'. European Journal of Marketing, 28, 3, 42±54. KOHLI, A. and JAWORSKI, B. J. (1990). `Market orientation: the construct, research propositions and managerial implications'. Journal of Marketing, 54, April, 1±19. KOTLER, P. and LEVY, S. J. (1969). `Broadening the concept of marketing'. Journal of Marketing, 33, January, 10±15. KOTLER, P., ARMSTRONG, G., SAUNDERS, J. and WONG, V. (1996). Principles of Marketing. London: Prentice Hall. LASCU, D. N., MANRAI, L. A. M. and AJAY, K. (1996). `Value di€erences between Polish and Romanian consumers: a caution against using a regiocentric marketing # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 194 LLOYD C. HARRIS AND EMMANUEL OGBONNA orientation in Eastern Europe'. Journal of International Consumer Marketing, 8, 3/4, 145± 67. LEAR, R. W. (1963). `No easy road to market orientation'. Harvard Business Review, 41, September/October, 53±60. LEGGE, K. (1994). `Managing culture: fact or ®ction'. In Sisson, K. (Ed.), Personnel Management: A Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice in Britain. Oxford: Blackwell, 397±433. LINSTEAD, S. L. and GRAFTON-SMALL, R. G. (1991). `On reading organizational culture'. Organization Studies, 13, 3, 257±73. LIU, H. (1995). `Market orientation and ®rm size: an empirical examination of UK ®rms'. European Journal of Marketing, 29, 1, 57±71. LOUIS, M. R. (1985). `An investigator's guide to workplace culture'. In Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundburg, C. C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Organizational Culture. London: Sage. LUCK, D. J. (1969). `Broadening the concept of marketing ± too far'. Journal of Marketing, 33, 2, 53±63. MABEY, C. and MANYON-WHITE, B. (Eds) (1993). Managing Change. London: Chapman. MANSFIELD, R. and POOLE, M. (1991). British Management in the Thatcher Years. Corby: British Institute of Management. MARTIN, J. (1985). `Can organizational culture be managed?'. In Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundburg, C. C. and Martin, J. (Eds), Organizational Culture. London: Sage. MARTIN, J. (1992). Cultures in Three Organizations: Three Perspectives. London: Oxford University Press. MARTIN, J. and MEYERSON, D. (1988). `Organizational culture and the denial, channelling and acknowledgement of ambiguity'. In Pondy, L., Boland, R. and Thomas, H. (Eds), Managing Ambiguity and Change. New York, John Wiley, 93±125. MCNAMARA, C. P. (1972). `The present status of the marketing concept'. Journal of Marketing, 36, January, 50±7. MENGUC, B. (1996). `The in¯uence of the market orientation of the ®rm on sales force behavior and attitudes: further empirical results'. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 13, 3, 277±91. MESSIKOMER, E. E. (1987). `Marketing changes the corporate culture ± a company study'. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 2, 4, 53±8. MITCHELL, T. R. (1985). `An evaluation of the validity of correlational research conducted in organizations'. Academy of Management Review, 10, 2, 192±205. MORGAN, G. (1986). Images of Organization. London: Sage. MORGAN, R. E. and MORGAN, N. A. (1991). `An exploratory study of market orientation in the UK consulting engineering industry'. International Journal of Advertising, 10, 4, 333±47. NARVER, J. C. and SLATER, S. F. (1990). `The e€ect of a market orientation on business pro®tability'. Journal of Marketing, 54, October, 20±35. OGBONNA, E. (1993). `Managing organizational culture: fantasy or reality?'. Human Resource Management Journal, 3, 2, 42±54. OGBONNA, E. and WILKINSON, B. (1990). `Corporate strategy and corporate culture: the view from the checkout'. Personnel Review, 19, 4, 9±15. O'REILLY, C., CHATMAN, J. and CALDWELL, D. (1991). `People and organizational culture: a q-sort approach to assessing person±organization ®t'. Academy of Management Journal, 34, 487±516. OTT, J. S. (1989). The Organizational Culture Perspective. Chicago: Dorsey Press. OUCHI, W. G. (1981). Theory Z: How American Business Can Meet the Japanese Challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. OUCHI, W. G. and PRICE, R. (1978). `Hierarchies, clans and theory Z: a new perspective on organizational development'. Organizational Dynamics, 7, 2, 25±44. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 DEVELOPING A MARKET ORIENTED CULTURE 195 PASCALE, R. T. (1985). `The paradox of ``corporate culture'': reconciling ourselves to socialization'. California Management Review, 27, 2, 26±41. PASCALE, R. T. and ATHOS, A. G. (1981). The Art of Japanese Management. Applications for American Executives. New York: Simon & Schustser. PAYNE, A. F. (1988). `Developing a marketing oriented organization'. Business Horizons, 31, May±June, 46±53. PETERS, T. J. and WATERMAN, R. H. (1982). In Search of Excellence: Lessons from America's Best Run Companies. New York: Harper Row. PETTIGREW, A. M. (1979). `On studying organizational cultures'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570±81. PIERCY, N. (1989). `Marketing concepts and actions: implementing market-led strategic change'. European Journal of Marketing, 24, 2, 24±42. PITT, L., CARUANA, A. and BERTHON, P. R. (1996). `Market orientation and business performance: some European evidence'. International Marketing Review, 13, 1, 5±18. PULENDRAN, S. and SPEED, R. (1995). `Why are some companies more market oriented than others? The role of marketing planning in the pursuit of market orientation'. Melbourne Business School Working Paper (No. 4). PULENDRAN, S. and SPEED, R. (1996). `Planning and doing: the relationship between marketing planning styles and market orientation'. Journal of Marketing Management, 12, 53±68. RAM, S. and SCHLEGELMILCH, B. (1995). `Market orientation of US companies; the role of environmental and organizational antecedents'. Twenty Fourth EMAC Conference, Vol. 1 Proceedings, 16±19. ROBBINS, S. P. (1987). Organization Theory: Structure, Design and Application. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall. RUEKERT, R. W. (1992). `Developing a market orientation: an organizational strategy perspective'. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 9, 225±45. RUST, L. (1993). `Observations: how to reach children in stores: marketing tactics grounded in observational research'. Journal of Advertising Research, 33, 6, 67±72. SACHS, W. S. and BENSON, G. (1978). `Is it time to discard the marketing concept?'. Business Horizons, August, 68±74. SACKMANN, S. A. (1992). `Culture and subculture: an analysis of organizational knowledge'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 34, March, 140±61. SAFFOLD, G. S. (1988). `Culture traits, strength and organizational performance: moving beyond ``strong culture'' '. Academy of Management Review, 13, 4, 546±58. SATHE, V. (1983). `Implications of corporate culture: a manager's guide to action'. Organizational Dynamics, Autumn, 5±23. SCHALL, M. (1983). `A communication-rules approach to organizational culture'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, 557±81. SCHEIN, E. H. (1992). Organizational Culture and Leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. SELNES, F., JAWORSKI, B. J. and KOHLI, A. K. (1996). `Market orientation in United States and Scandinavian companies: a cross-cultural view'. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 12, 2, 139±57. SHAPIRO, B. P. (1988). `What the hell is ``market oriented''?'. Harvard Business Review, 66, 6, 119±25. SIEHL, C. and MARTIN, J. (1990). `Organizational culture: a key to ®nancial performance?'. In Schneider, B. (Ed.), Organizational Culture and Climate. San Francisco: JosseyBass, 241±81. SIGUAW, J. and DIAMANTOPOULOS, A. (1995). `Measuring market orientation: some evidence on Narver and Slater's three component scale'. Journal of Strategic Marketing, 3, 2, 77±88. SILVERZWEIG, S. and ALLEN, R. F. (1976). `Changing corporate culture'. Sloan Management Review, 17, 33±49. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999 196 LLOYD C. HARRIS AND EMMANUEL OGBONNA SLATER, S. F. and NARVER, J. C. (1994). `Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-performance relationship?'. Journal of Marketing, 58, January, 46± 55. SLATER, S. F. and NARVER, J. C. (1995). `Market orientation and the learning organization'. Journal of Marketing, 59, 63±74. SMIRCICH, L. (1983). `Concepts of culture and organizational analysis'. Administrative Science Quarterly, 28, September, 339±58. SOETERS, J. L. (1986). `Excellent companies as social movements'. Journal of Management Studies, 23, 3, 299±312. VAN MAANEN, J. and KUNDA, G. (1989). `Emotional expression and organizational culture'. In Cummings, L. I. and Staw, B. M. (Eds), Research in Organizational Behavior, 11, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 43±103. VAN MAANEN, J. (1992). `The smile factory work at Disneyland'. In Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, C. C., Lundberg, E. and Martin, J. (Eds), Reframing Organizational Culture. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 58±76. WEBSTER, F. E. (1981). `Top management's concern about marketing'. Journal of Marketing, 45, Summer, 9±16. WEBSTER, C. (1993). `Re®nement of the marketing culture scale and the relationship between marketing culture and pro®tability of a service ®rm'. Journal of Business Research, 26, 111±31. WEBSTER, F. E. (1988). `The rediscovery of the marketing concept'. Business Horizons, 31, 3, 29±39. WEBSTER, F. E. (1994a). `De®ning the new marketing concept'. Marketing Management, 2, 4, 23±31. WEBSTER, F. E. (1994b). Market Driven Management. London: John Wiley. WEICK, K. (1985). `Sources of order in under organized systems: themes in recent organizational theory'. In Lincoln, Y. S. (Ed.), Organizational Theory and Inquiry: The Paradigm Revolution. Beverly Hills: Sage. WEINER, Y. (1988). `Forms of value systems: a focus on organizational e€ectiveness and cultural change and maintenance'. Academy of Management Review, 13, 4, 534±45. WHITTINGTON, R. and WHIPP, R. (1992). `Professional ideology and marketing implementation'. European Journal of Marketing, 26, 1, 52±62. WHITTINGTON, R., MCNULTY, T. and WHIPP, R. (1994). `Market-driven change in professional services: problems and processes'. Journal of Management Studies, 31, 6, 829±45. WILLMOTT, H. (1993). ` ``Strength is ignorance: slavery is freedom'': managing culture in modern organizations'. Journal of Management Studies , 30, 4, 515±51. WILSON, M. and MCDONALD, M. H. B. (1994). `Marketing at the crossroads ± a comment'. Marketing Intelligence and Planning, 12, 1, 42±5. WONG, V., SAUNDERS, J. and DOYLE, P. (1989). `The barriers to achieving stronger market orientation in British companies: an exploratory study'. Proceedings of the 22nd Marketing Education Group Conference, 35±64. YOUNG, E. (1989). `On the naming of the rose. Interests amd multiple meanings as elements of organizational culture'. Organizational Studies, 10, 2, 187±206. # Blackwell Publishers Ltd 1999