Market Orientation and Performance: Objective and Subjective Empirical Evidence from UK Companies

By L. Harris. 2001

360 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7296027e3bbdb2eb29a1b1c3b46cae338d2a8473

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Strategy and Management

Citations in the corpus

Cultural vs. operational market orientation and objective vs. subjective performance: Perspective of production and operations (2005, background): “And operational performance brings together the achievement of the five competitive objectives of the production and operations function proposed by Slack, Chambers, Harland, Harrison, and Johnston (1998): cost, quality, flexibility, reliability and speed.”
On Cultural and Macroeconomic Contingencies of the Entrepreneurial Orientation–Performance Relationship (2014, neutral): “Objective performance measures (coded as 1) refer to reports from respondents on absolute values of performance or secondary data sources are used (Harris, 2001).”
What do Managers’ Survey Responses Mean and What Affects Them? The Case of Market Orientation and Firm Performance (2011, methodology): “For example, Greenley (1995), Harris (2001) and Appiah-Adu (1997) all conduct research in the UK following Slater and Narver (1994)’s method.”
Market Orientation and Performance: A Meta-Analysis and Cross-National Comparisons (2006, neutral): “…proxy for other, known, moderators, these results broadly confirm the view that as economies mature (i.e., market turbulence diminishes and competitive intensity increases), the performance effects of a market orientation become more salient (Ellis 2005; Harris, 2001; Homburg and Pflesser, 2001).”
Measuring Marketing Productivity: Current Knowledge and Future Directions (2004, background): ““In cases where the market is highly dynamic in nature, consistency may be more important than market responsiveness” (Harris 2001, p. 35).”
Entrepreneurial marketing and firm performance: Synthesis and conceptual development (2020, neutral): “Moreover, the MO-performance relationship, EO, marketing capabilities, and venture performance relationships have also been found to rely on the level of competitive hostility (e.g., Harris, 2001; Martin & Javalgi, 2016).”
The relationship between resource dependence and market orientation (2006, background): “Despite interest surrounding the market orientation scale proposed by Narver and Slater (1990), their construct has been subjected to detailed academic criticism and has not been widely accepted (Harris, 2001).”
A conceptual model of knowledge sharing (2018, background): “Harris (2001) reports that the subjective measures of performance were preferred over objective measures because the organizations were reluctant to provide the required information.”
The Relationship between Innovation and Firm Performance: An Empirical Evidence from Turkish Automotive Supplier Industry (2013, background): “It can be measured with objective or subjective indicators (Dawes, 1999; Harris, 2001).”
In search of strategic management accounting: Theoretical and field study perspectives (2003, background): “…and attaining superior business performance remains inconclusive (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Kohli et al., 1993; Diamantopoulos and Hart, 1993; Slater and Narver, 1994; Hart and Diamantopoulos, 1994; Greenley, 1995; Liu, 1995; Avlonitis and Gounaris, 1997; Han et al., 1998; Harris, 2001).”
An assessment of the measurement of performance in international business research (2008, background): “prior measurement concerns in the literature (e.g., Dess & Robinson, 1984; Glaister & Buckley, 1999; Harris, 2001), we suggest that IB researchers consider using both primary and secondary sources of”