The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/2040-8269.htm

MRR
33,5

472

The journey from market

orientation to firm performance
A comparative study of US and Taiwanese
SMEs
Mike Chen-Ho Chao
Department of Marketing and International Business,
Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College,
The City University of New York, New York, New York, USA, and

John E. Spillan
School of Business, University of North Carolina at Pembroke,
Pembroke, North Carolina, USA
Abstract
Purpose This paper aims to investigate the link between market orientation and performance of
US and Taiwanese small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This study is primarily centred on
empirically investigating two issues: test the effectiveness of MARKOR (a widely used market
orientation measure developed by Kohli et al.) in US and Taiwanese SME contexts, and investigate
the factors influencing US and Taiwanese SMEs performance.
Design/methodology/approach This studys participants were owners or managers from 138
SMEs located in three states in the USA (i.e. Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania) and 151 SMEs
located in Taiwan. A survey was created to collect data: market orientation scale items used in this
survey were mainly adopted from MARKOR; performance scale items were adopted directly from
previous studies. Structural equation modelling was employed to analyse the data collected.
Findings This study finds that neither US and Taiwanese SMEs intelligence generation, nor
intelligence dissemination had a significant relationship with their firm performance. However, the
findings do indicate that there was a significantly positive link between US and Taiwanese SMEs
responsiveness and their firm performance.
Originality/value In almost all previous studies in this field, the primary emphasis has focused on
the market orientation of large businesses. Research on market orientation in SMEs has been scarce.
Hence, this paper contributes to the extant literature by changing the research direction and studying
market orientation in SME context. In addition, this paper provides SME managers with a more
understandable guide to specific market-oriented activities.
Keywords Market orientation, Company performance, United States of America, Taiwan,
Manufacturing industries, Small to medium-sized enterprises
Paper type Research paper

Management Research Review

Vol. 33 No. 5, 2010
pp. 472-483
# Emerald Group Publishing Limited
2040-8269
DOI 10.1108/01409171011041901

Introduction
Even though the last decade generated a substantial flow of research focusing on
market orientation and its linkage to business performance (Hart and Diamontopoulos,
1993; Greenley, 1995; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Narver and Slater, 1990; Pitt et al., 1996;
Ruekert, 1992), there continues to be an interest in understanding how businesses use
market orientation strategy to achieve their marketing goals. To stay with or even in
front of advances in their markets, companies must develop a market sensing
capability. This capability is generally called market orientation. Essential to such an
The authors appreciate the technical assistance for this manuscript by Peter Magnusson, PhD
candidate at the Boeing Institute of International Business, John Cook School of Business, Saint
Louis University.

orientation is organizational learning. The company is continuously generating

knowledge about its target markets and adapting that knowledge to its marketing
behaviours (Slater and Olson, 2002).
Market-oriented companies explore the market broadly and have a long-term focus.
Since the future is so uncertain because of turbulent events that may emerge, they
continuously conduct small-scale market experiments that allow them to learn from
the results. The information derived from the market experiments gives companies the
opportunity to modify their offerings based on the new knowledge and insights (Slater
and Olson, 2002). Market orientation is observed in business behaviours when it
enables managers to learn from current and potential customers needs and act in an
entrepreneurial way to generate superior customer value. The capabilities inherent in a
market orientation permit the companies to discover customer needs and opportunities
in un-served markets as well as in markets they are already serving (Slater and Olson,
2002).
Market orientation in both manufacturing and service industries has attracted a
significant amount of interest in the extant marketing literature (Day, 1994; Han et al.,
1998; Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). Since the implementation of the market orientation
characterizes a firms intention to deliver superior values to its customers by satisfying
their wants or needs on a continuous basis (Slater and Narver, 1994), there is a large
body of literature dedicated to studying whether market orientation results in superior
organizational performance. Some studies have verified a strong link between market
orientation and performance (Ghosh et al., 1994; Greenley and Shepley, 1992; Speed and
Smith, 1993), while others have not (Han et al., 1998; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Though
the previous results are conflicting, the significance of including market orientation in
an integrated model of determinants of performance is highlighted by several research
findings which indicate that there is an influence of market orientation on customer
orientation, organizational commitment, sales growth, financial performance, and
profitability ( Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Narver and Slater, 1990; Siguaw et al., 1994;
Slater and Narver, 1994; Pelham and Wilson, 1996).
Historically, Kohli and Jaworski (1990) were the leaders in pioneering the
investigation of market orientation in business organizations. Since their initial work,
several other researchers ( Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Narver and Slater, 1990; Ruekert,
1992; Siguaw et al., 1994; Slater and Narver, 1994) have completed studies using market
orientation strategy as the fundamental thesis. In all of these studies, the primary
emphasis has focused on the market orientation of large businesses. Research on
market orientation in small- and-medium-size enterprises (SMEs: companies with less
than 500 employees) has been scarce. Meziou (1991) discovered some focus of SMEs in
supporting the market orientation within their businesses; Horng and Chens study
(1998) indicates that emphasizing customer satisfaction at all levels of the company is
generally a main concern for SMEs. However, their investigation discovered the
limitations of SMEs in carrying out market research related to customer needs,
developing marketing plans, and incorporating the marketing function into the
organization. Hence, it is beneficial and appealing to change the direction and study
market orientation in SMEs.
The aim of this study is to investigate the link between market orientation and
performance in US and Taiwanese SMEs. The major reason of choosing US and
Taiwan is these two countries, because of their obvious differences in economical,
cultural, and institutional dimensions, provide an excellent base for a comparative
study. Economically, the USA is a developed country and Taiwan is less developed.

US and
Taiwanese
SMEs
473

MRR
33,5

474

Culturally, Taiwan, according to Hofstedes cultural dimension scores, is high on power

distance (Scores 58), low on individualism (Scores 17), high on uncertainty avoidance
(Scores 69) and high on long-term orientation (Scores 87). Comparatively, USA is low
on power distance (Scores 40), high on individualism (Scores 91), low on uncertainty
avoidance (Scores 46) and low on long-term orientation (Scores 29). In addition to
economical and cultural aspects, according to Xu et al. (2004), Taiwans regulative
institution score (4.98) is lower than US (5.91) and Taiwans normative score (4.69) is
also lower than USA (5.49).
Institutional theory perceives institutional environment (includes economics and
culture) as the key determinant of firm structure and behaviour (DiMaggio and Powell,
1983, 1991; Scott, 1995). So, we believe US and Taiwanese SMEs will have different
perceptions and practices with regard to market orientation. Moreover, the current
studys emphasis is designed to provide SME managers with a more understandable
guide to specific market-oriented activities (i.e. intelligence generation, intelligence
dissemination and responsiveness). In other words, this study focuses on providing a
summary of the marketing practices of SMEs located in the USA and Taiwan. The
study is primarily centred on empirically investigating two issues:
(1) test the effectiveness of MARKOR (a widely used market orientation measure
developed by Kohli et al. (1993) in US and Taiwanese SME context; and
(2) investigate the factors influencing US and Taiwanese SMEs performance.
To summarize, in response to the ambiguous findings in the literature (Han et al., 1998;
Jaworski and Kohli, 1993) and due to the relative dearth of studies exploring the market
orientation-performance relationship in the SME context, this study specifically
investigates the following conceptual framework (see Figure 1) with the focus on SMEs
located in the USA and Taiwan. This paper is composed of five sections. The first two
sections present the introduction and review of the literature relating to market
orientation. Additionally, based on the literature, three hypotheses were developed.
Section three explains the research method and design. Finally, section four and five
provide an in-depth analysis, discussion, and conclusion of the findings.

Figure 1.
Conceptual framework

Literature review and hypotheses

Marketing concept and market orientation
The marketing concept identifies a unique organizational philosophy that places the
customer at the core of the firms approach to its strategy development and operations
(Deshpande, 1993). While the marketing concept is at the centre of the marketing
literature, operationalizing the marketing concept has been a demanding exercise.
Kohli and Jaworski (1990) state that while the marketing concept is normally described
as a belief or a way of thinking that directs the allocation of resources and the creation
of organizational strategies, market orientation is regarded as the activities associated
with the execution of the marketing concept.
While there is some discrepancy in the use of the terms market vs marketing
orientation, the concept basically consists of three elements:
(1) customer orientation;
(2) profit orientation; and
(3) an integrated marketing organization (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990).
The integration element focuses on efforts by all parts of the organization to
accomplish corporate goals by meeting customer needs and wants (Perreault and
McCarthy, 2002). Even though Kohli and Jaworski (1990) acknowledge this definition,
they regard a firms profitability as a result of market orientation. Kohli and Jaworski
(1990) define market orientation as an organization-wide generation of market
intelligence pertaining to current and future customer needs, dissemination of the
intelligence across departments, and an organization-wide responsiveness to this
intelligence. Intelligence generation relates to observing and studying customers
needs and preferences. In addition, it consists of an analysis of how consumers can be
influenced by government regulations, technology, competitors, and other
environmental forces. Because of this, exploring a firms environment becomes a part
of the market intelligence generation process. Intelligence dissemination relates to the
exchange of ideas generated from the intelligence among departments and individuals
within an organization through both formal and informal channels. Responsiveness is
the organizations implementation of strategies and actions using the intelligence that
is generated and disseminated. As such, the firm needs to know the buyers needs, its
organizational competitive capabilities, and its weaknesses. It also needs to execute
actions that will achieve superior customer satisfaction. In sum, Kohli and Jaworskis
(1990) definition of market orientation addresses an information management
procedure which incorporates the generation, dissemination of, and responsiveness to
market intelligence in order to enhance the consumer satisfying capabilities of the
organization (Han et al., 1998).
Some scholars believe that the marketing concept generally focuses on three main
components: customer focus, inter-functional coordination, and profitability (Felton,
1959; Houston, 1986; Konopa and Calabro, 1971; Kotler, 1994; Perreault and McCarthy,
2002). While customer focus and inter-functional coordination are interacting variables,
profitability is primarily viewed as a consequence of market orientation rather than a
part of it (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). Narver and Slater (1990) argue that market
orientation is composed of three behavioural parts: customer orientation, competitor
orientation, and inter-functional coordination. Ruekert (1992) agrees with previous
definitions of market orientation but expands the definition to include strategic

US and
Taiwanese
SMEs
475

MRR
33,5

planning in the business unit of the firm. Shapiro (1988) maintains that three
characteristics make a company market-driven:
(1) information on all-important buying influences permeates every corporate
function;

476

(2) strategic and tactical decisions are made inter-functionally and interdivisionally; and
(3) divisions and functions make well-coordinated decisions and execute them with
a sense of commitment.
Market orientation and its relationship with performance
A significant amount of literature is devoted to analysing whether market orientation
results in superior organizational performance. A number of studies have established a
strong relationship between market orientation and performance (Ghosh et al., 1994;
Greenley, 1995; Matsuno et al., 2002; Speed and Smith, 1993), while other studies have
not supported a direct and positive relationship between market orientation and
performance (Han et al., 1998; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993).
Market orientation has been recognized as a successful business strategy by
academics and practitioners alike. It represents the implementation of the marketing
concept. Although most scholars agree on the importance of market orientation, a
number of authors have voiced their concerns on the appropriateness of market
orientation in ensuring the success of a company. For instance, Kaldor (1971) suggests
that the marketing concept is an inadequate prescription of marketing strategy since it
ignores the creative abilities of the firm. Kaldor further argues that customers do not
always know what is needed. The ability of the customers to verbalize what they need
or want is limited by their knowledge levels, and that when they suggest modifications,
they take into account the limits of technology. Consequently, a market-oriented firm
may be preoccupied with line extension and product proliferation. Similar to Kaldor,
Stokes (2000) found successful entrepreneurs tend to focus first on innovations to
products and services, and only second on customer needs. Hence, marketers
sometimes need to anticipate the future needs or wants of consumers to be successful.
Though different points of view about the impact of market orientation on
organizational performance exist, academics and practitioners attention towards the
development of market orientation is continuously explained and justified by a series
of studies which find a clearly positive association between market orientation and
organizational performance (Hart and Diamontopoulos, 1993). Though there have been
studies which indicate that the market orientation-performance link may be mediated
by innovation (Greenley, 1995; Liu, 1995), Pitt et al. (1996) conclude that the market
orientation-performance relationship appears relatively stable and Jaworski and Kohli
(1993) find that this linkage appears to be robust. The importance of including market
orientation in an integrated model of determinants of performance is highlighted by
several research findings which indicate that there is a notable influence of market
orientation on customer orientation (Siguaw et al., 1994) and organizational
commitment ( Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Additionally, positive relationships have been
established between market orientation and financially based performance measures
such as relative return on assets (Narver and Slater, 1990), long-run financial
performance (Ruekert, 1992), and sales growth (Pitt et al., 1996; Slater and Narver,
1994). The identification of significantly positive effects in empirical findings of this
kind is crucial for business practitioners, since they can highlight the potential benefits

that could accrue to a business from improving its level of market orientation through
the selective allocation of human or financial resources (Appiah-Adu, 1997). While
there is a propensity for a low effect of market orientation on performance among
SMEs, marketing scholars and managers have continued to argue over the last three
decades that a business which improves its market orientation will enhance its
performance (Kotler and Andreason, 1987; Levitt, 1960; Narver and Slater, 1990). For
SMEs in particular, it has been suggested that market orientation is likely to be a vital
factor for success since such firms usually lack the financial means to pursue other
sources of business profitability, such as research and development, competitive
advantage, low cost leadership, or skilled staff to develop effective planning strategies
(Pelham and Wilson, 1996). Evidence of this sentiment can be inferred from the
findings of Narver and Slater (1990), which suggest that large strategic business units
(SBUs) with a low level of market orientation but low cost advantages perform better
than smaller SBUs with a medium degree of market orientation in the same
organization. Smaller SBUs with high degree of market orientation did not have the
same outcome (Appiah-Adu, 1997). Blankson and Cheng (2005) based on their
investigation of SMEs in Michigan, argued that the size of businesses does not change
the importance of market orientation on performance.
To summarize, Ellis (2006) argues that market orientation is a generic determinant
of firm performance based on a meta-analysis of 56 studies with 58 samples conducted
in 28 countries. However, stronger effects were found for studies set in large, mature
markets and when market orientation was measured using Kohli et al.s (1993)
MARKOR scale. In addition to Elliss meta-analysis, Kirca et al. (2005) also conducted a
meta-analysis and found that the market orientation-performance relationship is
stronger in samples of manufacturing firms, in low power-distance and uncertaintyavoidance cultures, and in studies that use subjective measures of performance. Since
market orientation-firm performance link is a well studied topic in the extant literature,
we decided not to focus on market orientation as a whole in the present study. Instead,
we want to look at the impact of the three individual components of market orientation
construct on firm performance. On the basis of the previous discussions, the following
three hypotheses are examined within the context of SMEs:
H1.

Intelligence generation is positively related to US and Taiwanese SMEs firm

performance.

H2.

Intelligence dissemination is positively related to US and Taiwanese SMEs

firm performance.

H3.

Responsiveness is positively related to US and Taiwanese SMEs firm

performance.

Methodology
Sample
This studys participants were owners or managers from 138 SMEs located in three
states in the USA (i.e. Maryland, New York, and Pennsylvania) and 151 SMEs located
in Taiwan. All of the participants were recruited randomly and participated
voluntarily. Data were collected through personal interviews by contacting each
organization and seeking permission to collect data. The survey process consisted of
two or more visits to the business. In almost all cases, the first visit consisted of
dropping off the survey with the owner or manager. In a second follow-up visit,

US and
Taiwanese
SMEs
477

MRR
33,5

478

questions were answered and the completed surveys were collected. This method is
consistent with previous firm level data collection efforts (Stover and Stone, 1978;
Imperia et al., 1985). Generally, data were collected during business operations,
however, sometimes it was necessary to collect the completed surveys while the
business was closed or at a convenient time that met the business owner or managers
schedule.
Measures
A questionnaire was developed to collect data for this study. Market orientation scale
items used in this study were mainly adopted from Kohli et al.s (1993) MARKOR.
Performance scale items were adopted directly from previous studies (e.g. Appiah-Adu,
1997; Atuahene-Gima, 1995; Bhuian, 1997; Day and Wensley, 1988; Hart and
Diamontopoulos, 1993; Han et al., 1998). The survey instrument consisted of three
sections. Section 1 asked the respondents to answer 32 MARKOR questions to measure
their companies extent of adopting a market orientation strategy. These questions
were structured in a Likert scale model (from 1 to 5) ranging from strongly disagree
to strongly agree at the anchor points. In Section 2, we explored performance-related
items, while the third section asked the respondents to answer demographic and
background questions. For the Taiwanese respondents, the questionnaire was
translated into Chinese and then back translated into English to make sure of its
understandability and accuracy[1].
In this paper, we used the "subjective competitive business performance" indicator.
It is about SME managers subjective comparisons with their main business
competitors performance inside the industry. Exemplary questions are: our product(s)
have a higher quality than that of our competitors; we have a higher customer retention
rate than our competitors; we have a better reputation among major customer
segments than our competitors; we have been more effective in new product
development than our competitors (the survey included both subjective as well as
objective performance items. However, most of the SME managers were very
conservative and unwilling to provide actual performance indicators. Thus, we relied
on a subjective performance measure).
Data analysis
The analysis for testing the proposed hypotheses was carried out in two stages. In the
first stage, the reliability and validity of independent and dependent constructs were
evaluated using Cronbachs alpha coefficients and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA).
After reliability and validity were established, structural equation modelling (SEM)
was employed to test the hypotheses.
Measurement reliability
After dropping some items with poor loadings, the coefficient alpha for each set of
items was computed to examine the reliability of measures. All scales demonstrate
acceptable reliability, with the highest coefficient alpha for performance (0.84 for the
US sample) and for responsiveness (0.91 for the Taiwanese sample; 0.90 for the
All sample); the lowest coefficient alpha were for performance (0.85 for the Taiwanese
sample) and for intelligence generation (0.69 for the US sample; 0.84 for the All sample)
(see Table I).

Latent construct items

Intelligence generation
USAa three items
Taiwan six items
All six items
Intelligence dissemination
USA five items
Taiwan seven items
All seven items
Responsiveness
USA four items
Taiwan ten items
All ten items
Performance
USA four items
Taiwan four items
All four items

Item loadings*

0.69
0.88
0.84

0.56-0.77
0.68-0.79
0.61-0.74

0.79
0.88
0.89

0.62-0.69
0.65-0.79
0.65-0.77

0.80
0.91
0.90

0.59-0.85
0.62-0.85
0.61-0.78

0.84
0.85
0.87

0.67-0.84
0.69-0.92
0.68-0.92

Notes: aItems used in the US sample are slightly different than items used in Taiwan and All
sample; *All loadings p < 0.05

US and
Taiwanese
SMEs
479

Table I.
Standardized estimates
of a CFA model

Measurement validity
Construct validity was examined using CFA for all the construct measures included in
this study. To perform the CFA of the measurement items of each construct (i.e.
intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination, responsiveness, and firm
performance), we used LISREL 8.70 ( Joreskog and Sorbom, 2004). This analysis tries
to test for the distinctiveness of the three market orientation and one firm performance
constructs and validate the four measurement models (see Table II).
All factor loadings included in this study were statistically significant at the 0.05 level
and exceed the arbitrary 0.5 standard. Thus, these measures demonstrate adequate
convergent validity. All of the cross-construct correlations were significantly different
from 1.0, which suggests that discriminant validity was present. In general, these results
provide support for construct validity for the measures included in this study.
Results
Structural model evaluation
To test the three hypotheses, we estimated the path coefficients using SEM for each
sample (i.e. USA, Taiwan, and All). The goodness of fit statistics showed that
structural models used in the present study fit well with the observations (i.e. for the
US sample, 2 149.82, df 98, p-value 0.00059, Root Mean Square Error of
Approximation (RMSEA) 0.062, Normed Fit Index (NFI) 0.92, Non-normed Fir

Latent variable
Intelligence generation
Intelligence dissemination
Responsiveness
Performance

IG

USA
ID Res. Perf.

1
0.45 1
0.48 0.67 1
0.19 0.43 0.60

IG

Taiwan
ID Res. Perf.

1
0.66 1
0.59 0.62 1
0.29 0.35 0.45

IG

ID

All
Res. Perf.

1
0.62 1
0.55 0.52 1
0.30 0.35 0.40

Table II.
1

Correlation matrices

MRR
33,5

480

Index (NNFI) 0.96, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.97 and Relative Fit Index
(RFI) 0.90;
for
Taiwan,
2 429.96,
df 318,
p-value 0.00003,
RMSEA 0.048, NFI 0.95, NNFI 0.99, CFI 0.99 and RFI 0.95; for ALL,
2 593.57,
df 318,
p-value 0.00000,
RMSEA 0.055,
NFI 0.97,
NNFI 0.98, CFI 0.98 and RFI 0.96). Moreover, for the US data set, the R2 is
0.27; for Taiwan data set, the R2 is 0.28; for all data set, the R2 is 0.32. The aim of this
testing was to check whether each component of market orientation (i.e. intelligence
generation, intelligence dissemination, and responsiveness) can successfully explain
firm performance among our sample of US and Taiwanese SMEs. Additionally, this
contributes to the market orientation literature by examining the cross-national
validity of MARKOR (Kohli et al., 1993).
The path coefficient analysis in Table III shows the structure of relationships
hypothesized in this study. H1 concerns the impact of intelligence generation on firm
performance. For USA, Taiwan, and All samples, the results show insignificant path
coefficients meaning that there is no support for H1. H2 concerns the impact of
intelligence dissemination on firm performance and results show a positive but not
significant relationship for all three samples. Thus, H2 is also not supported; H3,
responsiveness is positively related to US and Taiwanese SMEs performance, is
supported, since the path coefficients for the USA (0.43), Taiwanese (0.50), and All
(0.54) samples are all significant and in a positive direction.
Thus, based on the analysis, it is clear that only the responsiveness-firm
performance link is supported in our study. In addition, the MARKOR is found to be
only partially valid in the US and Taiwanese SME context. As a side work, we also
tested market orientation (as a whole construct)-performance relationship and found a
positive, significant link between these two constructs.
Discussion and conclusion
As a comparative study, this paper examined US and Taiwanese SME managers
views relating to a market orientation strategy and its impact on firm performance. In
general, the empirical evidence found in this study has demonstrated the limited
applicability of the marketing concept in the US and Taiwanese SME context. The
findings indicate that responsiveness was the only significant predictor of the three
market orientation components (i.e. intelligence generation, intelligence dissemination,
and responsiveness) of US and Taiwanese SMEs performance.
The results of this study are consistent with a large body of literature supporting
the argument that higher levels of market orientation would lead to a better
organizational performance (Spillan et al., 2005). Yet we have found that a firms
implementing the market orientation strategy partially is not a guarantee of better
performance. In a dynamic environment, marketers or managers must continuously
generate and disseminate the market intelligence and respond to the market forces. If a
firm does not have good cooperation or collaboration among the functional

Table III.
Path coefficients of the
structural models

H1: Intelligence generation ! performance

H2: Intelligence dissemination ! performance
H3: Responsiveness ! performance
Note: *p < 0.01 level

US

Taiwan

ALL

0.14
0.22
0.43*

0.12
0.13
0.50*

0.20
0.18
0.54*

departments within the firm, the market orientation strategy can be very ineffective.
The mere fact that a firm has generated a great deal of market intelligence does not
mean that it will be able to respond to its customers with superior service. Each
functional area of the firm must join the effort and contribute effectively to make a
successful response to the customers needs.
It is interesting to note that the results were highly consistent across the cultures.
Despite minor differences in the measurement item loadings across cultures, their
impact on firm performance was highly consistent. This is different from the previous
literature, which has shown that the market orientation-performance link is stronger in
collectivist cultures (in this case Taiwan) than in a more individualist culture such as
the USA However, as previously stated, most prior research has focused on larger
firms, whereas this study examined this relationship among SMEs.
Limitations and future research directions
There are some limitations of this study and therefore the findings must be viewed as
tentative. The first limitation is that due to the adopted cross-sectional approach, our
conclusions are restricted to those of associations rather than causation. Second, we want
to recognize the self-report nature of the data collected in this study. Third, due to the
multi-organizational nature of the sample used in this study, differences among the SMEs
were not accounted for. In this context, a worthy area of investigation may be to test for
differences in performance between the market-oriented and non-market-oriented SMEs.
Finally, while the data set used in this study was sizable, it was a random sample and a
larger and more representative sample is needed for more conclusive results.
Further studies should be conducted on a broader sample from other parts of the
USA. One study could look at regional differences and similarities in the USA compared
to regional differences and similarities of Taiwanese firms. Another direction would be to
examine the same variables and performance over time. This would provide an
understanding of what moderating factors internal or external to the firm affect its
performance. Finally, additional studies including other SMEs from other countries could
provide comparisons and contrasts and maybe explain the differences in performance
among multi-country variables (i.e. culture, economies, and political factors).
Note
1. The English and Chinese versions of the survey are available from the authors.
References
Appiah-Adu, K. (1997), Market orientation and performance: do the findings established in large
firms hold in the small business sector? Journal of Euro-marketing, Vol. 6 No. 3, p. 1.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (1995), An exploratory analysis of the impact of market orientation on new
product performance, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 12, September,
pp. 275-93.
Bhuian, S.N. (1997), Exploring market orientation in banks: an empirical examination in Saudi
Arabia, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 5, p. 317.
Blankson, C. and Cheng, J.M.-S. (2005), Have small businesses adopted the market orientation
concept? The case of small businesses in Michigan, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 6, p. 317.
Day, G. (1994), The capabilities of market-driven organizations, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58,
October, pp. 37-52.

US and
Taiwanese
SMEs
481

MRR
33,5

482

Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive
superiority, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 2, p. 1.
Deshpande, R. (1993), Corporate culture, customer orientation, and innovativeness in Japanese
firms: a quadrant analysis, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, January, pp. 23-37.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983), The iron cage revisited: institutional isomorphism and
collective rationality in organizational fields, American Sociological Review, Vol. 48, pp.
147-60.
DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1991), Introduction, in Powell, W.W. and DiMaggio, P.J. (Eds),
The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
IL, pp. 1-38.
Ellis, P.D. (2006), Market orientation and performance: a meta-analysis and cross-national
comparisons, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 43 No. 5, p. 1089.
Ghosh, B.C., Schoch, H.P., Taylor, D.B., Kwan, W.W. and Kim, T.S. (1994), Top performing
organizations of Australia, New Zealand and Singapore: a comparative study of their
marketing effectiveness, Marketing Intelligence & Planning, Vol. 12 No. 7, pp. 39-48.
Greenley, G. (1995), Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from UK
Companies, British Journal of Management, Vol. 6, pp. 1-13.
Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, R.K. (1998), Marketing orientation and organizational
performance: is innovation a missing link? Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, October, pp. 30-45.
Hart, S. and Diamontopoulos, A. (1993), Marketing research activity and company performance:
evidence from manufacturing industry, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 27 No. 5, p. 54.
Horng, S.C. and Chen, A.C.H. (1998), Market orientation of small- and medium-sized firms in
Taiwan, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 36 No. 3, pp. 79-83.
Imperia, G., OGuinn, T.C. and MacAdams, E.A. (1985), Family decision-making role perceptions
among Mexican-American and Anglo wives: a cross-cultural comparison, Advances in
Consumer Research, Vol. 12, pp. 71-4.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), Market orientation: antecedents and consequences,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, July, pp. 53-70.
Kaldor, A.G. (1971), Imperative marketing, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35, Spring, pp. 19-25.
Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S. and Bearden, W.O. (2005), Market orientation: a meta-analytic
review and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 2, p. 24.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), Market orientation: the construct, research propositions,
and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, April, pp. 1-18.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J. and Kumar, A. (1993), MARKOR: a measure of market orientation,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 30, November, pp. 467-77.
Levitt, T. (1960), Marketing myopia, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 38, pp. 45-56.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T. and Ozsomer, A. (2002), The effects of entrepreneurial proclivity and
MO on business performance, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 66, July, pp. 18-32.
Meziou, F. (1991), Areas of strength and weakness in the adoption of the marketing concept
by small manufacturing firms, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 29 No. 4,
October, pp. 72-8.
Narver, J.D. and Slater, S.F. (1990), The effect of a market orientation on business profitability,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 5, October, pp. 20-35.
Pelham, A.M. and Wilson, D.T. (1996), A longitudinal study of the impact of market structure,
firm structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm
performance, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 7-43.

Perreault, W.D. and McCarthy, J.E. (2002), Basic Marketing: A Global Approach, 14th ed.,
McGraw-Hill-Irwin, Homewood, IL.
Ruekert, R.W. (1992), Developing a market orientation: an organizational strategy perspective,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9, pp. 225-45.
Scott, W. R. (1995), Institutions and Organizations, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Shapiro, B. (1988), What the hell is market-oriented?, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 6,
November-December, pp. 119-25.
Siguaw, J.A., Brown, G. and Widing, R.E. (1994), The influence of market orientation of the firm
on sales force behavior and attribute, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 31, February,
pp. 106-16.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1994), Does competitive environment moderate the market
orientation performance relationship? Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58, January, pp. 46-55.
Slater, S.F. and Olson, E.M. (2002), A fresh look at industry and market analysis, Business
Horizons, Vol. 45 No. 1, pp. 15-22.
Speed, R. and Smith, G. (1993), Customers, strategy, and performance, International Journal of
Bank Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 3-11.
Spillan, J., Chao, M. and Han, I. (2005), Moving towards an understanding of Taiwanese SME
managers, Perceptions of the Marketing Concept, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 147-63.
Stokes, D. (2000), Entrepreneurial marketing: a conceptualization from qualitative research,
Qualitative Market Research, Vol. 3 No. 1, p. 47.
Stover, R.V. and Stone, W.J. (1978), Hand delivery of self-administered questionnaires, Public
Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 42, pp. 284-7.
Xu, D., Y. Pan, and P. W. Beamish (2004), The effect of regulative and normative
distances on MNE ownership and expatriate strategies, Management International
Review, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 285-307.
About the authors
Mike Chen-Ho Chao holds a PhD and MBA. He is an Assistant Professor of Marketing and
International Business at Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, the City University of New
York. His research and teaching interests centre on the internationalization/regionalization of
multinational enterprises (MNEs), standardization vs localization of MNEs web sites, consumers
and MNEs from Greater China and country-of-origin effects in international marketing. He has
published his research findings in several journals: Journal of International Marketing,
International Marketing Review, Journal of World Business, Journal of International Marketing
and Marketing Research, Marketing Management Journal, Place Branding, Chinese Public
Affairs Quarterly. Mike Chen-Ho Chao is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: chenho.chao@baruch.cuny.edu
John E. Spillan, MBA and PhD in Business and Management and International Business and
serves as Associate Professor of Business Administration in School of Business at the University
of North Carolina at Pembroke. His articles have appeared in the International Journal of
Marketing and Marketing Research, Journal of Business in Developing Nations, Southern
Business Review, Journal of East West Business, European Management Journal, Journal of
Teaching in International Business, Journal of Small Business Strategy, International Small
Business Journal, Journal of Crisis and Contingency Management, Journal of Small Business
Management, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice, Journal of Asia-Pacific, Journal of
Global Marketing and Journal of World Business among others.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

US and
Taiwanese
SMEs
483

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.