Organizacija, letnik 39 Razprave številka 7, september 2006 4091 Introduction Since the beginning of the 90’s the concept of market orientation has attracted immense attention from strategic marketing scholars and practitioners. This is notsurprising because it is closely related to fundamentals of marketing theory, with implementation of marketing as an organizational-wide philosophy and with the notion that it positively impacts business performance (see recent meta-analyses of Ellis, 2006 and Cano et al., 2004). Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) are oftencited as founders of conceptualization and measurement instruments for assessing market orientation construct. In recent years however, improvements or alternative approaches have been suggested by different authors (Dengand Dart, 1994; Lado et al., 1998). Mason and Harris (2005) in addition found that managers often misinterprettheir companies’ market orientation levels and offeredsome suggestions for this problem. Y et, relatively few efforts were made to define common points or integratesuggested improvements. In fact, current stream of literature largely persists in exploring the “early issues” , namely various antecedents and consequences of market orientation construct – which is measured according to its original (early) conception. This especially holds forstudies that investigate impact of market orientation on business performance (Kirca et al., 2005; Luo et al., 2005; Atuahene-Gima, 2005) and innovativeness (Zheng et al. , 2005; Menguc and Auh, 2006). On the other hand, some important suggestions of original authors were largely neglected. Narver and Slater (1990) and Kohli et al. (1993) specifically proposed application of the questionnaire indifferent contexts; among them, in service contexts. Despiteintense application of market orientation measurement across different sectors and markets (Jaworski and Kohli,1993; Deng and Dart, 1994; Cano et al., 2004; Greenley, 1995; Hooley et al., 2000), no known attempts were made to test and adopt market orientation measurement for the services context. As the services sector generally requires a different market(ing) approach, we believe that thischallenge should be addressed on conceptual level more thoroughly.Advancing Market Orientation of Service Companies Toma ž Kolar Faculty of Economics, University of Ljubljana, Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1 101 Ljubljana, Slovenia, tomaz.kolar@ef.uni-lj.s i In this paper two important challenges regarding the market orientation of the service companies are addressed through literature review. Firstly, an overview of conceptual development regarding this construct is made. The challenge that results from this overview is based on finding, that initial conceptualizations largely neglect managerial and organizational issues related with implementation and enhancement of market orientation. Secondly, implications for conceptualizing and assessing the market orientation construct in a services companies are presented. As service context normally requires an adjusted managerial approach to marketing, key organizational areas requiring adjustments are pointed out and implications for market orientation conceptualization and measurement are discussed. On this basis, an alternative conceptual model separating strategic direction from the key organizational leverages of market orientation is proposed, which better suits the addressed challenges. Key words: Market orientation, Marketing concept, Services marketing, Strategic management Pričujoč članek na osnovi pregleda relevantne literature obravnava dva izziva, s katerima se soo ča razvoj koncepta tr žne naravnanosti. Prvega predstavlja ugotovitev, da so prvotne opredelitve in študije tega koncepta v veliki meri prezrle razli čne managerske in organizacijske dejavnike, ki vplivajo na implementacijo in izbolj ševanje tr žne naravnanosti. Drug izziv predstavlja razumevanje in vrednotenje tega konstrukta v storitvenem kontekstu. Zaradi specifi čne narave storitev so predstavljena klju čna podro čja tr ženja storitev, ki narekujejo prilagod itve njihovega tr ženja, ta podro čja pa so obenem tudi osnova za prilagoditev koncepta tr žne naravnanosti in njegovega merjenja. Na osnovi ugotovljenih implikacij, predlagamo alternativni model tržne naravnanosti, ki je glede na obravnavana izziva ustreznej ši od predhodnih. Klju čne besede: tržna naravnanost, koncept tr ženja, tr ženje storitev, strate ški management 410Organizacija, letnik 39 Razprave številka 7, september 200 6 2 Development and implementation of market orientation Kohli and Jaworski (1990) define market orientation as the organization-wide generation of market intelligence pertaining to current and future needs of customers, dissemination of intelligence within an organization and responsiveness to it. These authors therefore define thisconcept through three basic components (processes) that are dealing with marketing information: their generation, dissemination and responsiveness. A slightly differentdefinition was proposed by Narver and Slater (1990). Theydefine market orientation as the organizational culturethat most effectively and efficiently creates the necessarybehaviours for the creation of superior value for buyers and thus superior performance for business. These authors putmore emphasis on content (focuses) of the construct, where basic components are: customer orientation, competitor orientation and inter-functional coordination. To the three basic components they also added two decision criteria: long-term focus and profitability. Both decision criteriawere not included in the questionnaire because of their low levels of reliability. Deshpande et al. (1993) challenged both conceptions. They see market orientation as being synonymouswith customer orientation, being distinguishable from competitor orientation. Putting customer interests first isthe central part of their definition of customer orientationand they argue that competitor orientation can be almost antithetical to customer orientation when the focus is more on the strengths of the competitor than on the unmet needs of the customer. This view is consistent with several otherauthors from the marketing and strategic management field.They emphasize a need for a strategic focus which shouldbe on the customer (Ruekert, 1992; Christopher et al., 1991; Karloef, 1993; Day, 1994; Doyle and Wong, 1996). Critical discussion stimulated different improvement efforts in conceptualizing and measuring marketorientation. Deng and Dart (1994) developed a four-factor instrument, consisting of the three factors of Narver and Slater (1990), to which they add (actually, put back) profit orientation as a fourth substantive dimension. Gray et al. (1998) proposed a five-factor instrument which combinesthe Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) dimensions. The dimensions of their instrument are inter-functional co-ordination, profit emphasis, competitororientation, customer orientation and responsiveness. Gray et al. (1998) added distributor orientation and environmental orientation to the concept, and proposed a nine-component model which encompass two stages of the market orientation process: analysis and strategic actions (each consisting of four components), plus an additional component, intra-functional coordination. More recently, Lafferty and Hult (2001) made an overview of marketingorientation perspectives and they found five differentapproaches to the conception of market orientation: 1. Organizational decision making perspective2. Market intelligence perspective3. Culturally based behavioural perspective4. The strategic focus perspective5. The customer orientation perspectiveEach perspective proved to be an interesting venue for study and further development of the market orientation concept. Contrary to the information and decision making perspectives, a culturally based perspective puts more emphasis on informal, deeply rooted elements of organizational culture: values, norms, artefacts and behaviours (Deshpande et al., 1993; Homburg and Pflesser,2000); Lafferty and Hult (2001) also proposed a synthesis ofthose perspectives which resulted in four meta-dimensions: customer orientation, importance of information, inter-functional coordination, and taking action. While the dimensions discussed in the previous sections are interesting, they add little new to the Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) dimensions. They however are not particularly helpful at understandingwhich (discrete) organizational entities should be addressed in order that market orientation is implemented and improved. Deshpande et al., (1993) points out that the fieldof marketing implementation issues received little attention. Essentially, all structural elements in an organization that are important in enabling, facilitating or blocking market orientation should be considered here. Harris (2002), on the basis of extensive literature review discusses differentmanagement approaches to the development of market orientation. One important stream of literature in this fieldaddressed barriers (factors) to market orientation. Harris (2002) identified two types of barriers: managerial andorganizational. Kohli (1993) determined that managers’ attitudes toward risk aversion and conflicts are suchobstacles. Harris and Piercy (1999) additionally found that formalized and uncommunicative management also restrict development of market orientation. Day (1994) in addition suggests that a top-down direction meaning a visible commitment by senior management to put the customer first, exercised through a strategy developmentprocess, is necessary for enhancing market orientation. Dunn et al. (1994) also confirms that organizational goalsand values impact marketing effectiveness and suggests thata supportive environment is needed for marketing-oriented strategies. When successful implementation of market orientation is in question another very practical issue is the amount of power available to accomplish this aim. Thisis one of the important questions of marketing concept implementation and the importance of sufficient politicalpower is often emphasized (Harris, 2000; Piercy, 1998). Organizational characteristics represent the second layer of barriers to and factors in the development of market orientation. Kohli and Jaworski (1993) found that structural connectedness and centralization both act as obstacles for market orientation. Harris (2000) found that integration devices (internal communication systems, organizational integration and coordination systems) are important for market orientation. Homburg et al. (2000) also stress the importance of organizational structure for customer orientation. Workman et al. (1998) discussed another organizational element impacting marketing performance: location of the marketing department, cross-functional dispersion of marketing activities and power of the marketing subunit. Such managerial and organizational factors could improve our understanding of how market Organizacija, letnik 39 Razprave številka 7, september 200 6 411orientation can be achieved as they represent more discrete organizational entities on which management could focus. 3 Market orientation and marketing in service companies Here we discuss key characteristics and implications of contemporary services marketing management that are interesting for development of market orientation. Laing et al. (2002) suggests that two elements may be regarded as critical foundations of services marketing and its development. These are management of the servicedelivery process and the nature of the interaction between consumers and suppliers. In this interaction the concept of the service encounter is the focal point of marketing activity, representing a dyadic interaction between the customer and the provider firm. Customer experiencesin these encounters are critical, because they represent the point at which a customer evaluates services quality and gets an impression of the organization (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996). Service encounters are therefore the point at which customers actually experience marketing orientation. One of such experiences for instance is the degree to which service is customized to individual customer preferences. The nature of services requires customer involvement inthe production and delivery process, is difficult to massproduce and difficult to standardize yet is especially suitablefor customization strategies (Zeithaml et al., 1985). Another issue connected with service encounter evaluation is performance – expectation gaps, which are essential part at defining services quality (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996). Guo (2002) suggests that market orientation in service context impact business performance through these service gaps. This implies a very important notion formarket orientation, as it could actually be operationalised and measured as the gap (match) between customer expectations and provided marketing outputs. These gapscould be minimized by managing customer information, setting and delivering adequate service standards, matching given promises, but also through management of customer expectations themselves (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996). In any case organizational factors of service quality and market orientation seems tightly related and should be simultaneously considered. As service operations are often very complex, a process approach is often suggested for managing this complexity.A process view represents a useful approach to quality improvement though defining, mapping (flowcharting) andimproving service core processes or sub-processes (Bateson, 1995). A more explicit emphasis on value adding processes for customers, instead of emphasis on merely coordinating departments could therefore also be advisable for market orientation development. An additional important issue that is tightly connected with quality, but also with general services marketing management is the importance of social elements and employees, often addressed under the internalmarketing concept. Literally all authors from the service-marketing field emphasize the critical role of employeesfor desirable marketing results. Employees are seen as a key productivity and quality force (Zeithaml and Bitner, 1996), valuable to the organisation, internal customers and “emotional labour” (Lovelock and Wright, 1999) or a part of the product (Bateson, 1995). From a services marketing perspective, two important sources of development propositions could be extracted for a market orientation concept. The first source isan encounter/interaction emphasis which focuses on direct contacts with customers. This dimension is largelyneglected in the market orientation concept and should be systematically incorporated through different elements ofcustomer interface design (social, emotional, environmental, technological), or a holistic and long term view of relations with customers. The second source represents the in/tangibility dimension of service marketing. On one side, intangible (soft) quality elements should be more explicitlyincluded in a market orientation construct (i.e. employee attitudes), while on the other side, hard approaches and systems that will ensure a high and constant level of services quality (flowcharting processes, setting servicelevel standards, automation) and quality of information (customer databases) are also crucial for implementation of the market orientation concept. 4 An alternative model proposal The “implementational” view to the market orientation and services marketing approach suggests some important implications for development of this construct in a services context. In order to incorporate them key conceptual issues will be considered firstly and secondly, a six-componentmodel for assessing market orientation will be proposed. For this purpose a (strategic) focus of market orientation should be more clearly defined in the first place. Marketorientation is often understood as the “all-encompassing”strategic orientation that raises the probability of market performance. According to different authors (Narver andSlater, 1990; Deng and Dart, 1994; Lado et al., 1998) it should encompass customer, competitor, intra-functional, profit, distributor and environmental orientation. However,Nobel et al. (2002) argue that market orientation is not the only viable strategic orientation and therefore that differentalternatives are possible and potentially successful. Precise definition of market orientation therefore requires a cleardistinction from other strategic orientations. It should provide answers to the questions “Towards what precisely does being market oriented mean?” and “Which orientations are directed toward the market and which are not?” In light of this questions we argue that traditional definitions implytoo broad focus, thus a more precise strategic focus would be more adequate as has been well established (Deshpande et al., 1993: Ruekert, 1992: Day, 1994: 38; Doyle and Wong, 1996). For operationalization of the construct, clear notions of how, where and what exactly we should measure are also needed. According to traditional definitions, different managerial activities, cultural/behavioural characteristics or organizational abilities should be measured. As these are quite different organizational entities, decisions regarding 412Organizacija, letnik 39 Razprave številka 7, september 200 6 which one to assess must be done and it is not an easy decision. Additionally, terms such as “organization-wide responsiveness” and organizational culture are very general constructs and their content should be more precisely defined in the form of specific/discrete manifestations of market orientation. Defining one general concept (marketorientation) as another one (organizational culture - as proposed by Narver and Slater (1990) specifically is notsensible. In light of the above considerations we argue that development of the market orientation concept requires firstly that a broader set of organizational entities isencompassed in the construct domain, secondly, that a clear direction (strategic focus) of market orientation is definedand thirdly, that selected organizational entities are more precisely operationalized in order to provide measurement of specific/discrete manifestations of market orientation. As we are looking for organizational entities that are crucial for implementation, instead of the term entities, we propose the term leverages of market orientation. The prevailing conceptions of Kohli and Jaworski (1990) and Narver and Slater (1990) are therefore too vaguely (imprecisely) defined, inconsistently operationalized and measuredthrough statements that are too general. As a basis for a conceptual model that will overcome these weaknesses we propose the following definition of market orientation:Market orientation is the extent to which customer focus is implemented in key organizational leverages. We understand customer focus as a focus on customer needs; providing and continuously improving perceived value, quality and satisfaction within a long-term time horizon with a view to achieving superior market performance. The proposed model consists of six dimensions representing key organizational leverages - through which customer focus is implemented. Market (customer) orientation is therefore not a separate dimension, but is reflected in all organizational leverages. The firstproposed dimension of the model is strategic deployment . Discrete strategic leverage is important if organization-wide orientation is in question because it concerns top management factors (barriers), the strategy building process and necessary resources. These are vital strategicfactors for implementation of market orientation (Day, 1994; Harris, 2000; Piercy, 1998). Otherwise the marketing function lacks the influence to drive strategic orientationtoward the market and as a consequence business strategy is not aligned with corporate strategy and backed with sufficient resources. Consequently, we propose strategicdeployment as a first leverage. Through this leverage,market orientation should be manifested as a visible senior management commitment, as the presence of it in the company’s mission, as alignment with business strategy and as provision of adequate resources. The second dimension of the model is internal integration leverage. The need for focus on internalenvironment is often emphasized, most frequently underthe term intra-functional coordination (Gray et al., 1998: Deng and Dart, 1994; Narver and Slater, 1990) Under this dimension Narver and Slater (1990) understood coordinated utilization of company (capital and human) resources and full departmental alignment. In accordance with services and internal marketing implications we suggest that the focus of this dimension is on employees (rather than departments), intangible resources (rather than tangible) and on balancing internal orientation with external (rather than an exclusive internal or external focus). Internal integration leverage is implemented through activities leading to efficient and satisfied employees such as teaching, training, internal communications, empowering, motivating, rewarding, but also through internal quality management and efficient inter-departmental cooperation(Zeithaml nad Bitner, 1996; Lovelock and Wright, 1999; Groenroos, 2000). The third proposed dimension of the model is market knowledge management. There appears to be a consensusthat assurance of market information is a core of market orientation (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990; Dart and Deng, 1994; Gray et al., 1998). However, as it seems that too much emphasis is just on information handling (analysis, generating, disseminating), we suggest a broader focus and hence propose market knowledge management as a second leverage of market orientation. Its emphasis should be on holistic management of knowledge which will include additional activities like interpretation and use of marketing knowledge (Deshpande, 2001). This dimension should also be more focused on learning as a form of information generating (Narver et al., 1998). It covers all important information for marketing decisions, including information about internal marketing elements, but also feedback about balanced metrics of market performance. As the fourth dimension of the model, an organizational infrastructure is proposed. Different organizational elementsand systems such as organizational structure (Homburg et al., 2000; Workman et al., 1998), organizational connectedness and centralization (Kohli and Jaworski, 1993), information technology and communication systems (Harris, 2000; Gorenroos, 1996) are often emphasized as important factorsof market orientation. Despite this, organizational structures and systems are absent in any conceptualization of market orientation. As their specific design and characteristicsare important for implementing any strategic orientation and they represent a relatively independent organizational entity, we propose organizational infrastructure as a fourth key leverage of market orientation. The fifth distinctive dimension of the model is customer interface design. In implementation of market orientation the importance of direct contacts with customers should not be underestimated. In service encounters customers get impressions of the whole organization (Zeithaml and Binter, 1996), thus they are a visible component or marketing orientation. The importance of the interactionwith the customers also lies in the fact that a customer’s value is largely produced during their interaction with employees, other customers and organizational systems (Gumesson, 1999). Therefore, frontline communicationand interaction points with customers should be managed as a coherent whole (Groenroos, 2000). Market orientation for this leverage could be operationalized as the extent of customization, fulfilment of expectations, managementof emotional, social, technological and environmental elements of interaction, but also through long term, relationship impacting activities. Organizacija, letnik 39 Razprave številka 7, september 200 6 413Finally, organizational culture is proposed as the sixth dimension of the model. Organizational culture is an important factor of implementation of market orientation since it encompasses tangible elements such as behaviours and artefacts, and intangible elements, such as values, beliefs and norms. Cultural elements are present at the strategic, but also at the tactical (encounter) level of any organization. Deshpande et al. (1993), defines customerorientation (according to him this is synonymous with market orientation) as a set of beliefs which puts customer interests first. Many authors addressed organizationalculture as a separate construct, or as an alternative approach to market orientation conception (Homburg and Pflesser,2000; Deshpande et al., 1993; Webster, 1993). But, as organizational culture predominantly addresses contextual and informal organizational elements (Lafferty and Hult,2001) it is a sensible counterpart to more formal leverages (strategic planning, organizational structure) of market orientation. To be efficient at this aim, organizationalculture should retain all its important components: values, beliefs, norms, behaviours (“our way of doing things”) and artefacts. 5 Discussion In the present paper an attempt to further development of market orientation was made from two perspectives. Thefirst was an overview of contemporary developments andfactors of implementation of this concept and second was a discussion about the implications of developments in the service marketing field for conceptualizing this construct.On this basis an improved conceptual model was proposed. In these efforts a critical approach was used to traditionalconceptualization of market orientation as in Siguaw and Diamantopoulos (1995). Instead of staying inside existing definitions and dimensions, these were put under scrutiny,questioned, re-assessed and combined with new elements and dimensions. The purpose of the proposed definitionand model was to clarify the confusion around differentmeanings of the term market orientation and to add consistency to its operationalization. With this purpose a clear distinction between a focus (direction) of orientation and leverages (organizational entities) which enable and reflect this orientation, was made. At this point someinteresting issues regarding the conceptual background and practical (managerial and methodological) implications of the model emerged. As the need for setting a precise strategic focus was established, co-existence of differentorientations became apparent. This raises questions abouttheir relative superiority regarding their impact on business performance (Nobel et al., 2002), but also about relations between different strategic orientations (Morgan andStrong, 1998). Another important issue in defining a construct domain is the definition of its antecedents and consequences.This issue is comprehensively covered in the literature,yet there are still some ambiguities and inconsistencies. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) proposed all three components (intelligence generation, dissemination and responsiveness) as organizational dimensions of the construct. Narver and Slater (1990) on the other hand proposed inter-functional coordination as the only organizational dimension (the other two dimensions being two different orientations - not organizational entities). We argue that intelligence management and inter-functional coordination are however just two of the key organizational leverages. To be consistent, several other leverages should be included in the construct, as proposed in our model. In another article Kohli and Jaworski (1993) discuss top management factors, interdepartmental dynamics and organizational systems as antecedents of the construct. Again inconsistency appears, as inter-functional coordination is defined as a component of a construct (Narver and Slater, 1990) and at the same time a similar concept of inter-departmental dynamics is definedas an antecedent of it (Kohli and Jaworski, 1993). An even larger inconsistency is evident if we confront the Kohli and Jaworski (1990) dimensions of the construct (intelligence generation and dissemination) and Slater and Narver (1993) notion that market orientation is a component of a learning organization. In this case a tautological conclusion results where intelligence generation and dissemination are components of the market orientation construct, while market orientation is a component of a learning organization. On the other hand, market orientation consequences are also often in dispute. Deng and Dart (1994) for instancetreat profit orientation as an element of the construct, whilebusiness performance is generally treated as its consequence (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Deshpande et al., 1993; Homburg and Pflesser, 2000; Guo, 2002). Narver and Slater (1990)point out this inconsistency and suggest a compromise position – that profitability is a business objective andhence separated from the three behavioural components of the construct. Similarly Deng and Dart (1994) separate profits as an end point (accounting construct) from profitas orientation (inherent practice in business operations). Since antecedent/consequences dilemmas also result from confusing market orientation(s) with organizational Figure 1: Alternative model of market orientation for services context 414Organizacija, letnik 39 Razprave številka 7, september 200 6 entities, this confirms the need for separating focus and organizational leverages of market orientation. With an aim to provide a more complete conceptualization and more consistent operationalization of the construct we argue that a broader set of market orientation dimensions is needed and that its antecedents and consequences should be re-assessed. Consequently some factors that are considered as antecedents (i.e. interdepartmental issues and organizational systems) should be treated as constituent parts of the construct, while profitability and other marketing outputsshould be treated as consequences of the construct. 6 Implications for management and research Managerial relevance of market orientation assessment is often emphasized (Gray et al., 1998). Therefore, thepresent paper is predominantly concerned with distinctive organizational leverages of a market orientation concept. In order to respond to business needs, a model is proposed that is more complete in covering key organizational leverages of implementation than traditional approaches. From a management standpoint this provides a comprehensive, yet specific enough starting point to assessment andmanagement of organization-wide market orientation. This enables management more precise detection oforganizational areas in which firms distinguish themselvesor need improvements, hence the model could be useful as a framework for action program design. As improvement of market orientation is a very complex issue, discussion about obstacles impeding such improvements, about approaches to implementation effortsandabout antecedents and consequences of market orientation could also be very useful for management decisions. Also, the proposed model of market orientation is managerially interesting because it incorporates a services marketing perspective. The importance of this perspectiveis twofold. Firstly, it is helpful in re-defining strategic focusand key organizational leverages. According to service marketing implications, market orientation should put more emphasis on intangible and human elements, but also on service quality and long-term relationships with customers. As encounter interaction is one of the key areas of successful services marketing, we added it as a separate dimension in the model, meaning that managers should consider it in market orientation improvements. Secondly, a services marketing approach provides a comprehensive and profound view on the future of marketing (Vargo and Lusch, 2004) and could therefore provide an adequate approach for future developments of a market orientation in any type of company. If management wants to fully realize the potentials of market orientation concept, this requires further research endeavours too. An interesting issue to start with, is for instance exploration of process of market orientation, especially its key stages – analysis and strategic actions (Gray et al., 1998). As services marketing strongly emphasize importance of short-term interactions (oftencalled moments of truth) and long-term relationships with customers, this suggests that time perspective should be an important element of market orientation research in services context. Growing importance of customer relationship perspective in addition suggests, that in the future impact of market orientation on following elements and outcomes should be more thoroughly analysed: n loyalty effects and customers profitability, n customers trust and commitment, n post-purchase activities and rewards, n risks during the buying and consumption process, n reliability, availability and other quality elements and n emotional, social and structural bonds with customers. Another issue that require researchers attention is the assessment methodology. The most common approachused in the majority of market orientation studies is self-assessment by managers, who often misinterprettheir companies’ market orientation levels (see Mason and Harris, 2005). Since, when evaluating marketing concepts, customer perception is decisive, we strongly advise that future studies consider and option that customers evaluate the market orientation construct. For this purpose the notion of expectation-performance gaps can be used. These gaps are namely a possible indicatorof how successful an organization is in market orientation improvement efforts (Guo, 2002). Customers are howevernot the only stakeholder of interest. As suggested by Gray et al. (1998), company’s orientation toward distributors, competitors and even environment is also part of its market orientation. Unfortunately this can complicate research of market orientation, since it becomes unclear what entities represent “the market”, toward which a company is oriented. For this purpose it would be interesting to investigate which market entity or stakeholder (customer, competitor, employees, etc.) represent the focus of the best market-performing companies. References Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005). Resolving the Capability—Rigidity Paradox in New Product Innovation, Journal of Marketing , 69(4): 61-83. Bateson, J.E. (1995). Managing Services Marketing, The Dryden Press, Fort Worth. Cano, C.R., Carrillat, F.A. & Jaramillo Fernando (2004). A meta- analysis of the relationship between market orientation and business performance: evidence from five continents, International Journal of Research in Marketing , 21(2): 179- 200. Christopher, M, Payne, A. & Ballantyne, C. (1991). Relationship Marketing, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Day, G.S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven organizations, Journal of Marketing , 58(4): 37-51. Deng, S. & Dart, J. (1994). Measuring Market Orientation: A Multi-factor, Multi-item Approach, Journal of Marketing Management , 10: 725-742. Deshpande, R., Farley, J. U. & Webster, F. (1993). Corporate cul - ture, customer orientation, and innovativeness, Journal of Marketing , 57: 23-37. Deshpande, R., ed. (2001). Using Market Knowledge , Sage, Thousand Oaks. Doyle, P. & Wong, V. (1998). Marketing and competitive perfor - mance: an empirical study, European Journal of Marketing , 32(5/6): 514-535. Ellis, P.D. (2006). Market orientation and performance A meta-analysis and cross-national comparisons, Journal of Management Studies , 43(5): 1089-1107. Greenley, G.E. (1995). Market orientation and Company Performance: Empirical Evidence from UK: Companies, British Journal of Management , 6(1): 1-14. Gray, B., Sheelagh, M., Boshoff, C. & Matheson, P. (1998). Developing a Better Measure of Market Orientation, European Journal of Marketing , 32(9/10): 884-904. Groenroos, C. (2000). Service management and marketing – A customer relationship approach , John Willey & Sons, Chichester. Groenroos, C. (1996). Relationship marketing: Strategic and Tactical Implications, Management Decision , 34(4): 5-14. Gummesson, E. (1999). Total Relationship Marketing, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Guo, C. (2002). Market orientation and business performance: A framework for service organizations, European Journal of Marketing , 36(9/10): 1154-1163. Harris, L.C. (2002). Developing Market Orientation: An Exploration of Differences in Management Approaches, Journal of Marketing Management , 18(7/8): 603-632. Harris, L.C. (2000). The Organizational Barriers to Developing Market Orientation, European Journal of Marketing , 34(5/6): 598-624. Harris, L. & Piercy, N.F. (1999). Management Behavior and the Barriers to Market Orientation, Journal of Services Marketing , 13(2): 113-131. Homburg, C. & Pflesser, C. (2000). A Multiple-layer Model of Market-Oriented Organizational Culture: Measurement Issues and Performance Outcomes, Journal of Marketing Research , 17: 449-462. Homburg, C., Workman, J.P. & Jensen, O. (2000). Fundamental changes in marketing organization: The movement toward a customer-focused organizational structure, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 28(4): 459-478. Hooley, G., Cox, T., Fahy, J., Shipley, D., Beracs, J., Fonfara, K. & Snoj, B. (2000). Market Orientation in the Transition Economies of Central Europe: Tests of the Narver and Slater Market Orientation Scales, Journal of Business Research , 50(3): 273-285. Jaworski, B.J. & Kohli, A.K. (1993). Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences, Journal of Marketing, 57(3): 53-71. Karloef, B. (1993). Key Business Concepts , Routledge, London. 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 , 69(2): 24-41. Kohli, A.K. & Jaworski, B.J. (1990). Market Orientation: The con - struct, research propositions, and managerial implications, Journal of Marketing , 54(2): 1-18. Kohli, A. K., Jaworski, B.J. & Kumar, A. (1993). MARKOR: A mea - sure of market orientation, Journal of Marketing Research , 30(4): 467-478. Lafferty, B.A. & Hult, T.M. (2001). A synthesis of contempo - rary market orientation perspectives, European Journal of Marketing , 35(1/2): 92-109. Laing, A., Lewis, B., Foxall, G. & Hogg,G. (2002). Predicting a diverse future: Directions and issues in the marketing of ser - vices, European Journal of Marketing , 36(4): 479-494. Lado, N., Maydeau-Olivares, A. and Rivera, J. (1998). Measuring market orientation in several populations – A structural equations model, European Journal of Marketing , 32(1/2): 32-39. Lings, I.N. (1999). Balancing Internal and External Orientations, Journal of Marketing Management , 15: 239-263. Lovelock, C. & Wright, L. (1999). Principles of Service Marketing and Management, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River. Luo, X., Sivakumar, K. & Liu, S.S. (2005). Globalization, Marketing Resources, and Performance: Evidence From China, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 33(1): 50-65. Mason, K. & Harris L.C. (2005). Pitfalls in evaluating market orientation: An exploration of executives’ interpretations, Long Range Planning , 38(4): 373-391. Menguc, B. & Auh, S. (2006). Creating a Firm-level Dynamic Capability through Capitalizing on Market Orientation and Innovativeness, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 34(1): 63-73. Morgan, R.E. & Strong, C.A. (1998). Market orientation and dimensions of strategic orientation, European Journal of Marketing , 32(11/12): 1051-1073. Narver, J.C. & Slater, S.F. (1990). The effect of a market orienta - tion on business profitability, Journal of Marketing , 54(4): 20-36. Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F. & Tietje, B. (1998). Creating a Market Orientation, Journal of Market Focused Management , 2(3): 241-255. Nobel, C.H., Sinha, R.K. & Kumar, A. (2002). Market Orientation and Alternative Strategic Orientations: A Longitudinal Assessment of Performance Implications, Journal of Marketing , 66: 25-39. Piercy, N. (1998). Marketing Concepts and Actions: Implementing Market-Led Strategic Change, European Journal of Marketing , 24(2): 24-42. Ruekert, R.W. (1992). Developing a market orientation: an orga - nizational strategy perspective, International Journal of Research in Marketing , 9: 225-245. Siguaw, J.A. & Diamantopoulos, A. (1995). Measuring Market Orientation: Some Evidence on Narver and Slater’s Three Component Scale, Journal of Strategic Marketing , 3(2): 77- 88. Vargo, S.L. & Lusch, R.F. (2004). Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing, Journal of Marketing , 68: 1-17. Webster, C. (1993). Refinement of the Marketing Culture Scale and the Relationship Between Marketing Culture and Profitability of a Service Firm, Journal of Business Research , 26(2): 111-131. Workman, J.P., Homburg, C. & Gruner, K. (1998). Marketing Organization: An Integrative Framework of Dimensions and Determinants, Journal of Marketing , 62: 21-41. Zeithaml, V.A. & Mary Jo, B. (1996). Services Marketing, McGraw- Hill, New York. Zeithaml, V.A., Parasuraman A. & Berry, L.L. (1985). Problems and Strategies in Services Marketing, Journal of Marketing, Spring : 33-46. Zheng, Z., Kevin, Y., Chi, K. & Tse, D.K. (2005). The Effects of Strategic Orientations on Technology- and Market-Based Breakthrough Innovations, Journal of Marketing , 69(2): 42- 60. Toma ž Kolar is teaching assistant at marketing department at University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics. His interests and research work are mainly focused on fields of strategic marketing - market orientation and marketing strategy in particular, but also in relation to services marketing, consumer behavior, relationship marketing and internal marketing. He explores these topics as being embedded in (post)modern socio-cultural contexts and reflected in actual marketing practice.Organizacija, letnik 39 Razprave številka 7, september 200 6 415 406UREDNIŠKI ODBOR REVIJE Zvone Balantič Igor Bernik Marko Ferjan Jože Gričar Alenka Hudoklin Jurij Jug Miroljub Kljajić Jure Kovač Matjaž Mulej Branko Selak Goran Vukovič Jože Zupančič ODGOVORNI UREDNIK Jože Zupančič SOUREDNIKI Marko Ferjan Boštjan Gomišček Jože Župančič SVET REVIJE Rado Bohinc, Univerza v Ljubljani Jožko Čuk, Gospodarska zbornica Slovenije, Ljubljana Gabrijel Devetak, DEGA, d.o.o. Nova Gorica Ferenc Farkas, Univerza v Pecs-u, Madžarska Jože Florjančič, Univerza v Mariboru Michael Jacob Fach Hochschule, Trier, Nemčija Marius Janson, University of Missouri, St-Louis A. Milton Jenkins, University of Baltimore, ZDA Ilja Jurančič, Univerza v Mariboru Mehdi Khorowspour, Univerza v Pennsylvaniji, ZDA Janko Kralj, Univerza v Mariboru Tone Ljubič, Univerza v Mariboru Hermann Maurer Technische Universität, Graz Austria Jožef Ovsenik, Univerza v Mariboru Björn Paape RWTH - Technical University, Aachen, Nemčija Iztok Podbregar Vlada Republike Slovenije Jan Pour, Ekonomska univerza Praga, Češka Vladislav Rajkovič, Univerza v Mariboru Marjan Rekar Adria Airways d.d., Ljubljana Gabor Rekettye, Univerza v Pecs-u, Madžarska Henk G. Sol, Technische Universiteit Delft, Nizozemska Brian Timney, The University of Western Ontario Ivan Turk, Univerza v Ljubljani Jindrich Kaluža, Univerza v Ostravi, Češka Drago Vuk, Univerza v Mariboru Stanislaw Wrycza, Univerza v Gdansku, PoljskaOrganizacija, letnik 39 Summaries številka 7, september 200 6 In this paper two important challenges regarding the market orientation of the ser - vice companies are addressed through liter - ature review. Firstly, an overview of concep - tual development regarding this construct is made. The challenge that results from this overview is based on finding, that initial conceptualizations largely neglect manage - rial and organizational issues related with implementation and enhancement of mar - ket orientation. Secondly, implications for conceptualizing and assessing the market orientation construct in a services com - panies are presented. As service context normally requires an adjusted managerial approach to marketing, key organizational areas requiring adjustments are pointed out and implications for market orientation conceptualization and measurement are Correlation between Communication Styles of Detectives and their Cooperation with Representatives of other OrganizationsIrena GorenakIn this paper two important challenges regarding the market orientation of the ser - vice companies are addressed through liter - ature review. Firstly, an overview of concep - tual development regarding this construct is made. The challenge that results from this overview is based on finding, that initial conceptualizations largely neglect manage - rial and organizational issues related with implementation and enhancement of mar - ket orientation. Secondly, implications for conceptualizing and assessing the market orientation construct in a services com - panies are presented. As service context normally requires an adjusted managerial approach to marketing, key organizational areas requiring adjustments are pointed out and implications for market orientation conceptualization and measurement are discussed. On this basis, an alternative con - ceptual model separating strategic direc - tion from the key organizational leverages of market orientation is proposed, which better suits the addressed challenges. Key words: Market orientation, Marketing concept, Services marketing, Strategic managementAdvancing Market Orientation of Service CompaniesTomaž Kolar