During the 1990’s there have been m

During the 1990’s there have been many tests of the market orientation construct and its relationship to firm performance (e.g., Narver and Slater 1990; Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Slater and Narver 1994; Greenley 1995; Pelham and Wilson 1996; Appiah–Adu 1997; Wright, Pearce and Busbin, 1997; Pelham, 1997; Sussan and Johnson, 1997; Horng and Chen, 1998; Kumar, Subramanian and Yauger, 1998; Tse, 1998). The studies used either small or large firms or multiple respondents from the same firm. Most used American data. Tse (1998), Greenley (1995) and Hart et al. (1993) found no relationship between market orientation and performance while the others found a positive relationship between market orientation and performance.

Testing has used various surveys and questionnaires that include either elements of Kohli and Jaworski’s (1990) conceptualization of market orientation or Narver and Slater’s (1990) questions. The two conceptualizations of market orientation differ in their components. The latter’s three components are customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) list intelligence gathering, dissemination and responsiveness. Various other models have been proposed (Norburn et al. 1990; Greenley 1995; Bhuian 1998), but these two models are the most prominent.
Only two of the studies have examined the outcomes of a market orientation for employees (Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Horng and Chen 1998); one study was performed in large firms (Jaworski and Kohli 1993), and the other in small firms (Horng and Chen 1998). No study has yet assessed both large and small firms in the same sample to seek differences in consequences (Jaworski and Kohli 1993) or the levels of the components in the construct, often referred to as the qualitative form (Mavondo 1998) of market orientation. Studies that examine the consequences of market orientation in an Australian setting are also lacking.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

During the 1990’s there have been many tests of the market orientation construct and its relationship to firm performance (e.g., Narver and Slater 1990; Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Slater and Narver 1994; Greenley 1995; Pelham and Wilson 1996; Appiah–Adu 1997; Wright, Pearce and Busbin, 1997; Pelham, 1997; Sussan and Johnson, 1997; Horng and Chen, 1998; Kumar, Subramanian and Yauger, 1998; Tse, 1998). The studies used either small or large firms or multiple respondents from the same firm. Most used American data. Tse (1998), Greenley (1995) and Hart et al. (1993) found no relationship between market orientation and performance while the others found a positive relationship between market orientation and performance.Testing has used various surveys and questionnaires that include either elements of Kohli and Jaworski’s (1990) conceptualization of market orientation or Narver and Slater’s (1990) questions. The two conceptualizations of market orientation differ in their components. The latter’s three components are customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination. Kohli and Jaworski (1990) list intelligence gathering, dissemination and responsiveness. Various other models have been proposed (Norburn et al. 1990; Greenley 1995; Bhuian 1998), but these two models are the most prominent.Hanya dua dari studi telah memeriksa hasil dari orientasi pasar bagi karyawan (Jaworski dan Kohli 1993; HORNG dan Chen 1998); Satu studi ini dilakukan di perusahaan besar (Jaworski dan Kohli 1993), dan yang lainnya di perusahaan kecil (Horng dan Chen 1998). Tidak ada studi telah belum dinilai baik besar dan kecil perusahaan dalam sampel yang sama untuk mencari perbedaan konsekuensi (Jaworski dan Kohli 1993) atau tingkat komponen dalam membangun, sering disebut sebagai bentuk kualitatif (Mavondo 1998) orientasi pasar. Studi yang memeriksa konsekuensi dari orientasi pasar dalam suasana Australia juga kurang.

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

Selama tahun 1990-an ada banyak tes orientasi pasar konstruksi dan hubungannya dengan kinerja perusahaan (misalnya, Narver dan Slater 1990; Jaworski dan Kohli 1993; Slater dan Narver 1994; Greenley 1995; Pelham dan Wilson 1996; Appiah-Adu 1997; Wright, Pearce dan Busbin, 1997; Pelham, 1997; Sussan dan Johnson, 1997; Horng dan Chen, 1998; Kumar, Subramanian dan Yauger, 1998; Tse, 1998). Studi digunakan baik perusahaan kecil atau besar atau beberapa responden dari perusahaan yang sama. Kebanyakan menggunakan data Amerika. Tse (1998), Greenley (1995) dan Hart et al. (1993) tidak menemukan hubungan antara orientasi pasar dan kinerja sementara yang lain menemukan hubungan positif antara orientasi pasar dan kinerja. Pengujian telah menggunakan berbagai survei dan kuesioner yang mencakup baik unsur Kohli dan Jaworski (1990) konseptualisasi orientasi pasar atau Narver dan Slater (1990) pertanyaan. Dua konseptualisasi orientasi pasar berbeda dalam komponen mereka. Tiga komponen yang terakhir adalah orientasi pelanggan, orientasi pesaing dan koordinasi interfunctional. Kohli dan Jaworski (1990) daftar pengumpulan intelijen, penyebaran dan responsif. Berbagai model lainnya telah diusulkan (Norburn et al 1990;. Greenley 1995; Bhuian 1998), tapi dua model ini adalah yang paling menonjol. Hanya dua dari studi telah meneliti hasil dari orientasi pasar bagi karyawan (Jaworski dan Kohli 1993; Horng dan Chen 1998); satu penelitian dilakukan pada perusahaan-perusahaan besar (Jaworski dan Kohli 1993), dan yang lainnya di perusahaan kecil (Horng dan Chen 1998). Tidak ada penelitian yang belum dinilai perusahaan baik besar dan kecil dalam sampel yang sama untuk mencari perbedaan konsekuensi (Jaworski dan Kohli 1993) atau tingkat komponen dalam construct, sering disebut sebagai bentuk kualitatif (Mavondo 1998) orientasi pasar. Studi yang meneliti konsekuensi dari orientasi pasar dalam pengaturan Australia juga kurang.