Annals of Business Administrative Science 6 (2007) 1–14
Available at www.gbrc.jp

Online ISSN 1347-4456 Print ISSN 1347-4464©2007 Global Business Research Center

Internal Effects of Customer Contact within Service
Organizations: Implications for Developing a
Customer-oriented Organizational Culture

Ryusuke KOSUGE
Graduate School of Economics, University of Tokyo
E-mail: ee47025@mai.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp

Abstract: This paper investigates how an organization can become customer
oriented in terms of subculture formation originating from customer contact. Although
existing market orientation research has assumed cultural homogeneity, this paper
views organizational culture as a varying degree of shared cognition among its
organizational members and focuses on individual employee’s customer
orientation. Drawing from the literature on subculture formation, the study proposesthat customer contact is a significant source of subculture formation with respect tocustomer orientation and tests a model that assumes customer contact exerts a
positive influence on customer orientation, which subsequently leads toorganizational citizenship behavior. The results support the hypotheses and provide
implications for developing a customer oriented organizational culture throughleveraging customer contact.
Keywords: customer contact, customer orientation, subculture formation

the organizational chart,” consequently defining the

1. Introduction

purpose of a business as the creation and retention ofCustomer orientation is a fundamental principle thatsatisfied customers. Many firms, however, fail toismanagement

direct their businesses toward their customers. For

practice. Managers lay emphasis on “staying close to

managers in any type of business, developing a

the customer” and “putting the customer at the top ofcustomer-oriented organization is always a big

often

taken

for

grantedin1

Kosugechallenge.

characterized by customer orientation.

Since the late 1980s, marketing researchers haveFirst, the paper identifies the research problems

conducted a number of empirical studies concerningby critically reviewing prior research concerningmarket orientation or market-oriented organization

market orientation. Second, drawing from the(Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver & Slater,

literature on subculture formation, hypotheses are1990). These studies mainly focus on the antecedents

presented. Third, the results of the study of two

and consequences of market orientation throughfinancial service organizations are presented. Finally,

cross-sectional surveys. Until now, however, only athe conclusions are presented through the discussion

few researches have empirically investigated theof implications and directions for future research.

question of “how” a firm can actually become
customer oriented.

2. Market orientation researchThis paper tries to answer this question byfocusing on individual customer orientation, which

Recentunderlies market orientation. For this purpose, theorientation has its origin in the management

organizationalbyphilosophy known as “the marketing concept” (Kohli

existing research is critically reexamined. Although& Jaworski, 1990). The marketing concept has been a

researchers agree that market orientation is a kind of

cornerstone of the marketing discipline since Druckerorganizational culture (Day, 1994; Narver & Slater,(1954) argued that “[t]here is only one valid1990), the extant conceptualizations of market

definition of business purpose: to create a customer”

orientationare(p. 37), and described marketing as “the wholeinsufficient. Specifically, these conceptualizations

business seen from the customer’s point of view”

implicitly assume cultural homogeneity and unity(p. 39). Throughout its history, however, thethroughout the organization. By making such anmarketing concept has been more an article of faithassumption, existing research solely focuses onthan a practical basis for managing a business. Little

abstract and aggregated organizational activities. In

was known about the defining features or attributes ofcontrast, this paper focuses on varying degrees ofthis organizational orientation, and findings regarding

cultural strength regarding customer orientation

the antecedents and performance consequences wereamong individuals and groups by adopting alargely anecdotal. Consequently, managers had little

cognitive

guidance on how to improve or redirect theircultureasanperspective

organizational

perspectiveonadoptedcultureorganizational

culture. Based on this perspective, the paper

empirical

research

regardingmarketorganizations toward their markets.

postulates and tests a model indicating that customer

In the 1980s, a renewed interest in the marketing

contact is the source of subculture formation

concept emerged (Webster, 1988). With the rise of2

Internal effects of customer contact within service organizations

Japanese businesses, the marketing concept wasorientation involves three behavioral components:

viewed in terms of an organizational culture that

customer orientation, competitor orientation, andwould provide a competitive advantage (e.g., Petersinterfunctional coordination. Each of these efforts has& Waterman,

1982). In response, marketing

served to extend the marketing concept from being a

researchers began to conceptualize the marketing

purely business philosophy to one that represents theconcept more strictly. In the 1990s, two influential

actions that an organization pursues in relation to its

articles published (Kohli & Jaworski, 1990; Narver &marketplace.

Slater, 1990) in the Journal of Marketing, which

Two of the most used measures of market

originated from the research sponsored by theorientation are MKTOR, which is based on a culturalMarketing Science Institute (MSI), founded the basis

definition (Narver & Slater, 1990), and MARKOR,

of a new era (Deshpande, 1999). Subsequent researchwhich is based on a behavioral definition (Kohli,

has been using these articles as a point of reference,

Jaworski, & Kumar, 1993). Although there is aand in the academic debate, the term “marketing

difference between the definitions on which the twoconcept” has now been replaced by the term “market

measurement scales are based, both scales focus

orientation.”largely on concrete activities. The unit of analysis of

Kohli and Jaworski (1990) set out to understandmarket orientation is the organization where a single

the construct of market orientation by identifying andrespondent is used to assess the degree of market

defining its cause, components, and outcomes, andorientation via Likert-type scales. Market orientation

they consequently developed a set of testableof a business or firm is the simple average of the

propositions. They conceptualized market orientation

scores of these components.

as the implementation of the marketing concept andMost of the previous studies have focused on thedefined it as the (1) organization-wide generation of

antecedents and consequences of market orientation

market intelligence pertaining to current and future

as well as the variables that might moderate thecustomer needs, (2) dissemination of the intelligence

relationships between market orientation and its

across departments, and (3) organization-wide

consequences. Although recent findings regarding the

responsiveness to it. On the other hand, Narver andrelationship between market orientation and businessSlater (1990) defined market orientation as theperformance are inconsistent, the dominant view isorganizational culture andmostthat market orientation does improve business

effectively encourages the behaviors that are

performance (c.f., Kirca, Jayachandran, & Bearden,

necessary for the creation of superior value for buyers,2005). Studies including potential moderators such as

and thus, the continuous superior profit for themarket turbulence, technological turbulence, andbusiness. In addition, they also suggested that market

competitive intensity (Jaworski & Kohli, 1993; Slater

climatethat

3

Kosuge& Narver, 1994) indicate that these moderators haveroles of leadership, interfunctional coordination, andlittle effect on the positive impact of market

the processing of customer-focused data in theorientationtransformation process in a major public school

on

firm

performance(Wrenn,1997). Furthermore, various antecedents have been

district.

proposed and empirically tested (Jaworski & Kohli;

One possible reason for the scarcity of empirical

Ruekert, 1992). In particular, top management

research on the process of developing market

emphasis, interdepartmental connectedness, andorientation is that the prevailing conceptualizations ofhuman resource practices are found to positively

market orientation may not be suited to investigate

influence market orientation.

the “how” question. As indicated by the measurement
method noted above, the market orientation stream of

Problems with existing researchresearch assumes homogeneous responses to theBased on the research described above, a number ofmarket and customers within an organization. Due toempirical studies on market orientation have beensuch an assumption, existing research fails to provide

conducted. Given the substantial number of empiricaluseful managerial implications.

findings suggesting a positive relationship between
market orientation and firm performance, the next

Assumptions about organizational culture

logical step would be to investigate how market

Based on the original thought of Drucker (1954),

orientation is developed. Existing research, however,

Deshpande and Webster (1989) defined the marketingis only modestly descriptive of the processes forconcept as a distinct organizational culture—aachieving this desired orientation. For instance, Day

fundamental, shared set of beliefs and values that

(1994) focuses on business process redesign, either

place the customer at the center of the firm’s

radically or gradually from the bottom up, combined

conception regarding strategy and operation. In

with top down signaling of commitment andaccordance with this definition, there is considerable

stretching of improvement targets. In a similar

agreement that, in general, market orientation is an

fashion, Narver, Slater, and Tietje (1998) suggest twoorganizational culture (e.g., Day, 1994; Narver &approaches for creating a market orientation that

Slater, 1990). The question is how existing researchshould be tailored and managed: the “programmatic”

views the concept of organizational culture as theapproach and the “market-back” approach. Few

basis of market orientation. Although little attention

empirical studies have investigated the process ofhas been given to what an organizational culture is,developing market orientation. It is only recently thatthe answer can be found in the manner in which

Kennedy, Goolsby, and Arnould (2003), using amarket orientation is treated within the extant

paired-comparison ethnographic study, clarified theliterature.
4

Internal effects of customer contact within service organizationsFirst, inferring from the single informant

3.

Subculture

characterizedbystrategy, which assumes that one senior executive isable to assess the degree of market orientation of thecustomer orientation

entire organization, organizational culture is viewed

More recently, there has been a marked resurgence in

as

the

research into culture as a pluralistic concept, rejecting

organization. Second, as Webster (1994) argues thatthe previous unidimensionality (see for example,

market orientation consists of the commitment ofMartin,every

perspective focuses on the subjective beliefs thathomogeneous

employeeandunitary

withinthethroughout

organization,1992).

This

organizational

cultureorganizational culture is viewed as internallyindividual

cohesive. Third, as previously noted, market

degrees. According to Smircich (1983, p. 350) thisorientation is viewed as being controllable bycognitive orientation provokes questions “…ofmanagement actions (Day, 1994; Narver et al.,practical concern to those who seek to understand,1998). In essence, this conception of organizational

diagnose, and alter the way an organization isculture is grounded in structural functionalism. In thisworking.” Further, in this perspective, one assumes“unitary” perspective, organizational culture is seen

“multiple

as a latent variable endogenous to the firm, consisting

countercultures, competing to define the nature ofof beliefs and values shared within the organization

situations(Smircich,a(Smircich, p. 346). Gregory (1983), for example,

managerial biased assumption, organizational culture

criticized the holistic view of organizational culture

is viewed as a lever or a tool to be used by managers

and proposed a multicultural model for large

to shape performance outcomes (e.g., Deal &organizations by presenting multiple “native” views

Kennedy, 1982; Peters & Waterman, 1982). Despite

through an ethnographic study of Silicon Valley

its intuitive understandability, this perspective is nottechnical professionals. This cognitive perspective,

necessarily sufficient to reveal the breadth ofwhich emphasizes subcultures within an organization,organizational culture due to the lack of “analytical

would be appropriate to investigate the “how”

bite” (Pettigrew, 1979). Specifically, the cultural

question.

1983).

Furthermore,

based

on

membersorganization

withinshareinsubcultures,organizationalvaryingorevenboundaries”

change process is difficult to explain from thisEffects of customer contact on subculture

perspective.

formation
This paper posits that an organization develops andmaintains subculture characterized by customer
orientation
5

based

on

customer

contact.

ThisKosugeviewpoint

would

the

extantSecond, customer orientation as a belief may beorientation.

The

positively associated with behavior that influences

fundamental premise is that customer orientation as aother employees. Hartline, Maxham, and McKee

belief(2000) indicate that customer orientation prevails

conceptualizations

pervadescomplementofthemarketorganization

throughaninterpersonal influence process among employees,

throughthesocialization

process

withinawhich originates from customer contact. Such an

workgroup. It is reasonable to infer that such an

influence process can be viewed as the formationinfluence process is based on positive attitudes andprocess of subcultures. According to the existing

behaviors of employees. Further, service marketing

literature, subcultures are formed based on theliterature suggests that customer-oriented employeesinteractions among organizational members whoshow positive attitudes or behaviors toward theshare common problems or situations (Lawrence &organization and others within the organization in

Lorsch, 1967; Van Maanen & Barley, 1984). In theorder to ultimately satisfy customers; that is,context of this study, a subculture with respect tocustomer-oriented employees recognize that for acustomer orientation may be developed primarily

successful exchange with customers to occur, anthrough the sharing of local customer contact.

effective internal exchange is a precondition

To put it briefly, this phenomenon would be(Ballantyne, 1997; Donavan, Brown, & Mowen,

explained in terms of two interrelated processes. First,

2004). In keeping with Donavan et al., this study

customer contact is considered to be a strong

focuses on organizational citizenship behavior

determinantcustomer(OCB). Though several dimensions are proposedorientation. According to enactment theory (Weick,(Organ, 1988), OCB generally represents a special

1979), individuals act upon their environment,

type of work behavior that are defined as individualinterpret the environmental responses to their actions,behaviors that are beneficial to the organization andand reshape their actions based on the environmental

are discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized

feedback they receive. In this process, individuals

by the formal reward system (e.g., Smith, Organ, &create mental representations of their environment,

Near, 1983). In summary, the following two

based on inferences about the effects of their

hypotheses are presented.

ofindividual

actions. The feedback from the environment inresponse to the individuals’ actions then changes

H1: Customer contact will exert a positive

existing cognitions, which then guide their future

influence on customer orientation.

actions. In sum, the customer—as a key dimension of
employees’

environment—positively

H2: Customer orientation will exert a positive

influences

influence

employees’ customer orientation.

on

citizenship behavior.
6organizational

Internal effects of customer contact within service organizations

questionnaires were discarded due to incomplete or

4. Method

unusable responses, thus resulting in a final response

Following the abovementioned perspective, thisrate about 94%. For Firm 2, the same questionnaire

paper focuses on individual employees’ “customer

was sent to a population of 187 employees. One

orientation” as a unit of analysis under the assumption

hundred and eighty-two completed questionnaires

that

individual

were returned. Of these, eight questionnaires were

employees’ belief about commitment to the customer

discarded due to incomplete or unusable responses,(Narver et al., 1998; Webster, 1994). Specifically,

thereby resulting in a final response rate about 93%.

“customer orientation” is reconceptualized as an

To assess customer orientation (CO) andindividual-level construct—an individual cognitive

organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), this study

tendency to meet the expectations of customers fromintroduced five and three items, respectively, for eachthe customer’s point of view. Although thisconstruct in terms of face validity. To assess customer

perspective is normally used in ethnographic studies,contact (CC), one item was adopted. (See thethis study applies it in a quantitative context (Allen,

Appendix for each measure used in the analysis.) All

McQuarrie, & Barr, 1998). This context-free

the items were assessed on 2-point scales (1 = yes, 0 =construct makes it possible to cover every employeeno) for ease of response. In validating the CO andin the studied organizations, regardless of their type

OCB measures, three of the five customer orientationof job and, consequently, explore the general

items were dropped from the final analysis based on acharacteristics of the internal influence process

confirmatory factor analysis, resulting in two

regarding customer orientation

measurement variables for customer orientation.

marketorientation

comprises

Data were collected from employees of two
financial service firms within a large financial

Analyses and resultsgroup. The service industry was appropriate for the

Combining Hypothesis 1 with Hypothesis 2, a causal

investigation since the role of each individual inmodel, as shown in Figure 1, is suggested. In order tocreating and delivering value for the customer istest the model, structural equation modeling (Loehlin,prominent in service settings. Above all, a financial

2004; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004) was used throughservice organization includes various types of

the application of Amos 5.0.

customer contact and non-customer contact jobs. The

Table 1 provides descriptive statistics andsurvey was conducted in September 2003. For Firm 1,

pairwise correlations for Firm 1 and Firm 2. For Firm

the questionnaire was sent to a population of 258

1, the model fit statistics were good (χ² = 5.44 with 8

employees. Two hundred and fifty-one completeddf; GFI = 0.993; CFI = 0.000; RMSEA =questionnaires were returned. Of these, seven

0.000). Similarly, for Firm 2, the fit statistics were7

Kosuge

Figure 1. Empirical model

CO1

CC

OCB1

CO2

OCB2

OCB3

OCB

CO

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations

Firm 1 (N = 251)
Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. CC

0.96

0.19

1.00

2. CO1

0.93

0.25

0.20

1.00

3. CO2

0.81

0.26

0.20

0.60

1.00

4. OCB1 0.68

0.47

0.05

0.26

0.20

1.00

5. OCB2 0.63

0.48

-0.02

0.29

0.20

0.28

1.00

6. OCB3 0.75

0.43

0.09

0.25

0.12

0.19

0.22

1.00

Mean

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. CC

0.64

0.48

1.00

2. CO1

0.80

0.40

0.49

1.00

3. CO2

0.83

0.38

0.51

0.68

1.00

4. OCB1 0.71

0.45

0.34

0.28

0.28

1.00

5. OCB2 0.55

0.50

0.24

0.36

0.32

0.25

1.00

6. OCB3 0.86

0.35

0.36

0.34

0.39

0.30

0.34

Firm 2 (N = 174)

1.00

good (χ² = 8.28 with 8 df; GFI = 0.98; CFI = 0.000;

citizenship behavior. H1 suggests that the existence of

RMSEA = 0.001). Table 2 presents the standardized

customer contact increases customer orientation. The

path coefficients (SPCs) and associated t-values forresults reported in Table 2 support this effect (Firm 1:

all relationships in the structural model.

SPC = 0.23, t = 3.42; Firm 2: SPC = 0.62, t =The purpose of this research is to examine the7.97). H2 suggests that as employees’ level of

effect of customer contact on customer orientation

customer orientation increases, their organizational

and,citizenship behavior increases; the results support thissubsequently,

organizational
8

Internal effects of customer contact within service organizations

Table 2. Results of structural equation analysis

Firm 1

Firm2

Fit statistics

Fit statistics

χ²
d.f.
p
GFI
CFI
RMSEA

χ²
d.f.
p
GFI
CFI
RMSEA

5.54
8
0.70
0.99
1.00
0.00
Path
Estimate t-Value
0.23
3.42 **
0.58
4.24 **Path
CC → COCO → OCBs

Measurement Paths
OC１
OC2
OCB１
OCB2
OCB3

0.90
0.66
0.55
0.41
0.49

8.28
8
0.41
0.98
1.00
0.01
Path
Estimate t-Value
0.62
7.97 **
0.76
5.19 **CC → COCO → OCBs

Masurement Paths
OC１
OC2
OCB１
OCB2
OCB3

Fixed
5.92 **
Fixed
3.87 **
4.18 **

0.78
0.85
0.53
0.62
0.49

Fixed
9.68 **
Fixed
4.84 **
4.25 ***p < 0.05**p < 0.01

hypothesis (Firm 1: SPC = 0.58, t = 3.42; Firm 2: SPC

not= 0.76, t = 5.19). In summary, the results indicate thatorganization or other employees. This suggests that

customer contact is a source of the internal influence

non-customer contact employees are liable to be left

process.

outside the influence process originating from

Qualitative

evidencesdemonstrateshowing

discretebehaviors

towardthethiscustomer contact. In other words, it is only within aphenomenon. Several discussions with top managers

work unit that customer orientation is amplified

of Firm 2 revealed that customer contact employees

through the interpersonal influence process. In

who occupied the front offices were highly customer

summary, customer contact influences the process

oriented, in contrast with non-customer contact

through which customer orientation is disseminatedemployees who occupied the back offices. In addition,

within an organization, resulting in the formation ofmanagers pointed out the cultural gap between

subcultures with respect to customer orientation.

them. Top managers considered this gap to be asignificant

cause

of

unsuccessful

product

5. Discussion

development. They also assumed that non-customer

This study explored the internal effects of customer

contact employees tended to act on their own accord,
9

Kosugecontact within service organizations. Findings fromthis study presents a theoretical implication forthe structural analyses indicate that customer contact

market orientation research. The proposition that an

is a source of subculture formation characterized byorganization has subcultures with regard to customer

customerorientation questions the method adopted by previous

orientation

withinaserviceorganization. First, this finding suggests that

research.

organizational culture with respect to customer

homogeneousorientation is developed through an organizational

orientation through the assessment by a single

learning

customer

respondent may be insufficient or inappropriate forcontact. Given that cultural change can occur

investigating the link between customer orientation

naturally, based on customer contact, managers whoandare concerned with developing a customer-oriented2007). Researchers should not neglect the many faces

organization should encourage employees to maintainof organizational culture because being multifaceted

contact with the customers, thereby promotingisexperimental learning. This process is consistent withorientation” of service organizations.

process

originating

from

If

the

the

organizational

cultureisandmeasuringmarketunitary,firm’sperformance

fundamental

characteristic

not(Kosuge,of“marketthe “market-back” approach proposed by Narver et
Limitations and directions for future researchal. (1998).
The problem here is that how an organization

A limitation of this research is that the study did notcomprising a front office and a back office can becomprehensively investigate confounding factors thatentirely

twomight affect customer orientation. Further researchpossible prescriptions can be considered. First,

should introduce other potential factors and refine themanagers should also encourage back officecausal model. This study may also be limited by theemployees

obtainedcustomertooriented.

maintain

Theoretically,

contactwithsamples.

Additional

employees

instudiesvariousmight

customers. Typically, traditional Japanese firms seem

investigate

types

of

to have emphasized this kind of extensive customer

organizations and industries in order to determine

contact, as exemplified by the word “genba,” which

whether the same causal relationship holds.

means “where the action is.” Second, managers might

Another important area for further research isdevelop an organizational structure that would

how the influence process, as shown in the paper,

facilitate cross-boundary cooperation (Kohli &really works. Dougherty (1992) suggests that

Jaworski, 1990). By so doing, the influence process

different “departmental thought worlds” including theoriginating from customer contact would pervade theviews of customers tend to hinder successful productwhole organization.

innovation and argued that sharing a realistic

In addition to the above managerial implication,customer focus may overcome such a failure of10

Internal effects of customer contact within service organizations

cooperation. By investigating multiple thought

J. C. (2004). Internal benefits of service-worker

worlds regarding views of customers and how theycustomer orientation: Job satisfaction, commitment,

would be reconciled, we may understand to a greaterand organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal

extent the process of developing a customer-orientedof Marketing, 68(1), 128–146.

organization.

Dougherty, D. (1992). Interpretive barriers to

In summary, the analytical viewpoint and thesuccessful

findings presented in this paper will contribute to a

product

innovation

in

large

firms. Organization Science, 3(2), 179–202.

more thorough understanding of how a firm can

Drucker,

actually become customer oriented.

P.

F.

(1954).

The

practiceofmanagement. New York: Harper & Row.
Gregory, K. L. (1983). Native-view paradigms:
Multiple

References
Allen,

C.

culturesandcultureconflicts

inorganizations. Administrative Science Quarterly,

T.,

McQuarrie,

E.

F.,

&

Barr,

28, 359–376.

T. F. (1998). Implementing the marketing concept

Hartline, M. D., Maxham, J. G., III, & McKee,

one employee at a time: Pinpointing beliefs about

D. O. (2000). Corridors of influence in thecustomer focus as a lever for organizational

dissemination of customer-oriented strategy torenewal. Journal of Market-Focused Management,

customer contact service employees. Journal of3, 151–170.

Marketing, 64, 35–50.

Ballantyne, D. (1997). Internal networks for internal

Jaworski, B. J., & Kohli, A. K. (1993). Market

marketing. Journal of Marketing Management,orientation:

13(5), 343–347.

consequences. Journal of Marketing, 57(3), 53–70.

Antecedents

andDay, G. S. (1994). The capabilities of market-driven

Kennedy, K. N., Goolsby, J. R., & Arnould,

organizations. Journal of Marketing, 58(4), 37–52.

E. J. (2003). Implementing a customer orientation:

Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. E. (1982). Corporate

Extension of theory and application. Journal ofcultures. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

Marketing, 67, 67–81.

Deshpande, R. (Ed.). (1999). Developing a market

Kirca, A. H., Jayachandran, S., & Bearden,

orientation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Deshpande,

R.,

E.,

review and assessment of its antecedents andJr. (1989). Organizational culture and marketing:

impact on performance. Journal of Marketing,Defining

69(2), 24–41.

the&research

Webster,W. O. (2005). Market orientation: A meta-analytic

agenda.

F.

JournalofMarketing, 53(1), 3–15.

Kohli, A. K., & Jaworski, B. J. (1990). Market

Donavan, D. T., Brown, T. J., & Mowen,orientation: The construct, research propositions,11

Kosugeand managerial implications. Journal of Marketing,cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,

54(2), 1–18.

570–581.

Kohli,A.

K.,

Jaworski,

B.

J.,

&

Kumar,

Ruekert, R. W. (1992). Developing a market

A. (1993). MARKOR: A measure of market

orientation:orientation. Journal of Marketing Research, 30,

perspective. International Journal of Research in

467–477.

Marketing, 9, 225–245.

Kosuge,R.

(2007).

KokyakushikouAnorganisational

strategykara

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A

shizyoushikou e: Riron to sokutei [From customer

beginner’s guide to structural equation modelingorientation to market orientation: Theory and(2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

extention]. Akamon Management Review, 6(7),Associates.

243–266. (In Japanese)
Lawrence,P.

Slater, S. F., & Narver, J. C. (1994). Does competitive
R.,&

Lorsch,environment

moderatethemarketJ. W. (1967). Organization and environment:orientation-performance relationship? Journal ofManaging differentiation and integration. Boston,Marketing, 58, 46–55.

MA: Harvard University Press.

Smircich, L. (1983). Concepts of culture andLoehlin, J. C. (2004). Latent variable models (4thorganizational analysis. Administrative Scienceed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Quarterly, 28, 339–358.

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three

Smith,C.

A.,

Organ,

D.

W.,

&

Near,

perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press.

J. P. (1983). Organizational citizenship behavior:

Narver, J. C., & Slater, S. F. (1990). The effect of a

Its nature and antecedents. Journal of Appliedmarketorientationonbusiness

Psychology, 68, 653–663.

profitability. Journal of Marketing, 54(4), 20–35.
Narver,

J.

C.,

&

Slater,

S.

F.,

&

Van Maanen, J., & Barley, S. R. (1984). Occupational

Tietje,communities:

CultureandcontrolinB. (1998). Creating a market orientation. Journalorganizations. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummingsof Market-Focused Management, 2, 241–255.

(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior

Organ,

D.

citizenshipW.

(1988).

behavior:

The

Organizational
good(pp. 287–366). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

soldier

Webster, F. E., Jr. (1988). The rediscovery of the

syndrome. Lexington, MA and Toronto, Canada:marketing concept. Business Horizons, 31(3),D. C. Heath.

29–39.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of

Webster,

excellence. New York: Random House.

F.

E.,

Jr.

(1994).

Market-driven

management: Using the new marketing concept toPettigrew, A. M. (1979). On studying organizational

create a customer-oriented firm. New York: John
12

Internal effects of customer contact within service organizations

・ I try to understand what the customer wants

Wiley & Sons.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology oforganizing

(2nd

ed.).

Reading,from the customer’s point of view (CO2).
・ The customer has the information I need to do

MA:Addison-Wesley.

a better job (CO3*).
・ If I could learn more about our customer, I

Wrenn, B. (1997). The market orientation construct:
Measurement and scaling issues. Journal of

could do a better job (CO4*).
・ I would enjoy seeing how customers use ourMarketing Theory and Practice, 5(3), 31–54.

product and discussing it with them (CO5*).
Organizational citizenship behavior[Received October 3, 2007; accepted October 10, 2007]

・ I am confident that I can persuade someone todo something that I think is good (OCB1).

Appendix

・ I do my work in a proactive manner beyond
sectional boundaries (OCB2).

Measures used in analysis

・ Depending on the kind of the problem, I

Customer contact
・ In my job, it is necessary to directly contact

should take the initiative and exercise
leadership to solve the problem (OCB3).

with customers (CC).
Customer orientation
・ I consciously make myself aware of who theNote: * indicates items that were dropped from thecustomer is (CO1).

final analyses.

13

Kosuge

14

ABAS: Annals of Business Administrative ScienceVol. 6 December 2007

CHIEF EDITOR

Junjiro Shintaku, the University of TokyoEDITORIAL BOARD

Makoto Abe, the University of Tokyo
Takahiro Fujimoto, the University of Tokyo
Makoto Kasuya, the University of Tokyo
Nobuo Takahashi, the University of Tokyo
Technical Editor: Maki Nishida, Global Business Research Center

ABAS: Annals of Business Administrative Science is published annually by Global
Business Research Center, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, JAPAN. http://www.gbrc.jp