gender differential paper IJCRB

ijcrb.webs.com
JUNE 2011
INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY RESEARCH IN BUSINESS VOL 3, NO 2
corrective actions (Kohli et. al., 1993). These actions are consistent with the approach of Levitt
and March (1988), examining the mechanisms used by firms to acquire any kind of knowledge
developed by a competitor.
Atuahene-Gima et. al. (2005) argue that responsive and proactive market orientations may
require different organizational conditions to ensure positive influence on firm performance due
to the potential costs and risks. Indeed, in previous researches it has been argued that the
importance of market orientation varies according to the environmental context (Cadogan, Cui,
& Li, 2003; Rose & Shoham, 2002). It is relevant to say that organizations ability to fit to the
organizations to the changing environment also plays an important role in the application of two
forms of marketing orientation. In the past studies environment was analyzed as a moderator on
the relationship between market orientation forms and firm performance (Tsai, Christine, & Jyh-
Huei, 2008). However, some firms might adapt to the changing environment and make use of
new opportunities and take necessary precautions to avoid from the threats better than others. So
some other organization related factors should also be moderating the relationship between
market orientation forms and firm performance. It will not be enough for firms to successfully
apply market orientation and to perform satisfactorily if they don’t have adaptability.
A fundamental topic in the literature on organizational change has been the attempt to identify
the ways forcing organizations to adapt to environmental change. The contingency and resource
dependency theories (Thompson, 1967; Pfeffer & Salancik, 1978), the strategic change literature
(Ginsberg, 1988), and the organizational learning and evolution literature (Levinthal & March,
1993; Nelson & Winter, 1982) all try to explain organizational adaptation. To sum up, models of
organizational adaptation range from deterministic ones, such as population ecology (Hannan &
Freeman, 1984) and institutional theory (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) to ones that place more
emphasis on the proactive role of managers in the strategic decision- making process (Child,
1972; Daft & Weick, 1984).
In organization theory, two aspects related with adaptation have been stressed. The contingency
theory focuses on the organization-environment interface (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1967) and the
behavioral theory emphasizes the dynamic or history-dependent aspects of adaptations and their
role in organizational change (March, 1988). In this study, mainly the relationship of the firm
with its environment is focused. Valle (2002) and Chakravarthy (1982) sees adaptation as the
main feature of strategy by which organizations cope with the environment for the long term
survival and growth of a firm. In his research adaptive abilities of a firm are defined as the
organizational capacity.
Most researchers (Jankowicz, 2000; Koberg, Chesley, & Heppard, 2000; McKee, Varadarajan,
& Pride, 1989) consider the concept of adaptability as a useful organizational counterpart to the
changing marketing environment. In essence, a firm being adaptable is more likely to fit to the
environment. Adaptation thus encompasses multiple changes, ranging from changes in
organization’s control systems, allocation of resources, technology, and structure to changes in a
firm’s strategy, rather than a single type of change (Koberg et. al., 2000).
A thesis central to adaptation literature is that managers cope with changes in their environments
by choosing a variety of adaptive responses (Valle, 2002). Sorenson (2003) suggests that the
organization structure plays an important role in the adaptability of organizations. Miles & Snow
(1978) typologies of strategic orientation have been set forth in the strategic management
literature. Their typologies might be used to explain both market orientation types and
adaptability of firms. Miles and Snow (1978) postulate that competing firms within an industry
COPY RIGHT © 2011 Institute of Interdisciplinary Business Research 1367