abstract article info
Article history:
Received 1 March 2008
Received in revised form 1 August 2008
Accepted 1 October 2008
This study assesses how customer value affects afirm's market orientation and consequently, competitive
advantage and organizational performance in a service industry—the global hotel industry. Thefindings show
that if afirm perceives its customers as valuing service, thefirm is more likely to adopt both a customer and a
competitor orientation; if thefirm thinks its customers are price sensitive, thefirm tends to develop a competitor
orientation. Moreover, the greater afirm's customer orientation, the more the firm is able to develop a
competitive advantage based on innovation and market differentiation. In contrast, a competitor orientation has
a negative effect on afirm's market differentiation advantage. Finally, innovation and market differentiation
advantages lead to greater market performance (e.g., perceived quality, customer satisfaction) and in turn,
higherfinancial performance (e.g., profit, market share).
© 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved
1. Introduction
How afirm achieves and maintains a 本文来自^优@文~论^文%网*原文请找腾讯#324'9114 competitive advantage has
aroused great attention in the strategy literature, with the emergence
of two dominant yet competing perspectives: competitive forces
perspective (Porter,1985) and the resource-based view (RBV) (Barney,
1991). The former suggests that industry structure and a firm's
strategic positioning are primary drivers of competitive advantage,
whereas the latter argues that competitive advantage stems from a
firm's unique assets and inimitable capabilities. Although these two
views differ sharply on how competitive advantage is achieved, they
both“focus primarily on firm's supply-side interactions and largely
neglect the demand environment in which these interactions take
place”(Adner and Zemsky, 2006: 215).本文来自^优@文~论^文%网*原文请找腾讯#32,49114
A number of theoretical issues arise as a result of overlooking
demand-side factors. On the one hand, the tautology critique of the RBV
is precisely due to thevalueof resources being defined in terms of their
ability to improve afirm's efficiency and effectiveness, but not from the
understanding of the demand context in which afirm is operating
(Barney, 2001:52;Priem and Butler, 2001). On the other hand, although
the competitive forces perspective recognizes demand heterogeneity,
☆Professor Dev gratefully acknowledges support for this study from the research
program of Cornell University's School of Hotel Administration. The authors thank Jeff
Weinstein of HOTELS magazine, Krishna Erramilli, Sanjeev Agarwal and Vikram
Mujumdar for their invaluable assistance in this research.
⁎ Corresponding author.2730
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] 下一页