A Comparative Analysis of Market Orientation, Entrepreneurial Orientation, Entrepreneurial Marketing, and Firm Performance: An Abstract

Abstract

It has been established in marketing and entrepreneurship literature that both market orientation (MO) and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) have positive and significant effects on firm performance (Covin & Slevin, 1991; Kirca et al., 2005; Narver & Slater, 1990; Rauch et al., 2009). Similar claims have been made for entrepreneurial marketing (EM) (e.g., Alqahtani & Uslay, 2020; Hills et al., 2008; Whalen et al., 2016), however despite the increasing volume of work, an understanding of EM’s efficacy in improving firm performance in comparison to MO and EO has been lacking. Therefore, examining the effects of EM, MO, and EO on firm performance under different environmental and organizational settings makes significant contributions to research on marketing and entrepreneurship interface. This research investigates the relative efficacy of entrepreneurial marketing (EM), market orientation (MO), and entrepreneurial orientation (EO) on firm performance under different conditions by investigating the moderation effects of an extensive set of environmental (i.e., market turbulence, competitive intensity, supplier power, and market growth) and organizational factors (i.e., network structure and firm size). Employing structural equation modeling to analyze cross-sectional data from sectors representative of the U.S. economy, the empirical findings suggest that EM is superior to MO and EO in improving firm performance under the following conditions: high market turbulence, high competitive intensity, and high supplier power. Moreover, EM is the best alternative for medium-size firms with low network strength (more weak ties). However, MO is superior to both EM and EO under the conditions of low market turbulence and low supplier power. It works best for large firms with high network diversity and high network strength. Finally, EO is superior to EM and MO when competitive intensity is low, and both in high and low growth markets. It is the most viable option for small firms with small and large network size, but low network diversity.