Journal of Market Focused Management, 1.195-197 (1996) @ 1996 Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. Manufactured in The Netherlands.

Editorial: Marketing Strategy and Organizational Strategy

RAJIV GROVER Terry Chair of Marketing. University of Georgia, Athem, GA 30602

rgrover@uga.cc.uga.edu

It is ironic that in an era when organizations are increasingly accepting that customers are extremely important (perhaps the most important) stakeholders, academicians seem to resist this notion, As R&D engineers conduct market research projects, manufacturing engineers, guided by TQM, consider customer requirements, and MIS departments electronically integrate customers, we often hear academic experts claim that “customers don’t know” and hence “leading customers” may be more appropriate than being “customcr-oriented.“l For example, Hamel and Prahalad (1994, p. 108) write, “If the goal is to get to the future first, rather than merely preserving market share in existing businesses, a company must be much more than customer-led. Customers are notoriously lacking in foresight. Ten or fifteen years ago, how many of us were asking for cellular phones, fax machines?” Interestingly, in an earlier section (p. 97) of the same book, they wrote, “Having watched her father snap a photograph, Dr. Edward Land’s three-year-old daughter asked to see the results right now. This innocent question set Land off on a quest to create instant photography.” Hamel and Prahalad punch a hole in their own argument. Dr. Land’s daughter knew that she wanted to see the results immediately, though she might not have known if or how this could be accomplished. Similarly, in the context of cell phones, if several years ago people had been asked whether they would want to talk to others from anywhere instead of being tied to where the phone is, they would have most definitely answered yes. It then would have been up to organizations to provide such technologies and projects if they were possible and economically viable. Do customers not know, or do we not know how to listen? Perhaps we should not expect them to voice that they want a cellular phone or an instant camera. Perhaps we should be able to listen better to the expressions that they choose to convey their need-whenever they may do so.

In a similar vein, defining a business in terms of the needs it has chosen to satisfy probably has more merit than the resource-based or core-competencies framework has given to it. If Kodak had chosen to stick to its core competencies, it would not have launched its electronic camera. This successful launch may be a result of Kodak defining itself as being in the memory business. In other words, being led by customer needs (targeted at an appropriately high level) is perhaps not a bad idea. An organization can then become market focused by doing al1 that it takes to satisfy the chosen needs of its customers. A product or technology is just one means of satisfying the needs of a target segment, and better products and technology should constantly be sought to satisfy the chosen needs.

196 RAJIV GROVER

Figure 1. Current state: Other business disciplines contribute to marketing.

Figure 2. Desired: Marketing contributes to other business disciplines.

Another frequently voiced criticism of customer orientation is exemplified by a complaint made by Peter Senge* when he accused marketers of putting “customers on a pedestal” and perhaps giving the store away. Customer orientation does not imply that organizations have to give away the store. All they have to do is satisfy their customers better than the competition. If a customer is more demanding, he can be politely asked to try out the competition.

Having presented some points in favor of the customer perspective, I would now like to suggest another direction for research. The discipline of marketing has gained immensely from other business disciplines such as strategy and organization behavior (Figure 1). It is not unusual for scholars in both marketing and other disciplines to contribute to marketing based on theories in these disciplines. While I welcome such articles in the JMFM, perhaps it is time for us to make contributions to other business disciplines based on theories in marketing. Are any theories in management conducive to modification based on our knowledge of customer behavior in its entirety? I invite both marketing and other scholars to contribute in this reverse direction as depicted in Figure 2.

EDITORIAL 197

Notes

1. In a previous editorial (JMFM 1:2) I argued that perhaps being customer-oriented encompasses leading customers.

2. Personal communication during a presentation made by Dr. Senge at the University of Pittsburgh.

References

Hamel, Gary, and C. K. Prahalad. (1994). Competing for the Furwe. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.