Next Article in Journal
Carry Trade and Capital Market Returns in South Africa
Next Article in Special Issue
The Impact of Women’s Empowerment on Their Entrepreneurship Intention in the Saudi Food Industry
Previous Article in Journal
Mega Universities, Nanodegrees, and the Digital Disruption in Higher Education
Previous Article in Special Issue
Idiosyncratic Risk Volatility: Stock Price Informativeness or Price Error?
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JRFM
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/jrfm15110497
jrfm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Market Orientation and Hotel Industry: Literature Review and Implications for Periods of Market Turmoil

by
Carlos Sampaio
1,2,* and
Mónica Régio
3
1
School of Management, Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco, 6000-084 Castelo Branco, Portugal
2
NECE-UBI, Universidade da Beira Interior, 6201-001 Covilhã, Portugal
3
School of Engineering, Polytechnic Institute of Castelo Branco, Castelo Branco, 6000-084 Castelo Branco, Portugal
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15(11), 497; https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15110497
Submission received: 9 September 2022 / Revised: 20 October 2022 / Accepted: 21 October 2022 / Published: 26 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Business Performance)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study seeks to evaluate the market orientation literature within the scope of the hotel industry. It uses bibliometric methods, particularly a co-citation analysis combined with a literature review. Data were obtained from the Web of Science database and 136 unique documents were used in the analysis. The results show that market orientation literature using data from the hotel industry has been focused on assessing the relationship with hotel business performance and involves three background subjects: methodological aspects regarding the statistical analysis, market orientation theoretical framework and measurement scales, and innovation-related issues, particularly concerning the provided service, including incremental and radical innovations, which are critical over periods of market turmoil. A proposal for future research is presented.

1. Introduction

The tourism industry plays a relevant role in sustaining places’ and countries’ economies. Its effects in generating wealth are seen, for instance, through maintaining the employment level. According to the World Travel and Tourism Council (World Travel and Tourism Council 2020), the travel and tourism industry accounted for 330 million jobs around the world in 2019 and 10.3% of the global economy, contributing to 3.5% of the GDP growth.
The COVID-19 pandemic caused severe harm to the hospitality industry and to the tourism sector as a whole. Entire economic sectors were shut down, particularly hotels, restaurants, and related companies, as well as public transportation and particularly international commercial and travel services, which tumbled in 2020 due to travel restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic (World Trade Organization 2021), which ultimately led international tourism to a halt (Gössling et al. 2021). Hotels were among those who suffered most because of the measures to tackle the pandemic. Due to their characteristics, which include a wide range of operations, such as production and sales (usually combined in the service provided to clients, happening mostly simultaneously and oftentimes in closed and crowded spaces), hotel companies became among the first ones to suffer the consequences of the pandemic. Hotel companies have several common characteristics, namely, they: are spread worldwide; operate 24 h, seven days a week; are a production and service industry; provide services directly to customer in the same premises where the staff may live; have a high turnover of staff joining and leaving the industry; and have high fixed costs and a fixed rate, but a fluctuating seasonal and often unpredictable demand (Mullins 1993), which make them particularly targeted by the effects of disruptive events such as economic crises, pandemics, terrorism, crime, or war, as tourists’ risk perception is a main source of tourism demand variability (Cohen 2012; Smeral 2009; Farmaki 2021; Aliperti and Cruz 2019).
Market orientation is defined as the business culture that most effectively and efficiently enables the creation of superior value to clients (Narver and Slater 1990) or monitoring factors influencing customers’ needs and preferences, disseminating and responding to it, targeting customer satisfaction (Kohli and Jaworski 1990); it is centered in providing superior value to clients. Market-oriented companies pursue an objective of satisfying customers’ current and future needs (Narver and Slater 1990), involving a concerted effort from the overall firm departments with this goal (Shapiro 1988) targeting business performance. Empirical evidence has shown that market orientation is positively related with business performance (Agarwal et al. 2003; Nwokah 2008; Wang et al. 2012) and, due to its characteristics involving a high degree of interactions between staff and customers, it seems appropriate for fostering business performance in the hotel industry, particularly in periods of high uncertainty when customer risk perception fosters demand variability when deciding for a destination or making a reservation.
This study’s main objective is to perform an analysis of market orientation literature on hotel companies using bibliometric methods, specifically, a co-citation analysis and a literature review. Despite the continuous challenges faced by hospitality companies and hotel companies specifically, the reported positive effect of market orientation in business performance in the literature, and several studies focused on analysing the course and nature of the market orientation literature (e.g., Gheysari et al. 2012; Kirca et al. 2005; Langerak 2003; Lee and Chang 2014; Liao et al. 2011), to the authors’ knowledge, a study of this kind is yet to be produced. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic and the constraints faced by the hotel companies has created a gap in the literature that needs to be filled, specifically to provide a framework about the assessment of the relationship between market orientation and business performance in hotel industry to guide and plan the path for the future of the research stream.
The remainder of this document has the following framework: The next section provides a literature review. Section 3 describes data and methods, Section 4 presents the study results, and Section 5 presents the results discussion, future research lines, and main conclusions.

2. Literature Review

Market orientation allows for a unifying objective between individuals and departments from a company in targeting the satisfaction of the present and latent customer needs, further making customer satisfaction an ongoing job (Slater and Narver 1994b). It also produces a sense of belonging to the organization in the workforce, in which the central goal is to satisfy the costumer, leading to a compromise with the efforts of clients satisfaction (Kohli and Jaworski 1990) and, consequently, improving business performance. Furthermore, the link between market orientation and business performance seems to be robust, even in the context of market turbulence (Jaworski and Kohli 1993) such as the COVID-19 pandemic or the current international turmoil characterized by generalized higher prices as a consequence of disruption in supply chains caused by COVID 19 pandemic and the current war in Ukraine.
The conceptual structure of market orientation construct was developed by Narver and Slater (Narver and Slater 1990) and Kohli and Jaworski (Kohli and Jaworski 1990), which settled the foundation for the overall development of the research stream. However, the market orientation concept has its roots in previous research related to the development of the concept of marketing (Drucker 1954; Smith 1958; McKitterick 1957; Levitt 1960; Alderson 1957; Kotler 1972), which was rediscovered as a tool to surpass the constraints and fierce competition faced by US companies (Webster 1988) during the 1980s, and led scholars and managers to put market orientation at the top of their agendas (Shapiro 1988).
Despite the emergence of several definitions and proposals, market orientation depends on companies’ ability to obtain information about their customers, competition, and markets, as well as how they understand it and respond accordingly (Narver and Slater 1990; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Shapiro 1988) to create superior value to customers, targeting business performance (Narver and Slater 1990). One of the main goals of a firm is customer satisfaction, which is usually seen as a determinant of repeated sales, positive word-of-mouth, and consumer loyalty (Bearden and Teel 1983). Furthermore, consumer loyalty is found to positively affect business performance (Williams and Naumann 2011; Morgan and Rego 2006; Sampaio et al. 2020), and positive word-of-mouth significantly affects future market share (Morgan and Rego 2006).
Therefore, departing from a framework where the customer is the one who determines what the business is (Drucker 1954), market-oriented firms seem better prepared to satisfy clients and attain higher business performance. Empirical research shows that market orientation positively affects service quality (Chang and Chen 1998) as well as business performance (Haugland et al. 2007; Lee et al. 2015; Vega-Vázquez et al. 2016; Sampaio et al. 2021; Wang et al. 2012; Nwokah 2008) and if implemented by hotel firms, it is specifically suited to solve constraints faced by hotel companies targeting business performance.
Customers usually adopt behaviours according to the environmental context, and recent years have shown that the disruption in worldwide markets, specifically in the hotel industry, led companies to implement tighter measures due to sanitary constraints, including innovations to face the pandemic, and they obtained positive abnormal returns immediately (Sharma et al. 2021). Therefore, service quality can be a powerful tool in building customer confidence and consequently, customer satisfaction, and it can occur within multiple levels of an organization (Sureshchandar et al. 2002). On the other hand, several determinants of customer satisfaction like cleanliness, aesthetics, integrity, functionality, reliability, and security are among the main customer dissatisfiers and are also associated to other tangible aspects of service (Johnston 1997), are among the top priorities in the hotel industry during the COVID-19 pandemic, and are expected to affect customer behaviours when deciding to which hotel to book.
Consequently, temporary disruptions such as COVID-19, economic turmoil, and war pressure customers to adopt more or less temporary behaviours to adjust their needs to the ongoing constraints. However, it is expected that some of these behaviours perdure over time, at least partially. This is the case of some determinants of customer satisfaction that market orientation seems to positively affect.

3. Data and Methods

3.1. Data

Data used in the analysis was retrieved from the Web-of-Science (WoS) database. This database is among the largest sources of published scientific literature, it is the oldest, and its coverage includes both bibliographic data and citation (Li et al. 2010; Ellegaard and Wallin 2015). Furthermore, the conducted analysis requires a standardized source of data, which the use of the WoS database enables (van Eck and Waltman 2020). Consequently, a search in the main collection of the WoS database was conducted in July 2021, seeking the document type “article” published in all the available years, in the “English” language. A query was computed in the database webpage searching for documents including the terms ‘market orientation’ and ‘hotel’ in the fields ‘title’, ‘abstract’, ‘keyword plus’, and ‘author keywords’. The search returned 136 unique documents. Later, the articles’ abstracts were analysed to assess if they fit within the scope of the study’s objective. During this process, all the obtained documents were retained for the analysis.

3.2. Methods

This study used a mixed approach to conduct the literature analysis about market orientation in hotel companies. We used bibliometric methods, such as co-citation analysis, backed by an analysis of the relevant literature.
Co-citation analysis seeks to interconnect the known elements of the corpus of knowledge embodied in scientific and academic literature. It is based on the frequency with which pairs of earlier documents are cited together by later literature, and the number of identical cited items defines the strength of co-citation between two cited papers (Marshakova-Shaikevich 1973; Small 1973; Morris and der Veer Martens 2008; Small 1999). The co-citation is displayed in a map representing the most relevant documents, forming clusters of points representing aspects such as “subject areas, research specialties, schools of thought, shared intellectual styles, or temporal or geographic ties” (McCain 1990, p. 433).
To address the study’s objective and conduct the bibliometric analysis, the bibliometrix package (Aria and Cuccurullo 2017) for R software (R Core Team 2020) was used to compute data and extract bibliometric data, including the publish timeline, main sources, and the co-citation map. This procedure is followed by a literature review to the most relevant studies portrayed in the co-citation network to provide a picture of the evolution of the research stream.

4. Results

This section is divided by subheadings. It should provide a concise and precise description of the experimental results, their interpretation, as well as the experimental conclusions that can be drawn.

4.1. Descriptive Analysis

As mentioned in the data and methods section, the search conducted in the WoS database returned 136 articles. Results showed that the 136 documents composing the dataset were published in 67 different journals over a timespan from 1999 to 2022 and present 7893 references. Figure 1 represents the publishing timeline. To portray a coherent image of the publishing timeframe, data from 2022 were removed from the graph, although at the time of the search in the WoS database (July 2022), there were eight documents published in 2022.
Although the early developments of the marketing concept were in the 1950s and early 1960s by authors such as (Alderson 1957), (Drucker 1954), (McKitterick 1957), or (Levitt 1960), market orientation literature production increased in the 1990s. Studies such as (Narver and Slater 1990), (Slater and Narver 1994b), (Kohli and Jaworski 1990), Kohli et al. (1993), and (Jaworski and Kohli 1993) settled the theoretical foundations for the present state-of-the-art market orientation literature, further developing the most used market orientation measurement scales, namely, the MARKOR scale (Kohli et al. 1993) and the MKTOR scale (Narver and Slater 1990). Moreover, additional developments occurred in the 1990s, and supplementary market orientation measurement scales were proposed (e.g., Deshpandé and Farley 1998; Deshpande et al. 1993; Gray et al. 1998; Ruekert 1992), mostly targeting the industrial and consumer goods sectors (Gray et al. 2002; Sin et al. 2005; Tajeddini 2010). Thus, as shown in Figure 1, despite the developments in the market orientation literature in the early 1990s, overall, studies focused on hotel industry were scarce until the 2010s. Departing from the year 2010, the research line became much more relevant with a steady increase of published documents.
Regarding the main sources of published papers on market orientation and hotel firms, the top ten most relevant journals, according to the number of citations, are portrayed in Table 1.
Results (Table 1) further show that the scientific literature about market orientation in the hotel industry has been published mostly in tourism- and hospitality management-related journals or service marketing journals.

4.2. Co-Citation Analysis

Regarding the co-citation analysis, the goal was to map the literature and reveal the structure and theoretical foundations of the market orientation research stream concerning hotel companies. The co-citation analysis is based on counting the number of times two documents are cited together by later literature (Zupic and Čater 2015; McCain 1991; Small 1973) to link literature and their authors.
Following the methodologic procedures, a threshold of the 50 most co-cited papers was established to limit the number of papers to a manageable size and to assure that only relevant documents, based on the number of citations, were retained for further analysis (Zupic and Čater 2015). The results returned a co-citation map of 50 documents split into three clusters, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows that there are three main clusters: the red cluster (cluster 1) with 17 articles, the blue cluster (cluster 2) with 18 documents, and the green cluster (cluster 3) with 15 items. Following this outcome, the articles in each cluster were evaluated to identify the main underlying subjects. Table 2 provides results from cluster 1.
Results from the analysis of the articles in cluster 1 show a focus on the backbone of market orientation literature. Particularly, the conceptualization of the market orientation construct, its measurement, and its relationship with business performance (Deshpande et al. 1993; Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Kohli et al. 1993; Narver and Slater 1990; Ruekert 1992; Kirca et al. 2005). Moreover, among the main ideas, cluster 1 includes studies evaluating how the relationship between market orientation and business performance behaves in the presence of contextual and environmental factors (Sin et al. 2005), changes in the emphasis on customer analysis relative to competitor analysis (Slater and Narver 1994a), innovation (Sandvik and Sandvik 2003), service quality, customer satisfaction, employee satisfaction (Agarwal et al. 2003), competitive advantage, competitive position, and performance superiority (Day and Wensley 1988; Sargeant and Mohamad 1999; Wang et al. 2012; Zhou et al. 2009). Furthermore, the results from cluster 1 involve further studies about methodological aspects, such as the use of structural equation models (SEM) (Chin 1998) and mediating effects (Preacher and Hayes 2008).
Table 3 shows the documents included in cluster 2 and a short description of each to form the underlying idea involved in this cluster.
The most co-cited documents included in cluster 2 show two main underlying themes: on the one hand, methodologic procedures regarding the assessment of the relationship between market orientation and business performance, such as SEM models (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Bagozzi and Yi 2012; Fornell and Larker 1981), moderating and mediating effects (Baron and Kenny 1986), nonresponse bias estimation (Armstrong and Overton 1977) and common method variance (Podsakoff and Organ 1986; Podsakoff et al. 2003), criteria to evaluate a model fit (Hu and Bentler 1999) and, in general, issues regarding the development of questionnaires and statistical analysis (Nunnaly 1978). On the other hand, there are also themes concerning learning orientation (Baker and Sinkula 1999; Hult and Ketchen 2001; Slater and Narver 1995), competitive advantage (Barney 1991; Day and Nedungadi 1994), environmental hostility (Covin and Slevin 1989), and its effects in the strength of the relationship between market orientation and business performance.
Table 4 provides results from the analysis of the underlying themes present in cluster 3 from Figure 2.
Regarding cluster 3, results (Table 4) show an overwhelming focus on innovation (Chang et al. 2011; Grissemann et al. 2013; Han et al. 1998; Hjalager 2010; Hurley and Hult 1998; Martínez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes 2009; Nicolau and Santa-María 2013; Ottenbacher and Gnoth 2005; Tajeddini 2010, 2011; Tajeddini and Trueman 2012). Overall, these studies deal with several aspects regarding the service industry, particularly the hotel and hospitality industries, including their relationship with market orientation/customer orientation and business performance (Grissemann et al. 2013; Han et al. 1998; Hurley and Hult 1998; Martínez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes 2009; Tajeddini 2010, 2011; Hult et al. 2004; Tajeddini and Trueman 2012).

5. Discussion, Future Research, and Conclusions

5.1. Discussion

The analysed papers were retrieved from the WoS database, and data from 136 documents were computed. The results showed that the first document was published in 1999, which is in line with previous research showing that the development of the market orientation research stream was mainly focused on industrial and consumer goods sectors (Gray et al. 2002; Sin et al. 2005). However, since 2010, it has become increasingly relevant, presenting a steady growth of available papers, mainly published in tourism, hospitality, and services marketing journals. The co-citation analysis, which portrays the 50 most co-cited documents, shows three main clusters, each one portraying an overall set of underlying themes concerning the research stream. Cluster 1 includes the most prominent studies about market orientation, mostly settled in the early 1990s. This cluster involves the main ideas regarding the development of the market orientation concept, the construct, and measurement scales (e.g., Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Kohli et al. 1993; Narver and Slater 1990; Ruekert 1992), further representing the theoretical framework of market orientation and its relationship with business performance. Furthermore, several references are made to mediators and moderators of the relationship between market orientation and business performance, both from a methodological perspective (Preacher and Hayes 2008) and from an empirical perspective, such as competitive intensity or contextual turbulence (Wang et al. 2012).
Cluster 2 emphasizes a focus on methodological aspects involving studies using quantitative methods, particularly those using Likert-type questionnaires, including SEM analysis. This cluster further addresses moderating and mediating effects, non-response bias, and common method variance. This finding was unsurprising; the use of SEM analysis in research about market orientation in the hospitality industry is common and is one of the most relevant research methods in several disciplines, including hospitality management (Ali et al. 2018). Furthermore, the use of self-reported questionnaires to collect data at the same time from the same respondents is widespread, which is usually seen as a main source of common methods variance and can cause systematic measurement errors (Bagozzi and Yi 1991; Fuller et al. 2016; Kock 2015; Podsakoff et al. 2003) that can either inflate or deflate the observed relationships between constructs (Chang et al. 2010). In addition, it shows why common method bias and non-response bias are among the most relevant background topics regarding the research stream (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 2003; Podsakoff and Organ 1986). Moreover, topics related with the model fit (Hu and Bentler 1999) and procedures to build questionnaires and handle statistical data (Nunnaly 1978) are also present. Further relevant themes emerge from cluster 2, namely topics involving learning orientation and competitive advantage.
Cluster 3 is particularly relevant. The analysis of the cluster’s articles shows the preferred topics studied in the context of the market orientation literature on hotel companies and gives further insights about the focus of the research stream. Innovation-related issues appear to be fully within the scope of the relationship between market orientation and business performance in the hotel industry, further involving aspects such as learning orientation (Tajeddini 2011), entrepreneurship (Tajeddini 2010), service (Ottenbacher and Gnoth 2005; Orfila-Sintes and Mattsson 2009; Orfila-Sintes et al. 2005; Martínez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes 2009), corporate culture (Tajeddini and Trueman 2012), or the contrast between incremental and radical innovation (Martínez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes 2009; Chang et al. 2011).
Given the obtained results, the analysis of the co-citation map, particularly of the background literature portrayed in the cluster analysis, shows three major topics, each one within the scope of each cluster: cluster 1, market orientation background literature and its measurement; cluster 2, methodological aspects; and cluster 3, innovation-related issues, particularly service innovation.

5.2. Future Research Proposals

Empirical evidence show a positive relationship between market orientation and business performance (Liu et al. 2013; Jogaratnam 2017; Kasim et al. 2018; Agarwal et al. 2003; Sampaio et al. 2021). Moreover, the link between market orientation and business performance appears robust even in periods of market turmoil (Jaworski and Kohli 1993), such as the current period that needs a way out of a global pandemic; disruption of global supply chains, including disruptions in airports worldwide, causing flight cancellations (Kelleher 2022; Pawlyk 2022); high inflation; economic turmoil; and war. Therefore, considering the role of risk perception in the flow of tourist demand (Cohen 2012; Smeral 2009; Farmaki 2021; Aliperti and Cruz 2019), this set of events occurring together presents heavy constraints on hotels. On the one hand, the COVID-19 pandemic implied a halt in the overall operations of hotels worldwide. On the other hand, hotels implemented several tighter measures due to sanitary constrains, including innovations to face the pandemic, which presented immediate positive abnormal returns (Sharma et al. 2021). Contrasting this subject with the obtained results, the role of hotel service innovation emerges as a major topic for future research, specifically, services innovation in the relationship between market orientation and business performance and how the effect of the COVID-19 affected this relationship, and the interrelationships between market orientation, service innovation, and business performance.
Furthermore, hotel companies are imminently service firms. However, they present several particular traits, including being a production and service industry; providing services directly to customers in the same premises; high staff rotation; fixed costs; and a fixed rate but fluctuating seasonal and often unpredictable demand (Mullins 1993). These characteristics emphasize the role of the determinants of service quality in this industry. Previous research showed that customers diverge in determining satisfiers and dissatisfiers, i.e., it seems that some determinants of customer satisfaction such as cleanliness, aesthetics, integrity, functionality, reliability, and security are among the main customer dissatisfiers and are also associated with tangible aspects of service (Johnston 1997). Furthermore, these determinants of customer satisfaction are also among the issues involved in the risk awareness during periods of turmoil, be it a pandemic risk, war, terrorism, or crime. Some of these risks are out of hotels’ control. However, the effect of tourists’ risk assessment in tourist demand variability and its role in the decision of where to book a hotel make it among the most relevant research topics, particularly in assessing the role of market orientation in the determinants of service quality and their effect on the relationship between market orientation and business performance in periods of market turmoil.
Results from the co-citation analysis showed that previous literature about market orientation in the hotel industry present an overwhelming focus on quantitative methods, particularly SEM analysis. These types of methods are very popular in business management, marketing, hospitality, and tourism research and have been the backbone of a relevant part of the overall literature about market orientation in the hotel industry. However, other methods, such as case studies or qualitative data analysis using unstructured questionnaires, appear to be increasingly relevant for assessing the best practices when implementing market orientation in hotel companies, particularly over periods of market turbulence.

5.3. Conclusions

This study delivers a relevant analysis to the underlying literature regarding the market orientation research line in hotel firms. It further seeks to highlight the relevance of implementing market orientation in hotels to foster business performance and expand the knowledge on how to build a market-orientated organization, which could be a tool to improve business performance and deliver a roadmap for a set of future research lines, including methods.
From a theoretical perspective, three main ideas have been carried out from the obtained results. First, several definitions of market orientation were proposed in the early 1990s and continue to be the most relevant, particularly the definitions settled by (Narver and Slater 1990) and (Kohli and Jaworski 1990). The former defines market orientation as the business culture that most effectively and efficiently enables the creation of superior value to clients, and the latter defines it as the monitoring of factors influencing customers’ needs and preferences, disseminating and responding to them, targeting customer satisfaction. Second, the literature on the analysed research stream is based mostly on methods involving the use of SEM analysis, both PLS-SEM and covariance-based SEM. Third, the learning organization, particularly in what concerns service-related innovation, radical or incremental, as well as the moderators and mediators of the relationship between market orientation and business performance are among the most relevant in published literature and are the theoretical foundations of most studies about market orientation in the hotel industry.
From a practical perspective, this study also provides critical results that can guide the overall hospitality management and particularly, hotel management. The overall tourism industry suffered a halt in recent years due to the COVID-19 pandemic and companies, particularly hotels, are compelled to evolve several measures targeting customers’ confidence. For instance, the main recommendations for hotels during the COVID-19 pandemics are physical distance, cleaning, hygiene, and better food control. According to the World Health Organization (2020), accommodation establishments were to develop a comprehensive strategy to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic, including reducing occupancy rates where physical distancing cannot easily be achieved, increasing staff, providing sufficient information and regularly updating it, and making physical adaptations to spaces, among other aspects, to offer minimum risk for hosts, employees, and staff, the latter playing a critical role in hotel companies (Arnedo et al. 2021). Previous research showed that the tighter measures, including innovations, to face the pandemic presented immediate positive abnormal returns for hotels (Sharma et al. 2021), which shows that hotel managers should focus their agendas on what measures should or should not be maintained, taking lessons from recent events for ongoing or future turbulence in markets. Therefore, the present context surrounding the industry suggests a high degree of innovation, incremental or radical, and an optimal assessment of the market conditions, including turbulence, competition, as well as an assessment of the customers perceptions about the provided service. Market orientation characteristics provide the tools to address these issues, increase customers’ confidence, and retain them, targeting business performance.
Despite the insights, this study presents limitations. First, coupling a co-citation analysis with a co-word analysis could provide further insights about the theoretical foundations of the research stream. Second, this study uses data retrieved from a unique database. Adding data from several databases, such as Scopus and Google Scholar, could add further documents to the dataset. Nevertheless, it would jeopardize the reliability of the obtained results, which the use of an unique database, such as the WoS, enables (van Eck and Waltman 2020). Readers must be aware of this shortcoming.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.S. and M.R.; methodology, C.S.; software, C.S.; validation, C.S. and M.R.; formal analysis, M.R.; investigation, C.S.; resources, C.S.; data curation, C.S.; writing—original draft preparation, C.S.; writing—review and editing, M.R.; visualization, C.S.; supervision, C.S.; project administration, C.S.; funding acquisition, C.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

NECE-UBI: Research Centre for Business Sciences, Research Centre and this work are funded by FCT—Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, IP, project UIDB/04630/2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Agarwal, Sanjeev, M. Krishna Erramilli, and Chekitan S. Dev. 2003. Market Orientation and Performance in Service Firms: Role of Innovation. Journal of Services Marketing 17: 68–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Alderson, W. 1957. Marketing Behaviour and Executive Action. Homewood: R. D. Irwin, Inc. [Google Scholar]
  3. Ali, Faizan, S. Mostafa Rasoolimanesh, Marko Sarstedt, Christian M. Ringle, and Kisang Ryu. 2018. An Assessment of the Use of Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) in Hospitality Research. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30: 514–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Aliperti, Giuseppe, and Ana Maria Cruz. 2019. Investigating Tourists’ Risk Information Processing. Annals of Tourism Research 79: 102803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Anderson, James C., and David W. Gerbing. 1988. Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach. Psychological Bulletin 103: 411–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Aria, Massimo, and Corrado Cuccurullo. 2017. Bibliometrix: An R-Tool for Comprehensive Science Mapping Analysis. Journal of Informetrics 11: 959–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Armstrong, J. Scott, and Terry S. Overton. 1977. Estimating Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys. Journal of Marketing Research 14: 396–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Arnedo, Esther González, Jesús Alberto Valero-Matas, and Antonio Sánchez-Bayón. 2021. Spanish Tourist Sector Sustainability: Recovery Plan, Green Jobs and Wellbeing Opportunity. Sustainability 13: 11447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi. 1991. Multitrait-Multimethod Matrices in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research 17: 426–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi. 2012. Specification, Evaluation, and Interpretation of Structural Equation Models. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 40: 8–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baker, William E., and James M. Sinkula. 1999. The Synergistic Effect of Market Orientation and Learning Orientation on Organizational Performance. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 27: 411–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barney, Jay. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Journal of Management 17: 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Bearden, William O., and Jesse E. Teel. 1983. Selected Determinats of Consumer Satisfaction and Complaint Reports. Journal of Marketing Research 20: 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chang, Sea Jin, Arjen Van Witteloostuijn, and Lorraine Eden. 2010. From the Editors: Common Method Variance in International Business Research. Journal of International Business Studies 41: 178–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Chang, Song, Yaping Gong, and Cass Shum. 2011. Promoting Innovation in Hospitality Companies through Human Resource Management Practices. International Journal of Hospitality Management 30: 812–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Chang, Tung-Zong, and Su-Jane Chen. 1998. Market Orientation, Service Quality and Business Profitability: A Conceptual Model and Empirical Evidence. Journal of Services Marketing 12: 246–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Chin, Wynne W. 1998. The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling. In Modern Methods for Business Research. Edited by G. A. Marcoulides. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 295–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Cohen, Erik. 2012. Globalization, Global Crises and Tourism. Tourism Recreation Research 37: 103–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Covin, Jeffrey G., and Dennis P. Slevin. 1989. Strategic Management of Small Firms in Hostile and Benign Environments. Strategic Management Journal 10: 75–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Day, George S., and Prakash Nedungadi. 1994. Managerial Representations of Competitive Advantage. Journal of Marketing 58: 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Day, George S., and Robin Wensley. 1988. Assessing Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive Superiority. Journal of Marketing 52: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Deshpandé, Rohit, and John U. Farley. 1998. Measuring Market Orientation: Generalization and Synthesis. Journal of Market-Focused Management 2: 213–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Deshpande, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Frederick E. Webster Jr. 1993. Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovativeness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis. Journal of Marketing 57: 23–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Drucker, Peter F. 1954. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper & Row. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ellegaard, Ole, and Johan A. Wallin. 2015. The Bibliometric Analysis of Scholarly Production: How Great Is the Impact? Scientometrics 105: 1809–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Farmaki, Anna. 2021. Memory and Forgetfulness in Tourism Crisis Research. Tourism Management 83: 104210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larker. 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fuller, Christie M., Marcia J. Simmering, Guclu Atinc, Yasemin Atinc, and Barry J. Babin. 2016. Common Methods Variance Detection in Business Research. Journal of Business Research 69: 3192–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Gheysari, Hamed, Amran Rasli, Parastoo Roghanian, and Nadhirah Norhalim. 2012. A Review on the Market Orientation Evolution. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 40: 542–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Gössling, Stefan, Daniel Scott, and C. Michael Hall. 2021. Pandemics, Tourism and Global Change: A Rapid Assessment of COVID-19. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 29: 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gray, Brendan J., Sheelagh Matear, and Philip K. Matheson. 2002. Improving Service Firm Performance. Journal of Services Marketing 16: 186–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gray, Brendan, Sheelagh Matear, Christo Boshoff, and Phil Matheson. 1998. Developing a Better Measure of Market Orientation. European Journal of Marketing 32: 884–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Grissemann, Ursula, Andreas Plank, and Alexandra Brunner-Sperdin. 2013. Enhancing Business Performance of Hotels: The Role of Innovation and Customer Orientation. International Journal of Hospitality Management 33: 347–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Han, Jin K., Namwoon Kim, and Rajendra K. Srivastava. 1998. Market Orientation and Organizational Performance: Is Innovation a Missing Link? Journal of Marketing 62: 30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Haugland, Sven A., Ingunn Myrtveit, and Arne Nygaard. 2007. Market Orientation and Performance in the Service Industry: A Data Envelopment Analysis. Journal of Business Research 60: 1191–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hjalager, Anne Mette. 2010. A Review of Innovation Research in Tourism. Tourism Management 31: 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hu, Li Tze, and Peter M. Bentler. 1999. Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hult, G. Tomas M., and David J. Ketchen. 2001. Does Market Orientation Matter?: A Test of the Relationship between Positional Advantage and Performance. Strategic Management Journal 22: 899–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Hult, G. Tomas M., Robert F. Hurley, and Gary A. Knight. 2004. Innovativeness: Its Antecedents and Impact on Business Performance. Industrial Marketing Management 33: 429–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hurley, Robert F., and G. Tomas M. Hult. 1998. Innovation, Market Orientation, and Organizational Learning: An Integration and Empirical Examination. Journal of Marketing 62: 42–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Jaworski, Bernard J., and Ajay K. Kohli. 1993. Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences. Journal of Marketing 57: 53–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Jogaratnam, Giri. 2017. The Effect of Market Orientation, Entrepreneurial Orientation and Human Capital on Positional Advantage: Evidence from the Restaurant Industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 60: 104–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jogaratnam, Giri, and Eliza Ching-Yick Tse. 2006. Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Structuring of Organizations: Performance Evidence from the Asian Hotel Industry. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 18: 454–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Johnston, Robert. 1997. Identifying the Critical Determinants of Service Quality in Retail Banking: Importance and Effect. International Journal of Bank Marketing 15: 111–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Kasim, Azilah, Yuksel Ekinci, Levent Altinay, and Kashif Hussain. 2018. Impact of Market Orientation, Organizational Learning and Market Conditions on Small and Medium-Size Hospitality Enterprises. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 27: 855–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Kelleher, Suzanne Rowan. 2022. More Than 10,000 Flight Delays Today Worldwide—Here Are the Big Trouble Spots. Forbes.com. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2022/07/11/10000-flight-delays-worldwide/?sh=56b134e24a00 (accessed on 20 August 2022).
  48. Kirca, Ahmet H., Satish Jayachandran, and William O. Bearden. 2005. Market Orientation: A Meta-Analytic Review and Assessment of Its Antecedents and Impact on Performance. Journal of Marketing 69: 24–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Kock, Ned. 2015. Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM. International Journal of E-Collaboration 11: 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kohli, Ajay K., and Bernard J. Jaworski. 1990. Market Orientation: The Construct, Research Propositions and Managerial Implications. Journal of Marketing 54: 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Kohli, Ajay K., Bernard J. Jaworski, and Ajith Kumar. 1993. MARKOR: A Measure of Market Orientation. Journal of Marketing Research 30: 467–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Kotler, Philip. 1972. A Generic Concept of Marketing. Journal of Marketing 36: 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Langerak, Fred. 2003. An Appraisal of Research on the Predictive Power of Market Orientation. European Management Journal 21: 447–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lee, Jongkuk, and Young Bong Chang. 2014. Interplay between Internal Investment and Alliance Specialization in R&D and Marketing. Industrial Marketing Management 43: 813–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lee, Yong-Ki, Soon-Ho Kim, Min-Kyo Seo, and S. Kyle Hight. 2015. Market Orientation and Business Performance: Evidence from Franchising Industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 44: 28–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Levitt, Theodore. 1960. Marketing Myopia. Harvard Business Review 38: 21–40. [Google Scholar]
  57. Li, Jie, Judy F. Burnham, Trey Lemley, and Robert M. Britton. 2010. Citation Analysis: Comparison of Web of Science, Scopus, SciFinder, and Google Scholar. Journal of Electronic Resources in Medical Libraries 7: 196–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liao, Shu-Hsien, Wen-Jung Chang, Chi-Huan Wu, and Jerome M. Katrichis. 2011. A Survey of Market Orientation Research (1995–2008). Industrial Marketing Management 40: 301–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Liu, Xianbing, Can Wang, Weishi Zhang, Sunhee Suk, and Kinichi Sudo. 2013. Awareness and Acceptability of Chinese Companies on Market-Based Instruments for Energy Saving: A Survey Analysis by Sectors. Energy for Sustainable Development 17: 228–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Lumpkin, G. T., and Gregory G. Dess. 1996. Clarifying the Entrepreneurial Orientation Construct and Linking It to Performance. Academy of Management Review 21: 135–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Lumpkin, G. T., and Gregory G. Dess. 2001. Linking Two Dimensions of Entrepreneurial Orientation to Firm Performance: The Moderating Role of Environment and Industry Life Cycle. Journal of Business Venturing 16: 429–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Marshakova-Shaikevich, Irena V. 1973. System of Document Connections Based on References. Scientific and Technical Information Serial of VINITI 2: 3–8. [Google Scholar]
  63. Martínez-Ros, Ester, and Francina Orfila-Sintes. 2009. Innovation Activity in the Hotel Industry. Technovation 29: 632–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. McCain, Katherine W. 1990. Mapping Authors in Intellectual Space: A Technical Overview: Introduction. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (1986-1998) 41: 433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. McCain, Katherine W. 1991. Mapping Economics through the Journal Literature: An Experiment in Journal Cocitation Analysis. Journal of the American Society for Information Science (1986-1998) 42: 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. McKitterick, J B. 1957. What Is the Marketing Management Concept? In The Frontiers of Marketing Thought and Science. Edited by Frank M. Bass. Chicago: AMA. [Google Scholar]
  67. Morgan, Neil A., and Lopo Leotte Rego. 2006. The Value of Different Customer Satisfaction and Loyalty Metrics in Predicting Business Performance. Marketing Science 25: 426–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Morris, Steven A., and Betsy der Veer Martens. 2008. Mapping Research Specialties. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology 42: 213–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Mullins, Laurie J. 1993. The Hotel and the Open System Model of Organizational Analysis. The Service Industries Journal 13: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Narver, John C., and Stanley F. Slater. 1990. The Effect of a Market Orientation on Business Profitability. Journal of Marketing 54: 20–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Nicolau, Juan Luis, and María Jesús Santa-María. 2013. The Effect of Innovation on Hotel Market Value. International Journal of Hospitality Management 32: 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Nunnaly, Jim C. 1978. Psychometric Theory, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  73. Nwokah, N. Gladson. 2008. Strategic Market Orientation and Business Performance. European Journal of Marketing 42: 279–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Orfila-Sintes, Francina, and Jan Mattsson. 2009. Innovation Behavior in the Hotel Industry. Omega 37: 380–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Orfila-Sintes, Francina, Rafel Crespí-Cladera, and Ester Martínez-Ros. 2005. Innovation Activity in the Hotel Industry: Evidence from Balearic Islands. Tourism Management 26: 851–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  76. Ottenbacher, Michael C. 2007. Innovation Management in the Hospitality Industry: Different Strategies for Achieving Success. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 31: 431–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ottenbacher, Michael, and Juergen Gnoth. 2005. How to Develop Successful Hospitality Innovation. Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly 46: 205–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pawlyk, Oriana. 2022. Flying Is Painful. Climate Change Will Make It Even Worse. Politico.com. Available online: https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/13/flying-climate-change-delays-cancellations-00050101 (accessed on 7 September 2022).
  79. Podsakoff, Philip M., and Dennis W. Organ. 1986. Self-Reports in Organizational Research: Problems and Prospects. Journal of Management 12: 531–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong Yeon Lee, and Nathan P. Podsakoff. 2003. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88: 879–903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Preacher, Kristopher J., and Andrew F. Hayes. 2008. Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models. Behavior Research Methods 40: 879–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. R Core Team. 2020. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Google Scholar]
  83. Ruekert, Robert W. 1992. Developing a Market Orientation: An Organizational Strategy Perspective. International Journal of Research in Marketing 9: 225–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sampaio, Carlos A. F., Ricardo Gouveia Rodrigues, and José M. Hernández-Mogollón. 2021. Price Strategy, Market Orientation, and Business Performance in the Hotel Industry. Journal of Global Information Management 29: 85–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Sampaio, Carlos Alberto Fernandes, José Manuel Hernández-Mogollón, and Ricardo José de Ascensão Gouveia Rodrigues. 2020. The Relationship between Market Orientation, Customer Loyalty and Business Performance: A Sample from the Western Europe Hotel Industry. Tourism and Hospitality Research 20: 131–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sandvik, Izabela Leskiewicz, and Kare Sandvik. 2003. The Impact of Market Orientation on Product Innovativeness and Business Performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing 20: 355–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Sargeant, A., and M. Mohamad. 1999. Business Performance in the UK Hotel Sector—Does It Pay to Be Market Oriented? The Service Industries Journal 19: 42–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Shapiro, Benson P. 1988. What the Hells Is “Market Oriented”? Harvard Business Review 66: 119–25. [Google Scholar]
  89. Sharma, Abhinav, Hakseung Shin, María Jesús Santa-María, and Juan Luis Nicolau. 2021. Hotels’ COVID-19 Innovation and Performance. Annals of Tourism Research 88: 103180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sin, Leo Y. M., Alan C. B. Tse, Vincent C. S. Heung, and Frederick H. K. Yim. 2005. An Analysis of the Relationship between Market Orientation and Business Performance in the Hotel Industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 24: 555–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Slater, Stanley F., and John C. Narver. 1994a. Does Competitive Environment Moderate the Market Orientation-Performance Relationship? Journal of Marketing 58: 46–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Slater, Stanley F., and John C. Narver. 1994b. Market Orientation, Customer Value, and Superior Performance. Business Horizons 37: 22–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Slater, Stanley, and John C. Narver. 1995. Market Orientation and the Learning Organization. Journal of Marketing 59: 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Small, Henry. 1973. Co-Citation in the Scientific Literature: A New Measure of the Relationship between Two Documents. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 24: 265–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Small, Henry. 1999. Visualizing Science by Citation Mapping. Journal of the American Society for Information Science 50: 799–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Smeral, Egon. 2009. The Impact of the Financial and Economic Crisis on European Tourism. Journal of Travel Research 48: 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Smith, Wendell R. 1958. Marketing Strategy: What Preparations Should Precede the Marketing Concept? Printer’s Ink, 264. [Google Scholar]
  98. Sureshchandar, G. S., Rajendran Chandrasekharan, and R. N. Anantharaman. 2002. The Relationship between Service Quality and Customer Satisfaction—A Factor Specific Approach. Journal of Services Marketing 16: 363–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  99. Tajeddini, Kayhan. 2010. Effect of Customer Orientation and Entrepreneurial Orientation on Innovativeness: Evidence from the Hotel Industry in Switzerland. Tourism Management 31: 221–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Tajeddini, Kayhan. 2011. Customer Orientation, Learning Orientation, and New Service Development: An Empirical Investigation of the Swiss Hotel Industry. Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research 35: 437–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Tajeddini, Kayhan, and Myfanwy Trueman. 2012. Managing Swiss Hospitality: How Cultural Antecedents of Innovation and Customer-Oriented Value Systems Can Influence Performance in the Hotel Industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31: 1119–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. van Eck, Nees Jan, and Ludo Waltman. 2020. VOSviewer Manual. 2020. Available online: http://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.1.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2022).
  103. Vega-Vázquez, Manuela, Francisco José Cossío-Silva, and María Ángeles Revilla-Camacho. 2016. Entrepreneurial Orientation-Hotel Performance: Has Market Orientation Anything to Say? Journal of Business Research 69: 5089–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Wang, Cheng-Hua, Kuan-Yu Chen, and Shiu-Chun Chen. 2012. Total Quality Management, Market Orientation and Hotel Performance: The Moderating Effects of External Environmental Factors. International Journal of Hospitality Management 31: 119–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Webster, Frederick E., Jr. 1988. The Rediscovery of the Marketing Concept. Business Horizons 31: 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Williams, Paul, and Earl Naumann. 2011. Customer Satisfaction and Business Performance: A Firm-Level Analysis. Journal of Services Marketing 25: 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. World Health Organization. 2020. COVID-19 Management in Hotels and Other Entities of the Accommodation Sector. Geneva: World Health Organization. [Google Scholar]
  108. World Trade Organization. 2021. Press Release/876—Trade Statistics and Outlook. Available online: https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres21_e/pr876_e.pdf (accessed on 20 August 2022).
  109. World Travel and Tourism Council. 2020. Recovery Scenarios 2020 & Economic Impact from COVID-19. Available online: https://wttc.org/Research/Economic-Impact/Recovery-Scenarios-2020-Economic-Impact-from-COVID-19 (accessed on 20 August 2022).
  110. Zhou, Kevin Zheng, James R. Brown, and Chekitan S. Dev. 2009. Market Orientation, Competitive Advantage, and Performance: A Demand-Based Perspective. Journal of Business Research 62: 1063–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Zupic, Ivan, and Tomaž Čater. 2015. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organizational Research Methods 18: 429–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jrfm 15 00497 g001 550
Figure 1. Number of articles per year.
Figure 1. Number of articles per year.
Jrfm 15 00497 g001
Jrfm 15 00497 g002 550
Figure 2. Co-citation network.
Figure 2. Co-citation network.
Jrfm 15 00497 g002
Table
Table 1. Most relevant sources.
Table 1. Most relevant sources.
SourcesArticles
International Journal of Hospitality Management27
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management16
Journal of Business Research 6
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management5
Services Industries Journal4
European Journal of Marketing3
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Research3
Service Business3
Cornell Hospitality Quarterly2
Current Issues in Tourism2
Table
Table 2. Short descriptions of the cluster 1 articles.
Table 2. Short descriptions of the cluster 1 articles.
Nr.DocumentShort Description
1(Agarwal et al. 2003)Examines the relationship between market orientation and performance in hotel companies and its association with measures of service quality, customer satisfaction, and employee satisfaction.
2(Chin 1998)Provides an introduction to the Partial Least Squares (PLS) approach for structural equation modelling and contrasts it with the covariance-based approach. Provides further insights about the conditions in which the PLS technique is appropriate.
3(Day and Wensley 1988)Evaluates the organizing framework that clarifies the nature of competitive advantage and uses it to distinguish the sources of advantage from their consequences for relative competitive position and performance superiority.
4(Deshpande et al. 1993)Examines the impact of culture, customer orientation (market orientation), and innovativeness on business performances, further proposing a construct to measure market orientation, labelled as “customer orientation”, based on a cultural perspective.
5(Jaworski and Kohli 1993)Examines three main questions: “Why are some organizations more market-oriented than others?”, “What effect does a market orientation have on employees and business performance?”, and “Does the linkage between a market orientation and business performance depend on the environmental context?”. Uses the Kohli and Jaworski (Kohli and Jaworski 1990) framework and proposes a new market orientation measurement scale.
6(Kirca et al. 2005)Conducts a meta-analysis on market orientation literature which aggregates the empirical findings from the research stream.
7(Kohli and Jaworski 1990)Synthesizes the extant knowledge about market orientation, clarifies the construct’s domain, and provides the foundation for future research about market orientation.
8(Kohli et al. 1993)Departs from previous studies (i.e., Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Jaworski and Kohli 1993), defines market orientation, and develops the MARKOR measurement scale.
9(Narver and Slater 1990)The authors provide a report on the development of a measure of market orientation (MKTOR scale) and assesses its effect on business’ profitability.
10(Preacher and Hayes 2008)Delivers a summary of simple and multiple mediation and explores approaches that can be used to investigate indirect mediator effects, as well as methods for contrasting two or more mediators within a single model.
11(Ruekert 1992)Examines the variation in market orientation across strategic business units, the relationship between market orientation and the business unit’s organizational systems, and the relationship between market orientation, individual job attitudes, and business unit performance.
12(Sandvik and Sandvik 2003)Studies the impact of market orientation on business performance in the Norwegian hotel industry, testing if product innovativeness acts as mediator in the relationship between market orientation and business performance.
13(Sargeant and Mohamad 1999)Assesses the implementation of market orientation in the United Kingdom (UK) hotel industry. Finds that many organizations need to achieve a higher degree of market orientation and to focus on competitors.
14(Sin et al. 2005)Investigates the link between market orientation and business performance in the hotel industry. Finds a positive relationship between market orientation and marketing performance, as well as with financial performance.
15(Slater and Narver 1994a)Evaluates how a competitive environment affects the strength of the relationship between market orientation and business performance and if it produces a greater emphasis on customer analysis relative to competitor analysis, or vice versa, considering a given magnitude of market orientation.
16(Wang et al. 2012)This study incorporates factors such as market and technological turbulence, and competitive intensity in a model to examine how total quality management (TQM) and market orientation affect hotel performance and if market orientation mediates relationship between TQM and hotel performance.
17(Zhou et al. 2009)Evaluates how customer value affects a firm’s market orientation, competitive advantage, and organizational performance in the hotel industry.
Table
Table 3. Short descriptions of the cluster 2 articles.
Table 3. Short descriptions of the cluster 2 articles.
Nr.DocumentShort Description
1(Anderson and Gerbing 1988)Provides guidelines for the use of structural equation models (SEM) for theory testing and development.
2(Armstrong and Overton 1977)Examines methods for nonresponse bias estimation, predictions of the direction of nonresponse bias, and estimation of the magnitude of the bias.
3(Bagozzi and Yi 2012)Provides guidelines and standards to use and an interpretation of SEM by researchers.
4(Baker and Sinkula 1999)Focuses on the study of the relationship between learning orientation, market orientation, and organizational performance.
5(Barney 1991)Examines the relationship between firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
6(Baron and Kenny 1986)Provides a set of guidelines, namely analytics procedures on how to evaluate moderator and mediator effects, separately and in wider models including moderators and mediators.
7(Covin and Slevin 1989)Assesses what are the most effective strategic responses to environmental hostility among small manufacturing firms and shows that business performance in hostile environments is positively correlated with companies’ organic structure, entrepreneurial strategic posture based in a long-term orientation, high product prices, and a concern for predicting industry trends.
8(Day and Nedungadi 1994)Focuses on the study of the different types of mental models or representations of competitive advantages according to the emphasis on customer or management judgements about where and how competitors differ.
9(Fornell and Larker 1981)Examines the statistical tests used in the analysis of SEM with unobservable variables and measurement errors and develops a system based on measures of shared variance within the structural model, measurement model, and overall models.
10(Hu and Bentler 1999)Examines the adequacy of the conventional rule-of-thumb cut-off criteria for various fit indexes used to evaluate model fit.
11(Hult and Ketchen 2001)Based on the resource-based view of the firm, the authors suggest that market orientation, entrepreneurship, innovativeness, and organizational learning contribute to the creation of positional advantages for some firms.
12(Jogaratnam and Tse 2006)Evaluates the link between entrepreneurial orientation organization structure and performance in the context of the Asian hotel industry.
13(Lumpkin and Dess 1996)Evaluates the nature of the entrepreneurial orientation (EO) construct and proposes a contingency framework to investigate the relationship between EO and firm performance.
14(Lumpkin and Dess 2001)Assesses how proactiveness and competitive approaches are related to each other, how they are linked to business performance, and if they differ according to the environment in which companies settle these approaches in strategy-making.
15(Jum C. Nunnaly 1978)Provides a comprehensive text and guidelines to help researchers in measurement, particularly to be used in graduate courses in psychology, education, and areas of business such as management and marketing.
16(Podsakoff and Organ 1986)Discusses the problems related with self-report questionnaires, particularly common method variance, the consistency motif, and social desirability, further providing guidance for post hoc remedies and further procedural methods for dealing with artefactual bias.
17(Podsakoff et al. 2003)Examines the extent to which method bias influences behavioural research results and evaluates several procedural and statistic methods to control method bias, proposing statistical remedies for different types of research settings.
18(Slater and Narver 1995)Focuses on the process in which organizations develop and use new knowledge, further providing a set of organizational elements, including the learning organization to improve performance.
Table
Table 4. Short descriptions of the cluster 3 articles.
Table 4. Short descriptions of the cluster 3 articles.
Nr.DocumentShort Description
1(Chang et al. 2011)Evaluates how hospitality companies can promote incremental and radical innovation using human resource management practices such as selection and training.
2(Grissemann et al. 2013)Assesses the relationship between customer orientation, innovation, and business performance in hotel companies.
3(Han et al. 1998)The study presents a framework for the chain relationship market orientation–innovation–performance.
4(Hjalager 2010)Settles an analysis of research contributions, specifically, innovation in the tourism industry and its implications for destinations and national economies.
5(Hult et al. 2004)Evaluates why some firms are more innovative than others, what effect innovativeness has on business performance, and if the link between innovativeness and business performance depends on the environmental context, proposing that market orientation, entrepreneurial orientation, and learning orientation are key antecedents to innovativeness, as well as a direct relationship between innovativeness and business performance.
6(Hurley and Hult 1998)The study presents a conceptual framework for incorporating innovation in market orientation research.
7(Martínez-Ros and Orfila-Sintes 2009)Explores the influence of firms and market characteristics on radical and incremental innovations.
8(Nicolau and Santa-María 2013)Evaluates the effect of hotel innovations on firm value. The authors examine this effect through market value, distinguishing the potentially different impacts of distinct innovation types: product, process, organization, and marketing.
9(Orfila-Sintes et al. 2005)Settles empirical evidence on technological activity in the Spanish service sector, specifically, the tourist accommodation in the Balearics Islands (Spain).
10(Orfila-Sintes and Mattsson 2009)Develops and tests models of innovation behaviour in the hotel industry, specifically, relating four types of innovation, namely: management, external communication, service scope, and back-office to key determinants such as service provider characteristics, customer competences, and the market drivers.
11(Ottenbacher and Gnoth 2005)Seeks to identify factors that promote successful service innovations and examines the link between success and performance dimensions.
12(Ottenbacher 2007)Evaluates innovation in the hospitality industry to find success factors in hospitality firms, further investigating how success factors relate themselves with market performance, financial performance, and employee and customer relationship enhancement.
13(Tajeddini 2010)Examines the relationship between customer orientation, entrepreneurship, and innovativeness with business performance in the hotel industry.
14(Tajeddini 2011)Examines the influence of customer orientation and learning orientation in new service development and their subsequent effect on performance (financial and perceptual) in the hotel industry.
15(Tajeddini and Trueman 2012)Evaluates the relationship between corporate culture, indicators of innovativeness, and business performance in the Swiss hotel industry.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sampaio, C.; Régio, M. Market Orientation and Hotel Industry: Literature Review and Implications for Periods of Market Turmoil. J. Risk Financial Manag. 2022, 15, 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15110497

AMA Style

Sampaio C, Régio M. Market Orientation and Hotel Industry: Literature Review and Implications for Periods of Market Turmoil. Journal of Risk and Financial Management. 2022; 15(11):497. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15110497

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sampaio, Carlos, and Mónica Régio. 2022. "Market Orientation and Hotel Industry: Literature Review and Implications for Periods of Market Turmoil" Journal of Risk and Financial Management 15, no. 11: 497. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15110497

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop