The service sector has witnessed some extreme changes in the workplace environment. The advances in information technology, globalization and increasing customer as well as stakeholders’ expectations have made service sector very competitive. Customers are not only difficult to attract but also challenging to satisfy and retain them, hence attracting customers by excellent products and services should be the main goal of every business, because these customers create demand.

In this era of globalization and integration of markets, companies irrespective of being in developed or developing countries in this 21^st century are getting established to compete with each other. Because of heighten competitive marketing environment, organizations are seeking new ways to achieve competitive advantage. Embracing marketing activities which involves identifying the needs and wants of the consumers and satisfying them profitably may contribute to the performance of organizations including universities. Marketing of an organization’s offering has an important role in organizational success and the core of marketing lies on Customer Orientation (CO). Today, organizations tend to create value by initiating a customer relationship that is strong and continuous in order to keep and retain their customers over a long-term period. 

Marketing of an organization’s offering has an important role in organizational success and the core of marketing lies on customer orientation. Customer orientation involves listening to the voice of the customers and offering solutions based on their needs and desires. Scholars seem to agree that successful firms that are customer oriented tend to have a competitive advantage [1,2]. The importance of customer orientation and its influence on organization performance has gained a lot of interest over the years with most studies stressing the central role of customer orientation in an organization’s superior performance. Customer orientation has also been claimed to enhance performance regardless of the size of the firm and the type of industry and at the same time plays a relatively largr role in a firm’s market orientation components [3,4]. Organizations irrespective of being in developed or developing countries, consider customer orientation as a pivotal point in their decision making process. 

Organizations operate in a dynamic competitive business environment hampered with challenges such as marketing problems, limited resources and changes in customer needs and wants. Due to these challenges encountered, organizations have tried to look for ways of managing their target markets more effectively and efficiently better than their competitors by implementing the marketing concept through customer orientation. A number of researchers contend that Universities like many other industries, too, are operating in a highly competitive and dynamic environment with similar and comparable alternative [5]. This has led to situation whereby universities all over the world have to compete for the available funds from both public and private sectors [6]. Literature on customer orientation in higher education broadly recognize the fact that universities currently are faced with threats and for universities to survive depends on how well they respond to environmental challenges to improve their performance.  Hence, Koris et al. [7] stated that in order to withstand the competitive education environment, universities have been forced to position themselves as value-creators and focus on academic excellence to position themselves as a customer-oriented academic institution. 

The growing demand for university education in Kenya has triggered the establishment of many universities and alternative modes of delivery [8]. The drastic increase of both public and private universities in Kenya opened doors to a critical mass of present and future potential generations. The result of this increase of universities have intensified competition among universities for students drawn from the same market. Competition in education sector is severe and for universities to differentiate themselves, need to position themselves as customer (student)-oriented. Given the aggressive competition, globalization and varying -oriented and strategic marketing approaches to stay relevant in the competitive market place. Canterbury, Muya and Tundui, claims that marketing of higher education encounters some challenges because of diverse markets and characteristics which are different from other customers’ needs and wants, universities need strong customer markets of goods and services. 

Customer Orientation (CO) is a fundamental component of market orientation. It refers to a sufficient focus and understanding of customers’ needs and wants in order to create superior products or services. Leeflang [9] and Sisay et al. [10] stated that customer orientation is a key focus for every organization’s relationship to its market as it is the way to understand one’s target buyers in order to create superior value for them thus driving performance. Customer orientation is considered as the most primary factor that drives organizations’ towards customer satisfaction. Mehrabi et al. [11]; Pandey [12] stated that organizations that are customer oriented, tend to change short term customers into long term customers and finally into loyal customers.  Racela and Thoumrungroje [13] study on customer orientation, innovation competencies and firm performance established that there is a link between customer orientation, creativity, innovation and firm performance. Furthermore, a study done by Acar et al. [14] indicated that an organization that pursues customer-oriented strategies tend to contribute to customer satisfaction and attain organizational goals more efficiently and effectively than its competitors. 

A number of studies have however found mixed results between market orientation component of customer orientation and organization performance. A study by Demirbag et al. [15] on total quality management and market orientation’s impact on SMS’s performance found that market orientation has no significant impact on organiational performance. Other studies also did not find a direct and statistically significant relationship between customer orientation and performance [16,17]. Smirnova et al. in their study on customer orientation as a multidimensional construct in Russian markets established that customer orientation does differ across diverse types of performance outcomes. Moreover Noble et al. [17], established that customer orientation variable did not relate to a firm’s performance in their study which examined the relative effects of alternative strategic orientations. On the importance of market orientation components and their association with organizational performance, there are some conflicting findings on the nature of market orientation-performance relationship. Though Narver and Slater [3], Ruekert [18] and Slater and Narver [19] established a positive relationship; Diamantopoulos and Hart [20] as well as Greenley [21] also established that there is a non-significant relationship, while Jaworski and Kohli [22] found mixed results. 

Most studies on the relationship between customer orientation and performance of universities have been conducted mostly in developed countries with a few from developing countries. The existing literature shows that even though customer (student) orientation has a positive significant relationship with business performance, empirical studies has not consistently supported this claim [16,23]. Moreover, the concept of customer orientation have extensively been researched in the context of business firms rather than linking with the key customers of a service organization like university. The researcher thus chose to use the Narver and Slater [3] cultural view of market orientation component of customer orientation. This study therefore, proposed to fill this gap by examining whether there is a relationship between customer orientation and performance of universities in Kenya. Thus the study hypothesized that; H₁: There is a statistically significant relationship between customer orientation and university performance in Kenya.

Conceptual Framework

The study conceptualized that sufficient understanding and analysing of customers (students’) needs by universities and how to respond to such needs leads to university performance. Education policies such are reforms are intervening variables that it influence the linkage between competitor orientation and performance. The conceptual framework indicates university performance can be considered as the dependent variables measured in terms of customer satisfaction, student increase, retention and increase of students and customer orientation as independent variable.

The research design adopted was descriptive and correlation designs. A structured questionnaire was used to collect data from the managers of the universities through drop and pick method. A total of 115 respondents were selected from a sample of 23 universities. Stratified sampling technique was used in selecting respondents in the target population.  Simple random sampling was used to obtain the sample from each strata. From each stratum, one key informant from three sections of the 23 sampled universities namely School/faculty dean office, Academic Registrar/Admission office and Marketing/Corporate affairs office were purposefully selected.  In addition, 2 participants from students’ affairs/students’ Deans office, represented by students’ leaders from the 23 sampled universities were also included in the sample. Table 1 presents the sampling and the sample size.

Table 1: Sampling and the Sample Size

The research instrument for the study was developed using measures from previous studies. This study’s measure of customer orientation comprised items measuring customer orientation that was refined to suit a university set up. University performance was measured using four subjective measures of performance namely customer (student) satisfaction, student increase (growth), number of academic programs and student retention. These performance measurements were propounded by [24]. Both customer orientation measures and university performance measures used five-point scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. The first section of the research instrument comprised the background information of the respondents’ position, type of university, section, length of service. 

The study used Cronbach’s alpha which is a method used as a coefficient of internal consistency among research instruments to check the reliability of the study variables. The cut of value of 0.5 Cronbach’s coefficient was adopted according to [25]. The cut-off value of 0.5 have also been used in some studies [26,27]. Construct and Content validity tests were performed for this study. Table 2 presents Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient results.

In order to achieve the objective of the study, both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze data, which include statistics such as factor analysis, correlation and regression analysis to establish the nature and magnitude of the relationships between the market orientation variables and universities performance. Factor analysis was performed for all the 5-point Likert scale items in each variable.  The purpose is to explore the underlying variance structure of a set of correlation coefficients [28]. Normality test was performed to assess whether data set are normally distributed or not. Multicollinearity test was performed using pairwise correlations among the variables to test if independent variables are correlated to each other. Qualitative data was analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Quantitative data was analysed to test the relationship of customer orientation variable on the performance measurement variable for closed-ended questions. The hypothesis was tested using regression analysis and data analysed using Stata software. Regression analysis allows the determination of the overall fit of the model and the relative contribution of each of the predictors to the total variance.

Table 2: Staff Reliability Analysis using Cronbach's Alpha Coefficient

Descriptive Statistics: Table 3 shows the descriptions of respondents by gender, age, education and years of service. A total of 115 questionnaires were administered through drop and pick. Only 105 were returned dully filled representing a response rate of 92%. The response rate is in line with Fincham [29] who stated that response rates approximating 60% for research is the goal of researchers. Table 3 presents the results.

The findings from Table 3 reveals that majority of the respondents were faculty members (35.48%), Marketing/Corporate Affairs (33.87%) and Academic Registrar/Admission (30.65%). With regard to the length of service, majority of the staff respondents had been in the service for a period of 1 to 5 years. Regarding year of study majority of students’ leaders were 4^th year students representing 50% of the respondents.

This study sought to establish the extent to which employees interact and get involved with students in their respective universities. The findings indicate that the scope of customer (student) focus is the responsibility of all university employees irrespective of the position one holds or the department one is. Sisay et al. [10] also supports the finding of this study that customer orientation is an important focus for any firm's relationship to its Market. The respondents were asked whether they conduct student needs assessment survey and number of times such surveys were conducted between 2013-2017. Majority of the respondents conduct needs assessment surveys once per academic year. Respondents were also required to indicate the extent to which the outcome of the analyzed data on student needs assessment survey are used to improve customer (student) satisfaction. The findings indicate that they moderately utilized the findings.

Apart from students’ needs assessment survey, respondents were asked to indicate if their respective universities conduct customer (student) satisfaction survey. Majority of the respondents (92%) indicated that their respective universities conduct customer (student) satisfaction survey as every semester/trimester.

Table 3: Background Information of the Respondents

The respondents also indicated that there students were more satisfied with teaching methods unlike academic facilities, fees, communication method and service delivery and teaching methods. When students’ leaders respondents were asked to give their opinion on the level of customer with regard to academic facilities, fees, communication methods, service delivery and teaching methods. The results indicate that despite staff indicating that students are highly satisfied with academic facilities, the student point of view shows that students were moderately satisfied with communication methods, service delivery and academic facilities. However, both students and staff responses confirms similarity in the findings regarding the satisfaction level with fees in which both students and staff respondents indicated that they are moderately satisfied with the fees. The above findings are in line with previous research of Frambach et al. [30] who pointed out that the presence of customer Orientation in a firm is a stronger condition for high performance and the sufficient understanding of one's target buyers creates or develop superior value for them continuously.

The study sought to find out the extent of agreement regarding respondents’ opinion on some of the statements regarding customer orientation/focus in their respective universities using a 5-poing Likert scale item. The results in Table 4 revealed that customer orientation practices have been adopted in their respective universities.

The results in Table 4 show that respondents have agreed with all the statements regarding the extent of customer orientation in their respective universities. This implies that both private and public universities have managed to implement their procedures in favour of their students and become customer (student) oriented in a way that creates superior value for the customers (students). This is in agreement with the studies by Acar et al. [14] who indicated that an organization that pursues customer-oriented strategies tend to contribute to customer satisfaction for it has a positive significance on performance of banking sector. Leeflang [9] and Sisay et al. [10] also stated that customer orientation is a key focus for every organization’s relationship to its market as it is the way to understand one’s target buyers in order to create superior value for them thus driving performance. The p<0.0001 indicates that the variable items are significant. The descriptive results indicated that there existed a relationship between customer orientation and performance of universities in Kenya.

Table 4: Extent of Customer Orientation in University

Inferential Statistics

Before correlation and regression analysis were conducted, factor analysis and normality test was carried out in order to test the validity of the variables. Factor analysis was a preferred tool as it has the ability to identify small number of factors as well as grouping similar variable indicators together. In addition, test of normality was used to find out if variables were normally distributed.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFP) approach was used to establish the minimum number and nature of factors that would account for the maximum variance in the data collected.  The factor analysis outcome of the process supported distinct concepts of customer orientation. The total variance explanatory component for Customer (student) orientation variable has an Eigen value of 3.797.

The factor analysis results for the dependent variable university performance (student satisfaction, Student growth, number of programmes and student retention) had a factor loading greater than 0.4 ranging from 0.4858 to 0.8733 meaning that all the variable items were retain for further analysis. Factor analysis was also subjected to independent variable customer orientation and the results showed that the variable indicator of the independent variable customer orientation had a factor loading greater than 0.4 ranging between 0.6486 to 0.8708 meaning all the variable items were retain for further analysis. Normality test was also performed to assess whether data set are normally distributed or not. The result in Table 5 shows that Skewness test and Kurtosis test indicate that the data are normally distributed. This confirmation is positive for further multiple regression analysis.

Table 5: Normality Tests

Multicollinearity test was also performed using pairwise correlations among the variables to test if independent variables are correlated to each other. Table 6 shows the correlation between inter-functional coordination component and university performance measures.

Table 6: Correlation between customer orientation and Performance Measures

Note: *coefficient is significant at the 0.05 level. The p-values are in parenthesis, According to the correlation findings Table 6, the variable under study do exhibit a statistically significant relationship with other constructs in the correlation1 matrix, which warrants further investigation. The correlation between the independent and dependent variables indicate a moderately weak correlation

Hypothesis Testing

Regression analysis was used in order to determine the relationship of the independent variable on the dependent variable. The tests of hypothesis using t-values were carried out at 95% significant level. A decision was then made as to whether to reject or accept a hypothesis based on the p-values. Coefficient of determination (R²), F-Statistic values and beta values were considered during the interpretation of results and discussions. The R² show the change in dependent variable that is explain by change in the independent variable. 

Table 7 shows the regression results of the relationship between inter-functional coordination and university performance. Four dependent variables i.e. customer satisfaction, student increase, number of programmes and student retention were used in the study. Columns 1, 2, 3 and 4 present results for dependent variables i.e. customer satisfaction, student increase, number of programmes and student retention respectively.

Table 7: Regression Results for Customer Orientation and University Performance

The t-values are in parenthesis. The asterisks *, **, *** represent significance at 10, 5 and 1% respectively. Dependent 1 captures questions on customer satisfaction, dependent 2 captures questions on increase number of students, dependent 3 captures questions on number of programs while dependent 4 captures questions on student retention. Model 1, 2, 3 and 4 were run without effect of intervening variables

The results in Table 7 Model 1 and 2 shows the results for testing the direct relationship of the independent variable (customer orientation/focus) on the dependent variable university performance with respect to student (customer) satisfaction. The results show that customer orientation has a positive relationship on university performance when it comes to customer satisfaction and number of students, however it is non-significant. Model 3 and 4 shows that customer orientation has a negative relationship when it comes to number of academic programmes and student retention but are statistically insignificant. This non-relationship between customer orientation and performance, in light of the nonsignificant and mixed findings are in line with the prior research [20,22]. 

Also findings are in line with earlier researches by Kumar et al.; Han et al. [16] and Demirbag et al. [15], who did not find a direct and statistically significant relationship between customer and orientation and performance. The results implies that customer orientation may lead to an improvement of customer satisfaction and number of academic programmes non-significantly. 

The study also sought to establish further if there could be any variation in research findings when universities were categorized into private and public universities. The results indicate that customer orientation is still statistically insignificant in both private and public universities (Table 4). Table 8 shows the regression analysis results per university category.

Table 8: Regression Analysis Results per University Category

The t-values are in parenthesis. The asterisks *, **, *** represent significance at 10, 5 and 1% respectively. Dependent 1 captures questions on customer satisfaction, dependent 2 captures questions on increase number of students, dependent 3 captures questions on number of programs while dependent 4 captures questions on student retention. Model 1, 2, 3 and 4 were run without effect of intervening variables

Based on the regression analysis and the subsequent findings in the above tests, the study accepted H₀1: “there is no relationship between customer orientation and performance of universities in Kenya” when private and public universities were lumped together. Similarly, we also accepted the null hypothesis when universities were categorized into private and public universities. The study found that the independent variable customer orientation do not have a direct positive relationship with all the dependent variables as all the dependent variables were insignificant

The objective of this paper was to examine whether customer orientation relates to performance of universities in Kenya and to determine the relationship of customer orientation and university performance in Kenya. Going as per the descriptive results, the study established that customer orientation significantly and positively influence a university performance. The findings are in line with studies by Frambach et al. [30] who opined that the presence of customer Orientation in a firm is a stronger condition for high performance. The study results established that the extent that customer focus/orientation is being practices is across all university departments. This study results are supported by Sisay et al. [10] that customer orientation is an important focus for any firm’s relationship to its market. 

The regression results show that customer orientation improves performance when it comes to customer (student) satisfaction and increase of students, but the results are statistically insignificant when universities are lumped together. Customer orientation also became insignificant when universities were categorized into private and public universities. Previous studies Leeflang [9] and Sisay et al. [10] suggest that, the existence of market orientation in organizations is a strong indicator for high performance. However, contrary to our expectation in H₀1, “there is no relationship between customer orientation and university performance” little evidence was found regarding the relationship between customer orientation and performance in universities. This finding is in line with a study carried out by Kumar et al. which established that market orientation component do not directly relate to an organization’s performance. 

Explanation for such insignificance findings of customer orientation and university performance might be explained by industry differences in which universities operate. In a high market turbulent environment, customer tests and preferences as well as the rate of preferences tend to change, making the component of customer orientation insignificant for among the performance measures, which include customer satisfaction, student increase, number of academic programmes and student retention. The results indicated that none of the dependent variable was being influenced by the independent variable (customer orientation). Han et al. [16]; Kara et al. [23] in their study of market orientation dimensions, found that customer orientation-performance relationship was insignificant.

Implementing customer orientation in an organization, indicates that it is itself committed to satisfying customers’ needs over the long run, for the success of any business performance. This study addressed a gap in the literature by examining the relationship between customer orientation and performance in universities in Kenya. The findings of the study confirms a negative relationship of customer orientation and performance in universities in Kenya, which are in line with the findings. The lack of significance for the customer orientation dimension in this study is worthy and warrant of further research. We can say that in the current competitive education environment, competitive strategies are being applied which are intended to create a differentiated positioning from competition and less for customer satisfaction benefits. 

These findings highlight a fundamental challenge for marketers to try and understand that there is no single market orientation that lead to superior performance in all situations; but need to develop an understanding of the environmental, competitive and other factors that lead one organization and its orientation to greater performance.

The theoretical implication of the study provides a new knowledge that customer orientation concept may necessarily not lead to performance in organization. That the applicability of customer orientation concept in business entities and positive performance output may not be give the same performance output in service industries like universities. The managerial implication is that a market orientation culture need to be designed with a strategic in mind because being market orientated alone increasingly does not appear to be comprehensive enough to be used as a strategic inspiration in achieving competitive advantage. 

Acknowledgement

The author wishes to acknowledge all universities in Kenya involved in this study for granting permission for collection of data.

1. Abeysekera, N. and A. Wickramasinghe. “Relationship marketing and customer orientation of sales people: Learning from Banks.” International Journal of Financial Services’ Management, vol. 6, no. 1, 2013, pp. 79–91.

2. Acar, A.Z. et al. “The effects of customer and entrepreneurial orientations on individual service performance in Banking Sector.” Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol. 99, 2013, pp. 526–535.

3. Bankson, C. and D. Stoke. “Marketing Practices in the UK Small Business Sector.” Marketing Intelligence & Planning, 2000, pp. 49–61.

4. Blankson, C. and J.M.S. Cheng. “Have small businesses adopted the market orientation concept? The case of small businesses in michigan.” Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, vol. 20, no. 6, 2005, pp. 317–330.

5. Brown, J.D. “Point-Bacterial Correlation Coefficients.” Statistics, vol. 5, no. 3, 2001.

6. Caruana, A. et al. “Do universities that are more market orientated perform better?” International Journal of Public Sector Management, vol. 11, no. 1, 1998, pp. 55–66.

7. Commission for University Education. CUE Newsletter. Commission for University Education Publication, 2014.

8. Conway, T. et al. “Strategic planning in higher education: Who are the customers?” The International Journal of Educational Management, vol. 8, no. 6, 1994, pp. 29–36.

9. Demirbag, M. et al. “TQM and market orientation’s impact on SMEs’ performance.” Industrial Management & Data Systems, 2006.

10. Diamantopoulos, A. and S. Hart. “Linking market orientation and company performance: Preliminary Work on Kohli and Jaworski’s Framework.” Journal of Strategic Marketing, vol. 1, 1993, pp. 93–122.

11. Fincham, J.E. “Response rates and responsiveness for surveys, standards and the journal.” American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education, vol. 72, no. 2, 2008, p. 43.

12. Frambach, R.T. et al. “The influence of business strategy on new product activity: The role of market orientation.” International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 20, no. 4, 2003, pp. 377–397.

13. Garrett-Jones, S. and T. Turpin. “Globalisation and the future of Australian universities.” Universities in the National Innovation Systems, Routledge India, 2017, pp. 64–94.

14. Greenley, G.E. “Market orientation and company performance: Empirical evidence from UK Companies.” British Journal of Management, vol. 6, 1995, pp. 1–13.

15. Han, J.K., N. Namwoon and R.K. Srivastava. “Market orientation and organizational performance: Is innovation a missing link?” Journal of Marketing, vol. 62, 1998, pp. 30–45.

16. Hamel, G. and C.K. Prahalad. “Competing for the future.” Harvard Business Review, vol. 72, no. 4, 1994, pp. 122–128.

17. Jaworski, B.J. and A.K. Kohli. “Market orientation: Antecedents and consequences.” Journal of Marketing, vol. 57, 1993, pp. 53–70.

18. Kara, A. et al. “The effect of a market orientation on business performance: A study of small-sized service retailers using MARKOR Scale.” Journal of Small Business Management, vol. 43, no. 2, 2005, pp. 105–118.

19. Kohli, A.K. and B.J. Jaworski. “Market orientation: The construct, research propositions and managerial implications.” Journal of Marketing, vol. 54, no. 2, 1990, pp. 1–18.

20. Koris, R. et al. “Student-customer orientation at a higher educational institution: The perspective of undergraduate business students.” Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, forthcoming, 2015.

21. Kotler, P. and K.L. Keller. Marketing Management. 13th Edn., Prentice Hall, Pearson International Edition, 2009, pp. 59–60.

22. Leeflang, P.S.H. “Paving the Way for Distinguished Marketing.” International Journal of Research in Marketing, vol. 28, no. 2, 2011, pp. 76–88.

23. Mehrabi, J. et al. “Impact of customer orientation and sales orientation on sales performance in international market of Bilehsavar County.” International Journal of Business and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 17, 2012, pp. 216–222.

24. Muya, F. and H. Tundui. “Justifications for undertaking marketing orientation studies in higher learning institutions in Tanzania.” Makerere Journal of Higher Education, vol. 11, no. 2, 2019, pp. 171–188.

25. Nalingam, R.S. and N. Abeysekera. “The impact of customer orientation on relationship marketing.” ZENITH International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, vol. 7, no. 2, 2017, pp. 27–37.

26. Narver, J.C. and S.F. Slater. “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability.” Journal of Marketing, vol. 54, no. 4, 1990, pp. 20–35.

27. Noble, C. et al. “Market orientation and alternative strategic orientations: A longitudinal assessment of performance implications.” Journal of Marketing, vol. 66, no. 4, 2002, pp. 25–39.

28. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, 1967.

29. Pandey, A. “Contribution of cultural intelligence to adaptive selling behavior, customer-oriented selling behavior and cross-cultural sales performance of Thai Salespeople.” 2017.

30. Racela, O.C. and A. Thoumrungroje. “When Do customer orientation and innovation capabilities matter? An investigation of contextual impacts.” Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 2019.

31. Ruekert, R.W. “Developing a Marketing Orientation: An Organizational Strategy Perspective.” International Journal of Marketing, vol. 9, 1992, pp. 225–245.

32. Slater, S.F. and J.C. Narver. “Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation–performance relationship?” Journal of Marketing, vol. 8, no. 8, 1994, pp. 46–55.

33. Sisay, D.T. et al. “The influence of market orientation on firm performance and members’ livelihood in ethiopian seed producer cooperatives.” Agrekon, vol. 56, no. 4, 2017, pp. 366–382.

34. Valenzuela, L.M. et al. “Impact of customer orientation, inducements and ethics on loyalty to the firm: Customers’ perspective.” Journal of Business Ethics, vol. 93, 2010, pp. 277–291.

35. Ziggers, G.W. and J. Henseler. “The reinforcing effect of a firm’s customer orientation and supply-base orientation on performance.” Industrial Marketing Management, vol. 52, 2016, pp. 18–26.