8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
1/56
Mutual Myopia: Individual and Dyadic
Influences on Market Orientation
by
J. David Lichtenthal
City University of New York
Gopalkrishnan R. IyerFlorida Atlantic University
ISBM Report 8-2003
Institute for the Study of Business Markets
The Pennsylvania State University
402 Business Administration BuildingUniversity Park, PA 16802-3004
(814) 863-2782 or (814) 863-0413 Fax
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
2/56
1
Mutual Myopia: Individual and Dyadic Influences on Market Orientation
by
J. David Lichtenthal
Professor of Marketing &Editor, Journal of Business to Business Marketing &
Senior Editor, Foundations Series in Business Marketing
Zicklin School of BusinessBaruch College
City University of New York
1 Baruch Way - B12 -240New York, NY 10010
646-312-3281 (desk)
646-312-3271 (fax)212-628-8370 (home)
and
Gopalkrishnan R. Iyer
InternetCoast Institute Adams Professor of Industry StudiesFlorida Atlantic University
Department of Marketing
122 Business WestBoca Raton, Florida 33431
561-691-8583 (office)
561-691-8535 (fax)
561-362-6535 (home)
Acknowledgments: The authors appreciate the partial funding provided for this project by the
Institute for the Study of Business Markets at Penn State as well as comments provided on earlier
versions by Michele D. Bunn, University of Alabama and Thomas Tellefsen, College of StatenIsland, CUNY.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
3/56
2
Mutual Myopia: Individual and Dyadic Influences on Market Orientation
ABSTRACT
Marketing myopia is a complex organizational condition that underlies both organizational
learning and market orientation. While considerable focus and attention has been directed to
developing a market-oriented learning organization, there has been less attention given to individual
actions and dyadic-level interactions that are the basis of organization-wide learning. We advance
the theory that myopia must be addressed at the pair-wise actor level within the organization to
concurrently reconcile the perspectives and beliefs held by the actors respective organizational
functions when formulating and executing marketing strategy. The consequence of overlooking bi-
functional dyadic interactions within the firm detracts from transmission of learning to systemic
levels and may be thought of as mutual myopia. Based on Martin Bubers philosophy of dialogue,
we develop an approach to understand the individual and dyadic influences on the dynamics of
organizational myopia and the resulting links to organizational learning.
We expand the notion of myopia, clarify the definition of myopia, remold it in a business
context, identify the many intra-organizational and inter-personal factors that can create myopia
and delineate the negative consequences of myopia. We also draw on Buberian thought to provide
frameworks for understanding the processes that lead to myopia and for recommending remedies.
Keywords: Market orientation, organizational learning, myopia
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
4/56
3
INTRODUCTION
The concept of a market orientation has been associated with a leap in customer value
(Kumar, Scheer and Kotler 2000); increased introductions of new need-satisfying products (Lukas
and Ferrell 2000); and one-to-one marketing and relationship building (Peppers, Rogers and Dorf
1999) among other positive impacts. A market orientation has also proved to be particularly useful
in understanding organizational influences on firm performance characteristics. Thus, companies
have wholeheartedly embraced the mantra of we are market oriented and implementation of the
concept has had far reaching implications that go well beyond establishing a closer relationship with
the customer (Shapiro 1988). Unfortunately, the question of how to incorporate a balanced market
orientation within the firm still remains to be answered.
A market orientation is one of many organizational-level constructs that have been
empirically linked to market and financial performance for large firms (Slater and Narver 2000;
Homburg and Pflesser 2000; Narver and Slater 1990); small firms (Pelham 2000) and turnaround of
company performance (Harker 1998). While useful, we know organizational-level phenomena are
often the sum of individual actions and dyadic interactions (Lichtenthal and Eyuboglu 1991). It is
people that make decisions, not organizations. Therefore, it has been suggested that implementation
of the marketing concept, must occur at the level of the individual employee (Allen, McQuarrie, and
Feldman 1998).
While it is readily appreciated that the emphasis on "market orientation" and "learning
organization" is important for a firm's responsiveness to customer needs and for creating and
sustaining competitive advantages, there is less attention on processes that would aid in buildinga
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
5/56
4
market orientation and help create a learning-centered organization. This paper attempts to address
that lacuna by elaborating on fundamental processes that may detract from an organization's ability
to be more market orientated and balanced with dialogue-based learning.
Drawing upon sources from philosophy as well as from the conventional management and
marketing literatures, we present a framework that identifies distinct causes of the breakdown in
internal cohesion processes across divisions and the failure to achieve inter-functional coordination.
Both are critical in helping achieve market orientation and create the type of learning organization
best suited to maintain competitive advantage in dynamic environments. The framework advanced
analyzes the multiple detractions to a market-oriented learning organization and helps identify the
processes and practices that must be put in place to create a marketing orientation.
This paper makes several contributions to the literature. It expands the concept of myopia to
include a broader range of shortcomings in perceptions and behaviors within the firm. It then uses
this concept to examine how such limitations can inhibit meaningful dialogue within a firm and
thereby reduce the potential for organizational learning and establishment of market orientation
throughout the firm. Toward that end, this paper also introduces an analytical framework based on
the work of Martin Buber (1965, 1970). Bubers typology of dialogue and recommendations for
improved communications provide a useful basis for developing a deeper understanding of myopia,
its essential nature and how it can be corrected. This in turn points to a number of areas for future
research and specific actions that can be taken by managers to improve communications thereby
strengthening the firms market orientation.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
6/56
5
MARKET ORIENTATION AND ORGANIZATIONAL LEARNING
Recently, scholars and practitioners have emphatically focused on a clear orientation toward
the customer, and customer-driven processes within the organization. The emphasis has been on
the nature, antecedents, and consequences of a market orientation (Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Kohli
and Jaworski 1990; Narver and Slater 1990), the development of market-driven organizations(Day
1999, 1994a, 1990) and customer-focused strategies(Deshpande, Farley, and Webster 1993). It has
been argued that a market orientation significantly contributes to the development and sustenance of
core competencies and capabilities, which in turn translates into superior performance (Day 1994b;
Slater and Narver 1994).
Arguing that a market orientation by itself is not enough, Slater and Narver (1995)
emphasize the creation of a learning organization - an organization that learns "how to create
superior customer value in dynamic and turbulent markets" (p. 63). They argue that organizations
must emphasize not only the cultural elements of market orientation and entrepreneurship, but also
the climatic factors provided by an organic structure, facilitative leadership, and decentralized
strategic planning (Slater and Narver 1995). Positional advantage arises from the confluence of a
market orientation, entrepreneurship, innovativeness, and organizational learning and has a positive
effect on ROI, income, and stock price (Hult and Ketchen 2001).
Market orientation, in part, involves the translation of relevant signals from the environment
into appropriate responses by the firm. The extent to which such translation occurs through mere
adaptation or through a more fundamental questioning of long held assumptions, beliefs and models
depends on the form of learning itself (Argyris 1977, Slater and Narver 1995). Even if, for
argument's sake, it is accepted that the adaptation of the learning organization is fruitful for the long
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
7/56
6
run, it could be asserted that learning itself is potentially myopic (Levinthal and March 1993).
While learning emphasizes exploration, it is also constrained by evaluation of the results of the
exploration in terms of the current knowledge base or experiences. This type of learning, transcends
and informs the ever-evolving definition of the term marketing (Lichtenthal and Beik 1984).
Furthermore, there has been an overemphasis on a macro-view of organizational learning and an
underemphasis on an inside-out view which recognizes that people are the main agents of learning
(Hurley 2002). Extending a customer orientation focus to the individual level worker (Kennedy,
Lassk and Goolsby 2002) is associated with the proper execution of an individuals job.
Myopia Persists as a Dysfunctional Learning Problem:Concepts of market orientation and
learning appear to focus on the dynamics inherent in the environment and approaches to providing
customer value despite changes in the environment (Narver and Slater 1990; Slater and Narver
1995). These approaches and responses appear to mediate solutions to the problems that result from
marketing myopia. The overriding message is that firms must constantly reassess their
environments and, in so doing, redefine themselves.
One potential factor that can inhibit a firms ability to learn about its environment and
implement a market orientation is the shortsightedness of its managers. This issue was first
examined by Theodore in his seminal work Marketing Myopia (1960). Levitt (1960, 1975)
argued that most problems faced by businesses and industries were not so much due to
environmental change, but more due to the myopic stance of its decision makers. The term
"marketing myopia" was attributed to the failure of top management to conceptualize their business
beyond the narrow definitions and scope emerging from the product and production processes.
Levitt argued that pre-eminent focus ought be on the customer by providing customer-creating
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
8/56
7
value satisfactions. The primary task faced by top management was to spread the importance of this
vision of a customer orientation throughout the organization.
In Levitts conception of myopia, problems faced by decision makers were less due to
changing environmental conditions than due to an unbalanced focus on the product or production
processes. By subscribing to various myths, organizations constrain their vision of the future.
Essentially, predictions of an ever-increasing market due to population growth, belief in the absence
of substitutes, faith in mass production processes, and an overwhelming focus on the product were
argued to be the main forces contributing to marketing myopia (Levitt 1960, 1975). To overcome
these biases emphasis was placed on the importance of the customer and Levitt outlined top
managements vision as one of enabling a pro-active orientation toward creating value for the
customer.
Firm-environment interactions play an important moderating role (see Figure 1). Where both
components are dynamic, firms are less likely to succumb to myopic tendencies. Conversely, where
both elements are static or the environment is itself static, it may be argued that a myopic stance is
actually an asset. However, in a dynamic environment (where most if not allfirms live
INSERT FIGURE ONE ABOUT HERE
in the long run), a firm with static tendencies will inevitably develop myopia and will suffer
associated adverse performance consequences. To escape myopia and its negative consequences
would require a firm to constantly adjust to its environment by successively refocusing (Ward
1967). The question remains, how to foster interactions between and among organizational actors
that are not laden with myopia.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
9/56
8
Frequent individual-level communications contribute to the development of shared mental
models (i.e., common ways of looking outward and inward), development of shared meanings and
understanding, common interpretation of organizational context and realities, and even common
ways of approaching and solving problems (Denzau and North 1994). One goal is to get
organizational actors to talk to each other differently. Weick (1979) suggests that an organization is
not just a body of thought, but a set of thinking practices as well. Organizations can be viewed as
entities built-up from interlocked behaviors between pairs of people. Whether actors are talking
about divestiture, new products, or incentive systems they are always taking elements and putting
them together in some combination. Sense-making occurs through various relational algorithms
which can be variations of the recipe: knowing, thinking, seeing, and saying. Weick also notes (in
Coutu 2003) that organizations can learn to be more mindful if leaders complement what they know
by staying in touch with complex realities of their firm. The development of routines and rules that
offer organizational structure, policies, and processes appear to be the building blocks toward
sustainable competitive advantage (Itami and Roehl 1987; Winter 1987). However, the
development of shared mental models contributes to the institutionalization of commonly held
beliefs and assumptions and can also be a limiting factor in overcoming myopia. Rationales exist
for resisting market orientation and sabotaging its implementation (Harris 2002).
The use of the term myopia is not a mere cliche. Rather, it is important to point out that
the denotation of myopia means considerably more than a simple connotation of
shortsightedness. Furthermore, myopia is often an acquired condition (Huxley 1942). There are
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
10/56
9
many parallels to many similar symptoms in an organizational setting.1 Indeed, with so many eyes
, one might ask, why doesnt an organization see ?
Organizations will not learn as effectively as they might until they recognize and confront
the implications of differing occupation-based cultures. For example, the three communities of
executives, engineers and operators often do not understand each other and they represent different
occupational cultures that often work at cross purposes hindering organizational learning (Schein
1996). It has long been argued that a single market manager must have a multi-functional attitude
(Cox 1956) and effective decision-making requires synthesizing various functional views (Felton
1959, Burnett 1966).
MARKETING MYOPIA REVISITED & REFINED
One article that almost all students of business are familiar with is "Marketing Myopia" by
Theodore Levitt which appeared in the Harvard Business Review (1960, 1975) more than forty
years ago. It remains a classic in business literature and is often quoted in marketing management
textbooks (Kotler 2003, Perrault and McCarthy 2002). Furthermore, Levitt is considered virtually
alone among the disciplines intelligentsia as a voice and early apotheosis of the marketing concept
(Brown 1999).
1 Aristotle is considered the first to distinguish myopia,noting individuals squinted or closed their eyes to see (Borish1970). The word myopia comes from the Greek words myein(i.e., to close ) and opos (i.e., the eyes) (Webster
1959, p. 1619-1620). In opthamology, it is an optical state that: reflects a condition of nearsightedness and . . . thisis an apt description of the typical facial attitude of an uncorrected myopeas...they attempt to obtain clear distancevision (Curtin 1985, p.3). Visual symptoms include defective distance vision which is compensated by clear nearvision (i.e., organizational actors understand their business function more than (another) distant one). The etiologyof myopia is manifold (Cline, Hofstetter and Griffin 1985, p. 416 - 418) revealing other direct parallels for this opticalstate to organizational contexts. Fibrillar myopia - faulty development during early growth = business school trainingor first job assignment; adventitious myopia - comes from prolonged periods spent visualizing at a near point =sustained performance in a single job function; transitory myopia - caused by stress or trauma, appears thendisappears = in time of business or role-position related crisis, organizational actors cope with primary functionoveremphasis.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
11/56
10
Multi-Functional View: Myopia emerges from excessive anchoring of an organizational
actors perspective in any business function. Articles subsequent to Levitts marketing myopia have
discussed variant forms including: research myopia (Andrus and Reinmuth 1979); product-present
focus myopia (Friedman 1980); planning myopia (Canton 1987); market research myopia (Crosier
1979); limited views on product development (Schmidt 1995, Clancy and Shulman 1993);
performance (i.e., financial) myopia (Inkpen 1996). These articles have also offered a philosophical
treatment of how to avoid or remedy similar symptoms such as tunnel vision (Mitroff and Mohrman
1987); and have expanded the definition of business and environment boundaries (Richard,
Womack, Allaway 1992).
Mutual Myopia Defined: For any given decision, instance, or interaction when the
perspectives and processes of two organizational actors (i.e., a dyad) from two functional areas,
overshadow the concurrent use of the orientations of both actors, they are in a state of mutual
myopia. This can be defined as the absence of an ability to translate one's primary business
function responsibility into bi-functional responsive problem-solving and decision-making. A dyad
acts myopically, when both actors simultaneously see the same problem or decision in a
shortsighted way. Organizational actors from any function, can see, think, and behave myopically
with members from any other function within the firm. When this manifests simultaneously
between two or more organizational actors from different functional areas, the individuals in this
dyad are engaged in mutual myopia.
Myopia has an inherent potential to manifest in a bi-directional manner when organizational
actors adhere too strongly to the practices of their primary functional view without allowing other
functional views to mediate ways of enacting their functional roles. Mutual myopia occurs when
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
12/56
11
members of at least two departments (while interacting) cannot see past the orientation of their own
functions to include the consideration of the others function. In other words, actors in two or more
departments can be myopic simultaneously.2
Organizational actors from any function, can see, think and behave myopically with
members from any other function within the firm. Furthermore, when this happens simultaneously
between two or more organizational actors from different functional areas, we could say that such a
within-organization dyad is suffering from mutual myopia. Both sides of a dyad act myopically, as
they both simultaneously see the problem or decision they face in a reciprocal shortsighted way.
Reducing mutual myopia occurs through the concurrent melding of different orientations by
simultaneously using the perspectives of actors in various business functions (i.e., finance,
marketing, R&D, production and sales, etc.). A reduction in mutual myopia should follow which
will then generate better results on behalf of the organization. Therefore we propose:
P1: As mutual myopia increases,
P1a: organizational learning decreases, and
P1b: market orientation decreases.
2For example, if members in a financial function are overly cost conscious and cannot see the value of basic research
from the R&D department to ultimately enhance the introduction of new products they are financially myopic. Inparallel, when members of the R & D function cannot see that cost and revenue considerations that must beultimately taken into account when doing basic research for introducing new products they are R & D myopic.Alternatively, when purchasing managers, see marketing's request for additional customer service resources as only anexpense rather than an investment in customer satisfaction, buyer loyalty and goodwill, they are seeing myopically. Inparallel, when marketing staff pursue meeting every customer need and satisfaction while failing to see purchasingshealthy concern for incremental expense and ROI, they are seeing myopically. Common to both examples, is thesimultaneous operation of individual myopias, hence, mutual myopia.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
13/56
12
CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW
The focus on market orientation and organizational learning diverts attention from the more
immediate contexts of organizational goals, functional priorities, and intra-organizational learning
processes.3 Boundaries withinthe organization, especially in terms of distinct functions,
objectives, priorities, routines, and practices, must be given adequate attention in order to
understand the mechanisms by which myopia of the form described by Levitt and others can be
overcome.
It can be argued that, to a certain extent, Levitt foresaw the curing of myopia through a focus
on market orientation as well as learning. In Levitt's marketing myopia, there is: (1) the failure of
top management within the firm to focus on the market and customers and (2) shortsightedness that
leads to a concentration on limited functional aspects instead of on many varied functions and
processes that clearly contribute to creating customer value. Thus, the lack of an "outward
orientation, i.e., a proper view toward the market, as well as an insufficient "inward focus," i.e.,
concentration on strategy, operational processes, and policies that contribute most to customer
value, are implied in Levitt's conception of myopia (see Figure 2). The cure for myopia, obviously
requires a two-pronged effort, one aimed at correctly interpreting the market and customer needs
and the other aimed inwardly at translating such needs into value-creating products and processes
across functions.
INSERT FIGURE 2 ABOUT HERE
3 Narver and Slater (1990) also suggest that the process of framing and implementing marketing strategymust be guided by inter-functional coordination. However, the various functional goals themselves may be inconflict, suggesting: (i) that the domain of corporate strategy may be less influenced by customer-valuecreating strategies, and (ii) that the various inhibitions to learning may occur from the various functional
departments themselves.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
14/56
13
As Kohli and Jaworski (1990) argued, market orientation is the implementation of the
marketing concept, through imbibing an external orientation that eliminates myopic vision toward
markets and consumers.4 At the same time, the focus is also on developing those competencies that
would enable the firm to deliver superior value to the customer far better than its competitors (Day
and Wensley 1983, 1988; Day 1994a; Prahalad and Hamel 1990). Absence of a sufficiently
outward orientation and a misplaced inward focus, generally work against the imperatives of
building a market orientation (Day 1990, 1994a; Kohli and Jaworski 1990; Jaworski and Kohli
1993; Narver and Slater 1990; Slater and Narver 1994, 1995) and result in the development of
inimitable "core competencies" (Barney 1986, 1991; Ghemawat 1986; Prahalad and Hamel 1990).
Nonetheless, the question of howa firm can implement a market orientation at the individual
dyadic levelwithin the company, still begs for an answer. While prescriptions ranging from inter-
functional coordination (Narver and Slater 1990) to continuous learning (Day 1994b) are offered for
marketing myopia, these prescriptions fall short of addressing varieties of other myopic
perspectives. Furthermore, complicating a potentially quick fix cure is the reality that inhibitions
to change exist and are often entrenched. To elaborate, even an outward orientation may focus too
lightly on changing needs and / or a saturation of the market (Levitt 1960) or too much on current
markets as opposed to future ones (Hamel and Prahalad 1994).
4 By contrast, Narver and Slater (1990) view a marketing orientation as "the organization culture thateffectively and efficiently creates the necessary behaviors for the creation of superior value" (p. 21). Thisconception of market orientation refers to the inculcation of an outward focus on creating superior customer
value.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
15/56
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
16/56
15
the object of a conversation influence the structure and content of a dyadic interaction. Toward that
end, Buber developed a typology describing the effectiveness of interactions and prescriptions for
improving them.
Bubers principles can be used to understand the dyadic interaction barriers that result in
inhibitions which, in turn, increase the likelihood of mutual myopia. His insights, when artfully
applied also offer ways of overcoming mutual myopia. This approach can foster the individual-
oriented dimension of organizational learning systems (Shirivasta 1983, Cantley and Sahal 1980).
By extension, two or more dissimilar business functions living together for mutual benefit ought to
be symbiotic (Varadarajan and Rajaratnam 1986).
Buber (1970) suggests that people like to be told there are two worlds and two ways
because dichotomous classifications are easier to cope with. Typically, one way is seen as common
and the other one is viewed as superior. However, the reality of any individual is, of course,
manifold, as are his or her associated current and potential attitudes.
Core Inhibitions That Produce Mutual Myopia. Buber (1970 )
5
contrasts two broad ways in which
people approach relationships: "I-You" or "I-It. The difference between these two is not the nature
of the person or object to which one is relating - - it is in the relationship itself6. Not every
relationship between persons is an I-You which is open and ideal. Nor is every relation with even
an animal or thing an I-It which is muted and closed. And, the I of the basic word pair I-You
5 This is the date of translation from the German by Maurice Friedman. Bubers lectures and notes, the basis for the book,range in date from the 1920's and 1930's. Buber states in the preface that this volume clarifies and applies the dialogue
principles set out in the earlier volume.
6 It will be shown shortly that the former reduces mutual myopic tendencies while the latter induces mutual myopictendencies.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
17/56
16
is different from the I of I-It. As a result, there are five relationships that provide the context
for analyzing the core nature of myopic interactions between organizational actors (see Table 1).
INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE
These mind sets, are a way of viewing the root causes of functional myopia which can then lead to
mutual myopia. Furthermore, it can manifest from actors in any pair-wise set of business functions.
I - I. Some individuals have no consuming interest in anyone or anything other than
themselves. These people are not devoted to anything: not other people, possessions or projects.
People in an I-I relationship fail to recognize another person as anotherI(Buber 1970). This may
result in a form of within-function myopia for which its nuance can be elaborated as follows.
In the context of functional myopia, organizational actors may not see beyond their own
departments function or their own position to allow for the concerns of those in other positions
even withintheir own departments. For example, consider a sales department with two types of
representatives - one handling small and medium accounts in a geographic territory (the territory
rep.) and the other handling larger key accounts (senior account rep.) in the same area. The territory
rep., having developed an account to the extent that its grown large, finds that account re-assigned
to the senior accounts representative. This territory rep fails to understand how a key accounts rep.
who lacks the years of contact with the client, can do a better job. Key accounts reps have specific
skills and experience to cater to the unique needs of large customers more efficiently and effectively
and the territory rep. perhaps, cannot see this.
On the other hand, the senior accounts rep. argues that certain territory accounts have
characteristics and potential to become key accounts in the future and that these accounts should be
handled by her from the start. In the development of the client from small to large, the very nature
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
18/56
17
of the relationship and the specifics of the selling situation require that the territory rep. handle the
initial account development. Territory reps have specific skills and experience to cater to the
diverse needs of smaller customers more efficiently and effectively. The senior account
representative perhaps, cannot see this.
I - It. Some individuals take a keen interest in certain objects or people (more than they do
themselves) but they act without proper dedication or commitment. While they take interest, they
do not give of themselves (Buber 1970). In the context of functional myopia, these individuals may
be enamored with techniques and processes yet they may suffer from any of the various types of
myopias mentioned earlier. For example, an advertising executive coordinating with an advertising
agency may pay an inordinate amount of attention to the details of creative aspects of the campaign
and its execution, without an overt focus on whether the campaign meets the communication
objectives of the client firm being served. The art of their craft and nuances of such expression
supercedes overall results and even client objectives.
It-It and We-We. Some individuals devote less time and attention to developing their unique
selves. Instead, some interest or passion dominates their lives. In a manner of speaking, they do
not have anyI at all. Theirs is a world ofIt-Itor We-We. These are two ways of having essentially
noI at all (Buber 1970).
In the context of functional myopia, such organizational actors are likely not involved in
working with individuals in other departments or in people-oriented positions even within their own
departments. These individuals may work in relative seclusion, perhaps even sanctioned by their
firm. For example, R&D associates (highly talented researchers) and computer geniuses may be
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
19/56
18
given license to operate outside organizational norms for reporting and interacting because their
idiosyncratic skills and expertise are needed for major technological advances or breakthroughs.
Us -Them. Some individuals always divide the world into two groups - - - us versus them.
For these people, almost every social problem can be analyzed through this seemingly pervasive
schism (Buber 1970, 1970). Within the field of marketing, a pair-wise departmental configuration
was and still remains one of the dominant approaches to implementing a marketing orientation
(Lichtenthal and Wilson 1992). A pervasive social dichotomization results in actors seeing their
own group or functional area as always the virtuous group and the other group or functional area
(the them) as heretical. Such a stance may ultimately foster mutual myopia.
In the context of functional myopia, organizational actors subscribing to the Us-Themworld
view may attempt to have their functions, views, and approaches predominate during decision
making, especially when decisions involve other functions. Such actors may couch their views and
perspectives behind jargon and technical details that the other parties or groups would not be able to
understand. If both sides of a dyad act this way, of course, it heightens the probability of a mutually
myopic response, which, in turn, can result in dysfunction. For example, in the context of a
marketing and production dyad, each individual would not be able to understand the others vantage
point. The production person, due to her technical orientation, may resist making process changes
and argue against adding or enhancing the product based on market research with buyers. Those
people in marketing just do not understand our product, she may contend. On the other hand, a
marketing person, in his zeal to satisfy as many incremental segments as possible, may overlook the
production consequences and cost constraints. Those people in production just do not get it. The
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
20/56
19
buyer is our reason for living the market analyst may argue in his fervor. Organizational actors see
themselves and their respective functions as an Us in conflict with a Them.
In the first five attitudes described above, there is no You portrayed in the dyads. In
contrast, the I-You described below, is more likely to foster a non-myopic response on the part of
organizational actors from different functions. During an episode of mutual myopia, both
organizational actors are likely acting with biases that result from one of the aforementioned five
states, regardless of their function. Indeed, there are the many ways of interacting without really
involving oneself orthe other. More effective is dialogue that is found in an I-You relationships
described next. I-Youencounters involve direct relationships (Buber 1970) which may relax
mutually myopic tendencies.
I - You. In the course of certain interactions between individuals there are, from time to
time, episodes without any mediating factors. Albeit briefly, nothing conceptual intervenes between
such individuals in an I - You encounter. Prior knowledge and imagination, purpose or
anticipation is temporarily suspended. Every means becomes an obstacle to the manifestation of a
direct encounter. It is difficult, if not impossible to persist in this direct relationship state. It
endures, but only in an alternation of actuality and latency (Buber 1970). This means that this state
is active then inactive. It never endures for long periods of time. I-You is about the hyphen and,
the moment there is speech,I-You may be gone. I- You is a relationship beyond speech, at the
moment of knowing (Buber1970).
In the context of mutual myopia, organizational actors would need to interact in a way that
temporarily suspends the use of stereotypes about other business functions, company policies, and
personalities involved. The tendency must be, from moment to moment, to consistently allow the
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
21/56
20
suspension of department and professional personal agendas so that a broader and more balanced
perspective is achieved. Individuals need to strain against parochial tendencies in the short-run to
attain more desirable collective organizational goals in the intermediate to long-run. Pressures that
mitigate against this broader perspective are inherent in any particular dyad. A relationship, to
overcome mutual myopia, must be one of openness, directness, reciprocity and presence7.
Organizational actors need to strain against tendencies that inhibit movement, from moment
to moment, and need to consciously work toward an I-You relationship which is inherently non-
myopic. Not unexpectedly, organizational actors who display negative emotions (e.g., antagonism,
hostility) are closer to attaining a direct relation than those who are devoid of emotion. In the
context of organizational meetings, argument and heated exchanges could be fostered and valued
for their positive impact. They could ostensibly increase the frequency and duration of direct
encounters in the long run. While dysfunctional conflict may have deleterious effects for strategy
and performance, healthy conflict has been found to improve both quality of strategy and
performance (Menon, Bharadwaj, and Howell 1996).
NEW PERSPECTIVES, ON OLD PROBLEMS, FOR BETTER SOLUTIONS
Buber (1965) offers principles for dialogue( i.e., realms of communication) that can increase
the likelihood of less mutually myopic I-You episodes from occurring. These guidelines, can
7 The absence (or presence) of mutual myopia likely remains independent of the inherent nature of therespective functions of the organizational actors interacting.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
22/56
21
foster individual dyadic relationships based on true dialogue, thereby cultivating an environment
more amenable to advantageous, simultaneous multi-functional interactions and decision making.
Principles of Dialogue -> Realms of Interaction. According to Buber (1965), there is a
range of possible interactions that can result when two people relate with each other(see Table 2).
INSERT TABLE TWO ABOUT HERE
A monologueresults when a person withdraws from accepting another person into her realm
and lets the other exist only as her own experience (Buber 1965). For example, an extremely strong
or autocratic leader may impose her own thoughts and experiences throughout the organization.
While this can be the case in small owner-managed businesses, even in a large organization, a
charismatic-domineering leader could sweep his or her organizational agenda and objectives by
implementing a one-sided policy setting process. If the leader's goals include fostering a customer-
centric organization, this may be less of a problem in creating a market-oriented organization.
However, more often than not, the charismatic leader's concern may be more performance-oriented,
and take little account of the organizational policies that would be most conducive to learning and
adaptation.
Next, there is monologue disguised as dialogue. In this realm, two or more people are really
speaking to themselves in circuitous ways and yet imagine they have engaged in an exchange that
approximates dialogue (Buber 1965). This form of dialogue has the appearance but not the essence
of dialogue. For example, participants in forced meetings as part of the organizations policies
and processes have the semblance of a dialogue, but achieve no more than the perfunctory effect of
taking care of a routine chore. While organizations may entreat their employees to have weekly
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
23/56
22
meetings, often such meetings may be without any definite or pressing agendas and they serve
merely as forums for interactions that do not enable serious understanding or dialogue on
organizational issues and strategies. As a result, what could otherwise have been a forum for
breaking functional and ontological barriers simply emerges as a policy-guided activity.
Conversation is characterized by an absence of the need to communicate or learn something,
or influence someone. Instead, the sole desire is to have one's own self-reliance confirmed by
marking the impression that is made (Buber 1965). For example, there are various forums for
conversation in daily organizational life. They range from informal and chance meetings at the
water cooler, photocopy or fax machines, or the elevator to more formal newsletters, e-mails,
bulletin board postings, etc. However, in a vast majority of these instances, the communication
offered does not contribute to a rich learning experience. If anything, informal conversation may
devolve into gossip and idle chatter8that detracts from the understanding that is needed to break
organizational barriers. At the same time, formal conversations (as well as newsletters, e-mails, and
postings), while carrying the semblance of communicating something useful or new, often do not
get the attention they demand, let alone the influence they would need to bring about some learning
or change.
Debate is when thoughts are expressed so they strike home in the sharpest way without
regard to persons present (Buber 1965). The sole purpose of debate is to influence the other on a
particular issue, policy or decision. For example, a new product market manager presents to the
Board of Directors, a proposal arguing for major financial resources to create a new division and
product line extension for the firm.
8Not all chatter is idle. There can be some relationship building value.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
24/56
23
Technical dialogueis focused primarily on subject matter without experiencing the other
person. It is prompted solely by the need for objective understanding (Buber 1965). These
interactions belong to the inalienable part of modern existence and in corporate settings, can either
foster or mitigate mutual myopia. Technical dialogue leads to increased mutual myopia when it is
employed to argue a funcitional perspective with the intent to persuade, but not convince, the other.
On the other hand, technical dialogue could serve to reduce mutual myopia if functional jargon is
clarified at the outset.
In contrast, there isgenuine dialogue, whether spoken or silent, where each of the
participants really has in mind the other and turns to them with the intention of establishing a living
mutual relationship (Buber 1965) . This kind of dialogue is rare and difficult to sustain. The
communication can be spoken or silent, and during an interaction, a sense of reciprocity is
established, wherein one receives something that is transmitted and feels themselves approached for
an answer. Nothing needs to mediate between two people because they are bound up in relation to
the same center(Buber 1965). Movement into episodes of genuine interaction is a matter of the
turning toward the other and directing attention to them. This way, one pays focused attention to
another, albeit momentarily, instead of being directed to a multiplicity of points (Buber 1965). By
doing so, mutual myopia can be reduced and its consequences overcome. When organizational
actors more squarely face each other and the facts before them, conciliation occurs and they are
confronted by an innerdemand to comprehendeach other and recognize mutually beneficial
reasoning (give and take) occuring in the present. These approaches to dialogue can be
augmented creating greater synergy toward non- myopic interactions (see Table 2).
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
25/56
24
Facilitating Perspectives for Organizational Actors. There are three ways in which people
are able to perceive and be with another person (Buber 1965). Knowledge of these modalities will
provide organizational actors with the proper outlook necessary to help them understand how
myopic tendencies can be reduced during their interactions with each other and subsequently
overcome adverse learning consequences.
Observers are actors who are wholly intent on fixing the observed person in their mind, on
"noting" them. They probe and write them up with as many "traits" as possible. Next,
Onlookerstake up a position that allows them to see the other person or object freely, awaiting
what will be presented. Reading past the text (spoken or written) of the other person, the
onlooker experiences the person who says or writes it, the person behind the words. In the case
of the onlooker, the other is more a Thou, and less an It (Buber 1965). The observer and
onlooker are similarly oriented, in that even though both experience the other as a sum of traits,
neither demands any action nor inflicts any requirements on each other. In effect, the other
organizational actor and his or her role can be comprehended more fully vis-a-vis the perceivers
function. Both observer and onlooker pause before reaching a conclusion or taking any action.
Each are able to see, hear and fully comprehend the other (Buber 1965).
In contrast, the optimal state in which a person is able to perceive is one in which he or she
isbecoming aware(Buber 1965). It occurs when, in a receptive moment, a person "says
something" to someone, not necessarily through real speech, and establishes a vital connection (a
communication) with the essence of the other. There is no such thing as the self, only the self in
relationship, no isolate self. This occurrence of perception and connection manifests only from time
to time with any other person (Buber 1965). This state of awareness contributes to an environment
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
26/56
25
that fosters the frequency and degree of genuine dialogue and thus, results in the mitigation or
negation of mutual myopia and its deleterious consequences.
These realms of dialogue allow individuals tostrain against the impulse to reduce the
multitude of possibilities for discussion to only two (i.e., only my functions way or only yours).
The key then is to bring improved modalities for dialogue to all organizational actors and to every
business function.
AGGREGATING DYADIC INTERACTIONS TOWARDS A MARKET ORIENTATION
A hierarchy of learning must occur within any organization to effect correction of mutual
myopic tendencies which impair true learning (see Figure 3). For this to occur, integration of bases
for interactions that are void of mutual myopia must become the norm of daily organizational life.
INSERT FIGURE THREE ABOUT HERE
Individual Interactions. In the everyday organizational context, there are countless instances
of lateral and vertical communications and interactions. Since such interactions often occur across
functional boundaries, departmental units and business units, a variety of shared understandings on
pertinent organizational and strategic issues inevitably will develop. However, in the absence of
such cross-functional interactions, functional myopia can be deepened and will often contribute to
spirals of distrust between functions and/or units (Pfeiffer and Salancik 1978). Deliberate
individual interactions across functions and units are often fostered by meetings, tours, teams,
education and training, and sometimes even social events. All these processes contribute to
learning about the other, which is a more fundamental construct for the individual as opposed to the
abstraction involved in learning organizational strategy, policies, and processes from written memos
and handbooks. The individuals tendency to evaluate (involving approval/disapproval) creates
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
27/56
26
barriers while listening and understanding creates gateways to communication (Rogers and
Roethlisberger 1991).
P2: Frequent and purposive genuine dialogue between individuals from differentfunctions and business units contributes to greater understanding necessary for creating a
learning organization.
Shared Mental Models. Arygis (1991, 1994) notes that success in the marketplace increasingly
depends on learning and even well-educated, high-powered people in an organization may not be
very good at it. For effective learning to occur, actors must reason productively, which can be
emotional and even painful at times. The questioning of someone elses reasoning should not be
seen as a sign of mistrust but a valuable opportunity for learning. Professionals embody the
learning dilemma: they are enthusiastic about continuous improvement but are often an obstacle to
its success. Furthermore, rationales for sabotaging market orientation ought to be mitigated and
approaches for implementingsabotage of a market orientation ought to be defeated (Harris 2002).
Sources of underlying resistance likely need to be uncovered and addressed. Toward this end, it is
theprocessof learning (i.e., how something is learned) rather than whatis learned, that fosters the
development of an organizational capability for sustaining an advantage in rapidly-changing
competitive conditions (Schendel 1996) while reducing mutual myopia. It appears, the greater the
level of genuine dialogue, the greater likelihood for shared mental frameworks between
organizational actors. This dynamic positively contributes to an environment where learning is
facilitated, likely reducing the frequency of mutual myopia. Therefore,
P3a: The development of I -You relationships facilitates the development of sharedmental models.
P3b: The development of shared mental frameworks reduces myopia.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
28/56
27
P3c: Reduced mutual myopia increases organizational learning.
Organizational Routines, Codes and Rules. Majchrzak and Wang (1996) note organizations
must make responsibilities overlap, base rewards on unit performance, and redesign physical layout
and work procedures. Organizations must do more than reorganize to break a functionally myopic
mind set. Myopic eyes must be given plenty of practice in changing the focus from a near point to a
distant one (Huxley 1942). Non-myopic eyes in an organization should encourage employees, from
moment to moment, to have a multi-functional view in their daily deliberations with colleagues.
Organizational redesign efforts should focus on allemployees needs for working well together.
Organizational culture must reward allocating time to activities that build and foster cross-
functional tolerance.
In effect, to overcome marketing myopia, Levitt (1960, 1975) called for the creation of a
specialized entrepreneurial organization, one that was led by an individual with a pulsating will to
succeed. Kahn and Mentzer (1998) note that interdepartmental integration of market orientation
should emphasize a collaboration component to achieve better performance. This presupposes
marketings (and other departments) adoption of a collaborativeperspectivetoward
interdepartmental integration. Organizations should use interaction as a tool to establish contact
and then let collaboration drive the integration process, instead of simply forcing interactions (i.e.
dictating a preconceived number of meetings or documented information exchanges).
Furthermore, organizations should enable the development of shared processes (some of which may
be affective or volitional) and resources with mutually consistent at goals. Transfer of best
practices must overcome internal stickiness for transfer to occur (Szulanski1996) and the positive
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
29/56
28
results are well documented. Developing and sustaining strategic flexibility has a positive influence
on a firms performance, even after a crisis (Grewal and Tansuhaj 2001).
P4: Organizational culture that embodies routines and practices which in turn fosters
episodes of cross-functional I - You relationships through genuine dialogue
contributes positively to the reduction of mutual myopia and enables a learning
organization.
Business Unit Strategy. At the same time, a significant inhibiting force to market orientation ---
whether couched in functional units, business units, or the entire organization --- is a singular lack
of vision, or in other words, myopia. Organizational myopia, enshrined in the mission statement,
corporate strategy, policies, and processes of the organization can only be a collective result of the
myopia of its decision-makers. Former organizational structures will continue to shape identity,
beliefs, and social ties of managers as the marketing charter moves from freshly created business
units to established ones (Houston, Walker, Hutt and Reingen 2001).
Organizational learning, memory, and climate can only be the collective representation of
the policies and processes adopted, shared, and instilled in each of its members. Hence, it is not the
organization, but the individual, that must be made the focus of analysis. Concentrating on
individual-level interactions, meanings, information-gathering, dissemination, and in fact, learning -
-- all contribute to the shaping of organizational codes and routines that enhance market orientation
and build a proactive organizational culture as well (Winter 1987). A repertoire of institutional
norms and rules for behavior must take into account individual-level interactions within
organizations.
P5: Organizations that practice ongoing learning processes through consciousdevelopment of shared meanings, policies and a supportive organizational culture are
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
30/56
29
better posed to enable more frequently occurring individual-level (I - You)interactions that are critical to reducing the probability of episodes of mutual myopia.
There is a need to create shared meaning behind operational strategy so that conversations are
aggregated at the institutional level. Only then will there be a viable marketing implementation
(Narver, Slater and Tietje 1998; Romer and Van Doren 1993). Individual and organizational
conversations are neither sequential nor independent of each other. Perhaps, the adaptation of a
Buberian approach holds promise for organizing conversations in the workplace to promote the
emergence of coherent patterns (Liedtka and Rosenbloom 1996).
Selected Implementation Issues: A Buberian-based approach to organizational learning by
modifying organizational dialogue dynamics will likely come about in an evolutionary manner.
One of Bubers main premises is that all life is in meeting. This philosophical view was
developed with respect to all spheres of human interaction. Initially then, thought ought to be given
regarding how to specifically apply principles of dialogue within the learning organization.
Which function first?It is very likely that the probability of direct relations (i.e, the absence
of mutually myopic tendencies) does vary according to the nature of the functions of respective
organizational actors. If the various business functions are viewed as subcultures within an
organization, it is more likely that members of functions that are in close psychic proximity will be
able to achieve direct relations (i.e, R & D and manufacturing oraccounting and finance).
Similarly, there is a greater likelihood of direct relations resulting, at least initially within functions.
This aspect represents a point of departure for overcoming mutual myopia .
P6a: The closer the intellectual ties among the members within a funcitional unit thehigher the probability of reducing episodes of mutual myopia.
P6b: The closer the intellectual ties between the members of differing functional units thehigher the probability of reducing episodes of mutual myopia.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
31/56
30
Market orientation vs. other functional orientations. Implicit in overcoming mutual myopia
is the recognition that no one function would be dominant, at least not for extended periods of time.
Marketing myopia,per se, was concerned with fostering an effective market orientation within the
firm. Mutual myopia overtly acknowledges that all functions must look at how they can behave
myopically and prevent this tendency with its associated adverse business consequences.
Furthermore, delineation is needed, between what constitutes functional myopia among
marketing sub-functions. For example, within advertising, Vaughn (1983) developed a code of
conduct for balancing interactions between creatives and researchers. Within marketing,
Lorge (1999) and Greenglass (1997) offered approaches for reducing tension and increasing
communication between marketing and sales personnel.
Fostering the learning of principles of dialogue. Bubers framework is intended for all
human interaction regardless of social context. Therefore, the development of specific ways of
being and communicating that are applicable to corporate life, would be another step towards
enhancing the viability of this approach. For example, Rogers and Roethlisberger (1991, 1952)
state that true listening occurs when a person first restates what has been said by the other before
responding with his or her own views. To build more efficient teams and within-firm tolerance of
them, Chen, Chen, and Meidnl (1998) suggest that firms must encourage the tendencies of
individualists and collectivists towards cooperation. Contingent mechanisms between
organizational actors foster facilitation and conciliation in a more open climate as well.
MANAGERIAL IMPACT OF MUTUAL MYOPIA: INWARD FOCUS, OUTWARD
PERSPECTIVES, AND MARKETING PROCESSES
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
32/56
31
The impact of a myopic tendency permeates within, across, and around organizational
dynamics. Subsequently, a broader range of myopias in organization visions of environment as
well as organizational processes and strategy can be detected. What follows is a delineation of the
impact of mutual myopia on organizational phenomena at a strategic level.
Inward Myopic Perspectives: These include the inability to overcome core rigidities in
organizational focus being enamored with rote techniques, the assumed coordination of cross-
functional collaboration, and the lack of a unified focus (see Figure 4).
INSERT FIGURE FOUR ABOUT HERE
Core Rigidities in Focus. Fundamental questions concerning the nature, scope, and definition of a
business must be clearly answered in a way that assumes future opportunities are not squandered.
The development of core competencies follows from conceptualizations that are neither too broad
nor too narrow (i.e., non-myopic). Overt concentration on specific, narrowly-defined competencies
could contribute to "core rigidities," i.e., the inability of the firm toforeseebeyond its core
competencies (Hamel and Prahalad 1994; Leonard-Barton 1992). To ensure that there is a search
for, as well as development of newer competencies, mental models that challenge traditional
assumptions must be developed (Slater and Narver 1995). Organizational actors must look outside
the box.
Enamored With Techniques. Over utilizing of specific techniques and tools for decision making
while overlooking underlying problems and issues also contributes to a myopic understanding of the
tasks required for effective implementation of strategy. For example, Andrus and Reinmuth (1979)
define "research myopia" as the shortsightedness that comes about when market researchers have
more interest in analytic techniques than they do in the information needs of decision makers.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
33/56
32
When analysts are enamored with tools and techniques, they lose sight of operational information
requirements of users.
Assumption of Cross-Functional Coordination. It can not be assumed that marketings emphasis on
customers will be synthesized by all functional areas. Functional myopia comes about because
organizational actors see the duties and consequences of their function clearly but are not able to get
a focus on the considerations of the others (i.e., more distant) function. The big picture remains
an elusive abstraction, if it in fact registers at all. This contributes to little, if any, cross-functional
coordination, unless organizations are adequately structured for this purpose, or relevant incentives
exist for enabling such coordination. For example, market orientation and interdepartmental
integration can positively influence product development performance (Kahn and Mentzer 1998,
Kahn 2001).
Lack of Integration Between Individuals Across Functions. It is assumed that market orientation
operates as an organization-wide value system that enables the development of norms which in turn,
lead to customer-sensitive functional strategies(Lichtenthal and Wilson 1992). In practice, market
orientation as a trans-functional perspective within a business, needs to become more viable. First,
it does not provide a clear set of operating tools and techniques that would guide interaction among
individuals from various functions from day-to-day. Second, given the ambiguity in its
interpretation, the degree of market orientation could differ without an adequate consensus. Third,
it is difficult to assess whether individual beliefs and behavior are in conformity with a particular
market orientation. While market orientation may serve as a background gestalt to organizational
strategy, its communication, diffusion and adoption within the organization is impeded due to
functional myopia as outlined above, and by the nature of its own abstract character. The lack of
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
34/56
33
unifying precepts which could convert everyday individual learning into organizational learning,
challenges the creation and delivery of superior customer value - a natural outgrowth of a
potentially effective marketing orientation.
Outward Myopic Perspectives: These include traditional assumptions regarding the nature and
growth of customer markets, assumptions regarding competition, and undue focus on currently
served markets (see Figure 4).
Nature and Growth of Customer Markets. Levitt (1960) argued that much of marketing myopia
was a direct consequence of various myths about the customer markets. For example, marketing
managers believed that the expansion and increasing affluence of the population would continually
revitalize demand and that resulting demand would be better satisfied through mass production
techniques. Such assumptions led to a myopic outlook on the external environment. Although
these assumptions have been challenged in recent times, there is little evidence to suggest that the
majority of marketers are informed by more than their own beliefs on the nature of markets and the
behavior of buyers.
Richard, Womack, and Allaway (1992) developed a classification scheme for myopia along
two dimensions: business definition (product or customer) and business environment perspective
(single or multi-industry perspective). Firms with the broadest perspective are innovative and
exemplify a customer definition/multi-industry perspective. The classic myopic firm is limited
along both dimensions, maintaining a single industry perspective in all of its decisions.
Assumption of Static Competition. Decisions makers may often believe that competitive activity is
stable and of limited impact. Friedman (1980) suggests myopia occurs when a firm persists in
being present-oriented. Firms that are not cognizant of the changes and threats the future may bring
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
35/56
34
may find their products in danger of early obsolescence. Thus, this form of myopia comes about
from ignoring the future or being unable to evaluate it properly. Time is viewed as an important
element in marketing strategy (Stalk 1988). Various processes that assure learning from the
competition, such as, bench marking, competitive intelligence, and imitation assume that the
competitors are static. Myopic views on competitive ability only ensure that the firm is, at best, one
step behind relevant competitors rather than one step ahead, anticipating future customer needs and
providing differential benefits for them.
"Tyranny of Served Markets." A strong external orientation may itself be problematic by
contributing to a specific and narrow focus on one's current markets and competitors as opposed to
those that are new, emerging, or broader (Hamel and Prahalad 1991). For example, Canton (1987)
defines "planning myopia" as a manufacturing firms fear-based tendency to overlook growth
opportunities in an unfamiliarservices sector. Manufacturers who survive may be those who
realize that customer orientation goes beyond the creation of new products within a defined industry
to entry into anysuitable product-market where a firms competencies can yield profit while
fulfilling customer needs.
Marketing Strategy Myopias: Processes of strategy formulation are fraught with various
potentially debilitating myopias: myopia of planning horizon, rationality, resource availability and
use, and learning (see Figure 4).
Scope of Planning Horizon. The forces that affect a business often shift and change and, in
hindsight allow the underlying assumptions of the past to become visualized and comprehended
(Mitroff and Mohrman 1987). Many of the assumptions in an industry are never fully or explicitly
articulated. They are implicit. To reduce tunnel vision, there must be a systematic analysis of all
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
36/56
35
the key assumptions upon which an industry and firm have been based and a series of far-reaching
organizational experiments directed at challenging those original assumptions. Indeed, in many
cases, assumptions can only be gleaned clearly in retrospect, when attempts are made to look back
for the purpose of learning how to avoid similar mistakes in the future. Some firms feel virtually
assured of immortality, or so it seems, unless environmental signals are massive, sustained, and
clearly undeniable. These often seemingly abrupt crises (Hwang and Lichtenthal 2000) are the
result of the cumulative effects of rampant unrestrained myopia.
Focus on current markets reveals a myopia of planning horizons, whereby decision-makers
are restricted by the time frame allotted to them for adequately dealing with the future. The focus
on performance cycles may be another area ripe for myopic tendencies. It is debatable whether
market orientation will have a direct and temporally-linked impact on performance (i.e., quarterly
deadlines) even though intuition suggests it might. Empirical evidence by Slater and Narver (1994)
points to a whole series of moderating links that exist between market orientation and performance.
Bounded Rationality. The idea that decision-makers can predict the future with one hundred
percent accuracy is unreal. Indeed, Simon (1957) had pointed to the fact that bounded rationality
(defined as serious limitations in language and neurophysiology) limits the decision-maker's
attempts to systematically plan and obtain optimal solutions. Extended further into the
organizational domain, the concept of bounded rationality contributes heavily to the failure of
contracts, market failures, and the increase in transaction costs (Williamson, Wachter and Harris
1975). Lacking a clear prognosis for the future, decision-makers resort to search, adaptation, and
satisficing (March and Simon 1958). Continuous adaptation, however, encourages dealing with the
future one step at a time and may not be free from the planning horizon myopia outlined earlier.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
37/56
36
Approach to Resource Availability and Use. Prescriptive and normative theories on strategy,
market orientation and learning assume that once the organization realizes what is wrong, it could
easily obtain the resources to solve the problem. The question is never how but only when,
with the key issue being one of realizing (i) there is a problem, and (ii) that specific steps must be
taken to solve it. Even if one assumes a lack of resource constraints, there is no convincing
evidence that suggests resources will flow in the direction of priorities (though there is a plausible
reason to believe this is so), or that they will be applied in a way that will correct for myopia.
IMPACT ON ORGANIZATION - WIDE LEARNING
Various mutual myopias impair and impede organizational learning. While there are many,
spheres in which this can occur, four that are of strategic importance to most firms are: business
definition, planning horizon, irrationality , and impaired learning (Kotler 2003, Day 1995, 1994;
Porter 1980). The challenge at the organizational strategy level is to see the consequences, side
effects and potential cures (see Table 3). There needs to be a concerted effort made toward the
middle ground.
INSERT TABLE 3 ABOUT HERE
Business definitionof a firm can be either too narrow or too broad. Perhaps even more harmful is a
business definition that is rigid and inflexible. Business definition needs to be somewhat pliable to
remain viable. The side effects of inappropriate business definition can include an inordinate focus
on current markets or products, or looking too far afield.
Planning horizonmay be too short term and have an overly compartmentalized emphasis. When
planning becomes tactical rather than a circumspect strategic process, planning benefits are lost.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
38/56
37
Irrationalitycan result in the failure to optimize viable possibilities. It can lead to poor predictions
and a tendency to pursue programmatic change without high-order, recurring re-evaluations.
Emotions must be tempered with responses grounded in reasoning.
Impaired learning manifests in many ways: urgency in decision resolutions; over emphasizing
success while under-analyzing failure; and inappropriate decisions in reference to time frames.
Reducing learning impairment tendencies requires company-wide emphasis on buyer needs (current
and future), as well as adapting, integrating and balancing what is learned from both failure and
success.
While much research has already been conducted on the antecedents and consequent
impacts of marketing orientation and learning organization, much work is needed to understand the
processes that hinder or facilitate the creation of a market-oriented firm and a learning organization.
The framework and discussions advanced in the previous sections take a step in this direction.
However, for a more thorough understanding of the various issues involved and for strategies that
could result in relevant managerial input, the following research directions may be pursued.
DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
The processes of interaction and understanding, while investigated in several research
streams and disciplines, are yet to be fully explored and understood in the contexts provided by
Buber (1965, 1970). While interactions are often facilitated within an organization through
meetings and other encounters, we know less about how to facilitate the types of interactions that
break down long-held belief structures and promote a conversation among equals. Instead of
reducing the impact of myths, stereotypes and misunderstandings about individuals, roles, positions
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
39/56
38
and processes, most meetings and encounters serve to enhance these. Future research should focus
on how genuine conversation could be fostered among individuals within organizations as well as
on the organizational pre-requisites for mitigating the impact of myopic visions.
While those in marketing do not need much convincing about the importance and role of
market orientation (this is, perhaps, part of our myopia), it is quite debatable if other business
disciplines share the same fervor and enthusiasm about the concept. Reduction in myopia or inter-
functional coordination (or even organization-wide learning) is less likely to occur in a situation
where other business disciplines see the organizational agenda and objectives tilted by a particular
business function. Research must identify ways in which the core elements of the marketing
concept and orientation could themselves be marketed through the organization. One approach
could be through a better focus on marketing metrics, which might explore how a market oriented
firm contributes directly to better performance results. Just as the concept of ROI is now no longer
restricted to the finance discipline alone, the concept of market orientation may be absorbed
organization-wide.
The process and impact of mutual myopia may not just be inter-disciplinary phenomena.
They may surface withinthe marketing discipline as well. Barriers to meanings and understanding
may exist in the interactions between the market research manager and the product manager, for
example, or between the sales manager and the advertising manager. The processes that create
shared understanding must start with the marketing function itself. Future research could address
the causes and extent to which barriers to shared meanings and understanding break down in multi-
function, multi-product, multi-location firms, while simultaneously uncovering the processes by
which a marketing-oriented culture emerges within the firm itself.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
40/56
39
IN CONCLUSION
The marketing oriented firm need not be run by a marketing department or person.
Marketing departments are made up of individuals who are experts in techniques and concepts that
are subsequently applied to solving marketing related problems. This leads to a need for continuous
clarification of the marketing concept (Houston 1986; Greneveld. 1973). Aufreiter, George and
Lempres (1996) note that traditional approaches to marketing (i.e., brand management, marketing as
a staff function) leave a firm ill-equipped to handle the new marketing landscape. Functional and
brand silos must be replaced with an integrated approach.
Implementation of true marketing consciousness is not restricted to the marketing
department. In a sense, everyone in the organization must, from time to time be acting like a
marketer. Srivastava, Shervani and Fahey (1999) note that if marketing is to be the energizing
source that creates and excites buyers, it must infuse and integrate the activities that fall within the
organizations core processes. Managers must understand the contribution of each core process, the
connections among them, and broad consequences they present for marketplace and financial
success. Organizations must facilitate an environment where there can be a meeting of the minds
for fostering true and balanced market orientation (Barabba 1995). While marketing is often
viewed as the function that manages connections between the organization and its buyers (Moorman
and Rust 1999) collaboration withinthe firm (i.e., across functional areas) must be as desirable as
collaboration acrossbusiness lines (Liedtka 1996).
Collins and Porras (1996) state that the basic dynamic of visionary companies is the preservation of
core values, while they progress towards an envisioned future. Having all organizational actors
broaden their perspectives and strive toward a multi-functional, tolerant workplace should allowthat vision to materialize and be sustained for many years to come.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
41/56
40
REFERENCES
Argyris, C. (1977), Double Loop Learning in Organizations, Harvard Business Review, September/October,
115-125.
Argyis, Chris (1991), Teaching Smart People How to Learn, Harvard Business Review, May/June, 99-109.
Argyis, C. (1994), Good Communication That Blocks Learning, Harvard Business Review, July/August, 77-85.
Allen, C.T., McQuarrie, E.F. and T.F. Feldman (1998), Implementing the Marketing Concept One Employee at
a Time, Marketing Science Institute, November, 98 125.
Anderson, P.F. (1982), "Marketing Strategic Planning and the Theory of the Firm," Journal of Marketing, 46, 2,
15-26.
Andrus, R.R. and J.E. Reinmuth (1979), "Avoiding Research Myopia in Marketing Analysis," Business
Horizons,, June, 55-58.
Aufreiter, N., George, M. and L. Lempres (1996), Developing a Distinctive Consumer Marketing Organization,
Journal of Market Focused Management, 1, 199-207.
Barabba, V.P.(1995), Meeting of the Minds: Creating the Market-Based Enterprise, Harvard Business Press,
Boston.
Barney, J.B. (1986), Organizational Culture: Can It Be a Source of Sustained Competitive Advantage?,
Academy of Management Review, 11, 3, 656-665.
Barney J.B. (1991), Firms resources and sustained competitive advantage, Journal of Management, 17, 99-120.
Birnbaum, M.H. (1979), "Management of the Low Myopia Pediatric Patient," Journal of the American
Optometric Association, 50, 11, November, 1281-1289.
Borish, I.M.(1970), Clinical Refraction, Third Edition, The Professional Press, Inc., Chicago.
Brown, S. (1999), Marketing and Literature: The Anxiety of Academic Influence, Journal of Marketing,
63, January, 1-15.
Buber, M.(1965), Between Man and Man, Macmillian Publishing, New York.
Buber, M.(1970), I and Thou, translated by W. Kaufman, Charles Scribner and Sons, New York.
Burnett, L. (1966), Marketing Fallacies and Snags, Journal of Marketing, 30, July, 1 - 5.
Canning, G., Jr. (1988), "Is Your Company Marketing Oriented, Journal of Business Strategy, 9, 3, 34-36.
Cantley, M.F. and Sahal, D. (1980), Who learns? A conceptual description of capability and leaning intechnological systems, RR-80-42; International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
42/56
41
Canton, I.D. (1987), "Marketing Myopia Revisited," Marketing News, 21, 6, March 13, p. 1.
Chen, C.., Chen, X-P, and J.R. Meindl (1998), How Can Cooperation Be Fostered? The Cultural Effects of
Individualism-Collectivism, Academy of Management Review, 23, 2, 285-304.
Clancy, K. J. and Shulman, R. S. (1993)," Marketing With Blinders On, Across the Board, October, 33-38.
Cline, D., Hofstetter, H.W. and J.R. Griffin (1980), Dictionary of Visual Science, Third Edition, Chilton Book
Company, Rando, Pennsylvania.
Collins, J.C. and J.I. Porras (1996), Building Your Companys Vision, Harvard Business Review,
September/October, 65 - 77.
Coutu, D.L. (2003), Psychologist Karl E. Weick: Sense and Reliability, Harvard Business Review, April, 84 -
91.
Cox, R.. (1956 ), Three-in-One Marketing, Harvard Business Review, 6, November / December, 61 - 68.
Crosier, K. (1979), How effective is the contribution of market research to social marketing, Journal of the
Market Research Society , 21, 1, 3 - 16.
Cravens, D. W., Holland, C. W., Lamb, C. W., Jr., and Montcrief, W. C., III (1988), "Marketing Role in Product
and Service Quality, Industrial Marketing Management, 17, 285-304.
Curtin, B.J.(1985), The Myopias, Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. Philadelphia.
Day, G. (1990), Market Driven Strategy, The Free Press, New York.
Day, G. (1994a), The Capabilities of Market-Driven Organizations, Journal of Marketing,58, 3, 37-52.
Day, G. (1994b), Continuous Learning About Markets, California Management Review , 36, 4, 9-31.
Day, G. (1999), Creating a Market Driven Organization, Sloan Management Review, Fall, 11-22.
Day, G. and R. Wensley (1988), Assessing Competitive Advantage: A Framework for Diagnosing Competitive
Superiority, Journal of Marketing , 52, 2, 1-20.
Denzau, A.T. and D.C. North (1994), Shared Mental Models: Ideologies and Institutions, Kyklos, 47 ,1, 3-31.
Deshpande, R. and F.E. Webster (1989), Organizational Culture and MarketingDefining A Research Agenda,
Journal of Marketing, 53, 1, 3-15.
Deshpande, R., J.U. Farley and F.E. Webster (1993), Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and
Innovativeness in Japanese Firms, Journal of Marketing, 57, 1, 23-27.
Felton, A.P. (1959), Making the Marketing Concept Work, Havard Business Review, July / August, 55-65.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
43/56
42
Friedman, H.H. (1980), "Futuristic: Reducing Marketing Myopia," Business Horizons, August, 17-20.
Ghemawat, P. (1986), Sustainable Advantage, Harvard Business Review, 64, September/October, 53-58.
Greneveld, L. (1973), "Is It Time to Revise the Marketing Concept? ," Industrial Marketing Management, 2, 217-
224.
Greenglass, C. (1997), Why Cant We Just Get Along? Rethinking the Sales and Marketing Relationship, Sales
and Marketing, Spring, 13-14
Grewal, R. N. And P. Tansuhaj, (2001), Building Organizational Capabilities for Managing Economic Crisis:
The Role of Market Orientation and Strategic Flexibility, Journal of Marketing, 65 (April), 67-80.
Gupta, A. K., Raj, S. P., and Wilemon, D. L. (1985), "R&D and Marketing Dialogue in High-tech Firms,
Industrial Marketing Management, 14, 289-300.
Gupta, A. K., Raj, S. P., & Wilemon, D. L. (1986), "A Model for Studying R&D-Marketing Interface in the
Product Innovation Process, Journal of Marketing, 50, 7-17.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1991), "Corporate Imagination and Expeditionary Marketing, Harvard Business
Review, July-August, 81-92.
Hamel, G. And C.K. Prahalad (1994), Competing for the Future, Havard Business School Press: Boston.
Harker, M. (1998), The Role of Marketing in the Company Turnaround Process, Industrial Marketing
Management, 27, 315 - 327.
Harris, L.C. (2002), Sabotaging market-oriented culture change: an exploration of resistance justification and
approaches, Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice , 10, 3, 58 - 74.
Homburg, D. and C. Pflesser (2000), A Multiple-Layer Model of Market Oriented Organizational Culture:
Measurement Issues and Performance Outcomes, Journal of Marketing, 37, November, 449-462.
Houston, F.S. (1986), "The Marketing Concept: What It Is and What It Is Not," Journal of Marketing, 50, April,
81-87.
Houston, M.B. (2001), Cross-Unit Competition market Charter: The Enduring Influence of Structure, Journal fo
Marketing, 65 (April), 19 - 34.
Hult, G.T.M. and D.J. Ketchen (2001), Does Market Orientation Matter?: A Test of the Relationship Between
Positional Advantage and Performance, Strategic Management Journal, 22, 899 - 906.
Hurley, R.F. (2002), Putting People Back into Organizational Learning, Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, 17, 4, 270-281.
Huxley, A. L.(1942/1982), The Art of Seeing, Creative Arts/ Montana Books, Berkeley.
8/14/2019 Mutual Myopia - Individual and Dyadic - Lichtenthal.pdf
44/56
43
Hwang, P. And J.D. Lichtenthal (2000), Anatomy of Organizational Crises, Journal of Crises and Contingency
Management, 8, 3, 129 - 140.
Jaworski, B. J. & Kohli, A. K. (1993), "Market Orientation: Antecedents and Consequences, Journal of
Marketing ,57 July, 53-70.
Inkpen, A.C. (1996), Creating Knowledge Through Collaboration, California Management Review, 39, 1, 123-
140.
Itami, H. and T.W. Roehl (1987),Mobilizing Invisible Assets, Harvard University Press: Cambridge.
Kahn, K.B. and J.T. Mentzer (1998), Marketings Integration with Other Departments,