MANAJEMEN SUMBER DAYA MANUSIA

PENGANTAR MANAJEMEN SUMBER DAYA MANUSIA,

KESEMPATAN SETARA DAN HUKUMNYA,
STRATEGI DAN ANALISIS MANAJEMEN SDM.

DISUSUN OLEH
KELOMPOK I
DARWIN
YUSUF ALISON
FATMAWATI

PROGRAM STUDI MANAJEMEN

PROGRAM PASCASARJANA
UNIVERSITAS HALUOLEO
KENDARI
2021

i
 KATA PENGANTAR

Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia (MSDM) adalah suatu ilmu atau cara
untuk mengatur peranan manusia secara efektif dan efisien dalam suatu
organisasi atau perusahaan. Sumber daya manusia merupakan poros yang
penting dalam kehidupan organisasi atau perusahaan, karena mereka adalah roda
penggerak bagi suatu organisasi atau perusahaan. Adapun tujuan penulisan
makalah ini untuk meningkatkan pemahaman kita mengenai manajemen sumber
daya manusia. Makalah ini membahas tiga bagian bab dari buku Gary Dessler
Human Resource Management Edisi 14.
Pada bagian pertama akan membahas mengenai Pengantar Manajemen
Sumber Daya Manusia. Tujuan bab ini adalah untuk menjelaskan apa yang
dimaksud dengan manajemen sumber daya manusia, dan mengapa manajemen
sumber daya manusia penting bagi setiap manajer. Selanjutnya, bagian kedua
akan membahas mengenai Kesempatan Setara dan Hukumnya. Tujuan bab ini
adalah memberi pengetahuan untuk menangani pertanyaan mengenai pekerjaan
yang setara, topik yang akan dibahas adalah hukum kesempatan setara yang
berlaku dari 1964 hingga 1991, hukum yang berlaku saat ini, dan manajemen
keragaman. Kemudian, bagian ketiga akan membahas mengenai Strategi dan
Analisis Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia. Tujuan bab ini adalah menjelaskan
mengenai manajemen sumber daya manusia strategis dan khususnya bagaimana
mengembangkan kebijakan dan praktik SDM yang mendukung perusahaan.
Selanjutnya, pada kesempatan kali ini, penyusun mengucapkan terima
kasih kepada Tuhan Yang Maha Esa atas limpahan rahmatnya akhirnya makalah
ini dapat diselesaikan. Kami atas nama penyusun makalah mengucapkan banyak
terima kasih kepada Dosen Pengampu Mata Kuliah yang telah membimbing dan
membina kami dalam proses perkuliahan di kampus. Dan kami meminta maaf
apabila ada kesalahan dan kekurangan dalam hal materi ataupun tulisan, kritik dan
saran dari semua pihak sangat kami butuhkan untuk menyempurnakan makalah
kami ini.

PENYUSUN
Kelompok 1

ii
 DAFTAR ISI
Sampul .................................................................................................... i
Kata Pengantar ....................................................................................... ii
Daftar Isi .................................................................................................. ii
BAB I PENGANTAR MANAJEMEN SUMBER DAYA MANUSIA
1.1 Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia .................................. 1
1.2 Mengapa Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Penting
Bagi Manajer ...................................................................... 3
1.3 Tren Yang Membentuk Manajemen Sumber Daya
Manusia.............................................................................. 3
1.4 Manajer Sumber Daya Manusia Yang Baru...................... 6
1.5 Kompetensi Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia.............. 10

BAB II KESEMPATAN SETARA DAN HUKUMNYA

2.1 Hukum Kesempatan Setara Yang Berlaku Dari 1964
Hingga 1991 ..................................................................... 12
2.2 Hukum Yang Berlaku Dari 1991 Hingga Saat Ini............. 14
2.3 Pembelaan Terhadap Dugaan Diskriminasi .................... 16
2.4 Proses Penegakan EEOC ................................................ 17
2.5 Manajemen Keragaman ................................................... 19

BAB III STRATEGI DAN ANALISIS MSDM

3.1 Proses Manajemen Strategis ........................................... 22
3.2 Jenis-Jenis Strategi .......................................................... 25
3.3 Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Strategis ................. 26
3.4 Metrik SDM dan Benchmarking ....................................... 28
3.5 Sistem Kerja Berkinerja Tinggi ......................................... 31

Daftar Pustaka ........................................................................................ 34

iii
 BAB I

PENGANTAR MANAJEMEN SUMBER DAYA MANUSIA

Topik Pembahasan:

Tujuan dari bab ini adalah untuk a) menjelaskan apa yang dimaksud
dengan manajemen sumber daya manusia, b) mengapa manajemen sumber daya
manusia penting bagi setiap manajer. c) melihat tren penting yang mempengaruhi
manajemen sumber daya manusia, d) mendeskripsikan ciri-ciri penting manajer
sumber daya manusia zaman sekarang dan e) mendeskripsikan kompetensi
manajer sumber daya manusia.

1.1 Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia

Manajemen sumber daya manusia (MSDM) adalah proses untuk

memperoleh melatih, menilai dan mengompensasi karyawan, dan untuk mengurus
relasi kerja mereka, kesehatan dan keselamatan mereka, serta hal-hal yang
berhubungan dengan keadilan. Sebuah organisasi (organization) terdiri atas
orang-orang dengan peran yang diberikan secara formal yang bekerja bersama
untuk mencapai sasaran organisasi tersebut. Manajer (manager) adalah orang
yang bertanggung jawab dalam pencapaian sasaran organisasi, dan ia
melakukannya dengan cara mengelola usaha yang dilakukan oleh sejumlah orang
dalam organisasi. Manajemen sumber daya manusia memiliki hubungan dengan
proses manajemen. Sebagian besar ahli sependapat bahwa pengelolaan
melibatkan lima fungsi dasar dari: perencanaan, pengorganisasian, penyusunan
staf, kepemimpinan dan pengendalian. Secara keseluruhan fungsi-fungsi ini
mewakili proses manajemen (management process). Aktivitas spesifik yang
terlibat dalam setiap fungsi meliputi:
1) Perencanaan. Menetapkan sasaran dan standar; mengembangkan aturan
dan prosedur; mengembangkan rencana dan peramalan.
2) Pengorganisasian. Memberikan tugas spesifik kepada setiap bawahan;
membentuk departemen; mendelegasikan otoritas kepada bawahan;
menetapkan saluran otoritas dan komunikasi; mengoordinasikan
pekerjaan bawahan.
3) Penyusunan staf. Menentukan tipe orang yang harus Anda pekerjakan•,
merekrut karyawan prospektif; memilih karyawan; melatih dan

1
 mengembangkan karyawan; menetapkan standar kinerja; mengevaıuasi
kinerja, menasihati karyawan, memberikan kompensasi kepada karyawan.
4) Kepemimpinan. Meminta orang lain menyelesaikan pekerjaan;
menegakkan moral; memotivasi bawahan.
5) Pengendalian. Menetapkan standar seperti kuota penjualan, standar
mutu, atau tingkat produksi; memeriksa bagaimana kinerja aktual
dibandingkan dengan standar-standar ini; mengambil tindakan korektif,
sesuai kebutuhan.

Dalam bab ini, akan berfokus pada salah satu fungsi tersebut, yaitu fungsi
penyusunan staf, manajemen personel, atau manajemen sumber daya manusia
(SDM). Manajemen sumber daya manusia – MSDM (human resource
management-HRM) adalah proses untuk memperoleh, melatih, menilai, dan
mengompensasi karyawan, dan untuk mengurus relasi tenaga kerja mereka,
kesehatan dan keselamatan mereka, serta serta hal-hal yang berhubungan
dengan keadilan. Oleh karenanya, topik yang akan dibahas harus dapat
menyampaikan konsep dan teknik yang dibutuhkan untuk aspek “orang” atau
personel dari pekerjaan manajemen. Hal tersebut meliputi:
a) Melakukan analisis pekerjaan (menentukan sifat pekerjaan setiap
karyawan)
b) Merencanakan kebutuhan tenaga kerja dan merekrut kandidat pekerjaan
c) Memilih kandidat pekerjaan
d) Melakukan orientasi dan melatih karyawan baru
e) Mengelola bayaran dan gaji (mengompensasi karyawan)
f) Memberikan insentif dan tunjangan
g) Menilai kinerja
h) Berkomunikasi (mewawancarai, menasihatj mendisiplinkan)
i) Melatih dan mengembangkan manajer
j) Membangun komitmen karyawan

Dan apa yang harus diketahui oleh manajer mengenai:

a. Kesempatan yang setara dan tindakan afirmatif,
b. Kesehatan dan keselamatan karyawan
c. Penanganan keluhan dan relasi tenaga kerja

2
1.2 Mengapa Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Penting Bagi Manajer

Manajemen sumber daya manusia akan membantu manajer menghindari

permasalahan seperti memperkerjakan orang yang salah untuk suatu pekerjaan.
Dan, yang lebih penting, dapat membantu memastikan bahwa manajer
mendapatkan hasil melalui orang-orang. Tugas sumber daya manusia manajer lini
meliputi penempatan orang yang tepat pada suatu pekerjaan, serta
mengorienstasi dan melatih karyawan baru. Tugas manajer sumber daya manusia
meliputi pengawasan karyawannya, mengkoordinasikan kebijakan personel
keseluruhan perusahaan, dan membantu dan menasehati manajer di area-area
manajemen sumber daya manusia.

Meningkatkan Kinerja : SDM Sebagai Pusat Laba, yang lebih penting, konsep
dan teknik manajemen sumber daya manusia dapat membantu memastikan
bahwa manajer mendapatkan hasil melalui orang-orang. Manajer dapat
melakukan smua hal secara benar dengan meletakkan rencana yang brilian,
membuat bagan organisasi yang jelas, membangun lini perakitan kelas dunia, dan
menggunakan kendali akuntansi yang rumit. Mereka berhasil karena mereka
mempunyai keahlian untuk merekrut orang yang tepat untuk pekerjaan yang tepat
dan memotivasi, menilai dan mengembangkan mereka.

1.3 Tren Yang Membentuk Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia

Tren yang membentuk manajemen sumber daya manusia sedang

mempengaruhi apa yang dilakukan manajemen sumber daya manusia dan
bagaimana mereka melakukannya. Globalisasi berarti lebih banyak kompetisi, dan
lebih banyak kompetisi berarti lebih banyak tekanan untuk menurunkan biaya dan
membuat karyawan lebih produktif dan sadar mutu. Teknologi mengharuskan lebih
banyak karyawan mendapatkan informasi secara teknologi dan menekankan
pemberi kerja untuk meningkatkan proses sumber daya manusia mereka dengan
menerapkan alat-alat teknologi baru. Terdapat penekanan lebih pada “pekerjaan
berpengetahuan” sehingga juga terjadi penekanan pada pembangunan “modal
manusia” pengetahuan, pendidikan, pelatihan, keterampilan, dan keahlian dari
karyawan suatu perusahaan. Perubahan angkatan kerja dan demografis berarti
bahwa angkatan kerja menjadi semakin tua dan semakin beragam. Berikut gambar
tren yang mempengaruhi manajemen sumber daya manusia:

3
Gambar 1.1 Tren Yang Membentuk Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia

Sehingga Manajer
SDM Akan
Tren Perusahaan Harus Membutuhkan
Kompetensi Baru Ini

• Kemajuan teknologi • Lebih kompetitif • Lebih berfokus pada

• Tren terkait sifat • Lebih cepat dan sasaran strategis,
pekerrjaan lebih responsive gambaran besar
• Tren demografis dan • Lebih efektif biaya masalah sasaran
Angkatan kerja • Berorientasi modal strategis
• Globalisasi dan manusia • Menggunakan cara-
kompetisi • Lebih ilmiah dalam cara baru untuk
• Kewajiban Utang cara mereka memberikan layanan
(leverage) dan
mengambil SDM
deregulasi
• Tantangan dan tren
keputusan • Mengambil
ekonomi pendekatan
manajemen bakat
untuk mengelola
SDM
• Mengelola
keterlibatan
karyawan
• Mengelola etika
• Mengukur kinerja
dan hasil SDM
• Menggunakan
MSDM berbasis bukti
• Menambahkan nilai
• Memahami filosofi
SDM mereka
• Mempunyai
kompetensi baru

• Kemajuan Teknologi : Untuk satu hal, teknologi secara drastis mengubah

bagaimana manajer sumber daya manusia melakukan pekerjaan mereka.
Perekrutan melalui Linkedln dan Facebook adalah contohnya. Pemberi
kerja dapat mengakses kandidat via papan pekerjaan Facebook. Ini
memberi cara mudah untuk merekrut dan mempromosikan penawaran
pekerjaan dari Facebook. Kemudian, setelah menciptakan penawaran
pekerjaan, pemberi kerja dapat mengiklankan pranala pekerjaannya

4
 dengan menggunakan Facebook. Inovasi seperti ini secara drastis telah
mengubah cara manajer sumber daya manusia melakukan pekerjaannya.

• Tren Globalisasi dan Kompetisi : Globalisasi (globalization) merujuk

pada perusahaan yang memperluas penjuala kepemilikan, dan/atau
manufaktur mereka ke pasar baru di luar negeri. Sebagai contoh Toyota
membangun Camry di Kentucky, sementara Deli merakit komputer di
Tiongkok. Globalisasi mendorong pemberi kerja untuk menjadi lebih
efisien. Lebih banyak globalis; berarti lebih banyak kompetisi, dan lebih
banyak kompetisi berarti lebih banyak tekanan untuk menjadi "kelas dunia”
untuk menurunkan biaya, untuk membuat karyawan lebih produktif, dan
untuk melakukan hal-hal secara lebih baik dan lebih murah.

• Utang (leverage) dan Deregulasi : Tren lainnya juga berkontribusi

terhadap pertumbuhan ekonomi ini. Deregulasi adalah salah satunya. Di
banyak negara, pemerintah melucuti regulasi. Di Amerika Serikat dan
Eropa, misalnya, aturan yang melarang bank komersial melakukan
ekspansi ke dalam perdagangan saham dilonggarkan. "Supermarket
finansial" raksasa multinasional seperti Citibank dengan cepat muncul.
Seiring ekonomi meledak, semakin banyak bisnis dan konsumen berutang
dalam jumlah besar.

• Tren dalam Sifat Pekerjaan :Teknologi telah memengaruhi cara orang

bckerja, sehingga berdampak pada keterampilan dan pelatihan yang
dibutuhkan pekerja di zaman sekarang.

• Tren Demografis dan Angkatan Kerja : Tren demografis membuat

pencarian dan perekrutan karyawan lebih rnenantang. Di Amerika Serikat,
pertumbuhan angkatan tenaga kerja akan tertinggal dengan pertumbuhan
pekerjaan, dengan perkiraan kekurangan sekitar 14 juta pekerja
berpendidikan perguruan tinggi pada 2020. Sebuah studi terhadap pejabat
sumber daya manusia dari 35 perusahaan global besar mengatakan
bahwa "manajemen bakat”—akuisisi, pengełnbangan, dan retensi bakat

5
 untuk mengisi kebutuhan pekerjaan perusahaan tersebut—diperingkat
sebagai perhatian teratas mereka.

• Tantangan dan Tren Ekonomi : Semua tren ini terjadi dalam konteks
pergolakan ekonomi. Produk nasional bruto ukuran terhadap total hasil
Amerika Serikat—meledak antara 2001 dan 2008. Selama periode ini,
harga rumah melonjak sebesar 20 persen per tahun. Tingkat
pengangguran bertahan pada sekitar 4,7 persen." Kemudian, sekitar 2007-
2008, semua ukuran ini tampak jatuh ke jurang. GNP jatuh. Harga rumah
jatuh sebesar 20 persen atau lebih (tergantung kotanya). Tingkat
pengangguran di seluruh negara meningkat hingga lebih dari 9,1 persen.

1.4 Manajer Sumber Daya Manusia Yang Baru

Manajer Sumber Daya Manusia Yang Baru menghadapi tantangan-

tantangan baru. Secara tradisional, manajer personel/ SDM berfokus pada
masalah-masalah administratif seperti menjalankan departemen gaji. Zaman
sekarang, pemberi kerja mengharapkan tim manajemen sumber daya manusia
mereka untuk lebih berfokus pada gambaran besar berbagai masalah, meliputi
penerapan kebijakan dan praktik sumber daya manusia yang mendukung tujuan
strategis perusahaan; untuk mencari cara baru yang lebih efektif dalam
memberikan layanan transaksional; dan menstrategikan dan menciptakan sistem
kerja berkinerja tinggi yang menghasilkan kinerja karyawan yang unggul.

Gambar 1.2 Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Strategis

Kebijakan Dan
Dibutuhkan Untuk
Praktik Manajemen Keterampilan Dan
Mencapai Sasaran
Sumber Daya Kinerja Karyawan
Strategis Perusahaan
Manusia

Sekarang, pemberi kerja menghadapi tantangan-tantangan baru, seperti

mendapatkan laba lebih besar dari operasi. Mereka mengharapkan manajer
sumber daya manusia mereka mempunyai hal-hal yang dibutuhkan untuk
menangani tantangan-tantangan bari ini. Berikut deskripsi bagaimana manajer
SDM zaman sekarang mengatasi tantangan-tantangan ini:

6
1) Mereka Lebih Berfokus Pada Isu-Isu Gambaran Besar Yang Strategis:
Pertama, manajer sumber daya manusia lebih terlibat untuk membantu
perusahaan mereka menangani isu-isu "gambaran besar" yang strategis dan
berjangka lebih panjang. Secara singkat kita akan melihat di situ bahwa
manajemen sumber daya manusia strategis (strategic human resource
management) berarti merumuskan dan melaksanakan kebijakan dan praktik
sumber daya manusia yang menghasilkan kompetensi dan perilaku karyawan
yang dibutuhkan perusahaan untuk mencapai sasaran strategisnya.

2) Mereka Berfokus untuk Meningkatkan Kinerja:

Karyawan berharap bahwa manajer sumber daya manusia mereka
dapat membantu memilih usaha-usaha perbaikan kinerja perusahaan
mereka. Manajer sumber daya manusia mengetahui hal ini. survei
terhadap profesional SDM menyebutkan kompetisi atas pangsa pasar,
kompetisi harga/kendali harga, regulasi pemerintah, kebutuhan akan
pertumbuhan penjualan dan kebutuhan untuk meningkatkan produktivitas
sebagai tantangan teratas yang dihadapi oleh manajer SDM.

3) Mereka Mengukur Kinerja dan Hasil SDM:

Fokus pada kinerja ini membutuhkan sesuatu yang dapat diukur.
Manajemen mengharapkan SDM untuk dapat memberikan bukti berbasis
benchmark yang dapat diukur untuk efisiensi dan efektivitas mereka saat
ini, dan untuk efisiensi dan efektivitas yang diharapkan dari program SDM
yang baru atau yang diajukan. Dengan kata Iain, manajemen
mengharapkan bukti terukur yang solid bahwa SDM telah menyumbangkan
hal yang berarti dan positif untuk mencapai sasaran strategis perusahaan.

4) Mereka Menggunakan Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Berbasis

Bukti:
Mendasarkan keputusan pada bukti seperti ini merupakan inti dari
manajemen sumber daya manusia berbasis bukti. Hal ini merupakan
penggunaan data, fakta, analitik, prinsip ilmiah, evaluasi kritis, dan
riset/studi kasus yang dievaluasi secara kritis untuk mendukung proposal,
keputusan, praktik, dan kesimpulan manajemen sumber daya manusia.

7
 Sederhananya, manajemen sumber daya manusia berbasis bukti berarti
penggunaan bukti terbaik yang ada dalam mengambil keputusan mengenai
praktik manajemen sumber daya manusia yang difokuskan.

5) Mereka Menambah Nilai:

Pada dasarnya adalah bahwa pemberi kerja sekarang ini ingin
manajer SDM mereka menambah nilai dengan meningkatkan laba dan
kinerja. Profesor Dave Ulrich dan Wayne Brockbank mendeskripsikan hal
ini sebagai "Proposisi Nilai SDM."Mereka mengatakan bahwa program
sumber daya manusia (seperti tes penyaringan) hanyalah cara untuk
mencapai hasil akhir. Sasaran akhir manajer sumber daya manusia
haruslah untuk menambah nilai. "Menambah nilai" berarti membantu
perusahaan dan karyawannya meningkat dengan cara yang dapat diukur
sebagai hasil dari tindakan manajer sumber daya manusia.

6) Mereka Menggunakan Cara Baru untuk Memberikan Layanan SDM:

Guna meluangkan waktu untuk tugas strategis mereka yang baru
dan untuk menghantarkan layanan SDM yang efektif biaya, manajer
sumber daya manusia zaman sekarang memberikan layanan SDM
tradisional sehari-hari mereka (seperti administrasi tunjangan) dengan cara
yang baru. Sebagai contoh, mereka menggunakan teknologi seperti portal
perusahaan sehingga karyawan dapat mengatur sendiri rencana
tunjangan, perekrutan Facebook untuk merekrut pelamar kerja, tes daring
untuk melakukan pra-penyaringan pelamar kerja, dan pusat panggilan
tersentralisasi untuk menjawab pertanyaan penyelia yang berhubungan
dengan SDM.

7) Mereka Menggunakan Pendekatan Manajemen Bakat Untuk

Mengelola Sumber Daya Manusia:
Dengan pemberi kerja yang menekan untuk memberikan kinerja
yang lebih baik sebuah survei terhadap para ekskutif sumber daya manusia
menemukan “masalah manajemen bakat" adalah di antara yang paling
mendesak yang mereka hadapi. Manajemen bakat (talent management)
adalah proses berorientasi sasaran dan terintegrasi yang terdiri atas

8
 perencanaan, perekrutan, pengembangan, pengelolaan, dan
pengompensasian karyawan. Manajemen bakat ini meliputi pengadaan
proses terkoordinasi untuk mengidentifikasi, merekrut, mempekerjakan,
dan mengembangkan karyawan.

8) Mereka Mengelola Keterlibatan Karyawan:

Kinerja yang lebih baik membutuhkan karyawan yang terlibat.
Institute for Corporate Productivity mendefinisikan karyawan yang terlibat
“sebagai mereka yang secara mental dan emosional tertanam dalam
pekerjaan mereka dan dalam berkontribusi kepada keberhasilan pemberi
kerja”. Sayangnya, stüdi menyatakan bahwa kurang dari sepertiga dari
angkatan kerja Amerika Serikat yang terlibat. Manajer sumber daya
manusia zaman sekarang membutuhkan keterampilan untuk mengelola
keterlibatan karyawan.

9) Mereka Mengelola Etika:

Sangat disayangkan bahwa laporan berita sekarang ini dipenuhi
dengan kelakuan buruk secara etis yang dilakukan oleh para manajer.
Sebagai contoh, jaksa penuntut mengajukan tuntutan kriminal terhadap
beberapa manajer sumber daya manusia fasilitas pengemasan daging di
Iowa yang diduga melanggar hukum pekerjaan dengan mempekerjakan
anak-anak berusia di bawah 16 tahun.Perilaku seperti ini berisiko untuk
membawa nama buruk bahkan bagi manajer dan pemberi kerja yang
kompeten. Etika (ethics) berarti standar yang cligunakan seseorang untuk
memutuskan seperti apakah kelakuan orang tersebut seharusnya.

10) Mereka Memahami Filosofi Sumber Daya Manusia Mereka:

Salah hal yang membentuk filosofi Anda sendiri adalah filosofi dari
manajemen puncak organisasi Anda. Meskipun mungkin dinyatakan atau
tidak, filosofi ini dikomunikasikan oleh tindakan-tindakan mereka dan
meresap di setiap tingkatan dan departemen dalam organisasi.

9
1.5 Kompetensi Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia

Manajemen sumber daya manusia membutuhkan kompetensi baru. Mereka

harus mampu menerapkan manajemen sumber daya manusia berbasis bukti,
yang berarti penggunaan data, fakta, analitik, prinsip ilmiah, evaluasi kritis, dan
riset/studi kasus yang dievaluasi secara kritis untuk mendukung proposal,
keputusan, praktik, dan kesimpulan manajemen sumber daya manusia.

Gambar 1.3 Kompetensi Manajer Sumber Daya Manusia

Gambar 1.3 mengilustrasikan kompetensi-kompetensi yang dibutuhkan

manajer SDM zaman sekarang. Profesor Dave Ulrich dan koleganya berkata
bahwa manajer sumber daya masa kini membutuhkan pengetahuan,
keterampilan, dan kompetensi untuk menjadi:

a) Pernosisi Strategis:
Misalnya, dengan mampu membantu menciptakan strategi perusahaan.
b) Aktivis kredibel:
Misalnya, dengan menampilkan kepemimpinan yang membuat mereka
"kredibel (dihormati, dikagumis didengarkan) sekaligus aktif (menawarkan
sudut pandang, mengambil posisi, menantang
c) Pembangun kapabilitas:
Misalnya, dengan menciptakan lingkungan kerja yang berarti dan
menyejajarkan strategi, kultur, praktik dan perilaku.

10
 d) Pejuang perubahan:
Misalnya, dengan mencetuskan dan mendukung perubahan.
e) Inovator dan integrator SDM:
Misalnya, dengan mengembangkan bakat, dan mengoptimalkan modal
manusia melalui perencanaan dan analitik angkatan kerja.
f) Pendukung teknologi:
Misalnya, dengan Inenghubungkan orang-orang melalui teknologi.

Sertifikasi SDM, banyak manajer menggunakan sertifikasi untuk memperlihatkan

penguasaan mereka atas pengetahuan manajemen sumber daya manusia
modern. Humar resource Certification Institute (HRCI) merupakan sebuah
organisasi sertifikasi independent untuk para professional sumber daya manusia.
Melalui tes, HRCI menghadiahkan beberapa mandate, termasuk Profesional
dalam Sumber Daya Manusia dan Profesional Senior dalam Sumber Daya
Manusia.

Basis Pengetahuan HRCI, Badan pengetahuan HRCI kira-kira diperlihatkan

dalam presentase berikut ini untuk area topik utamanya, (% ujian PHR-%ujian
SPHR): Manajemen Bisnis Strategis, 12% - 29%, Perencanaan dan Pekerjaan
Angkatan Kerja, 26% - 17%; Pengembangan Sumber Daya Manusia, 17% - 17%;
Total Imbalan, 16% - 12%; Relasi Karyawan dan Tenaga Kerja, 22% - 18%;
Manajemen RIsiko, 7% - 7%, serta pengetahuan inti tertentu.

11
 BAB II

KESEMPATAN SETARA DAN HUKUMNYA

Topik Pembahasan:

Tujuan dari bab ini adalah untuk a) menjelaskan pentingnya dan

menyebutkan fitur-fitur dasar dari Title VII dan Civil Rights Act Tahun 1964 dan
setidaknya lima hukum pekerjaan setara lainnya, b) mendekskripsikan hukum
pekerjaan pasca 1990 termasuk American with Disabilities Act dan cara
menghindari tuduhan, c) mengilustrasikan dua pembelaan yang dapat digunakan
dalam peristiwa dugaan praktik diskriminatif, dan menyebutkan praktik manajemen
personel diskriminatif spesifik dalam perekrutan, seleksi, promosi, transfer,
pemberhentian dan tunjangan, d) menyebutkan Langkah-langkah dalam proses
penegakan EEOC dan e) mendsikusikan mengapa manajemen keragaman itu
penting dan bagaimana menerapkan program manajemen keragaman.

2.1 Hukum Kesempatan Setara Yang Berlaku Dari 1964 Hingga 1991

Beberapa hukum kesempatan pekerjaan setara yang paling penting

menjadi hukum pada periode 1964 hingga 1991:

Title VII dari Civil Rights Act Tahun 1964 adalah sangat penting dan menyatakan
bahwa pemberi kerja tidak dapat melakukan diskriminasi berdasarkan pada ras,
warna kulit, agama, jenis kelamin, atau asal usul nasional. Secara spesifik
dinyatakan bahwa akan menjadi praktik pekerjaan yang melanggar hukum bagi
pekerja apabila:

1. Gagal atau menolak untuk memperkerjakan atau mengeluarkan seorang

individu atau mendiskriminasi terhadap individu maupun dalam hal
kompensasi, persyaratan kondisi, atau hak-hak istimewanya dalam
pekerjaan, yang dikarenakan oleh ras, warna kulit, agama, jenis kelamin,
ata asal usul nasionalnya.
2. Membatasi, memisahkan atau mengklasifikasikan karyawan atau pelamar
kerja dengan cara apa pun yang akan menghilangkan atau cenderung
menghilangkan kesempatan pekerjaan dari individu manapun atau
memengaruhi secara merugikan statusnya sebagai karyawan, yang

12
 dikarenakan oleh ras, warna kulit, agama, jenis kelamin atau asal usul
nasional individu tersebut.

EEOC, Title VII membentuk Equal Employment Opportunity Commision (EEOC)

untuk menjalankan dan menegakkan Civil Right Act di tempat kerja. Komisi ini
terdiri atas lima anggota yang ditunjuk oleh presiden dengan nasihat dan
persetujuan Senat. Setiap anggota mempunyai masa jabatan lima tahun. Dalam
penggunaan popular, EEOC juga mencakup ribuan staf yang dimiliki oleh EEOC
di seluruh Amerika Serikat. Mereka menerima dan menyelidiki keluhan
diskriminasi kerja dari individu yang dirugikan.

Perintah Eksekutif, perintah ini mengharuskan bahwa kontraktor pemerintah

dengan kontrak di atas nilai $50.000 dan 50 atau lebih karyawan melakukan
tindakatan afirmatif untuk emastikan kesempatan pekerjaan bagi mereka yang
mungkin telah mengalami diskriminasi di masa lalu. Mereka juga membentuk
Office of Federal Contract Compliance Program (IFCPP). Kantor ini menerapkan
dan memastikan pemenuhan terhdap perintah tersebut.

Age Discrimination In Employment Act Tahun 1967, ADEA melarang pemberi

kerja untuk mendikskriminasi tehadap karyawan atau pelamar yang berusia di
antara 40 dan 65 tahun. Amandemen selanjutnya secara efektif mengakhiri
sebagian besar pension paksa pada usia 65. Sebagaian besar agensi negara
bagian local, ketika berlaku sebagai pemberi kerja, juga harus mematuhi ADEA.

Vocational Rehabilitation Act Tahun 1974, mengharuskan pemberi kerja

dengan kontrak federal yang bernilai dari $2.500 untuk melakukan tindakan
afirmatif dalam memperkerjakan orang cacat. Undang-undang ini tidak
mengharuskan untuk memperkerjakan orang yang tidak memenuhi syarat.
Undang-undang ini mengharuskan pemberi kerja untuk melakukan Langkah-
lanhkah untuk mengakomodasi pekerja cacat kecuali hal ini memberikan kesulitan
yang tidak semestinya bagi pemberi kerja.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act Tahun 1978, melarang penggunaan kehamilan,

kelahiran anak atau kondisi medis yang terkait untuk mendiskriminasikan dalam
perekrutan, promosi, skors atau pemecatan dalam persyaratan atau kondisi
pekerjaan apa pun. Lebih jauh dibawah undang-undang tersebut, jika seorang
pemberi kerja menawarkan kepada karyawannya cakupan disabilitas, mereka

13
harus memperlakukan kehamilan dan kelahiran anak seperti disabilitas lainnya
dan memasukkannya dalam rencana sebagai kondisi yang dicakup.

Pedoman Agensi Federal, diperintahkan untuk memastikan kepatuhan dengan

hukum-hukum ini dan perintah eksekutif mempunyai pedoman penerapannya
sendiri. Pedoman ini memberikan prosedur yang direkomendasikan untuk
mematyhi hukum-hukum tersebut.

2.2 Hukum Yang Berlaku Dari 1991 Hingga Saat Ini

Hukum pekerjaan setara terus berevolusi, dengan legislasi baru yang

penting diberlakukan sejak 1990-1991.

1) Civil Rights Act Tahun 1991 membalik pengaruh dari beberapa

keputusan Mahkamah Agung misalnya, menggarisbawahi bahwa beban
bukti menjadi milik pemberi kerja setelah penggugat menetapkan adanya
kemungkinan diskriminasi ilegal.
2) Americans With Disabilities Act melarang diskriminasi pekerjaan
terhadap individu dengan disabilitas yang memenuhi syarat.
Undangundang tersebutjuga mengatakan bahwa pemberi kerja harus
memberikan «akomodasi yanglayar untuk keterbatasan fisik atau mental
kecuali melakukannya akan memberikan "kesulitanyang tidak semestinya"
pada bisnis tersebut.
3) Meskipun Title VII membuat pelecehan seksual di tempat kerja ilegal,
Federal Violence Against Women Act Tahun 1994 memberikan wanita
cara Iain untuk mendapatkan keadilan untuk pelecehan (kekerasan)
seksual. Pada dasarnya, pelecehan seksual merujuk pada rayuan seksual
yang tidak diinginkan, permintaan akan pelayanan seksual, dan kelakuan
verbal atau fisik Iainnya yang bersifat seksual yang terjadi, misalnya, ketika
kelakuan tersebut dilakukan baik secara eksplisit maupun secara implisit
sebagai persyaratan atau kondisi dari pekerjaan seorang individu.

Pelecehan Seksual, dibawah Title VII, pelecehan seksual umumnya merujuk

pada pelecehan atas dasar seks ketika kelakuan tersebut mempunyai tujuan atau
pengaruh yang secara substansial menganggu kinerja seseorang atau
menciptakan lingkungan kerja yang mengintimidasi, tidak ramah, atau ofensif.

14
Terdapat Tiga Cara Untuk Membuktikan Pelecehan Seksual:

• Quid Pro Quo:

Yang Paling langsung adalah dengan membuktikan bahwa
penolakan terhadap rayuan penyelia memengaruhi secara merugikan apa
yang disebut oleh EEOC sebagai “tindakan pekerjaan yang nyata” seperti
perekrutan, pemecatan, promosi, demosi, dan atau penugasan kerja.
Dalam sebuah kasus, karyawan memperlibatkan bahwa keberhasilan kerja
dan kemajuan yang berkelanjutan tergantung pada kesediannya untuk
memenuhi permintaan seksual penyelianya.

• Lingkungan Tidak Ramah Diciptakan Oleh Penyelia:

Pelecehan tidak selalu harus berupa konsekuensi yang nyata
seperti demosi. Sebagai contojh pengadilan menemukan bahwa perilaku
penyelia laki-laki telah secara subtansial memengaruhi kemampuan
emosional dan psikologis seorang karyawan perempuan hingga ia merasa
ia harus keluar dari pekerjaanya. Oleh karena itu, meskipun penyelia
tersebut tidak melakukan ancaman atau janji langsung sebagai imbalan
atas rayuan seksual, rayuannya menganggu kinerja wanita tersebut dan
menciptakan lingkungan kerja yang ofensif. Itu telah cukup untuk
membuktikan adanya pelecehan seksual.

• Lingkungan Tidak Ramah Yang Diciptakan Oleh Rekan Kerja atau Non
Karyawan:
Rekan kerja atau non karyawan dapat memicu tuntutan serupa.
Sebuah pengadilan memutuskan untuk benar-benar keharusan memakai
seragam yang mengandung secara seksual menimbulkan komentar cabul
dari pelanggan. Ketika karyawan tersebut menolak untuk memakai
seragam tersebut, meroka memecatnya. Pemberi kerja tidak dapat
memperlihatkan bahwa terdapat keharusan terkait pekerjaan atas seragam
tersebut, dan hanya karyawan perempuan yang memakainya. Pengadilan
memutuskan bahwa pemberi kerja, pada praktiknya bertanggung jawab
atas perilaku pelecehan seksual tersebut.

15
2.3 Pembelaan Terhadap Dugaan Diskriminasi

Untuk memahami bagaimana pemberi kerja mebela diri terhadap klaim

diskriminasi pekerjaan, terlebih dahulu harus singkat meninjau sejumlah
terminology hukum dasar. Hukum diskriminasi membedakan antara perlakuan
berbeda maupun dampak berbeda. Perlakuan berbeda berarti diskriminasi yang
disengaja, sedangkan dampak berbeda adalah pemberi kerja terlibat dalam praktik
atau kebijakan pekerjaan yang mempunyai pengaruh merugikan lebih besar pada
anggota kelompok yang dilindungi di bawah Title VII dibandingkan pada karyawan
lain tanpa memandang tujuannya. Berikut adalah pembelaan yang dapat
digunakan dalam peristiwa dugaan praktik diskriminasi:

Peran Sentral Dampak Merugikan, pemberi kerja menggunakan berbagai

pembelaan terhadap dugaan diskriminasi. Dalam membela diri mereka terhadap
dugaan diskriminasi, pemberi kerja perlu membedakan antara perlakuan berbeda
(diskriminasi yang disengaja) dan dampak berbeda (kebijakan yang menpunyai
dampak merugikan tanpa memandang tujuannya). Penggugat memperlihatkan
dampak berbeda berdasarkan aturan deviasi standar atau dengan
memperlihatkan tingkat penolakan berbeda, kebijakan terbatas, atau
perbandingan populasi, atau dengan menerapkan tes McDonnell-Douglas.

Kualifikasi Pekerjaan Bonafid, pemberi kerja membela diri mereka dengan

memperlihatkan bahwa praktik pekerjaan tersebut merupakan kualifikasi
pekerjaan bonafid (bona fidcoccupational qualification) (misalnya, gender
merupakan BFOQ untuk posisi seperti model).

Keharusan Bisnis, atau mereka dapat membela diri mereka dengan

menggunakan pembelaan keharusan bisnis, yang mengharuskan mereka untuk
memperlihatkan bahwa terdapat tujuan bisnis yang lebih penting. Dengan
demikian, sangat berguna bagi kita untuk mempunyai pengetahuan mengenai
praktik pekerjaan diskriminatif. Sebagai contoh, dalam perekrutan, pemberi kerja
tidak lagi menggunakan iklan "dibutuhkan bantuan laki-laki" dan berusaha keras
untuk memastikan bahwa persyaratan pendidikan dibutuhkan untuk melakukan
pekerjaan tersebut. Secara serupa, dalam promosi dan transfer, Equal Pay Act
mengharuskan bahwa gaji yang setara diberikan untuk pekerjaan yang secara
substansial serupa yang dilakukan oleh pria dan wanita.

16
2.4 Proses Penegakan EEOC

Semua manajer memainkan peran penting dalam proses penegakan

EEOC. Langkah-langkah dasar dalam proses ini meliputi pengisian tuntutan,
penerimaan tuntutan oleh EEOC, memberikan pemberitahuan, konferensi
investigasi/pencarian fakta, penemuan penyebab/ tidak ada penyebab, usaha
konsiliasi, dan (jika diperlukan) pemberitahuan untuk menuntut. Berikut prosesnya:

Gambar 2.1 Proses Pengajuan Tuntutan EEDC

17
Langkah-Langkah Dalam Proses Penegakan EEOC:

1) Mengajukan Tuntutan, proses tersebut dimulai ketika seseorang

mengajukan klain kepada EEOC. Orang yang dirugikan atau anggota
EEOC yang mempunyai alasan yang layak untuk percaya bahwa telah
terjadi pelanggaran harus mengajukan klaim secara tertulis dan dibawah
sumpah.
2) Penerimaan Tuntutan, praktik umum dari EEOC adalah menerima
tuntutan dan secara lisan merujuknya pada agensi negara bagian atau
local atas nama pihak yang menuntut. Jika agensi tersebut melepaskan
yuridiksi atau tidak bisa mendapatkan solusi yang memuaskan, EEOC
memprosesnya pada berkahirnya periode penangguhan.
3) Memberikan Pemberitahuan, Setelah tuntutan diajukan (atau periode
penganggugan negara bagian atau local berakhir), EEOC memunyai waktu
10 hari utnuk memberikan pemberitahuan kepada pemberi kerja.
4) Konferensi Investigasi/ Pencarian Fakta, EEOC kemudian
menginvestigasikan tuntutan tersebut untuk menentukan apakah terdapat
penyebab yang cukup untuk meyakini bahwa hal itu benar; mereka
mempunyai waktu 120 hari untuk memutuskan.
5) Penyebab/ Tidak Ada Penyebab, jika mereka tidak menemukan
penyebab, EEOC harus menolak tuntutan tersebut, dan harus
mengeluarkan pemberitahuan Hak untuk menuntut kepada pihak penuntut.
6) Konsiliasi, jika EEOC menemukan penyebab, mereka mempunyai 30 hari
untuk mengusahakan persetujuan konsiliasi. Konsiliator EEOC bertemu
dengan karyawan untuk menentukan kompensasi apakah yang
memuaskan. Mereka kemudian berusaha untuk mengosiasikan
perdamaian dengan pemberi kerja.
7) Pemberitahuan Untuk Menuntut, jika konsiliasi ini tidak memuaskan,
EEOC dapat membawa gugatan ke pengadilan distrik federal, atau
mengeluarkan pemberitahuan hak untuk menuntut kepada orang yang
mengajukan tuntutan.

18
2.5 Manajemen Keragaman

Dengan angkatan kerja yang semakin beragam, manajemen keragaman

menjadi keterampilan manajerial yang penting. Mengelola keragaman berarti
memaksimalkan potensi manfaat keragaman sembari meminimalkan potensi
rintangan. Keragaman (diversity) berarti beragam atau bervariasi dan ditempat
kerja berarti mempunyai Angkatan kerja yang terdiri atas dua atau lebih kelompok
karyawan dengan beragam latar belakang rasial, etnis, gender, kultural, asal-usul
nasional, disabilitas, usia dan keragaman.

Ancaman Potensial Terhadap Keragaman, keragaman Angkatan kerja

menghasilkan baik manfaat maupun permasalahan bagi pemberi kerja. Jika tidak
dikelola, keragaman dapat menghasilkan rintangam keperilakuan yang
mengurangi kooperasi. Masalah potensialnya meliputi:

1) Penstereotipan (stereotyping), di sini seseorang mengaitkan ciri-ciri

keperilakuan tertentu dengan individu berdasarkan pada keanggotaan
mereka dalam suatu kelompok. Sebagai contoh, "orang tua tidak dapat
bekerja keras." Prasangka adalah bias untuk memprasangkai seseorang
berdasarkan pada ciri-ciri orang tersebut, seperti "kita tidak akan
mempekerjakannya karena ia tua".
2) Diskriminasi (discrimination), adalah prasangka dalam tindakan. Ini
berarti mengambil tindakan spesifik terhadap orang tersebut berdasarkan
pada kelompok orang tersebut. Tentu saja, tindakan mendiskriminasi di
tempat kerja berdasarkan pada usia, ras, gender, disabilitas, atau asal-
usul nasional umumnya adalah ilegal. Tetapi, dalam praktiknya
diskriminasi mungkin bersifat halus. Sebagai contoh banyak orang
berargumen bahwa "langit-langit kaca", yang dikuatkan oleh "jaringan
anak-anak lama" (persahabatan yang terbangun di tempat-tempat seperti
klub eksekutif), mencegah wanita untuk mencapai manajemen puncak.
3) Tokenism, berarti sebuah perusahaan menunjuk sekelompok kecil
wanita atau minoritas untuk menjabat posisi yang menyolok, alih-alih
secara agresif mencari representasi penuh untuk kelompok tersebut

19
 4) Etnosentrisme (ethnocentrism), adalah kecenderungan untuk
memandang anggota kelompok sosial kurang baik dibandingkan
kelompoknya sendiri.
5) Diskriminasi terhadap wanita melampaui hanya sekedar langit-langit
kaca. Wanita bekerja juga menghadapi stereotip peran gender, yaitu
kecenderungan untuk mengasosiasikan wanita dengan pekerjaan
tertentu (seringkali non manajerial).

Beberapa Manfaat Keragaman

Kunci untuk mendapatkan manfaatnya adalah dengan mengelola dengan
baik potensi masalah ini. Dalam sebuah studi, periset menyelidiki iklim keragaman
di 654 toko dari sebuah rantai ritel besar Amerika Serikat. Mereka mendefinisikan
iklim keragaman sebagai sejauh mana karyawan di toko tersebut mengatakan
bahwa perusahaan tersebut mempromosikan kesempatan setara dan inklusi.
Mereka menemukan adanya pertumbuhan penjualan tertinggi di toko-toko dengan
iklim pro-keragaman, dan terendah di toko-toko yang mana bawahan dan manajer
melaporkan iklim keragaman yang kurang ramah. Studi lainnya menemukan
bahwa diskriminasi rasial berhubungan secara negatif dengan komitmen
karyawan, meskipun dengan adanya usaha organisasi untuk mendukung
keragaman akan mengurangi pengaruh negatif tersebut.

Pentingnya Keragaman
Keragaman benar-benar dapat mendorong laba yang lebih tinggi. Sebagai
contoh, lebih dari 50 perusahaan terbesar Amerika Scrikat, termasuk GE,
Microsoft, dan Walmart, akhir-akhir ini mengajukan laporan kepada Mahkamah
Agung Amerika Serikat, berargumen bahwa tindakan afirnlatif telah menghasilkan
peningkatan penjualan dan laba. Jadi, ketika Merck membutuhkan sertifikasi halal
untuk salah satu obatnya, mereka berpaling kepada karyawan Muslim mereka.
Mereka membantu Merck membawa produk tersebut ke pasar lebih cepat dan
membantu memastikan penerimaannya di kalangan Muslim.

Mengelola Keragaman
Mengelola keragaman (managing diversity) berarti memaksimalkan
potensi manfaat dari keragaman sembari meminimalkan potensi masalahnya.
Dalam praktiknya manajemen keragaman melibatkan tindakan wajib dan sukarela.

20
Akan tetapi, tindakan wajib (khususnya pemenuhan EEO) tidak dapat menjamin
adanya kooperasi. Oleh karena itu biasanya mengelola keragaman mengandalkan
diambilnya langkah-langkah untuk mendorong karyawan bekerja bersama secara
produktif. mengelola

Menerapkan Program Tindakan Afirmatif

Kesempatan pekerjaan setara bertujuan untuk memastikan bahwa setiap
orang, tanpa memandang ras, warna kulit, disabilitas, jenis kelamin, agama, asal-
usul nasional, atau usia, mempunyai kesempatan setara berdasarkan pada
kualifikasinya. Tindakan afirmatif berarti mengambil tindakan (dalam perekrutan,
promosi, dan kompensasi untuk menghilangkan pengaruh sekarang dari
diskriminasi di masa lalu). Tindakan afirmatif masih merupakan isu tempat kerja
yang signifikan pada saat ini. Kejadian program tindakan afirmatif yang
dimandatkan oleh pengadilan besar telah menurun, tetapi pengadilan masih
menggunakannya. Lebih jauh, banyak pemberi kerja masih harus terlibat dalam
program sukarela. Sebagai contoh, Perintah Eksekutif (Executive Order—EO)
11246 (yang dikeluarkan Pada 1965) mengharuskan kontraktor federal untuk
melakukan tindakan afirmatif untuk meningkatkan kesempatan pekerjaan bagi
kelompok-kelompok seperti wanita dan minoritas rasial.

Diskriminasi Terbalik
Diskriminasi terbalik (reverse discrimination) berarti mendiskriminasi
terhadap pelamar dan karyawan non-minoritas. Banyak kasus pengadilan yang
menangani isu-isu ini, tetapi hingga akhir-akhir ini, baru sedikit jawaban konsisten
yang muncul. Pada dasarnya, tampak bahwa pemberi kerja harus menekankan
perekrutan eksternal dan pengembangan internal untuk menghasilkan karyawan
minoritas dan karyawan yang berkualifikasi lebih baik, "sembari mendasarkan
keputusan pekerjaan pada kriteria yang benar”.

21
 BAB III

STRATEGI DAN ANALISIS MANAJEMEN SUMBER DAYA MANUSIA

Topik Pembahasan:

Tujuan dari bab ini adalah untuk a) menjelaskan mengenai manajemen

sumber daya strategis, b) jenis-jenis strategi utama, c) definisi dan praktik
manajemen sumber daya manusia startegis, d) metrik sumber daya manusia dan
e) contoh yang dapat dilakukan pemberi kerja untuk memiliki sistem berkinerja
tinggi.

3.1 Proses Manajemen Strategis

Manajer tidak dapat merancang secara cerdas kebijakan dan praktik

sumber daya manusia mereka tanpa memahami peran yang akan dimainkan
kebijakan dan praktik tersebut dalam mencapai sasaran strategis perusahaan
mereka. Dalam bab ini, akan melihat bagaimana manajemen langkah dalam
strategis-proses manajer mendesain rencana strategis dan sumber daya manusia,
dan bagaimana mereka mengevaluasi hasil dari rencana mereka. Pertama akan
dimulai dengan gambaran mengenai proses perencanaan manajemen dasar.

Proses Perencanaan Manajemen

Proses perencanaan manajerial dasar melibatkan penetapan tujuan,
membuat ramalan perencanaan dasar, meninjau rangkaian tindakan alternatif,
mengevaluasi opsi mana yang terbaik, dan kemudian memilih dan melaksanakan
rencana Anda. Rencana memperlihatkan rangkaian tindakan untuk membawa dari
tempat Anda berada ke sasaran. Perencanaan selalu "diarahkan pada sasaran.

Perencanaan Strategis
Sebelum hierarki sasaran dapat ditetapkan atau kebijakan dan praktik
dirumuskan, manajer harus membuat rencana strategis. Rencana strategis
(strategic plan) adalah rencana keseluruhan perusahaan mengenai bagaimana
mereka akan menyesuaikan kekuatan dan kelemahan internal dengan
kesempatan dan ancaman eksternal yang bertujuan untuk mempertahankan
keunggulan kompetitif. Perencana strategis akan bertanya, "Di mana kita berada
sekarang sebagai sebuah bisnis, dan ke mana kita akan menuju?" kemudian

22
merumuskan sebuah rencana strategis untuk memandu perusahaan ke tujuan
yang diinginkan.
Rencana strategis merupakan hal yang serupa tetapi tidak sama dengan
model bisnis. Mereka yang berinvestasi dalam sebuah bisnis akan bertanya
kepada manajemen puncak, "Apa model bisnis Anda?" Model bisnis "adalah
metode suatu perusahaan untuk menghasilkan uang dalam lingkungan bisnis
sekarang." Model bisnis ini menunjukkan siapa yang dilayani Oleh perusahaan,
produk atau jasa yang mereka sediakan, apa yang membedakannya, keunggulan
kompetitifnya, bagaimana mereka menyediakan produk atau jasa, dan, yang
paling penting, bagaimana mereka menghasilkan uang.
Strategi (strategy) adalah rangkaian tindakan. Jika rencana strategis
Yahoo! adalah lebih berfokus pada aplikasi seperti Yahoo! Finance, salah satu
strateginya adalah dengan menjual Yahoo! Search dan menaruh uangnya ke
dalam aplikasi-aplikasi yang lain tersebut. Manajemen strategis (strategic
management) adalah proses untuk mengidentifikasi dan mengeksekusi rencana
strategis organisasi, dengan menyesuaikan kemampuan perusahaan dengan
permintaan lingkungannya.

Gambar 3.1 Proses Manajemen Strategis

1) Langkah 1 Bertanya, Di Mana Kita Berada Sekarang?

Tempat yang masuk akal untuk memulai adalah dengan bertanya,
"Sebagai suatu bisnis, di mana kita berada sekarang?" Di sini, manajer
mendefinisikan bisnis dan misi perusahaan sekarang. Secara spesifik,
"Produk apakah yang kita jual, di mana kita menjualnya, dan bagaimana
produk atau jasa kita berbeda dari pesaing kita?" Manajer secara
tradisional akan berfokus pada empat aspek bisnis saat ini. Pertama

23
 adalah lingkup produk perusahaan, khususnya adalah cakupan sekarang
dari produk atau jasa
2) Langkah 2 Mengukur Situasi: Melakukan Audit Eksternal Dan Internal
Langkah berikutnya adalah bertanya, "Apakah kita menuju ke arah yang
tepat dengan adanya tantangan tantangan yang kita hadapi?" Untuk
menjawab pertanyaan ini, manajer perlu mempelajari atau "mengaudit"
lingkungan perusahaan, serta kekuatan dan kelemahan internalnya.
3) Langkah 3 Menciptakan Opsi Strategis
Situasi tersebut mungkin mengharuskan manajemen mempertimbangkan
opsi-opsi strategis bagi perusahaan.
4) Langkah 4 Meninjau Opsi Strategis
Dengan situasi tersebut, opsi strategis manakah yang harus kita kejar? Di
sini, manajer membandingkan opsi-opsi strategisnya untuk melihat opsi
mana yang paling konsisten dengan kesempatan dan ancaman
perusahaan, serta kekuatan dan kelemahannya.
5) Langkah 5 Membuat Pilihan Strategis
Di sini, manajer harus mematangkan pilihan strategis.
6) Langkah 6 Menerjemahkan Menjadi Sasaran
Kemudian, manajemen menerjemahkan arah baru yang diinginkan
tersebut menjadi sasaran strategis yang dapat dilaksanakan.
7) Langkah 7 Menerapkan Strategi
Eksekusi strategi berarti menerjemahkan strategi tersebut ke dalam
tindakan. Ini berarti benar-benar mempekerjakan (atau memecat) orang,
membangun (atau Inenutup) pabrik, dan menambah (atau menghapuskan)
produk dan lini produk. Untuk melakukannya, manajemen menggunakan
sasaran strategis tingkat atas baru perusahaan untuk merumuskan hierarki
sasaran, serta kebijakan dan prosedur. Hal tersebut memberi pedoman
pada tindakan yang turun dari rantai komando ke tingkat organisasi yang
lebih rendah, dan dalam berbagai departemen perusahaan
8) Langkah 8 Mengevaluasi Kinerja
Tidak semua hal selalu berjalan sesuai rencana

24
3.2 Jenis-Jenis Strategi

Dalam praktik, manajer tcrlibat dalam tiga jenis perencanaan strategis,

perencanaan strategis tingkat korporat, perencanaan strategis unit bisnis (atau
kompetitif), dan perencanaan strategis fungsional (atau departemental).

1. Strategi Korporat : Bagi semua bisnis, strategi korporat menjawab

pertanyaan, "Bisnis apakah yang akan kita masuki?" Strategi tingkat
korporat (corporate-level strategy) suatu perusahaan mengidentifikasi
portofolio bisnis yang, secara total, membentuk perusahaan dan cara
bisnisbisnis ini berhubungan satu sama lain.
2. Strategi Kompetitif : Atas dasar apakah tiap-tiap bisnis kita akan
bersaing?. Strategi kompetitif mengidentifikasi cara membangun dan
memperkuat posisi kompetitig jangka Panjang unit bisnis dalam pasar.
Manajer berharap untuk membangun strategi kompetitig mereka di seputar
keunggulan kompetitif bisnis mereka. Keunggulan kompetitif berarti semua
faktur yang memungkinkan sebuah perusahaan untuk membedakan
produk dan jasanya dari produk atau jasa pesaing untuk meningkatkan
pangsa pasar.
3. Strategi Fungsional : Setiap departemen harus beroperasi dalam
kerangka strategis bisnis. Strategi fungsional mengidentifikasi apa yang
harus dilakukan setiap departemen untuk membantu bisnis mencapai
sasaran strategisnya.

Peran Manajer dalam Perencanaan Strategis

Memikirkan rencana strategis keseluruhan perusahaan merupakan
tanggung jawab manajemen puncak. Akan tetapi, beberapa eksekutif puncak
merumuskan rencana strategis tanpa maşukan dari manajer tingkat rendah. Tidak
seorang pun yang lebih mengetahui mengenai tekanan kompetitif, kemampuan
vendor, tren prodük dan industri, serta kemampuan dan permasalahan karyawan
dari perusahaan tersebut dibandingkan para manajer departemen.
Sebagai contoh, manajer sumber daya manusia berada dalam posisi yang
bagus untuk menyuplai "inteligensi kompetitif—informasi mengenai apa yang
sedang dilakukan pesaing. Perincian mengenai rencana insentif pesaing, survei
opini karyawan mengenai keluhan pelanggan, dan infornıasi mengenai legislasi

25
yang tertunda seperti hukum tenaga kerja merupakan contoh-contohnya. Manajer
sumber daya nıanusia juga harus menguasai informasi mengenai kekuatan dan
kelemahan karyawan perusahaan mereka sendiri.
Dalam praktik, memikirkan rencana strategis keseluruhan perusahaan
melibatkan seringnya diskusi antar- nranajer puncak, antar-manajer tingkat bawah,
dan di antara manajer puncak dan ınanajer tingkat bawah. Manajer puncak
kemudian menggunakan informasi ini untuk nıenuntaskan rencana strategis
nıereka.

3.3 Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Strategis

Manajemen puncak merancang Strategi korporat secara keseluruhan, dan
kemudian merancang strategi kompetitif untuk tiap-tiap bisnis perusahaan.
Kemudian, manajer departemen merumuskan strategi fungsional untuk
departemen mereka yang mendukung sasaran strategis perusahaan dan bisnis
secara menyeluruh. Departemen pemasaran akan memiliki strategi pemasaran.
Departemen prodüksi akan memiliki Strategi prodüksi. Departemen manajemen
sumber daya manusia (”SDM") akan memiliki Strategi manajemen sumber daya
manusia.

Apakah Yang Dimaksud Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusa Strategis?

Setiap perusahaan membutuhkan kebijakan dan aktivitas manajemen
sumber daya manusia yang maşuk akal dalam hal sasaran strategisnya secara
luas. Manajemen sumber daya manusia strategis (strategic human resource
management) berarti merumuskan dan melaksanakan kebijakan dan praktik
sumber daya manusia yang menghasilkan kompetensi dan perilaku karyawan
yang dibutuhkan perusahaan untuk mencapai sasaran strategisnya. Gagasan
dasar dari manajemen sumber daya manusia strategis adalah ini: Dalam
merumuskan kebijakan dan aktivitas manajemen sumber daya manusia, manajer
harus memiliki tujuan untuk menghasilkan keterałnpilan dan perilaku karyawan
yang dibutuhkan perusahaan guna mencapai sasaran strategisnya.
Gambar 3.1 akan menguraikan gagasan ini. Pertama, manajer
merumuskan rencana strategis dan sasaran strategis. Kemudian, ia bertanya,
"Keterampilan dan perilaku karyawan apa yang akan dibutuhkan untuk mencapai
rencana dan sasaran ini?” Dan akhirnya, ia bertanya, ”Secara spesifik, apa saja

26
kebijakan dan praktik perekrutan, seleksi, pelatihan, dan kebijakan dan pralctik
lainnya yang harus kita terapkan sehingga dapat menghasilkan keterampilan dan
perilaku karyawan yang dibutuhkan: Manajer acap kali merujuk pada kebijakan
dan praktik SDM spesifik mereka sebagai strategi sumber daya manusia.

Gambar 3.1 Piramida Strategi Perilaku Praktik

Apa
sajakah
sasaran atau
tujuan strategis kita?

Perilaku dan keterampilan karyawan

apa yang dibutuhkan untuk mencapai
sasaran strategis kita?

Kebijakan dan praktik SDM apa yang akan membuat kita

dapat menghasilkan perilaku dan keterampilan karyawan
yang dibutuhkan?

Strategi Sumber Daya Manusia dalam Tindakan

Sebagai sebuah contoh strategi sumber daya manusia, pertimbangkan
Newell Rubbermaid. Beberapa tahun yang lalu, mereka nıengubah bisnisnya dari
memanufaktur dan memasarkan perabotan rumah tangga (seperti perabotan
Rubbermaid dan Levelor Blinds) menjadi sebagian besarnya hanya memasarkan.
Mereka mengetahui bahwa penerapan perubahan ini akan membutuhkan
keterampilan dan perilaku karyawan yang baru (misalnya, lebih banyak karyawan
periklanan dan penjualan dan lebih sedikit karyawan manufaktur). Tim manajemen
sumber daya manusia memulai dengan melakukan benchmarking pada pesaing
utama Newell yang berorientasi pasar untuk melihat apakah praktik sumber daya
manusia terbaik mereka. Kemudian, tim sumber daya manusia tersebut
merumuskan strategi SDM baru—kebijakan dan praktik spesifik yang menangani
hal-hal seperti cara menangani berkurangnya tingkat staf manufaktur, berapa

27
banyak karyawan periklanan dan pemasaran baru yang harus direkrut dan cara
merekrut mereka, program pelatihan dan pengembangan baru apa yang harus
diterapkan, dan bagaimana cara memberi kompensasi karyawan baru tersebut.
Kemudian, mereka bertemu dengan kepala tiap-tiap divisi Newell Rubbermaid
untuk membahas cara menerapkan kebijakan dan praktik sumber daya manusia
yang baru tersebut.

3.4 Metrik SDM dan Benchmarking

Kita telah melihat bahwa manajemen sumber daya manusia strategis
berarti merumuskan kebijakan dan praktik SDM yang menghasilkan kompetensi
dan perilaku karyawan yang dibutuhkan perusahaan untuk mencapai sasaran
strategisnya. Kemampuan untuk mengukur hasil merupakan hal yang penting
dalam proses ini. Sebagai contoh, akan sia-sia bagi manajemen Ritz-Carlton
Portman Shanghai untuk menetapkan "layanan pelanggan yang lebih baik"
sebagai sasaran jika mereka tidak dapat mengukur layanan pelanggan. Ukuran-
ukuran ini dapat meliputi, misalnya, jam pelatihan per karyawan, produktivitas per
karyawan, dan (via survei pelanggan) kepuasan pelanggan.

Jenis-Jenis Metrik
Manajer sumber daya manusia menggunakan banyak ukuran seperti ini.
Sebagai contoh, terdapat (secara rata-rata) seorang karyawan sumber daya
manusia per 100 karyawan perusahaan untuk perusahaan dengan 100—249
karyawan. Rasio karyawan SDM-terhadap-karyawan turun hingga sekitar 0,79
untuk perusahaan dengan I .000—2.499 karyawan dan menjadi 0,72 untuk
perusahaan dengan lebih dari 7.500 karyawan. Gambar 3.2 mengilustrasikan
metrik manajelnen sumber daya manusia lainnya. Metrik-metrik tersebut meliputi
masa jabatan karyawan, biaya per perekrutan, dan tingkat perputaran keseluruhan
tahunan.

Meningkatkan Kinerja Melalui SISDM: Melacak Metrik Pelamar untuk

Manajemen Bakat yang Lebih Baik
Sebagai contoh mengapa kita harus menggunakan metrik, pertimbangkan
bahwa sebagian besar pemberi kerja mengeluarkan ribuan dolar (atau lebih) untuk
merekrut karyawan, tanpa mengukur sumber perekrutan mana yang menghasilkan

28
kandidat terbaik. Solusi logisnya adalah untuk menilai efektivitas perekrutan
dengan menggunakan ukuran atau metrik. Metrik di sini dapat meliputi mutu
rekrutan baru dan sumber perekrutan mana yang menghasilkan rekrutan baru
terbanyak. Sebuah cara untuk melacak dan menganalisis data tersebut adalah
dengan menggunakan sistem pelacakan pelamar terkomputerisasi (applicant
tracking system—ATS).
• Pertama, pemberi kerja (dan vcndor) memutuskan cara untuk mengukur
kinerja dari rekrutan baru. Sebagai contoh, dengan sistem Authoria, manajer
perekrut memasukkan evaluasi mereka untuk setiap rekrutan baru pada
akhir dari 90 hari pertama karyawan, dengan menggunakan skala 1 - 5.
• Kedua, sistem pelacakan pelamar kemudian memungkinkan pemberi kerja
untuk rnelacak sutnber perekrutan yang berhubungan dengan rekrutan
atasan. Sistem ini dapat memperlihatkan, misalnya, bahwa karyawan baru
yang dipekerjakan melalui rujukan karyawan tinggal lebih lama dan bekerja
lebih baik dibandingkan dari iklan koran. Sebagian besar sistem pelacakan
pelamar memungkinkan manajer perekrut untuk nrlacak metrik perekrutan
serupa pada papan instrumen di komputer.

Gambar 3.2 Metrik Untuk Laporan Benchmarking Modal Manusia

Tersesuaikan SHRM 2011-2012

29
Benchmarking dan Analisis Kebutuhan

Mengukur bagaimana kerja seseorang (misalnya, clalam hal produktivitas

karyawan) cukup jarang digunakan untuk memutuskan apa yang harus diubah.
Seseorang harus mengetahui "bagaimana kerja kita?" dalam hubungannya
dengarl sesuatu. Sebagai contoh, apakah tingkat kccelakaan kita meningkat atau
menurun? Anda mungkin juga ingin melakukan benchmarking terhadap hasil
Anda—membandingkan perusahaan berkinerja tinggi dengan Anda sendiri, untuk
memahami apa yang membuat mereka lebih baik.

Strategi dan Metrik Berbasis Strategi

Benchmarking memberikan hanya satu perspektif mengenai bagaimana

sistem manajemen sumber daya manusia perusahaan Anda bekerja
Benchmarking memperlihatkan bagaimana kinerja sistem manajemen sumber
daya manusia Anda dibandingkan dengan pesaing. Akan tetapi, cara ini mungkin
tidak mengungkapkan sejauh mana praktik SDM perusahaan Anda mendukung
sasaran strategisnya. Sebagai contoh, jika strategi meminta penggandaan laba
dengan meningkatkan layanan pelanggan, sejauh manakah praktik pelatihan kita
yang baru dapat membantu meningkatkan layanan pelanggan?. Manajer
menggunakan metrik berbasis strategi untuk menjawab pertanyaan seperti ini.
Metrik berbasis strategi (strategy-based metrics) berfokus untuk mengukur
aktivitas yang berkontribusi dalam pencapaian sasaran strategis perusahaan.

Meningkatkan Kinerja Melalui SISDM: Analitik Angkatan Kerja/Bakat

Data seperti biaya per perekrutan adalah menarik tetapi relatif tidak
berguna hingga diubah menjadi infortnasi. InJbrmasi adalah data yang dihadirkan
dalam bentuk yang membuatnya berguna untuk mengatnbil keputusan.
Mengetahui biaya per perekrutan Anda adalah menarik. Akan tetapi,
menghadirkan data biaya per perekrutan dengan cara yang memperlihatkan
kepada Anda apakah biaya tersebut mempunyai tren naik atau turun, dan
bagaimana biaya itu dibandingkan dengan biaya pesaing Anda, akan memberikan
informasi yang benar-benar dapat Anda gunakan untuk mengambil keputusan.

30
3.5 Sistem Kerja Berkinerja Tinggi

Salah satu alasan untuk mengukur, melakukan benchmarking, dan secara

ilmiah menganalisis praktik manajemen sumber daya manusia adalah untuk
mempromosikan praktik kerja berkinerja tinggi. Sebuah sistem kerja berkinerja
tinggi (high-performance work system— HPWS) adalah sekumpulan kebijakan
dan praktik manajemen sumber daya manusia yang nıempromosikan efektivitas
organisasi. Metrik sumber daya manusia (ukuran kuantitatif terhadap sejumlah
aktivitas manajemen sumber daya manusia, seperti perputaran karyawan) adalah
kritis dalam menciptakan kebijakan dan praktik sumber daya manusia berkinerja
tinggi. ini karena metrik tersebııt meınungkinkan manajer untuk melakukan
benchmarking pada praktik mereka sendiri terhadap praktik dari organisasi yang
berhasil.

Kebijakan dan Praktik Sumber Daya Manusia Berkinerja Tinggi

Apa sajakah tepatnya praktik kerja berkinerja tinggi ini? Studi memperlihatkan
bahwa kebijakan dan praktik sistem kerja berkinerja tinggi memang berbeda dari
yang kurang produktif (lihat tabel 3.1). Sebagai contoh, dalam hal praktik SDM,
perusahaan yang berkinerja tinggi merekrut lebih banyak kandidat pekerjaan,
menggunakan lebih banyak tes seleksi, dan menghabiskan jumlah jam lebih
banyak untuk melatih karyawan.

Tabel 3.1 Contoh yang Dipilih dari Beberapa Studi mengenai Bagaimana
Perekrutan, Seleksi, pelatihan, Penilaian, Bayaran, dan Praktik-Praktik Lainnya
Berbeda dalam Perusahaan Berkinerja Tinggi dan Berkinerja Rendah
Rata-Rata Sistem Rata-Rata Sistem
SDM Perusahaan SDM Perusahaan
Sampel Praktik SDM Berkinerja Rendah Berkinerja Tinggi
(10% Terbawahj 42 (10% Teratas, 43
Perusahaan) Perusahaan)
Jumlah pelamar yang memenuhi syarat per
posisi (Perekrutan) 8,24 36,55

Persentase yang dipekerjakan berdasaüan 4,26 29,67

pada tes seleksi tervalidasi

Persentase pekerjaan yang diisi dari dalam 34,90 61,46

Jumlah jam pelatlhan untuk karyawan baru 35,02 1 16,87

(kurang dart 1 tahun)

Jumlah jam pelatihan untuk karyawan 13,40 72,00

berpengalaman

31
 Rata-Rata Sistem Rata-Rata Sistem
SDM Perusahaan SDM Perusahaan
Sampel Praktik SDM Berkinerja Rendah Berkinerja Tinggi
(10% Terbawahj 42 (10% Teratas, 43
Perusahaan) Perusahaan)
Persentase karyawan yang menerima penilaian 41.31 95,17
kincqa secara teratur

Persentase angkatan kerja yang peningkatan 23,36 87

jasa atau bayaran insentitnya dihubungkan
denqan kinerja

Persentase angkatan kerja yang menerima 3,90 51,67

urnpan balik kinefja (lari lebih dari satu sumber
(360)

Persentil sasaran untuk total kompensasi 43,03 58,67

(tingkat pasar = 50%)

Persentase dari angkatan kerja yang 27,83 83,56

memenuhi syarat untuk bayaran insentif

Persentase dari angkatan keria yang secara 10,64 42,28

rutin bekerja dalatn till) swakelola lintas
fungsional, atau thn proyek

Persentase dari anggaran SDM yang 13,46 26,24

dibelanjakan parla aktivitas yang dialihdayakan
(misainya, perekrutan, tunjangan, daftar gaji)

Jumlah karyawan per profesional SDM 253,88 139,51

Persentase angkatan kerja yang Inernenuhi 30.00 8,98

syarat yang (licakup oleh kontrak serikat
pekerja

Kinerja Perusahaan
Perputaran katyawan 34,09 20,87
Penjualan per karyawan $158.101 $617.576
Nilai pasar terhadap nilai buku 3,64 11,06

Tabel 3.1 mengilustrasikan empat hal:

• Pertama, tabel tersebut memberikan contoh dari ukuran sumber (human
resource measures), seperti jumlah jam pelatihan per karyawan, atau pelamar
Yang memenuhi syarat per posisi. (Dalam Tabel 3-1, metrik untuk "Jumlah
pelamar Yang memenuhi syarat per posisi" adalah 36,55 di perusahaan
berkinerja tinggi.) Manajer menggunakan metrik-metrik tersebut untuk menilai
kinerja SDM perusahaan mereka dan untuk membandingkan kinerja sebuah
perusahaan dengan perusahaan Iainnya.

32
• Kedua, tabel tersebut mengilustrasikan apa yang harus dilakukan pemberi
kerja untuk mempunyai sistem berkinerja tinggi. Sebagai contoh,
mempekerjakan berdasarkan pada tes seleksi tervalidasi, dan secara
ekstensif melatih karyawan.
• Ketiga, tabel tersebut menunjukkan bahwa praktik kerja berkinerja tinggi
biasanya mengaspirasi untuk membantupekerja dalarn mengelola diri mereka
sendiri. Poin seperti perekrutan, penyaringan, pelatihan, dan praktik sumber
daya manusia Iainnya di sini adalah untuk menumbuhkan angkatan kerja yang
berwewenang dan termotivasi diri.
• Keempat, Tabel 3-1 menyoroti perbedaan yang dapat diukur antara sistem
manajemen sumber daya manusia di perusahaan berkinerja tinggi dan
berkinerja rendah. Sebagai contoh, perusahaan berkinerja tinggi mempunyai
lebih dari empat kali lipat jumlah pelamar yang memenuhi syarat per
pekerjaan dibandingkan yang berkinerja rendah.

33
 DAFTAR PUSTAKA

Dessler, Gary. 2015. Manajemen sumber Daya Manusia. Edisi 14. Salemba
Empat. Jakarta.

34
REVIEW JURNAL
INTERNASIONAL
 REVIEW JURNAL

1. Judul Jurnal
Gender Discrimination And Perceived Fairness In The Promotion
Process Of Hotel Employees (Diskriminasi Gender Dan Keadilan Yang
Dirasakan Dalam Proses Promosi Karyawan Hotel)

2. Tujuan Melakukan Penelitian

Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk menguji perspektif manajer hotel
tentang proses promosi karyawan berdasarkan jenis kelamin karyawan
yang dipromosikan, persepsi keadilan organisasi dan persepsi
diskriminasi gender terhadap perempuan serta menguji peran moderasi
dari anti-male bias beliefs dalam proses promosi.

3. Desain/Metodologi/Pendekatan
Metode analisis data dalam penelitian ini menggunakan desain
eksperimental antara laki-laki dengan perempuan dengan menggunakan
sampel sebanyak 87 orang manajer hotel. Data dianalisis menggunakan
analisis mediasi dan mediation and moderate analyses.

4. Landasan Teori
a. Gender discrimination against women in hotels
Diskriminasi gender terhadap perempuan dalam suatu organisasi
adalah ketika karyawan percaya bahwa seorang karyawan dari satu
jenis kelamin dipromosikan secara tidak adil, diberi gaji lebih tinggi atau
diberi lebih banyak manfaat daripada lawan jenis dengan kualifikasi
yang sama (Kogovsek dan Kogovsek, 2015). Kajian ini mengacu pada
diskriminasi gender terhadap perempuan sebagai satu jenis kelamin
(laki-laki) yang diunggulkan daripada yang lain (perempuan) dalam
proses promosi sebuah hotel. Untuk mengukur diskriminasi gender
terhadap perempuan, lima item diadaptasi dari Dover et al. (2016).
b. Attribution theory
Ketika seseorang dipromosikan, karyawan menilai apakah mereka
yakin orang yang dipromosikan dipilih secara adil, pantas
mendapatkan posisi tersebut, dan apakah mereka pada akhirnya puas
dengan keputusan untuk mempromosikan karyawan tersebut. Teori
atribusi sering digunakan untuk menjelaskan kejadian umum di tempat
kerja, seperti promosi karyawan, dan bagaimana penjelasan (atau
 atribusi) ini memengaruhi persepsi seseorang tentang hal ini dan
kepuasan akhir mereka terhadap situasi tersebut (Jackson, 2019).
Teori atribusi didefinisikan sebagai proses interpretatif dimana orang
membuat penilaian tentang perilaku orang lain serta mengevaluasi
penyebab di balik tindakan mereka sendiri (Heider, 1958).
c. Anti-male bias
Masalah keadilan adalah salah satu alasan banyak individu
menentang kebijakan tindakan afirmatif di tempat kerja, di mana
penentangan terhadap tindakan afirmatif menimbulkan kekhawatiran
atas distibutive justice dan prosedural (Fugère et al., 2016). Bias anti-
laki-laki adalah ketika diskriminasi terbalik dirasakan, (yaitu ketika laki-
laki merasa seolah-olah mereka didiskriminasi karena perempuan
ditawari lebih banyak kesempatan karena tindakan afirmatif) (Pincus,
2000). Untuk mengukur anti-male bias, enam item diadaptasi dari
Wilkins dan Kaiser (2014).
d. Procedural justice

Procedural justicedigambarkan sebagai keadilan yang dirasakan

dalam proses yang digunakan untuk menentukan hasil tertentu (Li dan
Zeng, 2019). Procedural justicedifokuskan pada proses Promosi
keadilan karyawan hotel dalam proses pengambilan keputusan dan
dalam penjelasan bagaimana proses tersebut dijalankan, yang dikenali
oleh karyawan saat memberikan masukan. Ketika prosedur akurat,
konsisten, etis dan kurang bias, karyawan menganggapnya adil
(Noerchoidah dan Harjanti, 2019). Untuk mengukur procedural
justicedan distributif, delapan item diadaptasi dari studi Elkins et al.
(2003).

e. Distributive justice

Dalam penelitian ini, Distibutive justice didefinisikan sebagai keadilan

yang dirasakan dari jenis dan frekuensi penghargaan di antara individu
dalam organisasi (Saad dan Elshaer, 2017). Dalam hal ini, keadilan
sepenuhnya subjektif dan didasarkan pada hasil keputusan seperti
alokasi sumber daya. Distibutive justice terjadi ketika karyawan
memandang hasil sebagai adil (Lambert et al., 2020). Hasil ini bisa
berwujud seperti gaji, promosi dan ruang kantor, atau tidak berwujud,
seperti umpan balik dan pengakuan positif (Saad dan Elshaer, 2017).
5. Implikasi Praktis
Banyak organisasi mungkin menahan diri untuk tidak menawarkan lebih
banyak kesempatan promosi kepada perempuan karena takut akan
diskriminasi. Penelitian ini akan membantu menunjukkan bahwa
organisasi akan dipersepsikan lebih adil jika menawarkan lebih banyak
kesempatan kepada perempuan sehingga akan menciptakan budaya
organisasi yang lebih kuat dan kinerja keuangan yang lebih tinggi.

6. Hipotesis
H1. Procedural justice akan berpengaruh secara positif oleh calon
perempuan yang dipromosikan.

H2. Procedural justice akan memediasi hubungan antara jenis kelamin

karyawan yang dipromosikan dan diskriminasi gender terhadap
perempuan.

H3. Distibutive justice akan berpengaruh secara positif oleh calon

perempuan yang dipromosikan.

H4. Distibutive justice akan memediasi hubungan antara jenis kelamin

karyawan yang dipromosikan dan diskriminasi gender terhadap
perempuan.

H5. Tingkat yang lebih rendah dari keyakinan anti-male bias dari
manajer hotel akan memperkuat persepsi procedural justice ketika
seorang perempuan dipromosikan dan mengurangi procedural
justiceketika seorang laki-laki dipromosikan.

H6. Tingkat yang lebih rendah dari keyakinan anti-male bias manajer
hotel akan memperkuat persepsi distibutive justice ketika seorang
perempuan dipromosikan dan mengurangi distibutive justice
ketika seorang laki-laki dipromosikan.
 Gambar 1.
Kerangka Pemikiran Penelitan

7. Temuan
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa:
H1: Perempuan yang dipromosikan berpengaruh secara positif terhadap
procedural justice.
H2: Pengaruh tidak langsung dari procedural justice pada hubungan
antara laki-laki atau perempuan yang dipromosikan dan diskriminasi
gender yang dirasakan terhadap perempuan berpegaruh secara
negatif dan signifikan. Dengan kata lain, ketika seorang perempuan
dipromosikan, procedural justice meningkat dan diskriminasi gender
terhadap perempuan berkurang.
H3: Perempuan yang dipromosikan memiliki pengaruh secara positif dan
signifikan terhadap distributive justice.
H4: Pengaruh tidak langsung dari distributive justice pada hubungan
antara laki-laki atau perempuan yang dipromosikan dan diskriminasi
gender yang dirasakan terhadap perempuan berpengaruh secara
negatif dan signifikan. Hal ini menunjukkan ketika seorang
perempuan dipromosikan, distributive justice meningkat dan
diskriminasi gender terhadap perempuan berkurang.
 H5 : Tidak ada pengaruh yang signifikan secara statistik dari anti-male
bias pada hubungan antara jenis kelamin dari karyawan yang
dipromosikan dan procedural justice.
H6: Keyakinan anti-male bias memiliki pengaruh signifikan pada
hubungan antara laki-laki atau perempuan yang dipromosikan dan
distributive justice. Mereka yang memiliki tingkat keyakinan anti-male
bias yang tinggi tidak memiliki perbedaan yang signifikan secara
statistik dalam persepsi distributive justice apakah laki-laki atau
perempuan dipromosikan.

8. Kesimpulan

Penelitian ini membahas kesenjangan dalam literatur saat ini karena

menganalisis peran promosi berdasarkan gender dalam industri hotel, dan
menunjukkan peran anti-male bias (yaitu diskriminasi terbalik) dalam
persepsi keadilan proses promosi. Sifat eksperimental dari penelitian ini
menggambarkan kepada industri perhotelan dengan tepat bagaimana
perasaan manajer saat ini tentang proses promosi, sikap implisit mereka
terhadap kuota tindakan afirmatif dan bagaimana masing-masing
mempengaruhi keadilan yang dirasakan dan diskriminasi gender terhadap
perempuan dalam proses promosi. Atribut ini dapat secara langsung
memengaruhi proses perekrutan dan promosi di hotel.

9. Keterbatasan Penelitian

Keterbatasan dalam penelitian ini adalah sampel diambil dari manajer

hotel yang mengikuti kursus pelatihan pengembangan profesional, yang
semuanya berasal dari wilayah selatan Amerika Serikat.

10. Penelitian Kedepan

a) Penelitian kedepan dapat menggunakan metode kualitatif untuk

mengeksplorasi mengapa peserta percaya bahwa mempromosikan
perempuan lebih adil daripada mempromosikan laki-laki, terutama
bagi mereka yang memiliki keyakinan tinggi dalam diskriminasi
terbalik.
b) Selanjutnya penelitian kedepan direkomendasikan untuk mereplikasi
studi ini dengan manajer restoran, maskapai penerbangan atau kapal
pesiar untuk menyelidiki apakah keadilan promosi dipandang serupa
di seluruh konteks perhotelan.

c) Kemudian, penelitian kedepan direkomendasikan untuk melakukan

penelitian ini di negara lain untuk menentukan apakah promosi
perempuan dianggap adil dengan sedikit diskriminasi, dan jika
manajer hotel lain dengan keyakinan diskriminasi terbalik
menganggap promosi perempuan sebagai adil.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-6119.htm

Promotion
Gender discrimination and process of
perceived fairness in the hotel
employees
promotion process of hotel
employees
Michelle Russen, Mary Dawson and Juan M. Madera Received 2 July 2020
Revised 27 August 2020
Conrad N. HiltonCollege of Hotel and Restaurant Management, 8 October 2020
University of Houston, Houston, Texas, USA 3 November 2020
Accepted 4 November 2020

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this study is to examine hotel managers’ perspectives on the promotion process
of hotel employees based on the promoted employee’s gender, their perceived organizational justice and
perceived gender discrimination against women. The moderating role of anti-male bias beliefs in the
promotion process was examined.
Design/methodology/approach – The study adopted an experimental design (female vs male
promoted) with a sample of 87 hotel managers. Data were analyzed using mediation and moderated mediation
analyses.
Findings – The results indicated procedural and distributed justice mediates the effect of gender of the
promoted employee on perceived gender discrimination against women. It was found that perceptions of anti-
male bias moderate the relationship between gender of the promoted employee and distributed justice,
demonstrating higher levels of perceived fairness within the organization when a female is promoted,
especially when low levels of anti-male bias exist.
Practical implications – Many organizations may refrain from offering more promotional opportunities
to women for fear of reverse discrimination. This research demonstrates that the organization will be
perceived as fairer if it offers more opportunities to women, should create a stronger organizational culture
and higher financial performance.
Originality/value – To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first to address the gender
inequity in promotional opportunities of hotel employees and demonstrate the overall benefit of
combating such inequality. This is the first time that anti-male bias has been addressed in the
hospitality context, suggesting the need for more research on reverse discrimination, especially in
promotional situations.
Keywords Gender, Organizational justice, Promotion, Discrimination, Perceived fairness,
Female managers, Hotel managers
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act banned businesses from discriminating against employees
based on sex, color, race, religion or national origin (Library of Congress, 2020). Since
passing more than 50 years ago, employees have been fighting for the right to be equally
hired, promoted and represented within the workforce. The hospitality sector is no
exception. Despite the hard work many people have put forth in equal representation, International Journal of
women still only account for 21% of managerial positions in the hospitality industry Contemporary Hospitality
Management
(McKinsey and Company, 2019) and only 12% of all hotel leadership positions from entry- © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-6119
level supervisor to owner (American Hotel and Lodging Educational Foundation [AHLEF], DOI 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0647
IJCHM 2020). According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020), women make up
58% of the accommodation workforce. Women should have a higher representation in
managerial teams to appropriately represent the workforce and create more gender-
balanced managerial teams.
Promotion within the hospitality industry has not always been perceived as fair; men
and women have been offered opportunities of advancement at different rates. Recent
research found that women are offered promotional opportunities at 71% the rate of men
(Pasquerella and Clauss-Ehlers, 2017). In other words, for every ten managerial positions
offered to men, only seven were offered to women. To combat this, diversity statements on
company websites play an important role in recruiting candidates who believe in the
company culture and perceive themselves to have a good person–organization fit (Gajjar
and Okumus, 2018; Madera, 2018a). Although many companies have diversity statements
on their websites and say they want equal representation, the statistics of the actual
representation beg to differ (Repetti and Hoffman, 2018). Thus, current managers’
perspectives on gender discrimination against women and fairness in the promotion process
are needed.
Traditionally, men have had more access to income, career opportunities and power
(Wilkins et al., 2018). With the implementation of affirmative action in many hotels, as
required by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a certain quota of female
employees and other minorities must be represented in an organization (Noe et al., 2019).
Although these actions have the best intentions, many men feel as though they are now
being discriminated against (Noe et al., 2019); this is referred to as anti-male bias (Wilkins
et al., 2018). Anti-male bias may play a role in the perceived gender discrimination against
women and perceived levels of organizational justice in the promotion process of hotels
because many men may feel as though they miss an opportunity because of a female
counterpart being promoted over them. The perceived fairness in the promotion process of a
hotel directly impacts the way the hotel is perceived by prospective employees and the
community in which it resides (Chi et al., 2020; Kaiser et al., 2013). Therefore, the way
employees perceive the fairness within the promotional process of a hotel may directly
influence the organizational culture, sales growth and employee productivity of the hotel.
The purpose of this research is to test whether the gender of the promoted employee
impacts perceived gender discrimination against women using distributive and procedural
justice as mediators in the hotel field. While the antecedents and outcomes of organizational
justice (Karatepe, 2011; Nadiri and Tanova, 2010), the wage gap (Campos-Soria et al., 2011,
2015), personal barriers to promotion (Boone et al., 2013; Dashper, 2020) and the benefits of
promoting women into management (Groschl and Arcot, 2014; Menicucci et al., 2019) have
previously been studied, testing the perceived fairness and gender discrimination against
women when promoting a man vs an equally qualified woman has not been studied in the
hotel context. Further, this research tests whether level of the hotel managers’ implicit anti-
male bias (i.e. where individuals believe men are discriminated against) plays a moderating
role in the relationship between the gender of the promoted employee and organizational
justice (i.e. distributive and procedural). The role of anti-male bias is new in the perspective
of hotel managers’ views of the hiring process. This research addresses a gap in the current
literature because it analyzes the role of promotion by gender in the hotel industry, and it
demonstrates the role anti-male bias (i.e. reverse discrimination) has in the perceived
fairness of the promotion process. This research adopted and tested the attribution theory
(Heider, 1958) in the hotel context, which suggests attributes of certain individuals’ influence
fairness in promotion processes.
 The experimental nature of this study illustrates to the hotel industry exactly how Promotion
current managers feel about the promotion process, their implicit attitudes toward the process of
affirmative action quotas and how each affects their perceived fairness and gender
discrimination against women within the promotion process. These attributes can directly
hotel
impact the hiring and promotion processes in hotels. Hotel policies and training materials employees
may be influenced by this research because employees may need further training to increase
their perceived fairness and reduce perceived gender discrimination against women in the
promotion process. The experimental design of this study allows for hotels to examine
exactly where employees believe the unfairness and discrimination occur and provides ways
to correct the bias in their diversity initiatives.

Literature review
Women in hotel management
Despite the low representation of women in hotel management, research has shown several
benefits of having women in hotel management teams (Menicucci et al., 2019; Song et al.,
2020). Financial performance (measured by return on assets, return on sales, Tobin’s Q and/
or stock performance) increases when hotels are female-managed – when a female is the
chief executive officer, general manager or owner (Marco, 2012; Menicucci et al., 2019) – or
when the board of directors is gender diverse, identified by at least 20% of the board
members being female (Groschl and Arcot, 2014; Song et al., 2020). Research has also shown
that less than 18% of hotels have gender diverse boards or are female-managed (Groschl
and Arcot, 2014; Li and Singal, 2017). Thus, increasing the number of women in hotel
management could lead to higher financial performance, not only for the specific hotel, but
also for the industry.
Gender diverse hotel management teams have been shown to have a greater increase in
business growth (measured by increase in the number of employees and sales growth;
Marco, 2012; Menicucci et al., 2019). A study by Menicucci et al. (2019) found female-
managed hotels to have 3.76 and 2.88% higher sales and employee growth, respectively.
Research suggests that human resources (HR) (in this case, women) brings unique
experiences and perceptions others have not had to the managerial team, creating
opportunities for growth that would not normally have been viewed as an opportunity for
the organization’s competitive advantages (Nieves and Quintana, 2018). Increasing the
number of women in hotel management teams could create a more positive impact on the
rate of growth in the industry.
Finally, gender diverse managerial teams have been shown to increase productivity in
organizations where the number of men and women employees are also diverse (Ali and
Konrad, 2017; Flabbi et al., 2019). The findings of Flabbi et al. (2019) suggest that female
managers and executives are better able to understand challenges in workplace
communication and functionality female employees face, increasing productivity among
their female employees. Specifically, the study found that as the number of women in the
organization increased, productivity also increased when there was a female executive
leading the company (Flabbi et al., 2019). This finding is in line with previous research by
Amore et al. (2014), who found that more women on the board of an organization who led
females in the top management teams obtained higher levels of firm performance. In other
words, people of the same gender are more easily able to talk to each other and understand
problems faced by the same sex than those of the opposite gender. In the hotel industry, the
majority of employees are women (United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020); therefore,
it is essential that the female employees have a female superior with whom they are able to
relate.
IJCHM Productivity may also suffer if these women believe they are unable to move up within
their organization. Many women face challenges acquiring opportunities to move up within
their hotel, thus, many of them leave their hotel for a promotion, whereas men typically
move up within their own organization (Campos-Soria et al., 2015). Because of the perceived
discrimination in the promotion process, many women may struggle with motivation at
work. It is the responsibility of hotel managers to assist their female employees in advancing
their careers (Liu et al., 2020); therefore, hotel managers’ perspectives on the promotion
process are essential to enabling female employees to feel valued and motivated in their
positions, rather than discriminated against.

Gender discrimination against women in hotels

Of the women employed, 42% say they have experienced some form of discrimination
because of their gender, which ranged from pay differences for equal work to being passed
over for promotional opportunities (Parker and Funk, 2017). Gender discrimination against
women within an organization is perceived when employees believe an employee of one
gender was unfairly promoted, given higher pay or given more benefits over another of the
opposite gender with equal qualifications (Kogovsek and Kogovsek, 2015). This study refers
to gender discrimination against women as one gender (men) being favored over another
(women) in the promotional process of a hotel.
For a hotel to be the most profitable, perceived as fair and have productive employees,
women need to be promoted to management. Institutional barriers (i.e. how the organization
in which the individual works assigns responsibilities within his or her gender role) are
perceived as obstacles to a successful career for women within the hospitality industry
(Segovia-Pérez et al., 2019). Managers develop the culture within the organization itself to
make women feel as though they are equals in the business and may assist with other
barriers perceived (Segovia-Pérez et al., 2019). When women are promoted to management at
an equal rate to men, the organization is more likely to be perceived as fair and just.

Attribution theory
Attribution theory is defined as the interpretative process by which people make judgments
about the behaviors of others as well as evaluating the causes behind their own actions
(Heider, 1958). The premise of this theory is based upon causation (information, beliefs and
motivation) and consequences (behavior, affect and expectancy) (Yang and Arthur, 2019).
People often surmise that someone’s behavior or various incidents are generally a result of
personal factors such as traits, abilities and feelings. These feelings or judgments influence
their behaviors or actions.
Attribution theory is often used to explain common workplace occurrences, such as the
promotion of an employee, and how these explanations (or attributions) influence someone’s
perception of this and their ultimate satisfaction of the situation (Jackson, 2019). When a
person is promoted, employees judge whether they believe the promoted person was
selected fairly, deserved the position and whether they are ultimately satisfied with the
decision to promote that employee. The employees’ perceptions of this promotion influence
future actions as well as perceptions of management decisions. Attributions associated with
positive perceptions, such as commitment and willingness to work hard, have a greater
anticipation of success and will lead to a higher inclination to accept similar management
decisions in the future, when compared to actions that lead to negative outcomes (Jackson,
2019; Liu et al., 2020). Employees must feel like the promotion process is conducted fairly,
whereby all employees are given the same opportunity and criteria.
 Perceptions from coworkers regarding the success or failure of an action determine the Promotion
amount of effort in which they will engage in the future (Yang and Arthur, 2019). Observers process of
of a particular situation tend not to notice the situational constraints, but instead focus on
the role of the person in action (Cleveland et al., 2007). Conversely, a manager factors in
hotel
situational constraints before making decisions. In applying this to a situation whereby an employees
employee is promoted, another employee may not be aware of the HR criteria or constraints,
while the manager is aware of multiple factors that went into making the selection of a
particular candidate for the job.
Previous studies within hospitality research use the attribution model to explain
employee behavior and service failures and their recoveries. In airlines, this theory has been
used to explain deviant behavior by assigning psychological and interpersonal attributes to
the employees (Vatankhah and Raoofi, 2018). In restaurants, attribution theory applies the
attributes of customers and suggests to focus on the cause of the failure, which then leads to
the customer perception of the probability of future service breakdowns (Siu et al., 2014).
Within tourism research, attribution theory has been applied to understanding the
relationship between someone having a negative travel experience, thus leading to
dissatisfaction based on attributes of the traveler (Breitsohl and Garrod, 2016; Jackson,
2019). Attribution theory has also been used to explain HR-related topics, such as the
conflicts between family members understanding work demands of hospitality managers
(Cleveland et al., 2007), and the influence of gender roles in the hiring and promotion
processes in tourism (Costa et al., 2017).
Attribution theory considers the degree to which a person perceives that something
occurred because of the external environment or by a particular person (Yang and Arthur,
2019). Attribution, or assigning of responsibility for positive outcomes, is often used to
understand the perceptions of others. Positive attributions happen when female leaders
consider themselves responsible for their own success, rather than the recipients of good
fortune from the organization (Carvalho et al., 2018). False assessments of attribution can
occur within gender differences and stereotyping (Dey and Borden, 2016). In scenarios
where the organization is already struggling or amid a crisis and a female leader is
promoted into the upper ranks of an organization, it is often attributed that the female leader
is being set up for failure (Ryan et al., 2016), which can be perceived as unjust to other
employees.

Organizational justice
Organizational justice focuses on how employees assess the actions of an organization and
how these actions are affiliated with an employee’s attitude and behaviors toward the firm
(Li et al., 2020). Perceptions of organizational justice are associated with the role of fairness
in the workplace, which is an important determinant of workplace viewpoints and a
predictor of employee reactions (Li et al., 2020). Previous studies have discovered the
positive relationships between organizational justice and several work outcomes, such as
job performance (Dover et al., 2020), job satisfaction (Li et al., 2020; Singh and Singh, 2019),
knowledge sharing (Noerchoidah and Harjanti, 2019), organizational citizenship behaviors
(Nadiri and Tanova, 2010), organizational commitment (Dover et al., 2020), psychological
empowerment (Singh and Singh, 2019), trust (Li et al., 2020) and work engagement
(Karatepe, 2011). Dimensions of organizational justice in the promotional process include
procedural justice (process related) and distributive justice (outcome related) (Qingjuan et al.,
2019).
Procedural justice. Procedural justice is described as perceived fairness in the process
used to determine certain outcomes (Li and Zeng, 2019). Procedural justice is focused on
IJCHM fairness in the decision-making process and in the explanation of how the process was
executed, which employees recognize when they provide their input. When procedures are
accurate, consistent, ethical and lack bias, employees perceive these to be fair (Noerchoidah
and Harjanti, 2019). A study by Durrani and Rajagopal (2016) found the ethical practices of
hiring managers in restaurants to be rooted in the procedures of the recruiting and selection
steps of the hiring process. It was noted that restaurant managers must follow a fair hiring
process in terms of diversity management (Durrani and Rajagopal, 2016). Procedural justice
is thought to have relational or self-relevant motives (De Cremer, 2005) because the
employees perceive the fairness in job mobility in the promotional process and reflections of
actions in others being held responsible (Qingjuan et al., 2019). When outcomes are
unfavorable, the effects of procedural justice are strongest (Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara and
Ting-Ding, 2017). For instance, it was found that women in hospitality and tourism are more
likely to leave the organization if they feel as though the policies and procedures in hiring,
performance evaluation and promotion are perceived as disadvantageous to them (Mooney,
2020). These unfavorable outcomes elicit the need to provide an explanation, thus people
focus on the procedures used to arrive at a particular decision (De Cremer, 2005).
Distributive justice. Distributive justice is defined as the perceived fairness of the types
and frequency of rewards among individuals within the organization (Saad and Elshaer,
2017). In this instance, fairness is completely subjective and based upon decision outcomes
such as resource allocation. Distributive justice occurs when employees perceive the
outcomes as equitable (Lambert et al., 2020). These outcomes can be tangible such as salary,
promotion and office space, or intangible, such as positive feedback and recognition (Saad
and Elshaer, 2017). Employees make comparisons between themselves and their coworkers
in terms of the outcomes (Yerkes et al., 2017). When rewards are perceived as inequitable, it
serves as the antithesis of discrimination (Downes et al., 2014). Employees often cite
examples of tangible and intangible outcomes as injustice within an organization’s
promotion practices, which could be the promotion itself or failed recognition for an
employee. It was found that men are more likely to be continually evaluated as a “good
leader” after they have been once, even if there is evidence supporting the opposite, whereas
females are evaluated based on their most recent performance (Mooney, 2020). Women
compare themselves to their male counterparts and may perceive unfairness in the
organization’s recognition and evaluation system.
Internal promotion is often perceived in a critical manner because an employee who is
rejected may feel that the procedures used during the process, when unfair, might be more
likely to demonstrate negative behaviors that carry into their current position (Lemons and
Jones, 2001). Hiring and promotion processes should be scrutinized to challenge this inequity
and prevent negative attitudes and behaviors (Mooney, 2020), because employees who are
promoted through a system they believe to be unjust may experience feelings of inequity
(Yerkes et al., 2017). For example, when a male is promoted instead of an equally or more
qualified female employee, that male employee who was promoted might have feelings of
inequity, thus affecting his job performance, and potentially the job performance of other co-
workers or subordinates who witnessed the unfair promotion process, which directly
impacts all employees’ work outcomes. Lack of procedural and distributive justice in the
promotional process can lead to reduced organizational commitment, increased absence
rates and increased turnover intentions, in both employees and managers (Qingjuan et al.,
2019). Thus, it is hypothesized:

H1. Procedural justice will be positively influenced by a female candidate being

promoted.
 H2. Procedural justice will mediate the relationship between the gender of the promoted Promotion
employee and gender discrimination against women. process of
H3. Distributive justice will be positively influenced by a female candidate being hotel
promoted. employees
H4. Distributive justice will mediate the relationship between the gender of the
promoted employee and gender discrimination against women.
Organizations are only as fair as all their employees perceive them to be. Implicit bias in
hiring or promotional processes may be to blame for the low representation of women in
leadership, such that many hospitality and tourism (or other sectors) organizations may use
the “like-me” attributes when hiring or promoting employees (Mooney, 2020). Despite
affirmative action (i.e. quotas) attempting to discourage this behavior, some employees do
not perceive promotional processes that favor women or minorities as fair. These
individuals may perceive the organization to be unfair or unjust because it reserves
positions for underrepresented individuals (Noe et al., 2019).

Anti-male bias
Fairness concerns are one reason many individuals oppose affirmative action policies in the
workplace, where opposition to affirmative action produced concerns over both distributive
and procedural justice (Fugère et al., 2016). In 1987, the first reverse gender discrimination
case was held in the Supreme Court: Johnson v Transportation Agency, Santa Clara, CA
(Levinson, 2011). The Santa Clara Transportation Agency reserved half of their training
positions for women, a group who was seen as underprivileged at the time, and men felt as
though they were equally deserving of the positions (Levinson, 2011). The Supreme Court
ruled in favor of the training program, as it was backed by affirmative action – a law
established to ensure underprivileged groups who had previously been discriminated
against were represented within companies (Noe et al., 2019).
Anti-male bias is when reverse discrimination is perceived, (i.e. when men feel as though
they are discriminated against because females are offered more opportunities because of
affirmative action) (Pincus, 2000). In University of California v Bakke, the Supreme Court
decided that the 20% of the medical student seats reserved for minorities was reverse
discrimination in that minorities were able to compete for 100% of the seats while white
males were only able to compete for 80% of the seats; thus, the University of California was
forced to change their affirmative action plan (Fugère et al., 2016). The perceived reverse
discrimination, although with good intentions, unfairly discriminated against the majority
group, and was viewed as unjust, thus, ultimately had to be changed.
This anti-male bias in the University of California’s program acceptance is perceived
within the workplace also. A study by Wilkins et al. (2018) found that employees who
interpret anti-male bias are less likely to rate a female candidate positively and less likely to
help a female in being hired for a position than their male counterpart. A study by Dover
et al. (2016) found companies that valued diversity (vs. did not mention) had more white
male applicants that anticipated a higher chance of discrimination against themselves than
against minorities. White males have interpreted the presence of a diversity policy to
suggest that an organization treats women and minorities fairly, even if there is countering
evidence (Dover et al., 2020). Within hospitality, Groschl and Arcot (2014) alluded to the
concept of anti-male bias in their empirical paper where they found companies that had over
30% women on their board to be less productive. They suggested this was because men felt
their positions and potential promotional opportunities were threatened by women who
IJCHM were gaining power and representation. The concept of anti-male bias in the promotion
process of hotels may influence the perceived fairness within the organization. Therefore,
the following are hypothesized:

H5. Lower levels of hotel managers’ anti-male bias beliefs will strengthen perceived
procedural justice when a female is promoted and reduce procedural justice when a
male is promoted.
H6. Lower levels of hotel managers’ anti-male bias beliefs will strengthen perceived
distributive justice when a female is promoted and reduce distributive justice when
a male is promoted.
Figure 1 contains the conceptual model with the proposed hypotheses.

Methodology
Participants
Hotel managers attending professional development training courses in the southern
region of the USA were approached after a session and asked if they wished to fill out
an anonymous survey, of whom 89 (74%) agreed; approximately two-thirds were
female (62%). After excluding outliers, the final sample size was 87, which is an
adequate sample size considering a two-group experiment, resulting in over 40 subjects
per group [1]. The participants ranged in age from 20 to 59 years with an average of
37 years old and standard deviation of 8.9 years. The majority (52%) of the participants
had between one and six years of hotel management experience, held a bachelor’s
degree (47%) and nearly three quarters (74%) of the participants were Caucasian or
Hispanic. The participants were largely managers in the front office (29%), food and
beverage (17%) or upper management (20%), with other departments (e.g.
housekeeping and HR) accounting for 31% of the respondents’ positions. Table 1
contains the full demographic data.

Design
The current study used a two-group, between-subjects experimental design where
participants were given a scenario where either Mike (a male candidate) or Carol (a
female candidate), both front desk agents with equal experience, were promoted into

Anti-Male Bias
Beliefs

H5 H6
Procedural
Justice H2
Gender of H1 Gender
Promoted
Discrimination
Employee H3
Distributive H4
Figure 1.
Conceptual model Justice
Item No. (%)
Promotion
process of
Gender hotel
Male 33 37
Female 55 62 employees
Undisclosed 1 1
Age
18–29 33 37
30–45 41 46
46–60 12 14
Tenure
<1 year 12 14
1–3 years 31 35
4–6 years 15 17
7–10 years 9 10
<10 years 11 12
Education
High school diploma 4 4
Some college 24 27
Associate’s degree 12 14
Bachelor’s degree 42 47
Master’s degree 4 4
Ethnicity
Asian 4 4
African-American 9 10
Caucasian 43 48
Hispanic/Latin-American 23 26
Multi-ethnic 7 8
Pacific Islander 1 1
Native American 2 2
Department
Front office 26 29
Housekeeping 4 5
Food and beverage 15 17
Security 4 5
Engineering/maintenance 2 2
IT/communications 2 2
HR 7 8
Marketing and sales 2 2
Purchasing 2 2
Accounting/finance 4 5 Table 1.
Upper management 18 20 Demographics

management. Following the procedures of similar studies (Kaiser et al., 2013; Madera,
2018a), participants were given a survey that contained one of the two scenarios, then
they were asked to provide their opinion on the discrimination against women, fairness
of the promotion process, beliefs of anti-male bias and demographic information. The
situation was adapted from Bobocel and Farrell (1996). Positions were changed from
police officer to front desk agent to fit the context of the study, but scenarios otherwise
remained the same.
IJCHM Measures
To measure procedural and distributive justice, eight items were adapted from Elkins et al.’s
(2003) study about perceived fairness in airline pilots. A seven-point Likert scale was used,
ranging from strongly disagree (“1”) to strongly agree (“7”). A sample item for procedural
justice includes, “I feel that the process used to promote employees to management at this
hotel is fair.” The reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, for this construct was 0.83,
suggesting adequate reliability (Hair et al., 2010). The construct also contained high
reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.92). A sample item for distributive justice included,
“Overall, I am satisfied with the promotion decision in this scenario.” The reliability
coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, for this construct was 0.75, suggesting adequate reliability
(Hair et al., 2010) and contained high reliability (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.94).
To measure gender discrimination against women, five items were adapted from Dover
et al. (2016). A seven-point Likert scale was used, ranging from strongly disagree (“1”) to
strongly agree (“7”). A sample item includes, “This hotel would unfairly discriminate
against women when making promotion decisions.” The reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s
alpha, for this construct was 0.86, suggesting high reliability (Hair et al., 2010). Although not
previously tested in hospitality, the scale had a high Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86 (Dover et al.,
2016).
To measure anti-male bias, six items were adapted from Wilkins and Kaiser (2014). A
seven-point Likert scale was used, ranging from strongly disagree (“1”) to strongly agree
(“7”). A sample item includes, “Women benefit from preferential treatment that
disadvantages men.” The reliability coefficient, Cronbach’s alpha, for this construct was
0.86, suggesting high reliability (Hair et al., 2010). Although not previously tested in
hospitality, within the education setting (i.e. testing college enrollment), the scale had a high
Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85 (Wilkins and Kaiser, 2014).

Data analysis
To test the mediation and moderated mediation hypotheses, Andrew Hayes’ PROCESS v.
3.4 for SPSS was used (Hayes, 2018). To test for the mediation analysis, PROCESS Model 4
was used for H1–H4 (Hayes, 2018). To test for moderated mediation, PROCESS Model 7 was
used for H5 and H6 (Hayes, 2018).

Results
H1 stated that a female being promoted would have a positive influence on procedural
justice, while H2 stated procedural justice mediates the relationship between a male or
female being promoted and perceived gender discrimination against women. The results
indicated a female being promoted has a positive, direct effect on procedural justice (b =
0.69, p < 0.001, CI.95 = 0.32, 1.06), thus H1 was supported. The indirect effect of procedural
justice on the relationship between a male or female being promoted and perceived gender
discrimination against women was statistically significant and negative (effect = 0.34,
CI.95 = 0.63, 0.09), supporting H2. In other words, when a female is promoted, procedural
justice increases and perceived gender discrimination against women decreases.
H3 stated that a female being promoted would have a positive influence on distributed
justice, and H4 stated distributed justice would mediate the relationship between a male or
female being promoted and perceived gender discrimination against women. The results
indicated a female being promoted has a statistically significant positive, direct effect on
distributed justice (b = 2.31, p = 0.001, CI.95 = 1.03, 3.59), thus H3 was supported. The
indirect effect of distributed justice on the relationship between a male or female promoted
and perceived gender discrimination against women was statistically significant and
negative (effect = 0.26, CI.95 = 0.57, 0.07), supporting H4. Indicating when a female is Promotion
promoted, distributed justice increases and perceived gender discrimination against women process of
decreases.
H5 stated lower levels of anti-male bias beliefs (i.e. reverse discrimination) would strengthen
hotel
perceived procedural justice when a female is promoted and reduce procedural justice when a employees
male was promoted. The results indicated there was not a statistically significant effect of anti-
male bias on the relationship between the gender of the promoted employee and procedural
justice (effect = 0.11, p = 0.320); thus, H5 was rejected. H6 stated lower levels of anti-male bias
beliefs would strengthen perceived distributed justice when a female is promoted and reduce
distributed justice when a male was promoted. The results indicated anti-male bias beliefs have
a significant influence on the relationship between a male or female being promoted and
distributed justice (effect = 0.42, p = 0.012). Therefore, H6 was supported.
Those with high levels of anti-male bias beliefs did not have a statistically significant
difference in perceived distributed justice whether a male or female was promoted (effect =
0.19, p = 0.537); however, those with low levels of anti-male bias perceive higher levels of
distributed justice when a female is promoted than when a male is promoted (effect = 1.28,
p < 0.001). Demonstrating that people who believe that men face more discrimination than
women (i.e. reverse discrimination) will not see a difference in perceived organizational
fairness whether a male or female is promoted, but those who have low levels of anti-male
bias beliefs will see the organization as fairer when a female is promoted than when a male
is promoted. Figure 2 illustrates the tested hypotheses, and the relationship of anti-male bias
on the promotion process is demonstrated in Figure 3.

Discussion and conclusion

Theoretical implications
As we continue to see a lack of women within the higher corporate positions of hospitality,
this study offers evidence that organizations must advocate for the advancement of women,
and it is essential to conduct promotions in a way that is perceived as fair and consistent.
The current study expands the theoretical knowledge on perceived gender discrimination
against women in three ways. First, the literature further examines how employees’
perceptions toward gender differences highly influence a cohesive work environment,

Anti-Male Bias
Beliefs

–0.10 Procedural
0.69* Justice –0.34*
Gender of Gender
Promoted –0.42*
Discrimination
Employee
2.31*
Distributive –0.39*
Justice
Figure 2.
Tested model
Note: *Indicates p < 0.05
IJCHM

Figure 3.
Interaction effect of
anti-male bias on
distributed justice
and promotion

especially when it comes to the promotion process. This is necessary because those in
higher-level positions are making the critical decisions on career advancement and
opportunities. In accordance with attribution theory, judgments are made by subordinates
on the decision-making process itself, the fairness in the person promoted and perception of
personal bias that may exist within management. However, the attribution theory states
that the female attribute only creates higher perceived fairness for a woman being promoted
over a man when all other attributes are held constant (i.e. they are equally qualified). This
study found that promoting women is perceived to be fairer and leads to less gender
discrimination against women than when an equally qualified man is promoted.
Second, by testing procedural and distributive justice as mediators, it provides a better
understanding on the impact of fairness on a promotion decision and the link to perceptions
of gender discrimination against women. While these findings support prior research related
to the perceptions of the glass ceiling and the positive influence that distributive justice has
had on organizational commitment and turnover within correctional officers (Lambert et al.,
2020), this has not been fully explored within the hospitality field. Our findings emphasize
the need for subordinates to be satisfied with the promotion decision. In alignment with the
attribution theory, the attributes possessed by the candidate hired are just as important to
their former coworkers as to managers in the perception of fairness in the promotion
process. This is especially important when an internal candidate is chosen for the promotion
and obtains legitimate power over their former co-workers. Their prior colleagues are more
cooperative when they perceive the candidate was selected in a fair manner (Lemons and
Jones, 2001). These findings support a significant relationship between the promotion,
procedural justice (the process itself), and less gender discrimination against women.
Organizations are urged to create advancement processes that value ethic minority groups
and women because policies and practices of hotel firms often prevent female managers
from advancing into executive management positions (Campos-Soria et al., 2015).
 Lastly, the results of our study provide novel information regarding anti-male bias Promotion
beliefs within the hospitality industry. Specifically, on whether hotel managers’ anti-male process of
bias beliefs (or reverse discrimination beliefs) moderated the relationship between the
gender of the promoted employee and organizational justice. As an extension to
hotel
the attribution theory, this result indicates the attributes of the co-workers and managers employees
(i.e. beliefs that reverse discrimination is prominent) are just as important in the perception
of fairness in the promotion process in hotels. Results indicated the highest level of
distributive justice is when a female was promoted, and the participant had low levels of
anti-male bias beliefs. If the participant had high levels of anti-male bias beliefs, there was
no statistically significant difference in the perceived distributive justice whether a male or a
female was promoted. Even those participants with high beliefs in discrimination against
males saw the promotion of a female as slightly fairer (M = 5.76) than if a male was
promoted (M = 5.57). This could indicate that the hotel managers with anti-male bias beliefs
are aware that women are underrepresented in their industry. Promoting women is viewed
as justified, even if the participants believe men are discriminated against in the process.

Practical implications
This study addresses the low number of women in hotel management positions. Although
women account for over half of the entry-level positions in hotels, they still only account for
approximately 12% of leadership positions (American Hotel and Lodging Educational
Foundation [AHLEF], 2020). Previous research suggests society influences the promotion
rate of women in hospitality and tourism (Liu et al., 2020). Hence, the hiring and promotion
processes in hotels need to be deemed as fair. Hospitality and tourism organizations can
make the process fairer by creating a blind review process in promotion where initial
decisions are made by removing names from employee files and objective third parties
review the information and criteria for promotion, thus giving all parties a fair chance
without incorporating gender, age or “like-me” biases.
Second, this study shows that even hotel managers who believe in reverse discrimination
will view promoting a female to management as a fair decision. The perceived fairness only
increases for those who have low beliefs in reverse discrimination. Whether real or
perceived, if there are feelings of inequity, there will be negative consequences in any firm.
Financially there may be discrimination suits, cost of replacement of employee turnover or
reduced firm performance. Therefore, it is essential for hotels to have training and
mentoring programs in which employees of both genders are encouraged to participate, to
enhance perceived fairness within the organization. These programs must demonstrate the
organization’s commitment to advancing the careers of both genders, as prior research has
shown employees will keep a positive attitude if they perceive the organization is invested in
their career advancement (Liu et al., 2020). Hotels and other organizations can show their
commitment to career advancement for their employees by displaying promotion rates on
their websites and within the employee bulletin boards and newsletters. Organizations are
encouraged to document and compare the retention rates of their male and female employees
to see how the perception of barriers to entry maybe contributing to potential workplace
outcomes (Dashper, 2020).
In addition, this study emphasizes the perceived fairness in current hotel programs, such
as Accor’s RiiSE program, which has committed to transforming their top management
teams and strives to have female representation up to 35% by the end of 2020 (AccorHotels,
2020). This is done through men and women committing to sharing knowledge, solidarity
and combatting stereotypes (AccorHotels, 2020). The culture of other organizations should
be updated in such a way that knowledge sharing and equality are known expected
IJCHM behaviors among employees. Other hotels can benefit from this research by adopting
training materials, mentoring programs and direct gender diversity initiatives (Gajjar and
Okumus, 2018), especially because it has now been demonstrated that hotel managers
perceive less gender discrimination against women and more fairness when women are
promoted into management; thus, it is justified to make their managerial teams more gender
diverse by offering positions and opportunities to more women.
Moreover, this research may be expanded into other areas of hospitality. Although hotel
managers were the sample used in the current study, other aspects of the industry, such as
quick service restaurants, have established initiatives similar to Accor’s. For instance,
McDonald’s has vowed to have gender balanced (i.e. 50% men and women) managerial
teams by 2023 (McDonald’s, 2019). It would be recommended to test this experiment with
restaurant managers to identify whether their perceptions mirror those of the hotel
managers.
Finally, in this study, both the male and female candidates were said to have the same
number of years of experience in the industry and with the company, and they both worked
in the same position, which stated they were equally qualified for the promotion. This study
demonstrated that when there are two equally qualified candidates, there will be more
perceived fairness in the promotion process if a female is promoted than when a male is
promoted. This directly impacts the hospitality industry because men are currently given
approximately 30% more promotional opportunities than women (Pasquerella and Clauss-
Ehlers, 2017). If women are presented opportunities at least as often as their male
counterparts, the organization will have a stronger culture through perceived fairness and
justice.
Organizational culture can be demonstrated to both the company’s employees and to the
community in which it resides (Chi et al., 2020), which could lead to higher sales and
employee productivity when women are promoted into management. In addition, if
hospitality companies post not only a diversity statement, but a direct diversity goal on their
website, they will more likely attract candidates who admire and believe in their goal, thus
enhancing their company culture (Gajjar and Okumus, 2018; Madera, 2018b). A diversity
goal (i.e. creating gender balance in management) may be carried out by using an
employee’s gender as a deciding factor when two equally qualified individuals are being
considered for a promotion.

Limitations and future research

This study is not without limitations. First, the experimental nature of this study ensures
high internal reliability, but the external generalizability of this study could be questioned.
Because the additional factors that make the real world what it is were excluded, the results
will not be easily replicated. To address this, future research could use qualitative methods
to explore why participants believe promoting women is fairer than promoting a man,
especially to those who have high beliefs in reverse discrimination. It is also recommended
to replicate this study with restaurant, airline or cruise managers to investigate whether
promotional fairness is viewed similarly across hospitality contexts. The sample was taken
from hotel managers attending professional development training courses, all of whom were
from the southern region of the USA. This sample may not have the same views as people of
other regions or countries. It would be recommended to conduct this study in other countries
to determine whether the promotion of women is perceived to be fair with less
discrimination, and if other hotel managers with reverse discrimination beliefs perceive the
promotion of a female as fair.
Conclusion Promotion
The purpose of the current study was to test whether the gender of a promoted employee process of
had a direct effect on distributive and procedural justice, and whether organizational justice
mediated the relationship between the gender of the promoted employee and perceived
hotel
gender discrimination against women. In line with the attribution theory, it was found that employees
gender of the promoted employee had a positive impact on perceived distributed justice (i.e.
promotional opportunities), and procedural justice (i.e. the actual promotion process), both of
which reduced perceived gender discrimination against women when a female employee
was promoted.
Further, this research tested whether hotel managers’ anti-male bias beliefs (or reverse
discrimination beliefs) moderated the relationship between the gender of the promoted
employee and organizational justice for the first time in hospitality literature. It was found
that the highest level of distributed justice occurred when a female was promoted and the
hotel manager had low levels of anti-male bias beliefs (i.e. the participant did not believe in
reverse discrimination). Distributed justice was lowest when a male was promoted and anti-
male bias beliefs were low, which indicates the participant did not believe the promotion
was fair if a male was promoted and reverse discrimination is not perceived. Thus, the
current study was able to demonstrate the importance of offering promotional opportunities
to women because employees view this decision as fairer than if an equally qualified male is
offered the position.

Note
1. A post-hoc power analysis of our sample shows that to detect a half point difference between two
groups’ means using p = 0.05, and the conventional power at 80%, we would need 42
participants per condition (Leary, 1995; Rosner, 2011).

References
AccorHotels (2020), “A culture of inclusion”, available at: https://group.accor.com/en/careers/our-
philosophy/culture-of-inclusion (accessed 17 June 2020).
Ali, M. and Konrad, A. (2017), “Antecedents and consequences of diversity and equality management
systems: the importance of gender diversity in the TMT and lower to middle management”,
European Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 440-453.
American Hotel and Lodging Educational Foundation (AHLEF) (2020), “Castell project: hospitality
industry leadership 2020”, available at: www.castellproject.org/castell-research (accessed 5
February 2020).
Amore, M., Garofalo, O. and Minichilli, A. (2014), “Gender interactions within the family firm”,
Management Science, Vol. 60 No. 5, pp. 1083-1097.
Bobocel, D.R. and Farrell, A.C. (1996), “Sex-based promotion decisions and interactional fairness:
investigating the influence of managerial accounts”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 81 No. 1,
p. 22.
Boone, J., Veller, T., Nikolaeva, K., Keith, M., Kefgen, K. and Houran, J. (2013), “Rethinking a glass
ceiling in the hospitality industry”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 54 No. 3, pp. 230-239.
Breitsohl, J. and Garrod, B. (2016), “Assessing tourists’ cognitive, emotional and behavioural reactions
to an unethical destination incident”, Tourism Management, Vol. 54, pp. 209-220.
Campos-Soria, J.A., Garcia-Pozo, A. and Sanchez-Ollero, J.L. (2015), “Gender wage inequality and labour
mobility in the hospitality sector”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 49,
pp. 73-82.
IJCHM Carvalho, I., Costa, C., Lykke, N. and Torres, A. (2018), “Agency, structures and women managers’
views of their careers in tourism”, Women’s Studies International Forum, Vol. 71, pp. 1-11.
Chi, C.G.Q., Wen, B. and Ouyang, Z. (2020), “Developing relationship quality in economy hotels: the role
of perceived justice, service quality, and commercial friendship”, Journal of Hospitality
Marketing and Management, Vol. 29 No. 8, pp. 1027-1051.
Cleveland, J.N., O’Neill, J.W., Himelright, J.L., Harrison, M.M., Crouter, A.C. and Drago, R. (2007), “Work
and family issues in the hospitality industry: perspectives of entrants, managers, and spouses”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 275-298.
Costa, C., Bakas, F.E., Breda, Z., Durao, M., Carvalho, I. and Cacador, S. (2017), “Gender, flexibility, and
the ‘ideal tourism worker’”, Annals of Tourism Research, Vol. 64, pp. 64-75.
Dashper, K. (2020), “Mentoring for gender equality: supporting female leaders in the hospitality
industry”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 88
De Cremer, D. (2005), “Procedural and distributive justice effects moderated by organizational
identification”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 4-13.
Dey, S. and Borden, J.R. (2016), “Glass ceiling or glass jaw? Gender as root of biased blame attribution in
contemporary politics and its implications for post-crisis image restoration”, PCA ACA
conference, Seattle, WA.
Dover, T.L., Major, B. and Kaiser, C.R. (2016), “Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-
diversity organizational messages”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 62, pp. 58-67.
Dover, T.L., Kaiser, C.R. and Major, B. (2020), “Mixed signals: the unintended effects of diversity
initiatives”, Social Issues and Policy Review, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 152-181.
Downes, M., Hemmasi, M. and Eshghi, G. (2014), “When a perceived glass ceiling impacts
organizational commitment and turnover intent: the mediating role of distributive justice”,
Journal of Diversity Management (Jdm), Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 131-146.
Durrani, A.S. and Rajagopal, L. (2016), “Restaurant human resource managers’ attitudes towards
workplace diversity, perceptions and definition of ethical hiring”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 53, pp. 145-151.
Elkins, T.J., Bozeman, D.P. and Phillips, J.S. (2003), “Promotion decisions in an affirmative action
environment: can social accounts change fairness perceptions?”, Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 1111-1139.
Flabbi, L., Macis, M., Moro, A. and Schivardi, F. (2019), “Do female executes make a difference? The
impact of female leadership on gender gaps and firm performance”, The Economic Journal,
Vol. 129 No. 622, pp. 2390-2423.
Fugère, M.A., Cathey, C., Beetham, R., Haynes, M. and Schaedler, R.A. (2016), “Preference for the
diversity policy label versus the affirmative action policy label”, Social Justice Research, Vol. 29
No. 2, pp. 206-227.
Gajjar, T. and Okumus, F. (2018), “Diversity management: what are the leading hospitality and tourism
companies reporting?”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 27 No. 8,
pp. 905-925.
Groschl, S. and Arcot, S. (2014), “Female hospitality executives and their effects on firm performance”,
Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 143-151.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J. and Anderson, R.E. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis: Global Edition,
Vol. 7, Pearson Education, New York, NY.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Modeling: A
Regression-Based Approach, Guilford Press, New York, NY.
Heider, F. (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley, New York, NY.
Jackson, M. (2019), “Utilizing attribution theory to develop new insight into tourism experiences”,
Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management, Vol. 38, pp. 176-183.
Kaiser, C.R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T.L., Brady, L.M. and Shapiro, J.R. (2013), “Presumed fair: Promotion
Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, Vol. 104 No. 3, p. 504.
process of
Karatepe, O.M. (2011), “Procedural justice, work engagement, and job outcomes: evidence from
hotel
Nigeria”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and Management, Vol. 20 No. 8, pp. 855-878. employees
Kogovsek, M. and Kogovsek, M. (2015), “Hospitality and tourism gender issues remain unsolved: a call
for research”, Quaestus, Vol. 6, pp. 194-203.
Lambert, E.G., Keena, L.D., Leone, M., May, D. and Haynes, S.H. (2020), “The effects of distributive and
procedural justice on job satisfaction and organizational commitment of correctional staff”,
Vol. 57 The Social Science Journal.
Leary, M.R. (1995), Behavioral Research Methods, Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.
Lemons, M.A. and Jones, C.A. (2001), “Procedural justice in promotion decisions: using perceptions of
fairness to build employee commitment”, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 4,
pp. 268-281.
Levinson, R.B. (2011), “Gender-based affirmative action and reverse gender bias: beyond Gratz, parents
involved, and Ricci”, Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 1-36.
Li, Y. and Singal, M. (2017), “CEO attributes and firm performance in the hospitality industry”, The
Journal of Hospitality Financial Management, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 77-89.
Li, X. and Zeng, Y. (2019), “How to reduce hospitality employees’ deviant behavior: an organizational
justice perspective”, The 5th International Conference on Economics, Management and
Humanities Science (ECOMHS 2019), pp. 929-937.
Li, C., Chang, K.-K. and Ou, S.-M. (2020), “The relationship between hotel staff’s organizational justice
perception, relationship quality, and job performance”, Cogent Social Sciences, Vol. 6, pp. 1-19.
Library of Congress (2020), “Women in the civil rights movement”, available at: www.loc.gov/
collections/civil-rights-history-project/articles-and-essays/women-in-the-civil-rights-movement/
(accessed 5 February 2020).
Liu, T., Shen, H. and Gao, J. (2020), “Women’s career advancement in hotels: the mediating role of
organizational commitment”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
Vol. 32 No. 8, pp. 2543-2561.
McDonald’s (2019), “McDonald’s launches ‘push for gender balance and diversity”, available at https://
news.mcdonalds.com/press/press-releases/gender-balance-and-diversity-womens-day-2019
(accessed 17 June 2020).
McKinsey and Company (2019), “Women in the workplace”, available at https://www.
womenintheworkplace.com (accessed 5 February 2020).
Madera, J.M. (2018a), “Situational perspective taking as an intervention for improving attitudes toward
organizations that invest in diversity management programs”, Journal of Business and
Psychology, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 423-442.
Madera, J.M. (2018b), “What’s in it for me? Perspective taking as an intervention for improving
attitudes toward diversity management”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 59 No. 2,
pp. 100-111.
Madera, J.M., Guchait, P. and Dawson, M. (2018), “Managers’ reactions to customer vs coworker sexual
harassment”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2,
pp. 1211-1227.
Marco, R. (2012), “Gender and economic performance: evidence from the Spanish hotel industry”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 981-989.
Menicucci, E., Paolucci, G. and Paoloni, N. (2019), “Does gender matter for hotel performance? Evidence
from the Italian hospitality industry”, International Journal of Tourism Research, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 625-638.
IJCHM Mooney, S.K. (2020), “Gender research in hospitality and tourism management: time to change the
guard”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 32 No. 5,
pp. 1861-1879.
Nadiri, H. and Tanova, C. (2010), “An investigation of the role of justice in turnover intentions, job
satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behavior in hospitality industry”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 33-41.
Nieves, J. and Quintana, A. (2018), “Human resource practices and innovation in the hotel industry:
the mediating role of human capital”, Tourism and Hospitality Research, Vol. 18 No. 1,
pp. 72-83.
Noe, R.A., Hollenbeck, J.R., Gerhart, B. and Wright, P.M. (2019), Fundamentals of Human Resource
Management, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill Education, Los Angeles, CA.
Noerchoidah, N. and Harjanti, D. (2019), “Exploring the relationship between procedural justice and
innovative work behavior in hospitality industry”, Jurnal Manajemen Dan Kewirausahaan,
Vol. 21 No. 1, pp. 21-31.
Parker, K. and Funk, C. (2017), “Gender discrimination comes in many forms for today’s working
women”, available at https://people.math.umass.edu/nahmod/Forty-two-percent-women-
faced-gender-discrimination-on-the-job.pdf (accessed 17 June 2020).
Pasquerella, L. and Clauss-Ehlers, C.S. (2017), “Glass ceilings, queen bees, and the persistent barriers to
women’s leadership in the academy”, Liberal Education, pp. 6-13.
Pincus, F.L. (2000), “Reverse discrimination vs white privilege: an empirical study of alleged victims of
affirmative action”, Race and Society, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 1-22.
Qingjuan, W., Rui, L. and Ailing, W. (2019), “The impact of promotion justice on occupational health and
turnover intention”, Advances in Economics, Business and Management Research, Vol. 82, pp. 225-228.
Repetti, T. and Hoffman, S.L. (2018), “Glass ceilings and leaky pipelines: gender disparity in the casino
industry”, UNLV Gaming Research and Review Journal, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 37-55.
Rosner, B. (2011), Fundamentals of Biostatistics, Brooks/Cole, Boston, MA.
Ryan, M.K., Haslam, S.A., Morgenroth, T., Rink, F., Stoker, J. and Peters, K. (2016), “Getting on top of
the glass cliff: reviewing a decade of evidence, explanations, and impact”, The Leadership
Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 446-455.
Saad, S. and Elshaer, I. (2017), “Organizational politics and validity of layoff decisions: mediating role of
distributive justice of performance appraisal”, Journal of Hospitality Marketing and
Management, Vol. 26 No. 8, pp. 805-828.
Segovia-Pérez, M., Figueroa-Domecq, C., Fuentes-Moraleda, L. and Muñoz-Mazon, A. (2019),
“Incorporating a gender approach in the hospitality industry: female executives’ perceptions”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 76, pp. 184-193.
Singh, S.K. and Singh, A.P. (2019), “Interplay of organizational justice, psychological empowerment,
organizational citizenship behavior, and job satisfaction in the context of circular economy”,
Management Decision, Vol. 57 No. 4, pp. 937-952.
Siu, N.Y., Zhang, T.J. and Kwan, H. (2014), “Effect of corporate social responsibility, customer
attribution, and prior expectation on post-recovery satisfaction”, International Journal of
Hospitality Management, Vol. 43, pp. 87-97.
Song, H.J., Yoon, Y.N. and Kang, K.H. (2020), “The relationship between board diversity and firm
performance in the lodging industry: the moderating role of internationalization”, International
Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 86.
United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2020), “Labor force statistics from the current population
survey”, available at: www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat18.htm (accessed 5 February 2020).
Vatankhah, S. and Raoofi, A. (2018), “Psychological entitlement, egoistic deprivation and deviant
behavior among cabin crews: an attribution theory perspective”, Tourism Review, Vol. 73 No. 3,
pp. 314-330.
Wilkins, C.L. and Kaiser, C.R. (2014), “Racial progress as threat to the status hierarchy: implications for Promotion
perceptions of anti-White bias”, Psychological Science, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 439-446.
process of
Wilkins, C.L., Wellman, J.D., Flavin, E.L. and Manrique, J.A. (2018), “When men perceive anti-male bias:
status-legitimizing beliefs increase discrimination against women”, Psychology of Men and hotel
Masculinity, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 282-290. employees
Yang, J. and Arthur, J.B. (2019), “Implementing commitment HR practices: line manager attributions
and employee reactions”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, In Press.
Yerkes, M.A., Martin, B., Baxter, J. and Rose, J. (2017), “An unsettled bargain? Mothers’ perceptions of
justice and fairness in paid work”, Journal of Sociology, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 476-491.
Zoghbi-Manrique-de-Lara, P. and Ting-Ding, J. (2017), “Task and contextual performance as reactions
of hotel staff to labor outsourcing: the role of procedural justice”, Journal of Hospitality and
Tourism Management, Vol. 33, pp. 51-61.

Further reading
Khan, R.S. and Sultana, S. (2017), “Breaking the gender barrier: success stories of active participation of
women in hospitality industry in Bangladesh”, European Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 54
No. 2, pp. 134-147.
Newman, B.J. (2016), “Breaking the glass ceiling: local gender-based earnings inequality and women’s
belief in the American dream”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 60 No. 4, pp. 1006-1025.

Corresponding author
Michelle Russen can be contacted at: marussen@uh.edu

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
 REVIEW JURNAL

1. Judul Jurnal

Market Orientation And Product Innovation: The Mediating Role Of

Technological Capability (Orientasi Pasar Dan Inovasi Produk: Peran
Mediasi Dari Kapabilitas Teknologi)

2. Tujuan Melakukan Penelitian

Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menguji hubungan antara orientasi pasar
dan inovasi produk serta menguji peran mediasi kapabilitas teknologi
dalam hubungan tersebut. Selain itu juga untuk menguji pengaruh
orientasi pasar terhadap inovasi produk dalam rangka klasifikasi intensitas
teknologi pada bidang kegiatan usaha.

3. Desain/Metodologi/Pendekatan
Data penelitian diperoleh dari 186 manajer senior dan menengah dari 627
perusahaan manufaktur yang secara luas dianggap inovatif, dan berada
di antara 1.000 perusahaan manufaktur terbesar di Turki (ISO 1000).
Analisis data menggunakan pemodelan persamaan struktural parsial
kuadrat terkecil.

4. Landasan Teori
a. Market orientation
Istilah “orientasi pasar” digunakan untuk merujuk pada penerapan
konsep pemasaran (Kohli dan Jaworski, 1990) yang dianggap sebagai
filosofi bisnis (Felton, 1959; McNamara, 1972). Orientasi pasar
diperiksa terutama dari perspektif budaya dan perilaku (Homburg dan
Pflesser, 2000; Hurley dan Hult, 1998; Shoham et al., 2005). Menurut
pendekatan berbasis budaya Narver dan Slater (1990), orientasi pasar
adalah budaya organisasi yang mencakup perilaku paling efektif dan
produktif yang diperlukan untuk mencapai kinerja tinggi yang
berkelanjutan dengan menciptakan nilai kualitas unggul bagi
pelanggan.
b. Product innovation
Inovasi produk mengacu pada pengenalan barang atau jasa yang baru
atau ditingkatkan secara signifikan sehubungan dengan karakteristik
atau tujuan penggunaan. Ini termasuk peningkatan signifikan dalam
spesifikasi teknis, komponen dan bahan, perangkat lunak yang
digabungkan, keramahan pengguna atau karakteristik fungsional
lainnya (Mortensen dan Bloch, 2005). Inovasi produk mengacu pada
"produk / layanan baru yang diperkenalkan untuk memenuhi pengguna
eksternal atau kebutuhan pasar" (Damanpour, 1991). Di perusahaan,
aktivitas produk baru yang inovatif dianggap sebagai perlombaan
persenjataan dan dianggap sebagai salah satu cara untuk tetap
kompetitif dan bertahan. Inovasi produk diperlukan karena
pemendekan siklus hidup produk, perubahan cepat dalam preferensi
pelanggan, kemajuan teknologi, globalisasi pasar (Talay et al., 2014)
dan meningkatnya persaingan (Cooper, 2000).

c. Technological capability
Teknologi adalah implementasi pengetahuan ke produk dan proses
(Trott, 2012). Kapabilitas adalah kemampuan perusahaan untuk
menggunakan sumber dayanya untuk mencapai hasil yang diinginkan
(Amit dan Schoemaker, 1993). Kemampuan teknologi mengacu pada
penggunaan efektif dari pengetahuan dan kompetensi teknis (Jin dan
Von Zedtwitz, 2008) dan merupakan salah satu kompetensi khusus
yang memungkinkan perusahaan untuk menonjol (Coombs dan Bierly,
2006). Di tempat lain, kapabilitas teknologi digambarkan sebagai
kemampuan suatu perusahaan untuk mengembangkan,
mengasimilasi dan menerapkan kompetensi teknologi yang telah
diciptakannya dengan menggunakan pengetahuan teknologi dalam
studi ilmiah untuk meningkatkan daya saingnya (Tsai, 2004). Selain
mengembangkan dan meningkatkan produk dan proses, juga
mencakup upaya untuk meningkatkan teknologi yang ada dan
menghasilkan pengetahuan dan kompetensi baru untuk merespon
lingkungan yang kompetitif (Jin dan Von Zedtwitz, 2008).
5. Implikasi Praktis
Untuk keberhasilan inovasi produk, perusahaan harus menetapkan
mekanisme untuk memperoleh informasi tentang kebutuhan dan harapan
pelanggan dan untuk menyebarkan dan secara efektif menggunakan
informasi ini di antara fungsi organisasi. Mereka juga perlu meningkatkan
kemampuan teknologi mereka untuk secara efektif mengubah
pengetahuan pasar menjadi inovasi produk.

6. Hipotesis
H1a. Dimensi orientasi pelanggan dari orientasi pasar berpengaruh
positif terhadap inovasi produk.

H1b. Dimensi orientasi pesaing dari orientasi pasar berpengaruh positif

terhadap inovasi produk.

H1c. Dimensi koordinasi antarfungsional dari orientasi pasar

berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi produk.

H2a. Kapabilitas teknologi memainkan peran mediasi dalam pengaruh

dimensi orientasi pelanggan dari orientasi pasar terhadap inovasi
produk.

H2b. Kapabilitas teknologi memainkan peran mediasi dalam pengaruh

dimensi orientasi pesaing dari orientasi pasar terhadap inovasi
produk.

H2c. Kapabilitas teknologi memainkan peran mediasi dalam pengaruh

dimensi koordinasi antarmuka dari orientasi pasar pada inovasi
produk.

H3a. Dimensi orientasi pasar berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi

produk pada intensitas teknologi rendah.

H3b. Dimensi orientasi pasar berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi

produk pada intensitas teknologi menengah-rendah.
 H3c. Dimensi orientasi pasar berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi
produk pada intensitas teknologi menengah-tinggi.

H3d. Dimensi orientasi pasar berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi

produk pada intensitas teknologi tinggi.

Gambar 1.
Kerangka Pemikiran Penelitan

7. Temuan
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa: (H1a) orientasi pelanggan
berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi produk, (H1b) orientasi pesaing tidak
berpengaruh signifikan terhadap inovasi produk, (H1c) koordinasi
antarmuka berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi produk. Kemudian, (H2a)
kemampuan teknologi ditentukan untuk memainkan peran perantara
penuh dalam pengaruh orientasi pelanggan pada inovasi produk, (H2b)
orientasi pesaing tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap inovasi produk.
Karena tidak memenuhi syarat pertama variabel mediasi, kapabilitas
teknologi tidak memiliki peran mediasi dalam pengaruh orientasi pesaing
terhadap inovasi produk, (H2c) kemampuan teknologi ditentukan untuk
memainkan peran mediasi penuh dalam pengaruh koordinasi antarmuka
pada inovasi produk. Selanjutnya, (H3a) Koordinasi interfungsional
berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi produk, (H3b) orientasi pesaing dan
koordinasi antarmuka tidak berpengaruh signifikan terhadap inovasi
 produk pada perusahaan dengan intensitas teknologi menengah-rendah.
(H3c) Orientasi pelanggan berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi produk
pada perusahaan dengan intensitas teknologi sedang-tinggi. Namun,
koordinasi antarmuka dan orientasi pesaing tidak berpengaruh signifikan
terhadap inovasi produk di perusahaan-perusahaan ini, (H3d) Orientasi
pasar berpengaruh tidak berpengaruh signigikan terhadap inovasi produk
pada intensitas teknologi tinggi.

8. Kesimpulan
Orientasi pelanggan dan koordinasi antarmuka, dua dimensi berbeda dari
orientasi pasar, memiliki efek positif pada inovasi produk. Kemampuan
teknologi memainkan peran mediasi dalam pengaruh orientasi pelanggan
dan koordinasi antarmuka pada inovasi produk. Selain itu, koordinasi
antarmuka berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi produk pada perusahaan
dengan intensitas teknologi rendah, sedangkan orientasi pelanggan
berpengaruh positif terhadap inovasi produk pada perusahaan dengan
intensitas teknologi menengah-tinggi. Mereka juga perlu meningkatkan
kemampuan teknologi mereka untuk secara efektif mengubah
pengetahuan pasar menjadi inovasi produk

9. Keterbatasan Penelitian

Keterbatasan dalam penelitian ini adalah perusahaan yang termasuk

dalam penelitian ini terlibat dalam industri teknologi tinggi dan juga hanya
empat dari 19 perusahaan yang masuk dalam daftar ISO 1000 yang
berpartisipasi dalam penelitian ini. Artinya, jumlah perusahaan semacam
itu tidak memadai untuk penilaian yang akurat. Meskipun ini adalah
batasan terpenting dari penelitian ini, perusahaan dengan intensitas
teknologi tinggi dimasukkan dalam analisis yang dilakukan untuk hipotesis
lain. Selain itu, semua perusahaan yang termasuk dalam penelitian ini
diklasifikasikan menurut intensitas teknologi mereka sendiri ketika
mengevaluasi mereka menurut tingkat intensitas teknologi, yang
menyebabkan penelitian ini memiliki ukuran sampel yang lebih rendah.
10. Penelitian Kedepan
a) Penelitian kedepan dapat melakukan evaluasi yang lebih
komprehensif tentang hal ini dengan memasukkan sumber informasi
lain, seperti pemasok dan universitas, hingga dimensi orientasi pasar
yaitu orientasi pelanggan, orientasi pesaing dan koordinasi antar
fungsi. Orientasi lain, seperti orientasi belajar dan orientasi
kewirausahaan, dapat dipelajari bersama sebagai pelengkap orientasi
pasar.

b) Sampel hanya terdiri dari perusahaan-perusahaan dari Turki, maka

studi masa depan disarankan untuk meneliti negara lain untuk
meningkatkan validitas dan generalisasi hasil ini.

c) Penelitian ini menguji inovasi produk, namun, dengan berfokus pada

inovasi produk radikal atau inkremental. inovasi produk, dimensi
berbeda dari orientasi pasar mungkin muncul ke depan. Selain
pengaruh orientasi pasar terhadap inovasi produk, studi tentang
hubungan antara orientasi pasar dan jenis inovasi lain, seperti inovasi
model bisnis, inovasi digital, inovasi jaringan, dan inovasi terbalik,
dapat menyumbangkan informasi berharga ke literatur. Akhirnya,
selain kebutuhan untuk studi lebih lanjut tentang hubungan antara
kapabilitas teknologi dan orientasi pasar, studi empiris tentang
intensitas teknologi di berbagai bidang juga akan berkontribusi pada
kajian literatur.
 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1460-1060.htm

Market orientation and product Market

orientation and
innovation: the mediating role of product
innovation
technological capability
Hakan Aydin
School of Business, Istanbul University, Istanbul, Turkey
Received 3 October 2019
Revised 13 February 2020
Abstract 9 April 2020
3 June 2020
Purpose – This study aims to examine the relationship between market orientation and product innovation Accepted 10 June 2020
and the mediating role of technological capability in this relationship. It also aims to examine the effect of
market orientation on product innovation within the framework of technological intensity classification of the
fields of business activity.
Design/methodology/approach – The research data were obtained from 186 senior and mid-level managers
of 627 manufacturing firms that are widely considered to be innovative, and that are ranked among Turkey’s
largest 1,000 manufacturing firms (ISO 1000). The data were analyzed using partial least squares structural
equation modeling.
Findings – Customer orientation and interfunctional coordination, two distinct dimensions of market
orientation, had positive effects on product innovation. Technological capability played a mediating role in the
effect of customer orientation and interfunctional coordination on product innovation. In addition,
interfunctional coordination positively affected product innovation in firms with low technological intensity,
whereas customer orientation positively affected product innovation in firms with medium-high technological
intensity.
Practical implications – For the success of product innovations, firms should establish mechanisms to
obtain information about customer needs and expectations and to disseminate and effectively use this
information among organizational functions. They also need to improve their technological capabilities to
effectively transform market knowledge into product innovation.
Originality/value – The relationship between market orientation and product innovation has been examined
in previous studies; however, there is an insufficient number of studies on the mediating role of technological
capability in this relationship. This study aimed to eliminate the gap in the literature regarding the mediating
role of technological capability. In addition, innovation activities of firms vary depending on the technological
intensity, but only a limited number of evaluations have been conducted on this subject. This study contributes
valuable knowledge to the relevant literature by examining the impact of market orientation dimensions on
product innovation according to technological intensity.
Keywords Market orientation, Product innovation, Technological capability, Technological intensity,
Innovation
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The performance of the products and services introduced to the market for meeting
customers’ expectations and/or needs is determinant in the success of firms (Griffin and Page,
1996; Damanpour, 1991). Businesses allocate resources, such as people, time and capital, for
product innovation and gain a competitive advantage in the market through the products
they produce as an outcome of a challenging process. However, when the results and
statistics obtained were examined, it was observed that businesses largely experienced
failures at the end of this process (Evanschitzky et al., 2012; Cooper, 1990). Research has been
conducted to avoid these failures in product innovation and to find new ways to achieve
better results (Guimaraes et al., 2015). Studies have found that many factors affect the
capacity of product innovations to meet customer expectations or needs by providing
European Journal of Innovation
Management
The author would like to thank Prof. Isil Mendes Pekdemir, Prof. Fatih Semercioz and Ph.D. Aytug © Emerald Publishing Limited
1460-1060
Sozuer for their significant contribution to the development of this study. DOI 10.1108/EJIM-10-2019-0274
EJIM superior value and thus to be successful (Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994; Cooper and
Kleinschmidt, 1995; Griffin and Page, 1996; Henard and Szymanski, 2001; van der Panne et al.,
2003; Terziovski, 2007; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 2007; Evanschitzky et al., 2012; Trott, 2012).
In addition, the importance of market orientation for the success of innovation has been
demonstrated in previous studies. In this regard, the studies on product innovation success
have emphasized various aspects of projects related to this subject, including understanding
users and obtaining market knowledge in the SAPPHO Project (Rothwell et al., 1974), meeting
user needs in the New Prod I and II Projects (Cooper, 1979; Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987)
and the market and timing of market entry in the Stanford Innovation Project (Maidique and
Zirger, 1984), and also the importance of market orientation in innovation success has been
underlined in other studies (Lukas and Ferrell, 2000; Zhang and Duan, 2010; Yang et al., 2012).
Market orientation refers to a business’s ability to generate organization-wide market
knowledge regarding current and future customer needs, to disseminate this intelligence
across all organizational departments and to respond to the market by means of products and
services developed based on market knowledge to meet customer needs (Kohli and Jaworski,
1990). Market orientation is an important source of information for product innovation.
However, there is no consensus on this issue due to the different research results obtained
regarding the relationship between market orientation and product innovation. Although
studies have mostly reported that market orientation had a positive effect on product
innovation (Hurley and Hult, 1998), there have also been studies showing there to be a
negative or insignificant relationship between them (Grewal and Tansuhaj, 2001; Keskin,
2006; Hsu et al., 2014; Zhang and Zhu, 2016). Market orientation is often criticized because it
targets only existing customers, focuses solely on the expressed needs of customers, leads to
adaptive learning (Slater and Narver, 1995) and learning myopia, does not introduce creative
responses to technological developments and customer needs (Levinthal and March, 1993),
promotes incremental innovation (Frosch, 1996; Berthon et al., 2004) and imitability (Bennett
and Cooper, 1981) and has a short-term perspective, causing confusion (Macdonald, 1995).
Customers have similar perceptions and perspectives regarding their needs; therefore, real
innovations need to focus on going beyond customers’ usual experiences (Bennett and
Cooper, 1981) and to redefine existing problems (Frosch, 1996; Berthon, et al., 2004). In
addition, market orientation affects product innovation positively by contributing to
obtaining market knowledge from the external environment, understanding customer
preferences, responding to market trends (Chang et al., 2010) and engaging in product
development, design and differentiation in line with market needs (Hooley et al., 2000). The
disagreements in study results have prompted researchers to investigate how other
organizational factors could possibly affect the relationship between market orientation and
product innovation (Augusto and Coelho, 2009).
A large number of studies have been conducted on the role of many organizational
variables in the relationship between market orientation and product innovation, but these
studies have not adequately investigated how technological capability plays a role in this
relationship (Hsu et al., 2014). There are previous studies suggesting that technological
capability does not have a moderator role in the relationship between market orientation,
business performance (Ortega, 2010) and product innovation (Renko et al., 2009). However,
Hsu et al. (2014) determined that technological capability played a moderator role in the
relationship between market orientation and market performance but did not have such role
in the relationship between market orientation and financial performance. The moderator role
of technological capability is a subject of much debate, particularly because, as a significant
relationship has been shown to exist between market orientation and technological capability
– i.e. a causality relation with each other, which will be explained later – the results are
meaningless due to the fact that the nature of that relationship has not been adequately
studied. However, market orientation functions as an important resource for businesses in
terms of acquiring market knowledge from the external environment, and market knowledge Market
contributes to developing technological capability and technological capability positively orientation and
affects product innovation (Jung et al., 2014; Zhou and Wu, 2010); therefore, examining the
technological capability as a mediating variable will contribute valuable information to the
product
literature. innovation
Studies of the relationship between market orientation and product innovation have
reported that market orientation has no significant effect on product innovation because of
the samples consisting of export businesses (Zhang and Zhu, 2016) and high-technology
computing firms (Hsu et al., 2014). In this respect, the results regarding the relationship
between market orientation and product innovation may not have the same effect for each
firm, and the effect of market orientation dimensions on product innovation may vary
depending on certain features of the firms, meaning that it would be beneficial to evaluate
firms according to their technological intensity levels, as product innovation activities differ
according to firms’ technological intensity levels (Wzia˛ tek-Kubiak, 2008; Kearney et al., 2019),
and product innovation is higher in high-tech industries than in low-tech industries (Cox et al.,
2002). High technological intensity requires a greater degree of technology orientation and
knowledge (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2008). Customers have less impact on product innovation
processes in incidences of low and medium technological intensity (Heidenreich, 2009).
Although there are differences in innovation activities according to technological intensity,
only a limited number of studies have examined the subject according to technological
intensity. Therefore, examining the effect of market orientation on product innovation
according to technological intensity may contribute valuable information to the literature.
This study aimed to examine the effect of market orientation dimensions, including
customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination, on product
innovation and the mediating role of technological capability on this impact. In addition, it
aimed to investigate the effect of market orientation on product innovation by classifying
firms according to the technological intensity of their fields of activity. This study primarily
seeks to add valuable knowledge to ongoing discussions about the positive (Hurley and Hult,
1998; Hooley et al., 2000; Baker and Sinkula, 2005; Chang et al., 2010) and negative effects
(Bennett and Cooper, 1981; Macdonald, 1995; Frosch, 1996; Berthon et al., 2004) of market
orientation on product innovation and to significantly contribute to the elimination of the gap
in the literature by explaining the role of technological capability (Augusto and Coelho, 2009;
Hsu et al., 2014), which is an organizational factor in transforming market knowledge into
product innovation, in the relationship between market orientation and product innovation.
This study examines the relationship between market orientation dimensions and product
innovation according to technological intensity (Cox et al., 2002; Wzia˛ tek-Kubiak, 2008;
Heidenreich, 2009; Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2015) by taking into consideration the characteristics of
the firms included in the study from a different perspective. For business managers, this
study emphasizes the importance, in terms of product innovation success, of both generating
market knowledge about customers and competitors and using this intelligence to respond to
the market. The study further explains the contribution of market orientation in developing
technological capability and the importance of technological capability in transforming
external market knowledge into product innovation. In effect, this study enables managers to
understand which dimensions of market orientation, including customer orientation,
competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination, are more important for product
innovation based on the technological intensity of their firms.

2. Literature review and hypotheses development

A resource-based view considers the organization as the entirety of its tangible and
intangible assets and emphasizes that competitive advantage can be achieved through these
EJIM resources (Peteraf, 1993; Kor and Mahoney, 2004; Penrose, 2009; Rugman and Verbeke, 2002).
The resources include all assets, capabilities, organizational processes, knowledge and
learning elements that are controlled by the firm. The resources are able to be a source of
sustainable competitive advantage only when they are valuable, scarce, inimitable and
unsubstitutable (Barney, 1991). Market orientation, an uncommon, yet valuable and
indispensable resource, can increase product innovation performance and provide
competitive advantage (Hunt and Morgan, 1995; Menguc and Auh, 2006). From a
resource-based view, market orientation is an important, socially complex scarce business
resource with abstract characteristics, insofar as it manages market knowledge and offers
superior value to customers to gain competitive advantage (Hunt and Morgan, 1995). In this
view, resources are classified as tangible and intangible assets that enable a firm to effectively
and efficiently produce a product or service that has customer value. According to this
classification, market orientation is considered an intangible asset, which can be a resource if
it provides a firm with information to produce a market offering that meets customer needs
and demands (Hunt and Morgan, 1995). There have been various studies discussing how to
capture and generate values from these resources (Cappa et al., 2019). Resources are valuable
if they provide competitive advantage (Barney, 1991), and quality ideas obtained from the
external environment contribute to capturing value (Cappa et al., 2019). Market knowledge
obtained through market orientation is able to capture value in the event that it contributes to
the development of business capabilities, enables firms to gain competitive advantage and
increases performance by being applied to product innovations that meet customer needs.
The resource-based view suggests that the resources controlled by firms in an industry
are heterogeneous (Amit and Schoemaker, 1993) and have low mobility between the firms
(Barney, 1991; Peteraf, 1993; Amit and Schoemaker, 1993). The heterogeneity and immobility
of resources create business performance differences among the firms (Henderson and
Cockburn, 1994; Barney, 1991). The resource-based view emphasizes that the difference
between firms primarily arises from internal factors, and that the competitive advantage
depends on internal factors rather than on the external environment (Grant, 1991).
Capabilities are accumulated knowledge and abilities that increase the value and usage of
resources (Murray et al., 2011). Capabilities, defined as improving resource efficiency, enable
conversion of the resources to desired outputs. The reason that firms with similar resources
achieve different levels of business performance can be explained by their business
capabilities, as these capabilities increase new product performance by converting resources
to desired outputs (Menguc et al., 2014). Technological capability is an intangible asset that is
often difficult to imitate by competitors. It has high causal ambiguity and provides
competitive advantage, as firms without similar technological skills have difficulty
understanding the development of products and processes (Coombs and Bierly, 2006).
The resource-based view emphasizes the importance of focusing on internal factors for
firms to gain competitive advantage. A successful product innovation is required to gain
competitive advantage. Firms meet customer needs and gain competitive advantage with
product innovations that are achieved through optimal use of their available resources and
capabilities. Having the necessary resources, capabilities and knowledge for new product
activities increases product success (Cooper, 1979, 1980). Firms produce goods and services
through their capabilities. The performance of a firm’s products relative to its competitors at
any point in time depends upon its competences (Teece et al., 1997). A firm needs to develop its
product innovation capabilities to survive in the market (Yalcinkaya et al., 2007). In line with
these explanations, a resource-based view looks for ways to gain competitive advantage by
focusing on intraorganizational factors. Product innovation, on the other hand, enables firms
to gain competitive advantage by offering superior value to customers through the use of
information obtained from the external environment and of the resources and capabilities of
the firm. Market orientation is an important resource for product innovation, as it provides
market knowledge about customer needs and expectations. Complementary organizational Market
capabilities are required to fully realize the value of market-based knowledge obtained orientation and
through market orientation (Morgan et al., 2009). Technological capability can realize its
potential value by enabling firms to optimally use the market knowledge they generate
product
through market orientation for product innovation. Therefore, technological capability is innovation
considered to play a mediating role in transforming market orientation resources into product
innovations that satisfy the desired output.

2.1 Market orientation

The term “market orientation” is used to refer to the implementation of the marketing concept
(Kohli and Jaworski, 1990), which is considered to be the business philosophy (Felton, 1959;
McNamara, 1972). Market orientation is examined particularly from cultural and behavioral
perspectives (Homburg and Pflesser, 2000; Hurley and Hult, 1998; Shoham et al., 2005).
According to Narver and Slater’s (1990) culture-based approach, market orientation is an
organizational culture that includes the most effective and productive behaviors necessary to
achieve sustainable high performance by creating superior quality value for customers.
According to Kohli et al. (1993), who assessed market orientation from a behavioral
perspective, market orientation is defined as the organization-wide generation of market
knowledge pertaining to current and future customer needs, the horizontal and vertical
dissemination of this intelligence across the organization and the organization-wide
responsiveness or activation to the market knowledge. Studies on the effectiveness of
decision-making system (Shapiro, 1988), the formation and development of strategies
(Ruekert, 1992), the customer needs and expectations (Deshpand
e et al., 1993) and the latent
needs of customers (Narver et al., 2004), as well studies conducted to synthesize common
aspects of different perspectives of market orientation (Lafferty and Hult, 2001) have all
significantly contributed to the concept of market orientation. Market orientation helps firms
to predict changes in the needs, demands and expectations of existing or potential customers
(Day and Wensley, 1988); to increase customer satisfaction (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990); to raise
profitability and productivity (McNamara, 1972; Felton, 1959; Narver and Slater, 1990); to
focus on long-term goals and to gain competitive advantage (Narver and Slater, 1990; Felton,
1959; Greenley, 1995).
With the development of market orientation scales, studies on market orientation have
primarily focused on its relationship to business performance (Narver and Slater, 1990;
Jaworski and Kohli, 1993) and have emphasized the factors affecting market orientation, the
results of market orientation and the mediator and moderator variables in these relationships.
While numerous studies have reported there to be a positive relationship between market
orientation and business performance (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Narver and Slater, 1990;
Ruekert, 1992; Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Slater and Narver, 1994; Greenley, 1995; Pelham and
Wilson, 1996; Day and Wensley, 1988; Gonz
alez-Benito et al., 2014), other studies have
reported there to be either a negative relationship (Grewal and Tansuhaj, 2001) or no
significant relationship between them (Han et al., 1998; Bhuian, 1998; Keskin, 2006; Hsu et al.,
2014). A positive and significant relationship was found in a meta-analysis of empirical
studies conducted to measure the effect of market orientation on business performance (Kirca
et al., 2005; Shoham et al., 2005; Baker and Sinkula, 2007). Studies on the factors affecting
market orientation have found that factors such as senior management, interdepartmental
relations, organizational structure, culture and others affected market orientation (Jaworski
and Kohli, 1993; Kirca et al., 2005; Matsuno et al., 2005). Other studies have examined the
mediating role of innovativeness (Zhang and Duan, 2010), product quality, innovation speed
(Rodr
ıguez-Pinto et al., 2011), customer knowledge development (Chang et al., 2010), R&D
effectiveness (De Luca et al., 2010), new product performance (Ledwith and O’Dwyer, 2009),
learning style and innovation priority (Baker and Sinkula, 2007), learning orientation and
EJIM organizational innovativeness (Dursun and Kilic, 2015) on the effect of market orientation on
product innovation. This study examines the mediating role of technological capability in the
effect of market orientation on product innovation.

2.2 Product innovation

Product innovation refers to the introduction of a good or service that is new or significantly
improved with respect to its characteristics or intended uses. This includes significant
improvements in technical specifications, components and materials, incorporated software,
user friendliness or other functional characteristics (Mortensen and Bloch, 2005). Product
innovation refers to the “new product/services introduced to meet an external user or market
need” (Damanpour, 1991). In firms, innovative new product activity is perceived as an
armament race and is considered to be one of the ways to staying competitive and surviving.
Product innovation is necessary due to the shortening of product life cycles, rapid changes in
customer preferences, technological advancements, globalization of the markets (Talay et al.,
2014) and increasing competition (Cooper, 2000). The primary objective of product innovation is
to generate superior customer value, gain competitive advantage and ensure long-term success
through the development and commercialization of new products and services (Rainey, 2008).
Product innovation is crucial for the growth, success and survival of firms (Talay et al.,
2014; Sok and O’Cass, 2015; Slater et al., 2014). It has been shown that firms have derived
approximately 30% of their sales and profitability from product development activities in the
past five years (Barczak et al., 2009; Schilling, 2012). Studies have reported a positive effect of
product innovation on sales revenue, profitability (Cooper, 2000) and business performance
(Mitrega et al., 2017; Li et al., 2015; Sok and O’Cass, 2015). Product specifications, such as
quality (Molina-Castillo et al., 2011), radicalness and similarity (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997),
novelty, meaningfulness of new product (Im et al., 2013), usefulness, originality (Li et al., 2015),
capability of meeting customer needs, price, technological complexity, proactivity and
product advantage affect the success of product innovation (Evanschitzky, et al., 2012;
Henard and Szymanski, 2001; Montoya-Weiss and Calantone, 1994; Cooper, 1979). In addition
to product specifications, the success of product innovation also depends on many other
factors, including features of the market, organizational characteristics, business strategies
and characteristics of business processes (Evanschitzky, et al., 2012). In examining the effect
of market orientation on product innovation, this study used market turbulence,
technological turbulence, competitive intensity and firm size as control variables.

2.3 Technological capability

Technology is the implementation of knowledge to products and processes (Trott, 2012).
Capability is the ability of a firm to use its resources to achieve the desired outcome (Amit and
Schoemaker, 1993). Technological capability refers to the effective use of technical knowledge
and competences (Jin and Von Zedtwitz, 2008) and is one of the distinctive competences that
enable a firm to stand out (Coombs and Bierly, 2006). Elsewhere, technological capability has
been described as the ability of a firm to develop, assimilate and apply technological
competences that it has created by using technological knowledge in scientific studies to
increase its competitiveness (Tsai, 2004). In addition to developing and improving products
and processes, it also includes the efforts to improve existing technology and produce new
knowledge and competences to respond to the competitive environment (Jin and Von
Zedtwitz, 2008). Technological capability has a positive effect on a firm’s growth and
development (Ju et al., 2013), performance (Tsai, 2004; Ortega, 2010; Tzokas et al., 2015) and
long-term competitive advantage (Acur et al., 2010).
While a high level of technological capability increases existing knowledge and
experience in product innovation and supports incremental innovation, it may cause
technological developments in new fields to drop beneath the radar, leading to problems or
unwillingness to move to new technological platforms (Zhou and Wu, 2010). It has also been Market
argued that it may reduce a firm’s motivation to outsource knowledge from external orientation and
resources and miss new opportunities, create an environment that prevents radical
innovation, limit learning, and trigger organizational inertia (Song and Shin, 2008). As
product
technological capability is an abstract phenomenon and based on mutual interaction, any innovation
mistakes made in improving this capability can result in high costs and time loss, making it
very difficult to regain the competitive advantage lost to competitors (Acur et al., 2010). The
importance of technological capability is continually increasing in line with the necessity of
producing new products nesting new technologies to meet dynamic market needs (Hsieh and
Tsai, 2007). Having an excellent embedded technological capability brings about advanced
product features, effective functions and high-quality new products, which, in turn, facilitate
customer satisfaction (Ho et al., 2011).

2.4 Market orientation and product innovation

External sources of knowledge are critical to innovation processes. Firms obtain information
from the external environment to develop their innovation capabilities, make it their own
knowledge and use it to produce final products (Cohen and Levinthal, 1990). Knowledge is an
essential source of product innovation success, and market orientation is an important source
of information for product innovation. Market orientation enables firms to obtain information
about customers and competitors, disseminate this information among functions and develop
new products that meet customer expectations and needs by using market knowledge and
offering superior customer value (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Slater and Narver, 1994). Market
orientation becomes a source of motivation and new ideas to meet the needs in the
environment (Hurley and Hult, 1998). The existing and future demands of the customers, the
competencies and strategies of the competitors and the expanded market environment are
better understood through market orientation (Hunt and Morgan, 1995; Pelham and Wilson,
1996; Paladino, 2008). Market orientation contributes to product success insofar as it involves
conducting detailed market research, focusing on targeted customers, introducing products
to the market, testing products, product distribution, expertise in sales, understanding
customer needs, demands and price sensitivities, predicting market potential, analyzing
competitors and obtaining external knowledge (Cooper, 1979, 1980). Market orientation has a
largely positive effect on product innovation (Baker and Sinkula, 2005) and has been shown to
increase the success of product innovation (Baker and Sinkula, 2007) and to have a positive
and significant effect on product innovation performance, product quality (Rodr
ıguez-Pinto
et al., 2011; Hunt and Morgan, 1995; Pelham and Wilson, 1996; Paladino, 2008),
meaningfulness of new product (Kim et al., 2013), product development processes and new
product performance (Langerak et al., 2007). However, market orientation has been criticized
for slowing down or complicating the product innovation process, focusing on only existing
needs and leading to only incremental innovation (Berthon et al., 2004; Macdonald, 1995).
This study has approached market orientation from the culture-based perspective
mentioned above, evaluating it as an organizational culture wherein employees share the
value and belief of customer priority. Culture-based market orientation consists of customer
orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination. Customer orientation
refers to the sufficient understanding a firm has of one’s target customers to be able to create
superior value for them continuously (Narver and Slater, 1990). According to Deshpand
e et al.
(1993), customer orientation is a set of beliefs by the owners, managers, employees and other
stakeholders that considers customer needs and expectations to be the top priority activity of
the firm to develop a long-term profitable firm. Customers contribute significantly to the
improvement of innovation quality (Renko et al., 2009). The information obtained from
customers and competitors during the stage of idea generation in product innovation is an
important source of ideas for understanding new product needs and evaluating
EJIM opportunities. Obtaining information about customers positively contributes to product
development by reducing demand uncertainty (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997). The main
difference between success and failure in product development comes down to understanding
the user (Rothwell et al., 1974). Customer orientation allows the firm to have a better
understanding of customers and ultimately to gain more customer acceptance, market share
and customer satisfaction and better financial performance by freeing it from focusing
entirely on the technical advantages of the product (Hsieh et al., 2008). Developing new
products by understanding customer demands, needs and preferences, as well as offering
better products than competitors and gaining product advantages positively affect the firm’s
financial and market performance. Moreover, solving customer problems and offering new
and advanced technology products in accordance with customer demands and needs bring
about many opportunities (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987). Customer orientation increases
new product success (Wong and Tong, 2012); facilitates product and performance leadership
(Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997); and positively affects relative product advantage (Ingenbleek
et al., 2010), originality of new product ideas (Spanjol et al., 2012), new product activities
(Frambach et al., 2003), radical product innovations (Govindarajan et al., 2011; Le Roy et al.,
2016) and the introduction of new-to-the-world products (Lukas and Ferrell, 2000).
Competitor orientation refers to a firm’s awareness of its current and potential competitors’
short-term strengths and weaknesses and long-term capabilities and strategies (Narver and
Slater, 1990). It is a firm’s efforts to discover its capabilities, resources and business activities
that are superior to those of its competitors and thereby provide it with competitive
advantage (Day and Wensley, 1988). Customer orientation seeks to discover customer needs
and focus on satisfying customers, while competitor orientation attempts to identify and
protect the organization’s specific self-competences, exploit weaknesses in competitors and
constantly survey opportunities and threats in the market (Spanjol et al., 2011). Customers
purchase the products and services that they think will best meet their needs. In addition to
customer orientation, superior customer value requires the firm to understand the products,
strategies, capabilities, strengths and weaknesses of competitors who offer similar products
and services to the same customers, which means that competitor orientation is also
necessary (Sørensen, 2009). For the success of product innovation, the firm should know what
its competitors do to meet customer needs (Bowman and Gatignon, 1995). Despite the
differences distinguishing competitor orientation and customer orientation, studies report
that competitor orientation contributes to the generation of new product ideas and has a
positive relationship with new product activity (Laforet, 2008). The fact that competitor-
oriented firms constantly survey competitors and exert efforts to differentiate their products
to distinguish themselves from the competitors facilitates innovation (Han et al., 1998).
Interfunctional coordination is the coordinated use of organizational resources to create
superior value for target customers (Narver and Slater, 1990). There should be integrity
between all activities carried out by each department in the organization in the course of
fulfilling their separate duties to create value for customers (Webster, 1988). Customer and
competitor orientation includes all activities involved in obtaining and disseminating
information about competitors and customers in the target market. However, interfunctional
coordination includes all the coordinated activities within the firm that serve to create superior
customer value based on customer and competitor information (Narver and Slater, 1990).
Cooperation between marketing, R&D, sales, production and engineering departments, the
use of resources, decision-making, development of functional abilities, employee participation
and conflict prevention are important issues in interfunctional relations (Walker and Ruekert,
1987). Interdepartmental collaboration enables the integration of capabilities of marketing,
production and other departments and helps the new product activities to meet customer
needs (Madhavan and Grover, 1998). The participation of marketing and production
departments in the innovation process positively affects innovation performance (Song et al.,
2010). There is a positive correlation between a high level of marketing and R&D coordination Market
and project performance in the early stages of project innovation (Olson et al., 2001). orientation and
Interfunctional coordination has a positive effect on the launching of line extensions, where
new products are introduced to the market (Lukas and Ferrell, 2000), and on the technical and
product
managerial aspects of organizational innovation (Han et al., 1998). innovation
The resource-based view is used to explain the role of resources in gaining competitive
advantage through innovation (Ahuja and Katila, 2004). The market knowledge about
customer needs and demands obtained through customer orientation is an important resource
for product innovation. The information obtained from customers is used in collecting ideas
for product innovation and design, determining target customers and market share,
identifying product properties and price and measuring customer purchasing power, all of
which have an impact on product innovation success. In addition, studies have found that
customer orientation supports product innovation (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997; Frambach
et al., 2003; Renko et al., 2009; Ingenbleek et al., 2010; Govindarajan et al., 2011; Wong and
Tong, 2012; Spanjol et al., 2012; Le Roy et al., 2016). The activities of competitors should be
taken into account to gain competitive advantage, which is the ultimate goal of the resource-
based view. Through competitor orientation, firms generate intelligence about competitors
and are thus informed about their products and strategies and the values they offer to
customers. Obtaining information about competitors, such as their product innovation costs,
product specifications, how they offer customers superior value and what can be done to gain
competitive advantage, is important for the success of product innovation. This idea has been
reinforced by studies, which have determined that intelligence obtained from competitors
supports product innovation (Laforet, 2008; Wong and Tong, 2012). Interfunctional
coordination refers to the capacity of a firm to use its resources and capabilities optimally.
It supports the success of product innovation by enabling the dissemination of market
knowledge obtained from customers and competitors across R&D, marketing, production and
other departments. Studies have found that interfunctional coordination affects product
innovation positively (Lukas and Ferrell, 2000; Madhavan and Grover, 1998; Song et al., 2010).
In line with these explanations, the first hypothesis of the research is presented below,
considering the effect of market orientation dimensions on product innovation.
H1a. The customer orientation dimension of market orientation has a positive effect on
product innovation.
H1b. The competitor orientation dimension of market orientation has a positive effect on
product innovation.
H1c. The interfunctional coordination dimension of market orientation has a positive
effect on product innovation.

2.5 The mediating effect of technological capability on the relationship between market
orientation and product innovation
Environmental adaptation and change of businesses often require information to be acquired
from the external environment (e.g. customers, competitors, etc.), which in turn promotes
learning and the evolution of business capabilities (Helfat, 2000). The basic feature of
technological capability is that it is based on knowledge (Renko et al., 2009). Technological
capability supports product innovation by increasing the use of existing expertise and
knowledge (Zhou and Wu, 2010). Market-oriented firms obtain information from customers
and competitors, disseminate market knowledge across functions and respond to customer
needs by using market knowledge. Therefore, the acquisition and dissemination of market
knowledge positively contributes to the development of technological capability by
increasing the firm’s knowledge capacity. The potential value of market orientation on
EJIM capability development depends on the success of using and developing the knowledge
obtained through market orientation (Murray et al., 2011). On the other hand, if firms with
high market orientation do not have strong technological capabilities, then they will have
difficulty in responding to market needs (Hsu et al., 2014). Technological capability meets
customer demands by creating superior customer value, increases customer satisfaction
(Wang et al., 2006) and positively affects customers’ perception of product innovation (Jung
et al., 2014). Technological capability has a positive effect on new product performance (Wang
et al., 2006), product innovativeness (Renko et al., 2009), exploitation (Zhou and Wu, 2010) and
product innovation (Jung et al., 2014).
Market orientation is an important business resource for product innovation. However,
the resources alone are not sufficient to gain competitive advantage; rather, they are
converted to competitive advantage through corporate capabilities (Baker and Sinkula, 2005).
According to Ketchen et al. (2007), resources have potential value only, and as such, must be
compatible with other organizational elements to realize the potential. Organizational
capabilities are needed to fully realize the value of market knowledge obtained through
market orientation (Morgan et al., 2009). When examining the ideas for product innovation,
they are evaluated in terms of compliance with business resources and basic capabilities
(Cooper, 1990, 2000). The ideas that cannot be developed using business resources are
eliminated (Boone and Kurtz, 2012). Therefore, even if a good idea for product innovation is
obtained from customers, or even if information about competitors’ activities is obtained, it
would still be difficult to meet market needs without sufficient technological capability. For
the success of product innovation, there must be strong synergy and harmony between
project needs and management resources and capabilities (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987). It
is assumed that market orientation contributes to the development of technological capability
through market knowledge obtained from the external environment, that technological
capability supports product innovation by facilitating the optimal use of knowledge and
abilities and that consequently, there is a causal relationship between market orientation,
technological capability and product innovation. In line with these explanations, it is also
assumed that technological capability plays a mediating role in transforming the information
obtained through market orientation dimensions into product innovation, and accordingly,
the second hypothesis of the research is established as follows:
H2a. Technological capability plays a mediating role in the effect of the customer
orientation dimension of market orientation on product innovation.
H2b. Technological capability plays a mediating role in the effect of the competitor
orientation dimension of market orientation on product innovation.
H2c. Technological capability plays a mediating role in the effect of the interfunctional
coordination dimension of market orientation on product innovation.

2.6 The relationship between market orientation and product innovation in terms of
technological intensity
Firms’ innovation activities differ to a certain degree according to their technological
intensities. Industries with low and low-medium technological intensity have lower R&D
intensity. Many firms in the low- and medium-tech industries have focused on improving
their existing products (Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2015). Compared to those with medium and high
technological intensity, firms with low technological intensity have lower product innovation
performance but can be better in process innovation (Kirner et al., 2009). Incremental
innovation activities are more common in low-tech industries (Trott and Simms, 2017).
Market knowledge stands out in firms with low and medium technological intensity, whereas
technology stands out in those with high technological intensity (Grimpe and Sofka, 2009).
Studies have reported that medium-high technology industries (54%) have a higher level of Market
innovation activities than that of low technology industries (34%), that the rate of product orientation and
innovation is 30% in the medium-high technology industries and 18% in the low-tech
industries, but that low-tech industries have better performance in improving quality,
product
increasing capacity, strengthening flexibility, reducing costs and decreasing energy innovation
consumption and material use (Heidenreich, 2009).
Firms that carry out product innovations differ from each other in various ways. Studies
have reported that the type of firm included in research samples, such as export firms or data
processing firms, has an effect on the relationship between market orientation and product
innovation (Zhang and Zhu, 2016; Hsu et al., 2014). Understanding the specific conditions of
firms is important in determining the relationship between market orientation and product
innovation because they use different sources of information in product innovation. One of
the defining features of innovation is the level of technology, as the information used by firms
varies significantly depending on whether a firm has a low or high technology level status
(Buenechea-Elberdin et al., 2018). High-tech firms rely on customers and competitors as an
information source for innovation (Cox et al., 2002). The importance of customers as a source
of information for innovation significantly varies in medium-high (35%) and low technology
industries (22%) (Heidenreich, 2009). Likewise, the intelligence obtained from competitors for
innovation differs in medium-high (37%) and low technology industries (27%) (Cox et al.,
2002). Costa et al. (2016) suggest that the R&D department, customers and competitors are
important sources of information for high-tech firms, whereas customers and competitors are
of medium importance in low-tech-intensive industries. The structure of product innovation
and the intensity of innovation activities can vary depending on the firms’ technological
intensities and thereby cause there to be major differences in the importance attributed to
information resources for innovation. Therefore, the effect of market orientation dimensions
on product innovation may vary depending on technological intensity. The third hypothesis,
which was established in line with these explanations, is presented below:
H3a. Market orientation dimensions have a positive effect on product innovation at low
technological intensity.
H3b. Market orientation dimensions have a positive effect on product innovation at
medium-low technological intensity.
H3c. Market orientation dimensions have a positive effect on product innovation at
medium-high technological intensity.
H3d. Market orientation dimensions have a positive effect on product innovation at high
technological intensity.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework for the research. Accordingly, the dimensions of
market orientation positively affect product innovation, and technological capability plays a
mediating role in the relationship between market orientation dimensions and product
innovation. The firms included in the study were classified according to the technological
intensity of their fields of activity and examined the effect of the market orientation
dimensions, including customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional
coordination, on product innovation (Figure 2). In this model, market turbulence, competitive
intensity, technological turbulence and firm size were determined as the control variables.

3. Methodology
3.1 Sample and data collection
Data from the top 1,000 firms (ISO 1000) in Turkey, as ranked by the Istanbul Chamber of
Industry (ISO), were used to test the hypotheses. In 2015, these firms commanded a 43.2%
EJIM Market Orientation
Technological
Capability

Customer Orientation
Product
Competitor Innovation
Orientation

Interfunctional
Coordination Market Turbulence
Figure 1. Competitive Intensity
Conceptual framework Technological Turbulence
Firm Size

share in Turkey’s total exports (US$61.3bn). Codes from the statistical classification of
economic activities in the European Community (NACE Rev. 2, 2016) were used to classify the
economic activities of these firms. Manufacturing firms strive to be competitive and gain
competitive advantage via product innovations that meet customer demands and needs in a
way that is superior to that of their competitors. An extensive work is carried out on product
innovation in manufacturing firms (Un et al., 2010; Song et al., 2010; Chen et al., 2014; Sok and
O’Cass, 2015; Zhang and Zhu, 2016), and these product innovations often prove to be decisive
for them to survive. This study has examined the product innovation activities performed by
1,000 manufacturing firms. The firms that were considered not to have product innovation in
their fields of economic activity, and those that were ranked in the ISO 1000 list but did not
wish to be part of this research were excluded from the study. Accordingly, the scope of the
research covered 627 of the firms from Turkey’s Top 1,000 Industrial Firms 2015 Survey that
were considered to have product innovation and that were classified under the principal
business activity (PBA) codes of 13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23 (excluding cement and concrete), 24,
25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 and 31 in the manufacturing industry.
One of the senior managers of the marketing, R&D and production departments of the 627
firms included in the scope of the research were contacted via phone and informed about the
study. Next, detailed information about the study was sent to the senior managers via e-mail
before they were asked to participate in the online survey. Each firm was contacted at least
three times at certain intervals. When these firms were examined according to technological
intensity, 19 firms were identified as having high technological intensity, 203 as having
medium-high technological intensity, 221 as having medium-low technological intensity and
184 as having low technological intensity. A total of 186 out of the 627 firms contacted
participated in the study, and the survey response rate was 29.66%. Five of the186 surveys
were considered unqualified for the study; therefore, a total of 181 questionnaires were
subject to study analysis. All firms included in the study (n: 181) were evaluated by analyzing
the relationship between market orientation and product innovation (H1) and the mediating
role of technological capability in this relationship (H2). These firms were classified according
to the technological intensity of their fields of activity in accordance with NACE’s
classification (NACE Rev. 2, 2016), and then each firm was evaluated according to its own
technological intensity. It was found that of the firms that disclosed their technological
intensity levels, 40 had low technological intensity, 62 had medium-low technological
intensity, 67 had medium-high technological intensity and four had high technological
intensity; however eight firms did not disclose their technological intensity levels. No rotation
or division was performed on the research models. According to the participants’
demographic characteristics, 59.1% had work experience of more than ten years, and most
had the title of R&D director (19%) and R&D manager (25%). In addition, 80% of the firms
who participated in the study had more than 250 employees. Of the firms who participated in
the study, 17% had an R&D center. Regarding their customer structures, 50% were Market
business-to-business (B2B) companies, and 42% were both B2B and business-to-consumer orientation and
(B2C) companies. The highest level of participation in the study was secured from the R&D,
production and marketing departments.
product
innovation
3.2 Measurement scales
After conducting a detailed literature review, the scales developed and tested in previous
studies were adapted and used in this study. The scale developed by Atuahene-Gima (2005)
was used to measure market orientation. This scale is based on a culture-based market
orientation approach. Atuahene-Gima, who developed the market orientation scale by
benefiting from the studies of Narver and Slater (1990) and of Zahra and Nielson (2002),
adapted the items of market orientation to new product development. The market orientation
scale consists of 17 items under three dimensions, including customer orientation (seven),
competitor orientation (four) and interfunctional coordination (six). It is a seven-point
Likert-type scale (1 5 strongly disagree, 7 5 strongly agree).
The scale developed by Zhang and Li (2010) was used to measure product innovation.
This scale was developed based on the studies of Brown and Eisenhardt (1995) and Lu (2000).
The product innovation scale consists of five items aimed at assessing a firm’s product
innovation activities in the past three years compared to those of its major competitors. It is a
seven-point Likert-type scale (1 5 much worse, 7 5 much better). The scale developed by
Zhou and Wu (2010) is used to measure technological capability and was developed by
benefiting from the studies of Gatignon and Xuereb (1997) and Song et al. (2005). The scale
consists of five items aimed at assessing a firm’s technological capability compared to that of
its major competitors. It is a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 5 much worse, 7 5 much better).
The study used firm size, market turbulence, competitive intensity and technological
turbulence as the control variables, as these have the potential to affect product innovation
(Augusto and Coelho, 2009; Yannopoulos et al., 2012; Atuahene-Gima, 2005). Firm size was
measured using the natural log of the number of employees (Un et al., 2010; Song and Chen,
2014; Yang et al., 2015). Studies have reported there to be a positive relationship between firm
size and product innovation (Damanpour, 1991; Laforet, 2008; Un et al., 2010; Zhou and Wu,
2010; Govindarajan et al., 2011; Buenechea-Elberdin et al., 2018). Compared to small firms,
large firms enjoy more advantages in the timely introduction of product innovation to the
market because they have greater resources and capabilities (Teece, 1986). Large firms have
easier access to funding for technology-based product innovation, to capital investment for
equipment and factories and to resources for marketing and other potential needs (Ettlie and
Rubenstein, 1987). Small-sized firms, on the other hand, are more flexible and less
bureaucratic (Damanpour, 1991) and have strong entrepreneurial and creativity skills,
providing them with an advantage for product innovation (Laforet, 2008). Market turbulence
refers to changes in customer composition and preferences (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). The
need of firms to develop new products to meet the changes in customer preferences affects
product innovation (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Cheng and Huizingh, 2014). Competitive
intensity refers to the degree of competition in a market (Cui et al., 2005). In a competitive
environment, product life cycle is shortened, and the product design process becomes more
complex, causing cost and price pressure (Fynes et al., 2005). Firms try to be more innovative
and differentiate their products to reduce competitive pressure in the market (Danneels,
2002). Technological turbulence is defined as the rate of technological change in an industry
(Jaworski and Kohli, 1993). Technological change enables firms to improve their existing
technology or adapt to new technology, and thus, product innovation increases along with
changing technology (Calantone et al., 2010; Wischnevsky et al., 2011). The scales adapted
from the study by Jaworski and Kohli (1993) were used to assess environmental factors,
which included market turbulence, competitive intensity and technological turbulence. The
EJIM four-item scale adapted by Wang and Chung (2013) to evaluate the rate of market change was
used to assess market turbulence, while the four-item scale adapted by Zhou and Wu (2010) to
evaluate the rate of technological change was used to assess technological turbulence. The
four-item seven-point-Likert-type scale (1 5 strongly disagree, 7 5 strongly agree) adapted
by Wang and Miao (2015) to evaluate the degree of competitive intensity in the market was
used to assess competitive intensity.
Early and late responders were compared to test the non-response bias in the study
(Armstrong and Overton, 1977). In particular, the results regarding the first and last
percentiles of the sample were analyzed using the independent samples t-test. Analysis
results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the early and late
responders for each variable in the theoretical structure (p < 0.05), an indication that there
was no non-response bias in the study.
In this study, the fact that the same respondent provided data on all variables and used
self-reports could result in what is referred to as common method bias (also known as
common method variance); therefore, Harman’s one-factor test was used to test for the
presence of this bias (Podsakoff and Organ, 1986). All items related to the study were
subjected to factor analysis without rotation. Nine factors with eigenvalues greater than 1
and accounting for 71% of the total variance were obtained from the factor analysis. The
factor analysis suggested that common method variance was not an important problem for
the study because the items were not accumulated under a single factor; the largest factor
accounted for 30% of the variance, and it did not explain more variance than the total
variance explained by all other factors.

4. Results
The partial least squares (PLS) structural equation modeling was preferred in the study,
because measurement errors were taken into account, sequential and multiple relationships
were identified (Hair et al., 2014) and better results were obtained when the sample size was
small (Cassel et al., 1999; Spanjol et al., 2012). The SmartPLS 3.2.7 program (Ringle et al., 2015)
was used for the PLS structural equation modeling. By taking into account the sample size
suggested for the PLS structural equation modeling (Hair et al., 2011; Cohen, 1992), the
number of relationships between the variables (max: 8) in the study’s conceptual framework
(Figure 1), the explained R2 values (0.33–0.53) and the significance levels, the study sample
size (n: 181) was considered sufficient. The PLS structural equation model is composed of two
sub-models: the measurement model and the structural model. Firstly, the reliability and
validity of the measurement model were evaluated by analyzing the measurement model, and
then the research hypotheses were tested by analyzing the relationships between the
variables in the structural model.

4.1 Reliability and validity

The reliability and validity of the measurement model in the PLS structural equation are
evaluated using internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and discriminant
validity (Hair et al., 2016). The internal consistency reliability was examined using Cronbach’s
alpha and composite reliability values. The internal consistency reliability of the structure
was considered to be sufficient, as Cronbach’s alpha values were above 0.70 (Nunnally and
Bernstein, 1994) and the composite reliability values ranged between 0.70 and 0.95 (Hair et al.,
2014) (Table 1). Convergent validity indicates the degree of the positive relationship between
an item and other items of the same variable. The convergent validity was examined through
factor loads, indicator reliability and average variance extracted (AVE). According to Hair
et al. (2014), an item should be deleted when its factor load is 0.40 or less and kept when it is
0.70 and above; if it is between 0.40 and 0.70, then its effect on internal consistency reliability
 Factor Indicator Cronbach’s Composite
Market
Variables Items loading reliability AVE α reliability orientation and
product
Customer orientation CUS1 0.76 0.57 0.53 0.85 0.89
CUS2 0.79 0.62 innovation
CUS3 0.62 0.38
CUS4 0.72 0.51
CUS5 0.73 0.53
CUS6 0.74 0.54
CUS7 0.71 0.50
Competitor orientation COM1 0.87 0.75 0.72 0.87 0.91
COM2 0.86 0.73
COM3 0.86 0.73
COM4 0.80 0.64
Interfunctional IFC1 0.86 0.73 0.70 0.91 0.93
coordination IFC2 0.87 0.75
IFC3 0.82 0.67
IFC4 0.84 0.70
IFC5 0.86 0.73
IFC6 0.78 0.60
Product innovation PI1 0.87 0.75 0.74 0.91 0.94
PI2 0.90 0.81
PI3 0.86 0.73
PI4 0.83 0.68
PI5 0.86 0.76
Technological TC1 0.87 0.75 0.77 0.93 0.94
capability TC2 0.90 0.81
TC3 0.85 0.72
TC4 0.90 0.81
TC5 0.87 0.75
Market turbulence MT1 0.81 0.65 0.63 0.72 0.83
MT2 0.77 0.59
MT3 0.80 0.64
Competitive intensity CI1 0.83 0.68 0.67 0.76 0.86
CI3 0.85 0.72
CI4 0.77 0.59
Technological TT1 0.82 0.67 0.78 0.86 0.91 Table 1.
turbulence TT2 0.91 0.82 Reliability and validity
TT3 0.92 0.84 of the
Note(s): AVE: average variance extracted measurement model

should be examined, and accordingly, if the item is considered to have a negative effect on
these parameters, it should be deleted (Hair et al., 2014). When the factor loads were examined
in accordance with Hair’s assessment, the item CUS3 (0.62) regarding customer orientation
was considered to have no negative effect on Cronbach’s α, composite reliability or AVE;
therefore, it was not excluded from the measurement model; however, one item (MT4, CI2,
TT4) from the control variables of market turbulence, competitive intensity and technological
turbulence was excluded from the model, as it negatively affected the internal consistency
and had an insufficient factor load. As a result, their factor loads were between 0.62 and 0.92,
and the adequacy of factor loads was confirmed for the convergent validity.
The indicator reliability values should be higher than 0.50 for the convergent validity
(Hair et al., 2014). Except for one item corresponding to indicator reliability values (CUS3:
0.38), all of them were above 0.50, and thus, the adequacy of indicator reliability was achieved.
The AVE should be above 0.50 for the convergent validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). As the
AVEs were above 0.50 (0.53–0.77), the convergent validity was considered to be sufficient.
EJIM The discriminant validity of the measurement model was evaluated using the
cross-loading table, the Fornell–Larcker criterion and the heterotrait-monotrait ratio
(HTMT) of correlations. According to the cross-load table, all items had the highest value
in their own factors. The Fornell–Larcker criterion states that the square root of the AVE for
all variables should be greater than all the correlations between that variable and other
variables (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Based on the Fornell–Larcker criterion, the variables
were considered to have adequate discriminant validity (Table 2). HTMT values should be
less than 0.90 or below the threshold of 0.85 under a more conservative approach (Henseler
et al., 2015). According to Table 3, discriminant validity was achieved, as the HTMT values of
all variables were below 0.73. As a result, the measurement model was considered reliable
and valid.

4.2 Structural model and hypotheses testing

The relationships between the variables were examined by analyzing the structural model.
The structural model was evaluated using collinearity, relationships between variables and
their significance, coefficient of determination (R2), effect size (f2) and predictive relevance
(Q2). Variance inflation factor (VIF) is used to assess whether there is collinearity between
variables in the structural model. A VIF value of higher than 5 or less than 0.2 indicates the
presence of a potential multicollinearity problem (Hair et al., 2014). The degree and direction
of the relationship among variables are examined using path coefficients. The statistical

Standard
Variables Mean deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Interfunctional 5.64 0.80 0.84

coordination
2 Customer 5.32 1.03 0.64 0.73
orientation
3 Market turbulence 5.53 0.95 0.37 0.33 0.79
4 Competitor 4.72 1.27 0.44 0.51 0.12 0.85
orientation
5 Competitive 5.33 1.05 0.18 0.00 0.32 0.04 0.82
intensity
6 Technological 5.26 1.17 0.28 0.18 0.36 0.08 0.26 0.88
turbulence
7 Technological 5.41 0.95 0.51 0.51 0.28 0.29 0.14 0.26 0.88
Table 2. capability
Fornell Larcker 8 Product innovation 5.35 1.03 0.51 0.47 0.37 0.34 0.16 0.24 0.68 0.86
criterion Note(s): Diagonal elements are the square root of AVE; other elements are latent variable correlations

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1 Interfunctional coordination
2 Customer orientation 0.73
3 Market turbulence 0.42 0.39
4 Competitor orientation 0.48 0.59 0.14
5 Competitive intensity 0.21 0.09 0.45 0.1
6 Technological turbulence 0.32 0.22 0.46 0.09 0.33
Table 3. 7 Technological capability 0.55 0.57 0.31 0.31 0.17 0.29
HTMT ratio 8 Product innovation 0.55 0.52 0.42 0.38 0.18 0.26 0.74
significance of path coefficients was evaluated using the bootstrapping procedure with 1,000 Market
subsamples. The R2 value, which represents the proportion of the variance for an endogenous orientation and
variable (dependent variable) that is explained by an exogenous variable (independent
variable), is examined in the structural model. The R2 value above 0.8 indicates the presence
product
of multicollinearity (Garson, 2016). Effect size (f2) is used to examine the effect of exogenous innovation
variables on the proportion of the variance for an endogenous variable. The f2 values of 0.02,
0.15 and 0.35 represent small, medium and high effects, respectively. Predictive relevance (Q2)
is used to assess model fit, i.e. how well the structural model predicts the actual state; a Q2
value of greater than zero suggests that the model can predict the actual state (Chin, 1998;
Hair et al., 2014). In addition, the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) value is used
to assess the model fit of a PLS structural equation. A value of SRMR less than 0.8 is desirable
and generally considered a good fit of the model, but it is usually expected to be less than 1
(Garson, 2016).
The effect of control variables on product innovation was examined in Model 1 (Table 4).
Market turbulence (β 5 0.32, p 5 0.000), one of the control variables, had a positive effect on
product innovation, whereas other control variables, including competitive intensity,
technological turbulence and firm size, had no significant effect on it. The control variables
accounted for 15% of the variance in product innovation. Independent variables were
included in model 2 to examine the effect of customer orientation, competitor orientation and
interfunctional coordination on product innovation. Accordingly, customer orientation
(β 5 0.18, p 5 0.031) had a positive effect on product innovation, and therefore, H1a was
accepted. However, H1b was rejected because competitor orientation (β 5 0.12, p 5 0.168) had
no significant effect on product innovation. On the other hand, interfunctional coordination
(β 5 0.26, p 5 0.014) had a positive effect on product innovation, and therefore, H1c was
accepted. As the variables in the structural model had VIF values between 1.03 and 2.03, there
was no collinearity problem in the model. Customer orientation, competitor orientation and
interfunctional coordination accounted for 30% of the variance in product innovation. In
addition, customer orientation (f2 5 0.02) and interfunctional coordination (f2 5 0.05) had a
low level effect (0.02 < f2 < 0.15) on the R2 value of product innovation. The value of Q2 was
0.2, which indicated that the model had the ability to estimate the actual state (Q2 > 0).
The mediating role of technological capability in the effect of customer orientation,
competitor orientation and interfunctional coordination on product innovation was examined in
model 3 (Table 4). The significance of the mediating effect was evaluated according to the steps
outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986). In the first step to assess the mediating role of technological
capability in the effect of market orientation on product innovation, customer orientation
(β 5 0.18, p 5 0.031) was found to have a positive effect on product innovation. In the second
step, technological capability was included in the model, and customer orientation (β 5 0.30,
p 5 0.001) was found to have a positive effect on technological capability. In the third step,
technological capability (β 5 0.54, p 5 0.000) was found to have a positive effect on product
innovation. In the final step, customer orientation (β 5 0.007, p 5 0.923) was found to no longer
have a significant effect on product innovation after technological capability was included in the
model. In this regard, technological capability was determined to play a full mediating role in the
effect of customer orientation on product innovation, and therefore, H2a was accepted.
The mediating role of technological capability in the effect of competitor orientation on
product innovation was examined. Accordingly, competitor orientation (β 5 0.12, p 5 0.168)
had no significant effect on product innovation. As it did not meet the first condition of the
mediating variable, technological capability had no mediating role in the effect of competitor
orientation on product innovation, and therefore, H2b was rejected. The mediating role of
technological capability in the effect of interfunctional coordination on product innovation
was examined. In the first step to assess the mediating effect, interfunctional coordination
(β 5 0.26, p 5 0.014) was found have a positive effect on product innovation. In the second
 EJIM

Table 4.

capability
technological
mediating role of
innovation and the
The effect of market
orientation on product
Relationship Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Direct effect β t-value p-value β t-value p-value β t-value p-value

Control variables
Market turbulence–product innovation 0.32*** 5.04 0.000 0.18** 2.49 0.013 0.15*** 3.10 0.002
Competitive intensity–product innovation 0.02 0.32 0.871 0.04 0.56 0.570 0.01 0.16 0.868
Technological turbulence–product innovation 0.11 1.59 0.743 0.04 0.74 0.454 0.005 0.09 0.927
Firm size–product innovation 0.01 0.16 0.110 0.03 0.19 0.602 0.02 0.51 0.608
Market orientation
Customer orientation–product innovation 0.18** 2.15 0.031 0.007 0.09 0.923
Competitor orientation–product innovation 0.12 1.39 0.168 0.11 1.61 0.107
Interfunctional coordination–product innovation 0.26** 2.46 0.014 0.12 1.25 0.21
Technological capability
Technological capability–product innovation 0.54*** 7.39 0.000
Customer orientation–technological capability 0.30*** 3.40 0.001
Competitor orientation–technological capability 0.009 0.11 0.909
Interfunctional coordination–technological capability 0.31*** 3.35 0.001
Indirect effect
Customer orientation–product innovation 0.16*** 2.70 0.007
Competitor orientation–product innovation 0.005 0.11 0.909
Interfunctional coordination–product innovation 0.17*** 3.11 0.002
VIF 1.02–1.24 1.03–2.03 1.03–2.04
R2 0.15 0.33 0.53
Adjusted R2 0.13 0.31 0.51
f2 MT(0.03) IFC(0.05), Cus0(0.02), MT(0.02) TC(0.42), MT (0.03)
Q2 0.09 0.22 0.35
SRMR 0.07 0.07 0.07
Note(s): ***p < 0.001(two-tailed), **p < 0.05 (two-tailed), MT: market turbulence, IFC: interfunctional coordination, CusO: customer orientation, TC: technological
capability, endogenous variable: product innovation
step, technological capability was included in the model, and interfunctional coordination Market
(β 5 0.31, p 5 0.001) was found to have a positive effect on technological capability. In the orientation and
third step, technological capability (β 5 0.54, p 5 0.000) was found to have a positive effect on
product innovation. In the final step, interfunctional coordination (β 5 0.12, p 5 0.21) was
product
found to no longer have a significant effect on product innovation after technological innovation
capability was included in the model. In this regard, technological capability was determined
to play a full mediating role in the effect of interfunctional coordination on product
innovation, and therefore, H2c was accepted. In addition, the Sobel test also showed that
technological capability played a mediating role in the effect of customer orientation
(z 5 3.11,829,399, p < 0.001) and interfunctional coordination (z 5 3.18,046,824, p < 0.001) on
product innovation. As the VIF values of the variables in the structural model were between
1.03 and 2.04, there was no collinearity problem in the model. The model examining the
mediating role of technological capability explained 53% of the variance in product
innovation. In addition, technological capability had a high level effect (0.15 < f2) on the R2
value of product innovation. The value of Q2 was 0.3, which indicated that the model had the
ability to estimate the actual state (Q2 > 0).

Low technology Medium-low technology Medium-high technology

Relationship β t-value p-value β t-value p-value β t-value p-value

Control variables
Market turbulence 0.01 0.08 0.937 0.30** 2.35 0.019 0.07 0.53 0.59
Competitive intensity 0.04 0.22 0.820 0.19 0.99 0.320 0.04 0.26 0.788
Technological turbulence 0.03 0.22 0.822 0.03 0.28 0.774 0.12 1.11 0.267
Firm size 0.10 0.65 0.514 0.03 0.36 0.716 0.08 0.80 0.42

Market orientation
Customer orientation 0.24 1.12 0.262 0.11 0.70 0.479 0.33** 1.99 0.047
Competitor orientation 0.09 0.39 0.693 0.15 0.99 0.322 0.19 1.23 0.217
Interfunctional coordination 0.47** 2.52 0.012 0.18 0.76 0.443 0.13 0.83 0.406
VIF 1.02–1.24 1.05–2.91 1.13–2.45
R2 0.42 0.40 0.42
Adjusted R2 0.30 0.32 0.35
f2 IFC(0.18), Cus0(0.05) ComO(0.05), CI(0.05), MT(0.09) Cus0(0.08), ComO (0.03), TT(0.02)
Table 5.
Q2 0.26 0.23 0.24
The effect of market
SRMR 0.1 0.09 0.07
orientation dimensions
Note(s): ***p < 0.001(two-tailed), **p < 0.05 (two-tailed), endogenous variable: product innovation, MT: on product innovation
market turbulence, IFC: interfunctional coordination, CusO: customer orientation, ComO: competitor according to
orientation, CI: competitive intensity, TT: technological turbulence technological intensity

0.6
Orientation Dimensions

0.5
Effect of Market

0.4
Customer Orientation
0.3
0.2 Competitor Orientation
0.1 Interfunctional
0.0 Coordination Figure 2.
The effect of market
-0.1 orientation dimensions
Low Medium-low Medium-high
on product innovation
technology technology technology according to
Product Innovation technological intensity
EJIM For H3, the effect of market orientation on product innovation was examined by
classifying the 627 firms that were included in the study according to NACE’s technological
intensity classification, in line with their fields of activity. The effect of the market orientation
dimensions on product innovation was not evaluated at high technological intensity due to
the low number of high-tech firms (n: 4). Therefore, H3d was rejected. In addition, eight firms
whose technological intensity could not be determined were not evaluated in H3, and
accordingly, the data from 169 firms in total were analyzed. The effect of market orientation
dimensions, including customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional
coordination, on product innovation was examined according to low, medium-low and
medium-high technological intensities. Accordingly, customer orientation (β 5 0.24,
p 5 0.262) and competitor orientation (β 5 0.09, p 5 0.693) had no significant effect on
product innovation in firms with low technological intensity (Table 5 and Figure 2). Figure 2
shows the effect (β values) of the market orientation dimensions on product innovation
according to low, medium-low and medium-high technological intensity. Interfunctional
coordination (β 5 0.47, p 5 0.012) had a positive effect on product innovation (therefore, H3a
was accepted partially). Customer orientation (β 5 0.11, p 5 0.479), competitor orientation
(β 5 0.15, p 5 0.322) and interfunctional coordination (β 5 0.18, p 5 0.443) had no significant
effect on product innovation in firms with medium-low technological intensity (therefore, H3b
was rejected). Customer orientation (β 5 0.33, p 5 0.477) had a positive effect on product
innovation in firms with medium-high technological intensity. However, interfunctional
coordination (β 5 0.13, p 5 0.406) and competitor orientation (β 5 0.19, p 5 0.217) had no
significant effect on product innovation in these firms (therefore, H3c was accepted partially).

5. Discussion
This study examined the relationship between product innovation and market orientation
dimensions, which included customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional
coordination, and the mediating role of technological capability in this relationship. In
addition, it investigated the effect of market orientation dimensions on product innovation
according to technological intensity. This study assessed the relationships by using the
conceptual framework developed particularly on the basis of the resource-based view, with
the hope that the results shall contribute valuable information to the literature.
This study found that customer orientation, one of the dimensions of market orientation
had a positive effect on product innovation (Table 4, model 2). Customer orientation enables
firms to understand customer needs and expectations and thus contributes to the formation
of new product ideas, the development of new products, the introduction of them to the
market and the success of product innovation. The results obtained in this study support
those reported in previous studies (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997; Wong and Tong, 2012; Le Roy
et al., 2016). Contrary to expectations, this study found that competitor orientation did not
have a significant effect on product innovation. Previous studies determined that competitor
orientation contributed to the formation of new product ideas and had a significant
relationship with new product development (Laforet, 2008; Atuahene-Gima, 2005; Augusto
and Coelho, 2009), positively affecting product development success (Wong and Tong, 2012).
On the other hand, studies have shown that competitor-oriented firms are less interested in
new product activities, and that competitor orientation negatively affects new product
activities and relative product advantage (Frambach et al., 2003) and significantly contributes
to counterfeit products activity (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997); however, competitor orientation
has been reported to have no significant relationship with product radicalness, product
similarity, product advantage (Lukas and Ferrell, 2000) and innovation activities (Han et al.,
1998). Studies also report that competitor-oriented firms replicate their competitors’ products
and do not focus on innovation activities (Frambach et al., 2003), which adversely affects
product innovation (Lukas and Ferrell, 2000), and therefore, competitor orientation has no Market
significant effect on product innovation. Furthermore, this study found that interfunctional orientation and
coordination had a positive effect on product innovation. Organizational resources are
effectively used through interfunctional coordination, creating superior customer value
product
(Narver and Slater, 1990). In particular, coordination between R&D, marketing and innovation
production departments contributes to reducing costs (Langerak, 2003), increasing the
effectiveness of R&D (De Luca et al., 2010), efficient use of the resources and dissemination of
the information, ensuring communication and cooperation and increasing the speed of
innovation. Therefore, interfunctional coordination is considered important in the efficient
use of market knowledge and in responding to the market through product innovation.
This study found that technological capability played a mediating role in the effect of market
orientation dimensions, particularly customer orientation and interfunctional coordination, on
product innovation (Table 4, Model 3). Technological capability enables firms to transform
market knowledge into product innovation. Therefore, technological capability was considered
to have a distinctive role in the success of new products developed by the firms, all of which
obtained similar information about the market, by enabling them to transform the information
into product innovation. Even if firms have new product ideas for meeting customer needs, they
have difficulty in putting these ideas into practice and cannot create solutions for customer needs
when they have a low level of technological capability (Hsu et al., 2014). However, when they
have high level of technological capability, even if they develop a product with superior features
as a result of product innovation, they may fail if they cannot meet customer needs, provide
customers with appropriate solutions, gain product advantage over competitors and reach
sufficient market size. Market orientation was considered to help firms to optimize technological
capability for the success of product innovation. In addition, this study found that technological
capability had a positive effect on product innovation, and this result is consistent with those
reported by previous studies (Acur et al., 2010). This study further determined that competitor
orientation did not have a significant effect on technological capability, and that technological
capability had no mediating role in the effect of competitor orientation on product innovation.
Competitor-oriented firms may tend to imitate their competitors instead of improving their
technological capabilities (Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997), and this is likely why competitor
orientation has no significant contribution to the development of technological capability.
This study classified the firms under three technological intensity groups, namely, low,
medium-low and medium-high technology, according to NACE’s classification, in line with
their fields of activity, and then examined the effect of market orientation dimensions,
which included customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional
coordination, on product innovation. Accordingly, interfunctional coordination had a
positive effect on product innovation in the firms with low technological intensity (Table 5).
In industries with low technological intensity, market growth rates are relatively low, but
competition intensity is high and cost leadership is important (Kirner et al., 2009;
Heidenreich, 2009). Interfunctional coordination contributes to the effective use of business
resources, decision-making and implementation and information flow and communication,
as well as conducting activities simultaneously. Interfunctional coordination is important
for reducing the errors in product innovation processes, preventing wastes, reducing costs
and increasing productivity.
This study found that customer orientation had a positive effect on product innovation in
firms with high technological intensity. Turkey has a foreign trade surplus in products with
low technological intensity, a trade balance in products with medium-low technological
intensity and a foreign trade deficit in products with high and medium-high technological
intensity. The share of high-tech products in the exports of the Turkish manufacturing
industry is quite low (Karadam, 2014). Turkey has a high level of competitive power in
products with low and medium-low technological intensity, whereas it has no
EJIM competitiveness in products with high technological intensity (Topcu and Sarigul, 2015). The
low level of competitiveness of firms with medium-high technological intensity may lead
these firms to gain more information from the external environment and to better understand
customer needs; therefore, customer orientation can have a positive effect on product
innovation. Obtaining new information from customers significantly contributes to the
processes of product development under high technological intensity. However, it is easy to
integrate and use the information obtained from customers at low technological intensity,
which significantly contributes to the process of product development (Chang and Taylor,
2016). In addition to its positive effect on product innovation at medium-high technological
intensity, customer orientation also had a positive but not significant effect on product
innovation at low technological intensity As a result, the effect of competitor orientation on
production innovation increases, but the effect of interfunctional coordination on product
innovation decreases as technological intensity increases. This study’s results support those
of previous studies, suggesting that as technological intensity increases, the importance of
customer orientation and competitor orientation for product innovation increases
(Heidenreich, 2009; Cox et al., 2002; Costa et al., 2016).
This study found that market turbulence, one of the control variables, had a positive
impact on the effect of market orientation on product innovation and also on the mediating
role of technological capability in this effect. Competitive intensity, technological turbulence
and firm size did not have a significant effect on product innovation. The control variables
had no significant effect on product innovation at low technological intensity. Only market
turbulence had a positive effect on product innovation at medium-low technological intensity.
Technological turbulence had an increased but insignificant effect on product innovation at
medium-high technological intensity.
The ultimate goal of the resource-based view is to achieve and maintain competitive
advantage through resources and capabilities (Barney, 1991). Businesses can gain
competitive advantage with successful product innovations. To secure product innovation
success, it is important to obtain market knowledge and transform it into product innovations
that can meet market needs. This study found that strong customer and interfunctional
coordination had a positive effect on product innovation. Although the importance of
customer orientation for product innovation is well known (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987;
Wong and Tong, 2012; Le Roy et al., 2016), interfunctional coordination was found to have a
significant effect on product innovation by enabling the dissemination and use of market
knowledge. In addition, market orientation was seen as an intangible resource (Hunt and
Morgan, 1995) for product innovation and was found to have a positive effect on the
development of technological capability. This study also determined that technological
capability was needed to take full advantage of market orientation and offer the best value to
customers. Technological capability, an ability considered a resource, had a positive effect on
product innovation (Zhou and Wu, 2010). As an organizational factor, it played a mediating
role in the effect of market orientation on product innovation. In examining the relationship
between market orientation and product innovation according to technology intensity, this
study took into account the characteristics of firms, as the importance of information
resources for innovation varies by technological intensity. Accordingly, interfunctional
coordination and customer orientation are at the forefront in firms with low technological
intensity, whereas the importance of customer orientation and competitor orientation
increases in firms with medium-high technological intensity. In this respect, the inferences
drawn from these relationships according to business characteristics can contribute to the
literature. Furthermore, this study has contributed valuable information to discussions about
the positive (Hurley and Hult, 1998; Hooley et al., 2000; Baker and Sinkula, 2005; Chang et al.,
2010) or negative effects (Macdonald, 1995; Frosch, 1996; Berthon et al., 2004) of market
orientation on product innovation by showing that in the case of the manufacturing firms
sampled in this study, market orientation has a positive effect. Moreover, this study has Market
found that making optimal use of market orientation and focusing on organizational factors orientation and
(Augusto and Coelho, 2009), like technological capability, are important for product
innovation success. More specific results can be obtained by considering other business
product
characteristics, such as technological intensity. innovation

5.1 Managerial implications

One of the critical success factors, probably the most important one, for firms to achieve their
goals and targets is the success of product innovation (Griffin and Page, 1996; Evanschitzky
et al., 2012). This study found that market orientation dimensions, particularly customer
orientation and interfunctional coordination, had a positive effect on product innovation. For
firms to be market oriented, the business culture should have values and beliefs that are
directed toward customer priority (Deshpand
e et al., 1993). For the success of product
innovation, it is necessary to understand customer needs and expectations and to obtain
information about product innovation (Cooper and Kleinschmidt, 1987; Kohli and Jaworski,
1990). Market needs should be met by disseminating and using the information obtained from
the market within the firm by ensuring the coordination among departments, such as R&D,
marketing, production and others. Managers should establish effective mechanisms for
obtaining market knowledge, disseminating this information and ensuring coordination
between functions. This study found no significant effect of competitor orientation on
product innovation. Managers should furthermore take into account that competitor
orientation can lead to counterfeiting and, in particular, hinder radical product innovation.
The development of firms depends on the degree to which their technological capabilities
enable them to create new products (Guerra and Camargo, 2016). Technological capability
has an important place in product innovation, as it has a positive effect both on the
transformation of market knowledge into product innovation and also directly on product
innovation. Therefore, firms need to find ways to improve their technological capabilities.
This study determined that customer orientation and interfunctional coordination
significantly contributed to technological capability. However, competitor orientation did
not significantly contribute to the development of technological capability. Therefore, firms
that want to improve their technological capability should focus their attention on dealing
with competitor orientation more carefully. When firms do not have technological capability
to transform the information they obtain from the internal or external environment into
innovative products, they need to find ways to gain this capability.
When the firms were examined according to their technological intensities, different
dimensions of market orientation came to the forefront. At low technological intensity, the
dimension of interfunctional coordination had a significant effect on product innovation;
however, customer orientation did not have a significant effect on it, but should, nonetheless,
still be taken into consideration. In addition, environmental factors had no significant effect
on product innovation at low technological intensity. At medium-low technological intensity,
market orientation dimensions did not have a significant effect on product innovation, except
for market turbulence, in terms of the control variables. At medium-high technological
intensity, customer orientation had a significant effect on product innovation, and although it
was not significant, the effect of competitor orientation and technological turbulence on
product innovation increased. By taking into account the firms’ own technological intensities,
these results can contribute to market-oriented activities and product innovation.
One of the main factors in gaining competitive advantage is to be successful in product
innovation (Griffin and Page, 1996; Rainey, 2008; Slater et al., 2014). Business managers should
be able to not only produce solutions for obtaining market knowledge that may be important for
product innovation but also to transform the potential of this information source into customer
value through product innovation. While obtaining the intelligence, they should identify the
EJIM actions necessary to obtain, process, analyze and integrate customer information into strategies
and plans to better understand the needs and expectations of existing and potential customers,
technology and other factors affecting the customers (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990; Lafferty and
Hult, 2001). Likewise, they should design processes for acquiring, processing and analyzing
information about existing and potential competitors’ products and strategies, customer-
oriented activities and strengths and weaknesses (Day and Wensley, 1988; Narver and Slater,
1990; Spanjol et al., 2011). Interfunctional coordination contributes to product innovation by
ensuring the optimal use of information about customers and competitors. Business capabilities,
such as technological capability, are needed to transform market orientation into product
innovation as a desired output. Through a customer orientation approach, managers can
support the development of technological capability by obtaining information about customers’
needs and expectations regarding new products and their attitudes toward technological
changes and by establishing well-functioning coordination between departments, like R&D,
marketing and production. Technological capability transforms market knowledge into a
successful product innovation that meets customer needs. Business managers should develop
their technological capability or find ways to gain this capability for product innovation and be
sure to consider their business conditions, such as technological intensity, in the relationship
between market orientation and product innovation. Product innovation activities may vary
depending on technological intensity (Heidenreich, 2009; Hirsch-Kreinsen, 2015; Costa et al., 2016;
Kearney et al., 2019). Interfunctional coordination and customer orientation are more important
for firms with low technological intensity, whereas customer orientation and competitor
orientation are more important for firms with medium high technological intensity. Therefore,
business managers should interpret the results obtained in this study or in similar studies by
considering their business conditions. Accordingly, they can gain competitive advantage with
product innovations they offer to the market by taking into account market orientation, which
provides information from the external environment, technological capability, which enables
firms to use resources efficiently, and other business conditions, such as technological intensity.

5.2 Limitations and future research

The effect of market orientation on product innovation was evaluated according to
technological intensity classification, which included low, medium-low and medium-high
technological intensity but excluded high technological intensity. This was because only 19
out of the 627 firms that were included in the study are engaged in high-tech industries and
also only four out of these 19 firms that were ranked on the ISO 1000 list participated in the
study. That is, the number of such firms was inadequate for an accurate assessment. While
this was the most important limitation of this study, the firms with high technological
intensity were included in the analysis conducted for other hypotheses. In addition, all firms
included in the study were classified according to their own technological intensity when
evaluating them according to technological intensity levels, which led the present study to
have a lower sample size. Therefore, the use of larger samples in future studies would be
beneficial in terms of supporting the results of this study on technological intensity. In this
study, the data were collected using a survey technique, where subjective measurements
were performed. Therefore, additional studies on this subject should evaluate whether
performing objective measurements can contribute to the validity and reliability of the results
of this study. The study included successful firms, which happened to be large firms
constituting the majority of the Turkish manufacturing industry. The fact that the study did
not cover firms that were unsuccessful in product innovation, industries other than the
manufacturing industry, small firms and other countries and economies limited the
generalizability of its results.
In future studies, academicians can perform more comprehensive evaluations on this subject
by including other information sources, such as suppliers and universities, to the market
orientation dimensions of customer orientation, competitor orientation and interfunctional Market
coordination. Other orientations, like learning orientation and entrepreneurship orientation, can orientation and
be studied together as complementary to market orientation. In this study, considering that the
sample consisted of firms only from Turkey, it is recommended that future studies research
product
other countries to increase the validity and generalizability of these results. This study examined innovation
product innovation, yet, by focusing on radical product innovation or incremental product
innovation, different dimensions of market orientation may come to the forefront. In addition to
market orientation’s effect on product innovation, studies on the relationship between market
orientation and other types of innovation, such as business model innovation, digital innovation,
network innovation and reverse innovation, can contribute valuable information to the
literature. Finally, in addition to the need for further studies on the relationship between
technological capability and market orientation, empirical studies on technological intensity in
different fields would also contribute to the literature.

References
Acur, N., Kandemir, D., De Weerd-Nederhof, P.C. and Song, M. (2010), “Exploring the impact of
technological competence development on speed and NPD program performance”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 915-929.
Ahuja, G. and Katila, R. (2004), “Where do resources come from? The role of idiosyncratic situations”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 25 Nos 8-9, pp. 887-907.
Amit, R. and Schoemaker, P.J. (1993), “Strategic assets and organizational rent”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 33-46.
Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail surveys”, Journal of
Marketing Research, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 396-402.
Atuahene-Gima, K. (2005), “Resolving the capability—rigidity paradox in new product innovation”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 4, pp. 61-83.
Augusto, M. and Coelho, F. (2009), “Market orientation and new-to-the-world products: exploring the
moderating effects of innovativeness, competitive strength, and environmental forces”,
Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 94-108.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2005), “Market orientation and the new product paradox”, Journal of
Product Innovation Management, Vol. 22 No. 6, pp. 483-502.
Baker, W.E. and Sinkula, J.M. (2007), “Does market orientation facilitate balanced innovation
programs? An organizational learning perspective”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 316-334.
Barczak, G., Griffin, A. and Kahn, K.B. (2009), “Perspective: trends and drivers of success in NPD
practices: results of the 2003 PDMA best practices study”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 3-23.
Barney, J. (1991), “Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage”, Journal of Management,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 99-120.
Baron, R.M. and Kenny, D.A. (1986), “The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations”, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 1173-1182.
Bennett, R.C. and Cooper, R.G. (1981), “The misuse of marketing: an American tragedy”, Business
Horizons, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 51-61.
Berthon, P., Mac Hulbert, J. and Pitt, L. (2004), “Innovation or customer orientation? An empirical
investigation”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 38 Nos 9/10, pp. 1065-1090.
Bhuian, S.N. (1998), “An empirical examination of market orientation in Saudi Arabian manufacturing
companies”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 13-25.
EJIM Boone, L.E. and Kurtz, D.L. (2012), Contemporary Marketing, 15th ed., Cengage Learning.
Bowman, D. and Gatignon, H. (1995), “Determinants of competitor response time to a new product
introduction”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 42-53.
Brown, S.L. and Eisenhardt, K.M. (1995), “Product development: past research, present findings, and
future directions”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 343-378.
Buenechea-Elberdin, M., Kianto, A. and S
aenz, J. (2018), “Intellectual capital drivers of product and
managerial innovation in high-tech and low-tech firms”, R&D Management, Vol. 48 No. 3,
pp. 290-307.
Calantone, R.J., Harmancioglu, N. and Droge, C. (2010), “Inconclusive innovation ‘returns’: a meta-
analysis of research on innovation in new product development”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1065-1081.
Cappa, F., Oriani, R., Pinelli, M. and De Massis, A. (2019), “When does crowdsourcing benefit firm
stock market performance?”, Research Policy, Vol. 48 No. 9, 103825, pp. 1-11.
Cassel, C., Hackl, P. and Westlund, A.H. (1999), “Robustness of partial least-squares method for estimating
latent variable quality structures”, Journal of Applied Statistics, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 435-446.
Chang, W. and Taylor, S.A. (2016), “The effectiveness of customer participation in new product
development: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 80 No. 1, pp. 47-64.
Chang, T.J., Chen, W.C., Lin, L.Z. and Chiu, J.S.K. (2010), “The impact of market orientation on
customer knowledge development and NPD success”, International Journal of Innovation and
Technology Management, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 303-327.
Chen, Y., Tang, G., Jin, J., Xie, Q. and Li, J. (2014), “CEO s’ transformational leadership and product
innovation performance: the roles of corporate entrepreneurship and technology orientation”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31, pp. 2-17.
Cheng, C.C. and Huizingh, E.K. (2014), “When is open innovation beneficial? The role of strategic
orientation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1235-1253.
Chin, W.W. (1998), “The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling”, Modern
Methods for Business Research, Vol. 295 No. 2, pp. 295-336.
Cohen, W.M. and Levinthal, D.A. (1990), “Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and
innovation”, Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 128-152.
Cohen, J. (1992), “A power primer”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 112 No. 1, pp. 155-159.
Coombs, J.E. and Bierly, P.E. III (2006), “Measuring technological capability and performance”, R&D
Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 421-438.
Cooper, R.G. (1979), “Identifying industrial new product success: project NewProd”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 124-135.
Cooper, R.G. (1980), “Project NewProd: factors in new product success”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 14 Nos 5/6, pp. 277-292.
Cooper, R.G. (1990), “Stage-gate systems: a new tool for managing new products”, Business Horizons,
Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 44-54.
Cooper, R.G. (2000), “Doing it right”, Ivey Business Journal, Vol. 64 No. 6, pp. 54-60.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1987), “Success factors in product innovation”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 215-223.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (1995), “New product performance: keys to success, profitability &
cycle time reduction”, Journal of Marketing Management, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 315-337.
Cooper, R.G. and Kleinschmidt, E.J. (2007), “Winning businesses in product development: the critical
success factors”, Research-Technology Management, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 52-66.
Costa, E., Cabral, J.E., Forte, S.H. and Costa, M.P. (2016), “Patterns of technological innovation: a
comparative analysis between low-tech and high-tech industries in Brazil”, International
Journal of Innovation, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 97-111.
Cox, H., Frenz, M. and Prevezer, M. (2002), “Patterns of innovation in UK industry: exploring the CIS Market
data to contrast high and low technology industries”, Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics,
Vol. 13, pp. 267-304. orientation and
Cui, A.S., Griffith, D.A. and Cavusgil, S.T. (2005), “The influence of competitive intensity and market
product
dynamism on knowledge management capabilities of multinational corporation subsidiaries”, innovation
Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 32-53.
Damanpour, F. (1991), “Organizational innovation: a meta-analysis of effects of determinants and
moderators”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 555-590.
Danneels, E. (2002), “The dynamics of product innovation and firm competences”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 12, pp. 1095-1121.
Day, G.S. and Wensley, R. (1988), “Assessing advantage: a framework for diagnosing competitive
superiority”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 52 No. 2, pp. 1-20.
De Luca, L.M., Verona, G. and Vicari, S. (2010), “Market orientation and R&D effectiveness in High-
Technology firms: an empirical investigation in the biotechnology industry”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 299-320.
Deshpand
e, R., Farley, J.U. and Webster, F.E. Jr (1993), “Corporate culture, customer orientation,
and innovativeness in Japanese firms: a quadrad analysis”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57,
pp. 23-37.
Dursun, T. and Kilic, C. (2015), “The effect of market orientatıon on new product performance:
the role of strategic capabilities”, Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 169-188.
Ettlie, J.E. and Rubenstein, A.H. (1987), “Firm size and product innovation”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 89-108.
Evanschitzky, H., Eisend, M., Calantone, R.J. and Jiang, Y. (2012), “Success factors of product
innovation: an updated meta-analysis”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29
No. 1, pp. 21-37.
Felton, A.P. (1959), “Making the marketing concept work”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 37, pp. 55-65.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 39-50.
Frambach, R.T., Prabhu, J. and Verhallen, T.M. (2003), “The influence of business strategy on new
product activity: the role of market orientation”, International Journal of Research in Marketing,
Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 377-397.
Frosch, R.A. (1996), “The customer for R&D is always wrong!”, Research-Technology Management,
Vol. 39 No. 6, pp. 22-27.


Fynes, B., de BUrca, S. and Voss, C. (2005), “Supply chain relationship quality, the competitive
environment and performance”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 43 No. 16,
pp. 89-108.
Garson, D. (2016), Partial Least Squares (PLS-SEM), Statistical Associates Publishing, Asheboro, NC.
Gatignon, H. and Xuereb, J.M. (1997), “Strategic orientation of the firm and new product performance”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 77-90.

Gonz
alez-Benito, J. and Mu~
Gonz
alez-Benito, O., noz-Gallego, P.A. (2014), “On the consequences of
market orientation across varied environmental dynamism and competitive intensity levels”,
Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Govindarajan, V., Kopalle, P.K. and Danneels, E. (2011), “The effects of mainstream and emerging
customer orientations on radical and disruptive innovations”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 121-132.
Grant, R.M. (1991), “The resource-based theory of competitive advantage. implications for strategy
formulation”, California Management Review, Vol. 33 No. 3, pp. 114-136.
EJIM Greenley, G.E. (1995), “Market orientation and company performance: empirical evidence from UK
companies”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-13.
Grewal, R. and Tansuhaj, P. (2001), “Building organizational capabilities for managing economic
crisis: the role of market orientation and strategic flexibility”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 65
No. 2, pp. 67-80.
Griffin, A. and Page, A.L. (1996), “PDMA success measurement project: recommended measures for
product development success and failure”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 13
No. 6, pp. 478-496.
Grimpe, C. and Sofka, W. (2009), “Search patterns and absorptive capacity: low-and high-technology
sectors in European countries”, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 495-506.
Guerra, R.M.A. and Camargo, M.E. (2016), “The role of technological capability in the internationalization
of the company and new product success: a systematic literature review”, Internext: Revista
Electr^onica de Neg
ocios Internacionais da ESPM, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 49-62.
Guimaraes, T., Nagano, M.S. and Armstrong, C. (2015), “Testing major factors for reducing obstacles
to product innovation success”, International Journal of the Academic Business World, Vol. 9
No. 2, pp. 11-26.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2014), A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural
Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE Publication.
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), SAGE Publications.
Han, J.K., Kim, N. and Srivastava, R.K. (1998), “Market orientation and organizational performance: is
innovation a missing link?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 30-45.
Heidenreich, M. (2009), “Innovation patterns and location of European low-and medium-technology
industries”, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 483-494.
Helfat, C.E. (2000), “Guest editor’s introduction to the special issue: the evolution of firm capabilities”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 21 Nos 10-11, pp. 955-959.
Henard, D.H. and Szymanski, D.M. (2001), “Why some new products are more successful than others”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 38 No. 3, pp. 362-375.
Henderson, R. and Cockburn, I. (1994), “Measuring competence? Exploring firm effects in
pharmaceutical research”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 63-84.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2008), “Low-tech innovations”, Industry and Innovation, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 19-43.
Hirsch-Kreinsen, H. (2015), “Patterns of knowledge use in ‘low-tech’industries”, Prometheus, Vol. 33
No. 1, pp. 67-82.
Ho, Y.C., Fang, H.C. and Lin, J.F. (2011), “Technological and design capabilities: is ambidexterity
possible?”, Management Decision, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 208-225.
Homburg, C. and Pflesser, C. (2000), “A multiple-layer model of market-oriented organizational culture:
measurement issues and performance outcomes”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 37 No. 4,
pp. 449-462.
Hooley, G., Cox, T., Fahy, J., Shipley, D., Beracs, J., Fonfara, K. and Snoj, B. (2000), “Market orientation
in the transition economies of central Europe: tests of the Narver and Slater market orientation
scales”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 273-285.
Hsieh, M.H. and Tsai, K.H. (2007), “Technological capability, social capital and the launch strategy for
innovative products”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 493-502.
Hsieh, M.H., Tsai, K.H. and Wang, J.R. (2008), “The moderating effects of market orientation and Market
launch proficiency on the product advantage–performance relationship”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 580-592. orientation and
Hsu, T.T., Tsai, K.H., Hsieh, M.H. and Wang, W.Y. (2014), “Strategic orientation and new product
product
performance: the roles of technological capability”, Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences innovation
- Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l Administration, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 44-58.
Hunt, S.D. and Morgan, R.M. (1995), “The comparative advantage theory of competition”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59, pp. 1-15.
Hurley, R.F. and Hult, G.T.M. (1998), “Innovation, market orientation, and organizational learning: an
integration and empirical examination”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62 No. 3, pp. 42-54.
Im, S., Montoya, M.M. and Workman, J.P. Jr (2013), “Antecedents and consequences of creativity in
product innovation teams”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 170-185.
Ingenbleek, P.T., Frambach, R.T. and Verhallen, T.M. (2010), “The role of value-informed pricing in
market-oriented product innovation management”, Journal of Product Innovation Management,
Vol. 27 No. 7, pp. 1032-1046.
Jaworski, B.J. and Kohli, A.K. (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 53-70.
Jin, J. and Von Zedtwitz, M. (2008), “Technological capability development in China’s mobile phone
industry”, Technovation, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 327-334.
Ju, M., Zhou, K.Z., Gao, G.Y. and Lu, J. (2013), “Technological capability growth and performance
outcome: foreign versus local firms in China”, Journal of International Marketing, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 1-16.
Jung, H.S., Kim, K.H. and Lee, C.H. (2014), “Influences of perceived product innovation upon usage
behavior for MMORPG: product capability, technology capability, and user centered design”,
Journal of Business Research, Vol. 67 No. 10, pp. 2171-2178.
Karadam, D.Y. (2014), The Real Exchange Rate and Economic Growth, Middle East Technical
University, Ankara.
Kearney, C., McCarthy, K.J. and Huizingh, E.K. (2019), “One size (does not) fit all: evidence of
similarities and differences between product innovation management in high-and low-tech
manufacturing firms”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 23 No. 1, p.
1950004.
Keskin, H. (2006), “Market orientation, learning orientation, and innovation capabilities in SMEs: an
extended model”, European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 396-417.
Ketchen, D.J. Jr, Hult, G.T.M. and Slater, S.F. (2007), “Toward greater understanding of market
orientation and the resource-based view”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 28 No. 9,
pp. 961-964.
Kim, N., Im, S. and Slater, S.F. (2013), “Impact of knowledge type and strategic orientation on new
product creativity and advantage in high-technology firms”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 136-153.
Kirca, A.H., Jayachandran, S. and Bearden, W.O. (2005), “Market orientation: a meta-analytic review
and assessment of its antecedents and impact on performance”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 69
No. 2, pp. 24-41.
Kirner, E., Kinkel, S. and Jaeger, A. (2009), “Innovation paths and the innovation performance of low-
technology firms—an empirical analysis of German industry”, Research Policy, Vol. 38 No. 3,
pp. 447-458.
Kohli, A.K. and Jaworski, B.J. (1990), “Market orientation: the construct, research propositions, and
managerial implications”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54, pp. 1-18.
Kohli, A.K., Jaworski, B.J. and Kumar, A. (1993), “MARKOR: a measure of market orientation”, Journal
of Marketing Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 467-477.
EJIM Kor, Y.Y. and Mahoney, J.T. (2004), “Edith Penrose’s (1959) contributions to the resource-based view
of strategic management”, Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 41 No. 1, pp. 183-191.
Lafferty, B.A. and Hult, G.T.M. (2001), “A synthesis of contemporary market orientation perspectives”,
European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 92-109.
Laforet, S. (2008), “Size, strategic, and market orientation affects on innovation”, Journal of Business
Research, Vol. 61 No. 7, pp. 753-764.
Langerak, F., Hultink, E.J. and Robben, H.S. (2007), “The mediating role of new product development
in the link between market orientation and organizational performance”, Journal of Strategic
Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 281-305.
Langerak, F. (2003), “The effect of market orientation on positional advantage and organizational
performance”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 93-115.
Le Roy, F., Robert, M. and Lasch, F. (2016), “Choosing the best partner for product innovation: talking
to the enemy or to a friend?”, International Studies of Management and Organization Vol. 46,
pp. 136-158.
Ledwith, A. and O’Dwyer, M. (2009), “Market orientation, NPD performance, and organizational
performance in small firms”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 26 No. 6, pp. 652-661.
Levinthal, D.A. and March, J.G. (1993), “The myopia of learning”, Strategic Management Journal,
Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 95-112.
Li, G., Zhang, R. and Wang, C. (2015), “The role of product originality, usefulness and motivated
consumer innovativeness in new product adoption intentions”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 214-223.
Lu, Q. (2000), China’s Leap into the Information Age: Innovation and Organization in the Computer
Industry, Oxford University Press, New York.
Lukas, B.A. and Ferrell, O.C. (2000), “The effect of market orientation on product innovation”, Journal
of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 239-247.
Macdonald, S. (1995), “Too close for comfort?: the strategic implications of getting close to the
customer”, California Management Review, Vol. 37 No. 4, pp. 8-27.
Madhavan, R. and Grover, R. (1998), “From embedded knowledge to embodied knowledge: new
product development as knowledge management”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 62, pp. 1-12.
Maidique, M.A. and Zirger, B.J. (1984), “A study of success and failure in product innovation: the case
of the US electronics industry”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 192-203.
Matsuno, K., Mentzer, J.T. and Rentz, J.O. (2005), “A conceptual and empirical comparison of three
market orientation scales”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 1-8.
McNamara, C.P. (1972), “The present status of the marketing concept”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 36,
pp. 50-57.
Menguc, B. and Auh, S. (2006), “Creating a firm-level dynamic capability through capitalizing on
market orientation and innovativeness”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 34
No. 1, pp. 63-73.
Menguc, B., Auh, S. and Yannopoulos, P. (2014), “Customer and supplier involvement in design: the
moderating role of incremental and radical innovation capability”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 313-328.
Mitrega, M., Forkmann, S., Zaefarian, G. and Henneberg, S.C. (2017), “Networking capability in
supplier relationships and its impact on product innovation and firm performance”,
International Journal of Operations and Production Management, Vol. 37 No. 5, pp. 577-606.
Molina-Castillo, F.J., Jimenez-Jimenez, D. and Munuera-Aleman, J.L. (2011), “Product competence
exploitation and exploration strategies: the impact on new product performance through
quality and innovativeness”, Industrial Marketing Management, Vol. 40 No. 7, pp. 1172-1182.
Montoya-Weiss, M.M. and Calantone, R. (1994), “Determinants of new product performance: a review Market
and meta-analysis”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 397-417.
orientation and
Morgan, N.A., Vorhies, D.W. and Mason, C.H. (2009), “Market orientation, marketing capabilities, and
firm performance”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 909-920.
product
Mortensen, P.S. and Bloch, C.W. (2005), Oslo Manual-Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting
innovation
Innovation Data: Proposed Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data,
Organisation for Economic Cooporation and Development, OECD, Paris.
Murray, J.Y., Gao, G.Y. and Kotabe, M. (2011), “Market orientation and performance of export
ventures: the process through marketing capabilities and competitive advantages”, Journal of
the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 252-269.
Narver, J.C. and Slater, S.F. (1990), “The effect of a market orientation on business profitability”,
Journal of Marketing, Vol. 54 No. 4, pp. 20-35.
Narver, J.C., Slater, S.F. and MacLachlan, D.L. (2004), “Responsive and proactive market orientation
and new-product success”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 334-347.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometric Theory, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Olson, E.M., Walker, O.C. Jr, Ruekert, R.W. and Bonner, J.M. (2001), “Patterns of cooperation during
new product development among marketing, operations and R&D: implications for project
performance”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 258-271.
Ortega, M.J.R. (2010), “Competitive strategies and firm performance: technological capabilities’
moderating roles”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 63 No. 12, pp. 1273-1281.
Paladino, A. (2008), “Analyzing the effects of market and resource orientations on innovative
outcomes in times of turbulence”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 25 No. 6,
pp. 577-592.
Pelham, A.M. and Wilson, D.T. (1996), “A Longitudinal study of the impact of market structure, firm
structure, strategy, and market orientation culture on dimensions of small-firm performance”,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 27-43.
Penrose, E. (2009), The Theory of the Growth of the Firm, 4th ed., Oxford University Press, New York.
Peteraf, M.A. (1993), “The cornerstones of competitive advantage: a resource-based view”, Strategic
Management Journal, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 179-191.
Podsakoff, P.M. and Organ, D.W. (1986), “Self-reports in organizational research: problems and
prospects”, Journal of Management, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 531-544.
Rainey, D.L. (2008), Product Innovation: Leading Change through Integrated Product Development,
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Renko, M., Carsrud, A. and Br€annback, M. (2009), “The effect of a market orientation, entrepreneurial
orientation, and technological capability on innovativeness: a study of young biotechnology
ventures in the United States and in Scandinavia”, Journal of Small Business Management,
Vol. 47 No. 3, pp. 331-369.
Ringle, C.M., Wende, S. and Becker, J.M. (2015), SmartPLS 3.0, SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt.
Rodr
ıguez-Pinto, J., Carbonell, P. and Rodr
ıguez-Escudero, A.I. (2011), “Speed or quality? How the
order of market entry influences the relationship between market orientation and new product
performance”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 145-154.
Rothwell, R., Freeman, C., Horlsey, A., Jervis, V.T.P., Robertson, A.B. and Townsend, J. (1974),
“SAPPHO updated-project SAPPHO phase II”, Research Policy, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 258-291.
Ruekert, R.W. (1992), “Developing a market orientation: an organizational strategy perspective”,
International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 225-245.
Rugman, A.M. and Verbeke, A. (2002), “Edith Penrose’s contribution to the resource-based view of
strategic management”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 8, pp. 769-780.
EJIM Schilling, M.A. (2012), Strategic Management of Technological Innovation, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill
Education, New York.
Shapiro, B.P. (1988), “What the hell is market oriented?”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 66 No. 6,
pp. 119-125.
Shoham, A., Rose, G.M. and Kropp, F. (2005), “Market orientation and performance: a meta-analysis”,
Marketing Intelligence and Planning, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 435-454.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1994), “Does competitive environment moderate the market orientation-
performance relationship?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 58 No. 1, pp. 46-55.
Slater, S.F. and Narver, J.C. (1995), “Market orientation and the learning organization”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 59 No. 3, pp. 63-74.
Slater, S.F., Mohr, J.J. and Sengupta, S. (2014), “Radical product innovation capability: literature
review, synthesis, and illustrative research propositions”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 552-566.
Sørensen, H.E. (2009), “Why competitors matter for market orientation”, European Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 43 No. 5, pp. 735-761.
Sok, P. and O’Cass, A. (2015), “Examining the new product innovation–performance relationship:
optimizing the role of individual-level creativity and attention-to-detail”, Industrial Marketing
Management, Vol. 47, pp. 156-165.
Song, M. and Chen, Y. (2014), “Organizational attributes, market growth, and product innovation”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 1312-1329.
Song, J. and Shin, J. (2008), “The paradox of technological capabilities: a study of knowledge sourcing
from host countries of overseas R&D operations”, Journal of International Business Studies,
Vol. 39 No. 2, pp. 291-303.
Song, M., Droge, C., Hanvanich, S. and Calantone, R. (2005), “Marketing and technology resource
complementarity: an analysis of their interaction effect in two environmental contexts”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 259-276.
Song, M., Kawakami, T. and Stringfellow, A. (2010), “A cross-national comparative study of senior
management policy, marketing–manufacturing involvement, and innovation performance”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 179-200.
Spanjol, J., Qualls, W.J. and Rosa, J.A. (2011), “How many and what kind? The role of strategic
orientation in new product ideation”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 28 No. 2,
pp. 236-250.
uhlmeier, S. and Tomczak, T. (2012), “Strategic orientation and product innovation:
Spanjol, J., M€
exploring a decompositional approach”, Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 29
No. 6, pp. 967-985.
Talay, M.B., Calantone, R.J. and Voorhees, C.M. (2014), “Coevolutionary dynamics of automotive
competition: product innovation, change, and marketplace survival”, Journal of Product
Innovation Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 61-78.
Teece, D.J., Pisano, G. and Shuen, A. (1997), “Dynamic capabilities and strategic management”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 509-533.
Teece, D.J. (1986), “Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration, collaboration,
licensing and public policy”, Research Policy, Vol. 15 No. 6, pp. 285-305.
Terziovski, M. (2007), Building Innovation Capability in Organizations: An International Cross-Case
Perspective, Vol. 13, Imperial College Press, London.
Topcu, A.B. and Sarigul, S.S. (2015), “Comparative advantage and the products mapping of exporting
sectors in Turkey”, The Journal of Academic Social Science, Vol. 3 No. 18, pp. 330-348.
Trott, P. and Simms, C. (2017), “An examination of product innovation in low-and medium-technology
industries: cases from the UK packaged food sector”, Research Policy, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 605-623.
Trott, P. (2012), Innovation Management and New Product Development, Pearson Education, London. Market
Tsai, K.H. (2004), “The impact of technological capability on firm performance in Taiwan’s electronics orientation and
industry”, The Journal of High Technology Management Research, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 183-195.
product
Tzokas, N., Kim, Y.A., Akbar, H. and Al-Dajani, H. (2015), “Absorptive capacity and performance: the innovation
role of customer relationship and technological capabilities in high-tech SMEs”, Industrial
Marketing Management, Vol. 47, pp. 134-142.
Un, C.A., Cuervo-Cazurra, A. and Asakawa, K. (2010), “R&D collaborations and product innovation”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 27 No. 5, pp. 673-689.
van der Panne, G., Van Beers, C. and Kleinknecht, A. (2003), “Success and failure of innovation: a
literature review”, International Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 7 No. 3, pp. 309-338.
Walker, O.C. Jr and Ruekert, R.W. (1987), “Marketing’s role in the implementation of business
strategies: a critical review and conceptual framework”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 51, pp. 15-33.
Wang, C.L. and Chung, H.F. (2013), “The moderating role of managerial ties in market orientation and
innovation: an Asian perspective”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 66 No. 12, pp. 2431-2437.
Wang, G. and Miao, C.F. (2015), “Effects of sales force market orientation on creativity, innovation
implementation, and sales performance”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 68 No. 11, pp. 2374-2382.
Wang, Y., Lo, H.P., Zhang, Q. and Xue, Y. (2006), “How technological capability influences business
performance: an integrated framework based on the contingency approach”, Journal of
Technology Management in China, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 27-52.
Webster, F.E. Jr (1988), “Rediscovering the marketing concept”, Business Horizons, Vol. 31, pp. 29-39.
Wischnevsky, J.D., Damanpour, F. and Mendez, F.A. (2011), “Influence of environmental factors and
prior changes on the organizational adoption of changes in products and in technological and
administrative processes”, British Journal of Management, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 132-149.
Wong, S.K.S. and Tong, C. (2012), “The influence of market orientation on new product success”,
European Journal of Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 99-121.
Wzia˛ tek-Kubiak, A. (2008), “Innovation activities versus competitiveness in low-and medium-
technology-based economies: the case of Poland”, in Hirsch-Kreinsen and Jacobson (Eds),
Innovation in Low-Tech Firms and Industries, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham,
pp. 197-220.
Yalcinkaya, G., Calantone, R.J. and Griffith, D.A. (2007), “An examination of exploration and
exploitation capabilities: implications for product innovation and market performance”, Journal
of International Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 63-93.
Yang, Y., Wang, Q., Zhu, H. and Wu, G. (2012), “What are the effective strategic orientations for new
product success under different environments? An empirical study of Chinese businesses”,
Journal of Product Innovation Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 166-179.
Yang, Z., Zhou, X. and Zhang, P. (2015), “Discipline versus passion: collectivism, centralization, and
ambidextrous innovation”, Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 745-769.
Yannopoulos, P., Auh, S. and Menguc, B. (2012), “Achieving fit between learning and market
orientation: implications for new product performance”, Journal of Product Innovation
Management, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 531-545.
Zahra, S.A. and Nielsen, A.P. (2002), “Sources of capabilities, integration and technology
commercialization”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 377-398.
Zhang, J. and Duan, Y. (2010), “The impact of different types of market orientation on product
innovation performance: evidence from Chinese manufacturers”, Management Decision, Vol. 48
No. 6, pp. 849-867.
Zhang, Y. and Li, H. (2010), “Innovation search of new ventures in a technology cluster: the role of ties
with service intermediaries”, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 88-109.
EJIM Zhang, J. and Zhu, M. (2016), “Market orientation, product innovation and export performance:
evidence from Chinese manufacturers”, Journal of Strategic Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 5,
pp. 377-397.
Zhou, K.Z. and Wu, F. (2010), “Technological capability, strategic flexibility, and product innovation”,
Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 547-561.

Appendix
Customer orientation: (Narver and Slater, 1990; Atuahene-Gima, 2005)
CUS1. We regularly meet customers to learn about their current and potential needs for new
products
CUS2. We constantly monitor and reinforce our understanding of the current and future needs of
customers
CUS3. We have a thorough knowledge about emerging customers and their needs
CUS4. Information about current and future customers is integrated into our plans and strategies
CUS5. We regularly use research techniques such as focus groups, surveys and observations to
gather customer information
CUS6. We have developed effective relationships with customers and suppliers to fully understand
new technological development that affect customers’ needs
CUS7. We systematically process and analyze customer information to fully understand their
implications for our business
Competitor orientation: (Narver and Slater, 1990; Atuahene-Gima, 2005)
COM1. We regularly collect and integrate information about the products and strategies of our
competitors
COM2. We systematically collect and analyze information about potential competitor activities
COM3. Managers in this firm regularly share information about current and future competitors
within our company
COM4. Our knowledge of current and potential competitors’ strengths and weaknesses is very
thorough
Interfunctional coordination: (Narver and Slater, 1990; Zahra and Nielson 2002; Atuahene-Gima, 2005)
IFC1. Functions such as R&D, marketing and manufacturing are tightly integrated in cross-
functional teams in the product development processes
IFC2. The activities of functional units are tightly coordinated to ensure better use of our market
knowledge
IFC3. R&D and marketing and other functions regularly share market information about customers,
technologies and competitors
IFC4. There is a high level of cooperation and coordination among functional units in setting the
goals and priorities for the organization to ensure effective response to market conditions
IFC5. Top management promotes communication and cooperation among R&D, marketing and
manufacturing in market information acquisition and use
IFC6. People from marketing, R&D and other functions play important roles in major strategic
market decisions
Product innovation: (Zhang and Li, 2010; Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995; Lu, 2000)
Evaluate your company’s product innovation success in the past three years by comparing with
your major competitors
PI1. Frequently introducing new products
PI2. Being first in new product introductions to the market
PI3. Quickly launching new products into the market
PI4. Developing new products with superior quality
PI5. Using new products to penetrate markets
Technological capability: (Zhou and Wu, 2010; Gatignon and Xuereb, 1997; Song et al., 2005) Market
Compared to your major competitors, how would you evaluate your firm’s capabilities in the
following areas: orientation and
TC1. Acquiring important technology information product
TC2. Identifying new technology opportunities innovation
TC3. Responding to technology changes
TC4. Mastering the state-of-art technologies
TC5. Developing a series of innovations constantly
Market turbulence: (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Wang and Chung, 2013)
MT1. In our industry, customers’ product preferences change quite a bit over time
MT2. Our customers tend to look for new products/services all the time
MT3. New customers tend to have product-related needs that are different from those of our existing
customers
MT4. We are witnessing demand for our products and services from customers who never bought
them before
Competitive intensity: (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Wang and Miao, 2015)
CI1. Competition in our industry is cut-throat
CI2. Price competition is a hallmark of our industry
CI3. One hears of a new competitive move almost every day
CI4. There are many competitors in our target market
Technological turbulence: (Jaworski and Kohli, 1993; Zhou and Wu, 2010)
TT1. The technology in this industry is changing rapidly
TT2. Technological changes provide substantial opportunities in this industry
TT3. A large number of new product ideas have been made possible through technological
breakthroughs in this industry
TT4. It is very difficult to forecast where the technology in this area will be in the next few years

Corresponding author
Hakan Aydin can be contacted at: hakan.aydinn@yahoo.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
MANAJEMEN SUMBER DAYA MANUSIA

1
KELOMPOK 1:
DARWIN
YUSUF ALISON
FATMAWATI
 BAB 1
PENGANTAR MANAJEMEN SUMBER DAYA
MANUSIA

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
 BAB 2
KESEMPATAN SETARA DAN HUKUMNYA

15
 KESEMPATAN SETARA DAN
HUKUMNYA

Kesempatan Kerja Manajemen

Kesempatan Kerja Pembelaan
yang Setara 1990- Proses Pelaksanaan Keberagaman dan
Yang Setara 1964- Terhadap Dugaan
1991 hingga EEOC Program Tindakan
1991 Diskriminasi
Sekarang Persetujuan

16
A. Kesempatan Kerja yang Setara (1964 – 1991)

1. Konstitusi VII dari Undang – undang Hak Sipil

▪ Hukum pertama era tahun 1960an. Menyatakan bahwa seorang karyawan tidak
dapat didiskriminasikan berdasarkan ras, warna, agama, jenis kelamin, atau suku
bangsa.
▪ Undang – undang ini membentuk Equal Employement Opportunity Commission dan
mencakup sebagian karyawan.

2. Perintah Eksekutif ( Executive Order) : Beberapa presiden AS telah

menerbitkan perintah eksekutif yang isinya memperluas hak yang sama atas
pekerjaan dalam agaen – agen federal.

3. UU Pembayaran Upah Yang Setara: Pada tahun 1963 diamandemenkan

tahun 1972, tidaklah sah mendeskriminasikan pembayaran upah atas dasar jenis
kelamin untuk pekerjaan yang sama, ketrampilan usaha, dan tanggung jawab yang
sama.
17
4. Diskriminasi Usia Dalam UU Pekerjaan 1967: Tahun 1967
menyatakan tidak sah bila mendiskriminasikan karyawan atau pelamar
pekerjaan untuk pekerja yang berusia diantara 45 – 65 tahun

5. UU Rehabilitasi Pekerjaan 1973: UU ini meminta para pengusaha

dengan kontrak federal di atas $2500 untuk menyetujui mempekerjakan
orang – orang cacat

6. UU Bantuan Penyesuaian Diri Veteran era Vietnam 1974: Meminta

para pengusaha dengan kontrak pemerintah sebesar $10000 atau lebih
untuk menyetujui mempekerjakan dan memilih para veteran yang cacat
dan veteran yang memenuhi syarat di Vietnam.

18
7. UU Rehabilitasi Pekerjaan 1973 : UU ini meminta para pengusaha
dengan kontrak federal di atas $2500 untuk menyetujui mempekerjakan
orang – orang cacat

8. UU Bantuan Penyesuaian Diri Veteran era Vietnam 1974: Meminta

para pengusaha dengan kontrak pemerintah sebesar $10000 atau lebih
untuk menyetujui mempekerjakan dan memilih para veteran yang cacat
dan veteran yang memenuhi syarat di Vietnam.

9. UU Diskriminasi Kehamilan 1978: Melarang menggunakan

kehamilan, melahirkan, atau kondisi medis lain untuk didiskriminasikan
dalam pekerjaan, promosi, skors, atau kondisi pekerjaan lainnya.

10.Pedoman Kantor Federal: Pedoman yang digunakan untuk para

pengusaha adalah pedoman yang seragam
19
11. Pelecehan Seksual: Pada UU hak sipil tahun 1991 bila ada korban yang
mengalami diskriminasi termasuk pelecehan seksual mendapat pengadilan
dengan juri, mendapat kompensasi untuk rasa sakit dan penderitaan,
pengusaha dapat dihukum karena mengabaikan hak – hak individu.

MEMBUKTIKAN PELECEHAN SEKSUAL

1. Quid Pro Quo ( Sesuatu Untuk Sesuatu)
2. Lingkungan Bermusuhan yang Diciptakan Oleh Penyelia
3. Lingkungan Bermusushan yang Diciptakan Oleh Rekan
Kerja

20
B. Kesempatan Kerja yang Setara 1990-1991 hingga Sekarang

1. UNDANG – UNDANG HAK SIPIL 1991

▪ Beberapa keputusan pengadilan yang berurutan terjadi pada tahun 1980-an
memiliki dampak membatasi perlindungan pada wanita dan kelompok
minoritas di bawah hukum kesamaan pekerjaan, ini mendorong kongres untuk
meloloskan undang – undang hak sipil tahun 1991 (CRA 1991) menjadi
hukum pada november 1991.
▪ Undang – undang hak sipil 1991(cra 1991) adalah undang – undang yang
mengatur tentang pengembalian beban pembuktian pada pengusaha dan
mengizinkan tuntutan ganti rugi dalam bentuk uang dan hukuman.

21

21
1. UNDANG – UNDANG HAK SIPIL 1991
▪ Beberapa keputusan pengadilan yang berurutan terjadi pada tahun 1980-an
memiliki dampak membatasi perlindungan pada wanita dan kelompok
minoritas di bawah hukum kesamaan pekerjaan, ini mendorong kongres untuk
meloloskan undang – undang hak sipil tahun 1991 (CRA 1991) menjadi
hukum pada november 1991.
▪ Undang – undang hak sipil 1991(cra 1991) adalah undang – undang yang
mengatur tentang pengembalian beban pembuktian pada pengusaha dan
mengizinkan tuntutan ganti rugi dalam bentuk uang dan hukuman.

CRA 1991 juga mempermudah untuk menuntut kompensasi sejumlah uang

dalam kasus – kasus tertentu. Undang – undang ini menyatakan bahwa
karyawan yang mengeluhkan diskriminasi yang direncana yang dinamakan
perlakuan berbeda dapat meminta:
❖Kompensasi sejumlah uang
❖Tuntutan ganti rugi berupa hukuman
22
2. UNDANG – UNDANG WARGA NEGARA AMERIKA YANG CACAT
(AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT – ADA)

▪ Undang – undang yang mengharuskan pengusaha untuk membuat

akomodasi yang sesuai untuk karyawan yang cacat, undang – undang ini
melarang diskriminasi terhadap orang cacat. ADA tidak menyebutkan
keadaan cacat tertentu. Pedoman EEOC mengatakan seseorang
dinyatakanh cacat ketika orang tersebut memiliki kelemahan fisik atau
mental yang sangat membatasi satu atau lebih aktivitas utama dalam
kehidupannya. Berikut beberapa praktik dalam ADA:
▪ 1. AIDS
▪ 2. Orang yang Memenuhi Syarat
▪ 3. Akomodasi yang Sesuai
▪ 4. Kelemahan Mental
23
3. KEWAJIBAN PENGUSAHA MENURUT AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT – ADA

ADA menentukan kewajiban hukum tertentu kepada pengusaha antara lain :

▪ Pengusaha tidak boleh menolak memperkerjakan orang yang cacat bila
orang itu memenuhi syarat dan mampu melaksanakan fungsi penting
pekerjaan itu.
▪ Pengusaha tidak diminta untuk merendahkan standar prestasi yang ada
atau berhenti menggunakan ujian untuk pekerjaan.
▪ Pengusaha tidak boleh melakukan pemeriksaan prapekerjaan pada
keadaan cacat seseorang,
▪ Pengusaha harus menelaah formulir aplikasi pekerjaan, prosedur
wawancara, dan diskripsi pekerjaan untuk pertanyaan dan pernyataan yang
tidak sah.
24
 C. Pembelaan Terhadap Dugaan Diskriminasi

1. Dampak yang Merugikan: Praktik pengusaha yang memperbesar presentase

anggota kelompok minoritas dan kelompok lainnya yang ditolak untuk masuk
pekerjaan, penempatan, promosi.
Empat pendekatan dasar untuk mengetahui dampak yang merugikan:
1) Tingkat penolakan yang berbeda
2) Kebijakan terbatas
3) Perbandingan populasi
4) Ujian McDonnell-Douglas

2. Kualifikasi Pekerjaan Yang Bonafid : Konstitusi VII menyebutkan bahwa

adalah sah bagi seorang pengusaha untuk mempekerjakan seorang karyawan atas
dasar agama, jenis kelamin, atau suku bangsa dalam beberapa hal di mana agama,
jenis kelamin, atau suku bangsa adalah kualifikasi pekerjaan yang bonafid yang
memang diperlukan untuk menjalankan pekerjaan tersebut.
25
3. Kepentingan Bisnis: Kepentingan bisnis memperbolehkan adanya
diskriminasi dikarenakan hal tersebut memang sangat penting dan
dibutuhkan sebagai salah satu kualifikasi pekerjaannya.

Contoh:
Kualifikasi seorang calon pilot perusahaan A yang menuntut pelamar untuk
memiliki jam terbang lebih dari 500 jam dan juga memiliki sertifikat khusus.
Kualifikasi tersebut adalah salah satu diskriminasi, namun diperbolehka n karena
mengingat biaya pelatihan yang tinggi dan juga keselamata n penumpang
penerbangan yang menjadi prioritas, sehingga memang diperluka n calon pilot
yang memil iki kualifikasi seperti tersebut di atas.

4. Pertimbangan Lain dalam Mempertahankan Praktik Diskriminatif

Tiga poin yang harus diperhatikan dalam tuntutan diskriminasi antara lain adalah
sebagai berikut a. Maksud baik tidak dapat dijadikan alasan, b. Jangan
bersembunyi di balik kesepakatan tawar -menawar kolektif c. Ketika sudah terbukti
melakuka n tindak diskriminasi, berikan kompensasi
26
 D. PROSES
PELAKSANAAN
EEOC

1. Memproses tuntutan dan konsiliasi

27
2. BAGAIMANA MENANGGAPI TUNTUTAN DISKRIMINASI PEKERJAAN

Beberapa hal yang harus diingat saat dihadapkan pada tuntutan diskriminasi pekerjaan yang
illegal adalah:
❖Penyelidikan EEOC: Penyelidik EEOC adalah bukan hakim dan tidak memiliki wewenang
untuk bertindak seperti pengadilan, EEOC tidak bisa membuat penemuan diskriminasi sendiri,
melainkan hanya membuatkan rekomendasi
❖Konferensi penemuan fakta: Konferensi ini adalah pertemuan informal yang ada di awal
penyelidikan yang bertujuan untuk mengetahui permasalahan dan menentukan dasar untuk
bernegosiasi
❖Penentuan EEOC dan konsiliasi yang diusahakan: Apabila cara konferensi tidak berhasil,
EEOC akan menentukan apakah ada alasan untuk mempercayai atau tidak mempercayai
kemungkinan adanya diskriminasi. Rekomendasi dari penyelidik yang ada adalah faktor
penting yang biasa dipakai oleh EEOC untuk menemukan penyebab yang ada.
❖Mediasi Sukarela: 10% tuntutan yang ada di EEOC mengacu pada mediasi sukarela. Dalam
mediasi sukarela, ada peran atau ikut campur dari pihak ketiga sebagai pihak yang netral
untuk membantu kedua belah pihak untuk mencapai resolusi tuntutan diskriminasi yang telah
dinegosiasikan.
28
3. Perintah Arbitrasi dari Tuntutan Diskriminasi:

Selain konsiliasi, mediasi dan litigasi, ada juga pilihan lain yang bisa
digunakan untuk menyelesaikan tuntutan, yaitu arbitrasi.

Berikut adalah usulan-usulan terkait dengan arbitrasi :

- Pengusaha harus meninjau semua tuntutan kepada pengadilan apakah
mereka melibatkan karyawan yang ada untuk kesepakatan arbitrasi,
- Pengusaha bisa memasukkan klausa perintah arbitrasi dalam buku
pedoman karyawan,
- Untuk melindungi dari proses banding, pengusaha harus memikirkan
langkah yang bisa dilakukan untuk menghindari atau melindungi mereka
dari prasangka arbitrator.

29
E. Manajemen Keberagaman Dan Program

1. Mengatur Keberagaman :
Usaha yang dilakukan untuk memaksimalkan kelebihan, potensi, atau keunggulan yang
dimiliki oleh keberagaman. Aktivitas sukarela yang menjadi inti dari program manajemen
keberagaman ini sendiri adalah memiliki kepemimpinan yang kuat, Menilai situasi,
Memberikan pelatihan dan Pendidikan keberagaman, Mengubah budaya dan system
manajemen, Melakukan evaluasi program keberagaman.

2. Mendorong Keberagaman Tenaga Kerja

Beberapa langkah yang bisa dilakukan untuk mendorong keberagaman dalam tenaga kerja
adalah dengan memperhatikan kelompok minoritas yang ada. Salah satunya adalah dengan
mengangkat orang dari kalangan minoritas ke dalam direksi dan juga berinteraksi dengan
kaum minoritas . Hal ini adalah salah satu proses pembelajaran yang bisa mendorong
keberagaman sebagai sesuatu yang membangun dan bisa memberikan dampak positif
terhadap perusahaan.
30
3. Kesempatan Kerja yang Setara Versus Tindakan Persetujuan
Kesempatan kerja yang setara memiliki sasaran untuk memastikan bahwa tidak ada
permasalahan terkait dengan ras, agama, warna kulit, kelamin, suku, bangsa, atau kelompok
tertentu, dan semua orang berhak untuk mendapatkan kesempatan kerja yang setara untuk
pekerjaan yang sesuai dengan kualifikasinya. Sementara, tindakan persetujuan adalah
mewajibkan pengusaha untuk memberikan kesempatan lebih serta memberikan usaha
tambahan untuk mereka yang berasal dari kaum minoritas.

4. Langkah Program Tindakan Menyetujui

Sesuai dengan EEOC, delapan langkah ideal terkait dengan tindakan menyetujui adalah :
▪ Mengeluarkan kebijakan tertulis mengenai kesetaraan dalam kesempatan kerja,

▪ Menunjukkan otoritas puncak dengan kewajiban dan wewenang terkait dengan program,

▪ Menyebarluaskan mengenai kesetaraan kerja,

▪ Survei menghadirkan pekerja minoritas,

▪ Meningkatkan daya guna kelompok minoritas,

▪ Mengembangkan dan mengimplementasikan program spesifik,

▪ Membangun audit internal dan sistem pelaporan,

31
▪ Mengembangkan dukungan untuk program tindakan menyetujui.
5. Diskriminasi Kebalikan
Pada diskriminasi kebalikan, diskriminasi justru dirasakan oleh pihak yang menjadi mayoritas.
Hal ini adalah sebagai salah satu dampak dari adanya tuntuta n untu k memberdayakan pihak
minoritas.

6. Merekrut Minoritas secara Online

Mempekerjakan kelompok minoritas adalah masalah tersendiri, terlebih apabila dihadapkan
pada perekrutan tenaga kerja baru. Dalam hal ini, kecil kemungkinannya untuk pihak
minoritas bisa mengakses internet guna mendapatkan informasi yang sama dengan pihak
lainnya. Salah satu cara untuk bisa merekrut minoritas adalah dengan mengarahkan satu atau
lebih pasar kerja online dengan orientasi pekerja minoritas.

32
BAB 3

33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
TERIMA KASIH

53