.
Besides the different concepts of market orientation, a philosophy of market orientation arose. Narver and Slater (1998) say that the debate about the nature and benefits of being market oriented still continues due to the fact that scholars are talking about two separate management philosophies. The first, being "customers-led" is a short term philosophy in which organizations try to understand and develop products for the expressed wants of the customers in their market. The second, being "market-oriented" represents a long term commitment to understanding the expressed and latent needs of their customers and to develop innovative solutions that produce superior customer value. Besides looking to customers, a market-oriented business also looks at the capabilities and plans of its competitors. Though, some critics on this philosophy appeared. At first there are some problems with the customer-led philosophy. It is a reactive philosophy and short term in focus. It leads to adaptive rather than generative learning. Hamel and Prahalad (1994) call this aspect the "tyranny of the served market" in which managers see the world only through their current customer eyes. As Christensen and Bower (1996) point out, existing customers can substantially constrain a firm's ability to innovate because the innovations may threaten the customer's way of doing business (Slater and Narver, 1998). Another criticism on the philosophies is made by Conner (1999), who points out that Narver and Slater seem to be implying that there has to be made a choice between a customer-led and a market-oriented orientation. He views this as an unrealistic interpretation, since it does not appear to allow for the governing constraint of the company's resource endowment. In reality companies live in the present and the future, with the need to satisfy current customers and to anticipate the future of markets. Strategically a company must be both customer and market-led.
