Culture, conduct and innovation: a deconstruction of market orientation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This purpose of this study is to deconstruct market orientation to explore how culture interrelates with conduct and value-creating innovation and its effect on performance. The authors suggest that market orientation is an organizational identity that can be built and managed for sustained competitive advantage. Design/methodology/approach – The authors use a split sample of 553 Canadian small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in both the manufacturing and technical service sectors. Hierarchical moderated regression analysis is used to test the main hypothesis that culture moderates the relationship between conduct and innovation. Support for the respective hypotheses is determined by the statistical significance of each focal variable. Findings – The study finds that culture does in fact moderate the relationship between conduct and innovation but only in service firms, not in manufacturing firms. Research limitations/implications – Theoretical implications include establishing support for the main premise of the paper, namely, that market-oriented culture interacts with the behavioral component of market orientation influencing the firm’s ability to create value through innovation. Practical implications – Managerial implications include the refinement of the many conceptualizations of the innovation construct by establishing innovation as value-creating. It also provides insight on how firm culture relates to the systems and processes used to operationalize both a market and innovation conduct within the firm. Originality/value – This paper provides a unique insight into the marketing/innovation interface, specifically in the context of SMEs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".