Using the I‐MARKOR scale to identify market‐oriented individuals in the financial services sector
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Extant studies of the market orientation of service firms rarely consider the contribution of individual employees to the realization of this orientation. Existing scales that measure market orientation reveal the perceptions of a key informant about the dominant orientation within the firm. These scales do not measure the willingness of employees to act in a market‐oriented way. This paper aims to report the development of a multi‐dimensional scale of individual market‐oriented behavior. Design/methodology/approach The scale development process included identification of items from focus groups with employees of a major Canadian financial services firm and the market orientation literature. A pretest with marketing practitioners and academics helped to purify and reduce the number of items. Finally, a sample of North American financial services employees responded to the items in a web‐based questionnaire. Findings Confirmatory factor analysis of the responses confirmed the presence of a single latent construct with three dimensions: information acquisition, information sharing and strategic response, measured by 20 items. Research limitations/implications Although scale validation included both qualitative and quantitative tests that triangulated the opinions of multiple stakeholders in the service delivery chain, future research must also test the predictive validity of this scale. Practical implications Such research is important to increase understanding of how service organizations foster market orientation. The I‐MARKOR augments the organizational scorecard approach with individual level measurement. Originality/value The scale provides a method to assess differences between individuals within an organization, enabling empirical research on differences between departments, roles, training and other characteristics that may influence the extent to which an individual performs market‐oriented behaviors.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".