The Long-Run Stock Price Performance of Firms with Effective TQM Programs
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper documents the long-run stock price performance of firms with effective Total Quality Management (TQM) programs. The winning of quality awards is used as a proxy for effective TQM implementation. We compare stock price performance of award winners against various matched control groups for a five-year implementation period and a five-year postimplementation period. During the implementation period there is no difference in the stock price performance, but during the postimplementation period award winners significantly outperform firms in the various control groups. Depending on the control group used, the mean outperformance ranges from 38% to 46%. Our results clearly indicate that effective implementation of TQM principles and philosophies leads to significant wealth creation. Furthermore, our results should alleviate many of the concerns regarding the value of quality award systems. Overall, these systems are valuable in terms of recognizing TQM firms and promoting awareness of TQM.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it