CUSTOMER ORIENTATION AND OFFICE SPACE PERFORMANCE: ASSESSING THE MODERATING EFFECT OF BUILDING GRADE USING PLS-MGA
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 study presents a framework to measure and empirically validate the relationship between customer orientation and office space performance. The framework uses two types of customer orientation (i.e., responsive customer orientation and proactive customer orientation) and two types of office space performance metrics (i.e., tenant satisfaction and tenant loyalty). Moreover, the building grade (Grade A and Non-grade A) is incorporated into the framework to assess its moderating effect on the relationships. 380 usable responses were collected from building managers in Grade A and Non-grade A buildings using a questionnaire survey. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was utilized to perform latent variable and multi-group analyses. The findings indicate that proactive customer orientation enhances satisfaction to a level not reached by responsive customer orientation as well as suggesting the applicability of both customer orientations in different scenarios. While proactive customer orientation practices lead to higher satisfaction in Non-grade A office ten-ants, responsive customer orientation practices lead to greater satisfaction in grade A office tenants. The latter tend to be more satisfied with Grade A office and thus loyal. Theoretical and managerial implications are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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