Entrepreneurial orientation as a predictor of organizational quality performance: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Entrepreneurial orientation (EO) and organizational quality performance (OQP) are crucial factors in determining an organization's success. Nonetheless, existing studies have yet to examine the distinct influence of EO on OQP. This meta-analysis aims to synthesize the relationship between EO behaviors, including innovativeness, proactiveness, and risk-taking, and OQP and its subdimensions of soft quality management practices (SQMP), hard quality management practices (HQMP), product quality (PQ), and service quality (SQ) across 13 studies (N = 21,789) from both service and manufacturing industries. The results indicate a significant positive association between EO and the dimensions of OQP (i.e. SQMP, HQMP, SQ, and PQ). Furthermore, moderation analysis reveals that industry type significantly moderates the EO-OQP relationship, with stronger effects observed in service firms than in manufacturing firms. These findings establish EO as a driver of quality improvement and provide practical contributions for managers on integrating entrepreneurial behaviors into quality management systems to enhance quality practices and outcomes.
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 | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".