Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

The Relationship between Perceptions of High-Performance Work Systems and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) considering the Moderating Effect of a Positive Diversity Climate

Altmetrics

Downloads

127

Views

51

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

Submitted:

09 April 2024

Posted:

10 April 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between high-performance work systems and a company’s social performance, taking into account the organizational climate as a situational variable. Specifically, this study aimed to analyze the impact of perceptions of a high-performance work system on the perception of a company’s social responsibility (CSR) among employees of Jordanian companies with an organizational size of 300 or more. This study used 175 valid questionnaires, and SPSS and AMOS 24 were used to test the hypotheses. The results showed that there was a positive relationship between the perception of a high-performance work system and the perception of a company’s CSR. Furthermore, this study found that a positive diversity climate could enhance the positive relationship between the two. These findings suggest that high-performance work systems can contribute to the development of sustainable human resource management systems and that a positive diversity climate is essential in shaping these systems. Based on these results, it is recommended that companies implement HPWSs and encourage workforce diversity to maximize the value of CSR activities and ensure their sustainability.
Keywords: 
Subject: Business, Economics and Management  -   Human Resources and Organizations

1. Introduction

The increasing uncertainty in the business environment and the rapidly changing labor landscape have made organizational diversity issues more complex. This has led to changes in companies’ human resource management systems and structures. In the face of an uncertain and rapidly changing environment, companies have become interested in promoting corporate social responsibility (CSR) to secure a competitive advantage.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to the voluntary actions taken by companies not only to accrue profit but also to benefit society [1]. Because both economic and social values significantly impact a company’s survival, enhancing the sustainability of a company requires considering its economic and social performance [2].
In this environment, it is necessary to focus on the human resources within a company—that is, the employees. When a company has a weak relationship with its employees, it becomes difficult to create social value with other stakeholders [3]. Furthermore, from a resource-based view (RBV), human resources are considered a core source of competitive advantage because they are “valuable, rare, and difficult to imitate or substitute” [4]. To effectively manage employees, both academia and industry have long focused on high-performance work systems, which refers to a specific set of HR strategies, work structures, and processes that maximize employee knowledge, skill, dedication, and adaptability [5], as innovative human resource management systems. Numerous previous studies have shown the positive effects of high-performance work systems on organizational performance [5-9].
One of the key features of high-performance work systems is that they encourage employees to adjust their work methods and exert efforts independently to enhance organizational performance [10]. Companies that implement high-performance work systems tend to adopt a relatively horizontal structure, grant more autonomy to employees in performing their tasks, and empower them with decision-making authority. Additionally, they actively communicate, which facilitates effective participation by employees in decision-making and problem-solving processes, providing diverse information [11]. Prior research has also shown that, when employees participate in organizational decision making or have authority over their tasks, the overall organizational performance improves [12]. These characteristics of high-performance work systems align with factors conducive to a company’s social performance. Therefore, high-performance work systems that enhance economic and social performance can be sustainable human resource management systems for companies.
However, there are differing opinions as to whether high-performance work systems are inherently oriented toward social values. Some argue that high-performance work systems have historically been conceptualized and developed with an emphasis on economic performance rather than social value [13-14]. Therefore, they suggest that improvements are needed to align high-performance work systems with social values [13, 15].
In contrast, [16] conducted a study on corporate social responsibility (CSR) from the perspective of high-performance work systems. The results indicated that activities related to CSR were aligned with high-performance work systems and that the efficiency in terms of organizational human resource management was enhanced. This suggests the need for a discussion on what organizational human resource management systems should aim for in terms of the creation of both economic and social value.
Inclusive and sustainable human resource management is essential in an organizational environment characterized by a diverse and complex workforce [17]. Recognizing that potential sources of conflicts within organizations are stimulated by the expansion of a diverse workforce, it is essential to manage these efficiently and align them with organizational objectives. A positive diversity climate is highlighted as a mechanism to achieve this goal. A positive diversity climate offers learning opportunities for embracing differences among organizational members, thereby enhancing not only internal organizational performance (such as group creativity) but also external social values (such as reducing social conflicts and making societal contributions) [18]. Therefore, an organizational climate of diversity and inclusion can contribute to activating an organization’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities.
Companies have shown interest in advanced human resource management as a means to secure distinctive competitive advantages for organizational survival and growth through sustainable management systems [19]. Hence, in the current context, where sustainability in business is a growing concern, this study aims to empirically analyze whether high-performance work systems, which are gaining attention as sustainable human resource management systems, enhance social performance. Specifically, this study seeks to explore how the perceptions of a high-performance work system operating within a company impacts the perception of its CSR activities and whether a positive diversity climate exhibits moderating effects on this relationship.
The rest of this research paper has been organized as follows: In Section Two, we provided the theoretical background and our hypotheses. In Section Three we demonstrated the study methodology. In Section Four we analyzed the data and we discussed the analysis results, implications, and the limitations of the study in Section Five. Finally, we presented the conclusion of the in Section Six.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Perception of High-Performance Work Systems

High-performance work systems (HPWSs) have long been a central topic in the field of strategic human resource management and one of the most emphasized aspects of organizational human resource management systems [20]. HPWSs collectively refer to human resource management practices within organizations designed to enhance the capabilities of employees to achieve organizational performance goals [21]. While the definition of the perception of HPWSs varies among researchers, the majority of previous studies have commonly defined it as the perception of employees regarding their human resource management system, which has been strategically designed to enhance their capabilities, provide motivation, and expand opportunities for participation in decision making [22].
While research on high-performance work systems (HPWSs) has traditionally focused on the organizational level, recently, there has been growing interest in research at the level of individuals. This shift is motivated by the understanding that the human resource management systems implemented within organizations can be perceived quite differently by the employees who experience them. According to social cognitive theory, individuals can interpret and attribute different meanings to the same social stimuli, even when exposed to identical environmental conditions [23]. In other words, even when employees experience the same human resource management practices, they may interpret and assign meaning to them differently based on their past experiences, values, and individual perspectives.
Studies on the relationship between human resource management systems and organizational performance are often categorized into “universalistic, contingency, and configurational perspectives” [24]. The “Universal Perspective” is a perspective that implies the applicability of the same human resource management system to all organizations and the impact of the system on organizational performance. “Contingency Perspective” refers to the contingent effect of a human resource management system on organizational performance based on a particular situation of an organization. Finally, the “Configurational Perspective” is a perspective that implies what the structural characteristics of a human resource management system entail for organizational performance [25]. [26], and [27] pointed out the lack of studies in the domain of “Contingency Perspective” and the necessity of considering situational variables that can explain the intensity or direction of the relationship between human resource management systems and performance.
Therefore, this study aims to explore the impact of individual-level perceptions of high-performance work systems and a positive diversity climate on the perception of a company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) from a contingency perspective within the realm of human resource management research.

2.2. Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is currently a significant focus through which companies strive to achieve a sustainable competitive advantage [2]. CSR refers to the expanded obligations of a company, encompassing economic, legal, ethical, and philanthropic responsibilities [28]. The concept of CSR has been diversely defined by researchers. It is expressed through terms such as corporate social response, corporate social performance, the non-financial performance of a company, and corporate citizenship behavior [29-30].
The relationship between a company’s social performance and high-performance work systems has received limited attention in research [15]. [31], argued for diverse outcome variables to measure the relationship between high-performance work systems and organizational performance. However, studies that measure social performance, especially in conjunction with other variables, are scarce [32].
According to institutional theory, companies compete not only for resources and customers but also for political power, institutional legitimacy, economic viability, and social acceptance [33]. A company’s legitimacy and survival cannot be achieved solely through economic success. [34], conducted an empirical study that emphasized the need to integrate the competitive perspective, which focuses more on economic aspects, with the institutional perspective, which prioritizes legitimacy, in order to achieve sustainability. Deriving their analysis from strategic balance theory, Beekun and Badawi argue that an organization’s decision-making processes should also include an ethical dimension-making processes [35]. In the context of high-performance work systems, the relationship between these systems and social performance should be considered significant [36].
Therefore, this study intends to use a company’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) (which includes economic performance as one of its dimensions [33] as the outcome variable. This choice reflects the understanding that economic performance is integral to a company’s overall social performance.
Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is structured around managing various stakeholders, not just shareholders [37]. According to stakeholder theory, companies should strive for social good beyond basic economic interests, catering to various stakeholders [38]. This study specifically focuses on employees among these diverse stakeholders. Employees are the agents responsible for performing CSR activities; therefore, there is a need to improve their organizational commitment and citizenship behavior [39].
According to the resource-based view, employees are crucial stakeholders who directly influence organizational performance and survival and are a significant source of competitive advantage within the organization [40]. Previous studies have indicated that positive perceptions of CSR activities are associated with desirable attitudes and behaviors among employees [41]. To explore strategies for developing and utilizing human resource management systems that enhance organizational competitiveness and performance, examining how employees respond to the increasingly important aspect of CSR within companies is essential. Therefore, there is a need to study how employees perceive CSR activities based on the company’s human resource management systems.

2.3. The Relationship between the Perception of a High-Performance Work System and the Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)

The impact of individual-level high-performance work systems (HPWSs) on organizational performance can be explained using AMO theory (Ability, Motivation, and Opportunity) [42]. According to AMO theory, human resource management systems enhance employees’ abilities, motivate voluntary effort, and offer opportunities to utilize skills and knowledge, which leads to improved performance [43-44]. Consequently, HPWSs have a positive impact on organizational performance.
Previous studies have utilized outcomes such as employee engagement [45], job performance [5-9], organizational citizenship behavior [46-47], and job satisfaction [37, 48] at the individual level as dependent variables for HPWSs. The majority of the previous research on individual-level HPWS perception has demonstrated a positive relationship between HPWS perception and organizational performance [5, 8, 49]. These studies indicate that the positive perception of HPWSs then positively influences organizational performance.
Addressing human resource management systems alongside corporate social responsibility (CSR) is crucial. From the recruitment perspective of human resource management systems, job seekers tend to prefer companies with high CSR activities [50-51]. Companies with strong CSR activities can attract top talent, giving them a competitive advantage in talent acquisition [52].
Regarding motivation and development within human resource management systems, a positive perception of CSR positively impacts employees’ organizational engagement [53, 54]. Additionally, it influences individuals’ perceptions of the importance of their work in society and their awareness of social justice [47]. Therefore, a company’s CSR activities can positively influence employees’ motivation and attitudes.
Although there is limited research on the relationship between human resource management systems and a firm’s social fitness, some studies suggest a positive link between corporate management and social performance [55]. Research by [56] indicated that companies effectively utilizing delegation practices are more likely to achieve better non-financial performance such as “customer satisfaction, customer retention, and learning and growth.”
[57] argued that companies pursuing dedication-oriented human resource management systems- which refers to a set of methods and skills that aims to develop a company's human capital, enhance the skills of professionals, manage behaviors, and take advantage of the talents present in the workforce- perform better in financial and non-financial aspects. Additionally, a study by [36] showed that high-performance work systems positively impact a company’s social performance.
Based on these prior studies, it can be inferred that the perception of high-performance work systems positively influences the perception of a company’s social responsibility (CSR). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 is formulated as follows:
H1. 
The positive perceptions of a high-performance work system positively impact the perceptions of a company’s social responsibility (CSR).

2.4. Moderating Effect of a Positive Diversity Climate

This study adopted a positive diversity climate as an environmental variable to examine its impact on the relationship between human resource management systems and social performance. Diverse organizational members possessing various skills, experiences, cultural dimensions, and values contribute to the organization’s capabilities [58]. Managing diversity well is essential to enhance the positive aspects of employees. Recent trends in diversity management emphasize the importance of diverse environments. According to research by [59], a good relationship between human resource management systems and organizational performance is achieved by establishing an appropriate organizational culture. Therefore, emphasizing the importance of organizational culture and creating a climate conducive to the effective application of human resource management systems plays a crucial role in organizational performance.
In an organization, climate refers to the atmosphere that the members perceive based on the organization’s practices, procedures, and rewards [60]. The climate emphasizes the members’ perception of the environment rather than the environment itself [61]. When organizational members perceive the culture or climate as embracing diversity to some extent, this indicates that the organization values their contributions [62]. This perception influences organizational members’ attitudes, behaviors, and performance [63]. Therefore, a positive diversity climate refers to the shared perception of organizational members, human resource management systems, and the organizational atmosphere that it is important to increase the representation of diverse groups within the organization and to ensure that diverse organizational members are fairly selected and evaluated based on their abilities [64].
The human resource management system influences attitudes, behaviors, and organizational performance through the climate perceived by employees [65-67]. Some prior studies have argued that ethical human resource management is crucial, as it treats employees with dignity, avoids discrimination based on diversity factors (such as sex, age, and regular/irregular employment), and ensures fair compensation. Organizations practicing ethical human resource management gain support from their members and other stakeholders, enabling long-term survival [68]. Additionally, the individual-level psychological climate reflects the interaction between individual perceptions of the social structure and the organizational context [69]. This psychological climate helps determine the appropriate behavior within a given environment and serves as a guideline for forming organizational members’ normative and organizational goal-directed behaviors [70]. Therefore, an organization rooted in a positive diversity climate characterized by active and open communication provides opportunities for organizational members to improve their performance. Previous research has shown that a positive diversity climate positively impacts companies [71], as employees can be evaluated based on their efforts and dedication without unfair discrimination. Hence, a positive diversity climate influences individual behaviors such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment, and it enhances individual productivity [64].
Based on these previous studies, a positive diversity climate is expected to moderate the relationship between the perception of the high-performance work system (HPWS) perception and the perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is proposed as follows:
H2. 
A diversity climate moderates the relationship between the perception of the high-performance work system (HPWS) and the perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR). Specifically, the influence of a positive perception of HPWS on the perception of CSR is strengthened when the diversity climate is also positive.
The above hypotheses can be summarized as shown in Figure 1.

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Sample Collection and Characteristics

This study conducted an online survey targeting regular employees working in domestic companies in Jordan. A total of 224 questionnaires were collected, and 10 incomplete responses were excluded from the analysis. Considering the practical challenges in measuring the corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities of small-scale companies in the domestic context, which includes a lack of clear measurement standards and indicators, lack of financial and human resources for the implementation and monitoring of CSR, and difficulty in ensuring responsibility and transparency in CSR activities, organizations with fewer than 150 employees were excluded. Hence, a total of 175 completed questionnaires were utilized for the analysis.
The respondents’ characteristics are shown in Table 1.

3.2. Measurement of Variables

All variables used in this study were measured using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree; 5 = strongly agree).

3.2.1. Perception of a High-Performance Work System

The perception of a high-performance work system refers to employees’ perception of the human resource management system that aims to enhance employees’ capabilities, motivation, participation, and opportunities in order to improve organizational performance. In other words, it measures how employees perceive the high-performance work systems within the company. The measurement was adapted from the works of [72-74], consisted of a total of 17 items, including specific statements such as “I believe our company recruits employees through a very extensive selection process”, “I participate in various training programs”, “I think promotions are often determined by seniority”, “My performance evaluation is thoroughly conducted based on quantifiable results”, and “I am actively encouraged to participate in decision-making processes”, among others. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to validate the construct based on the 17 survey items. Principal component analysis with Kaiser Normalization and Varimax Rotation was applied. After the factor analysis, seven items that did not load onto the expected factors were excluded. These items included “I believe that there is an emphasis on employees' long-term potential in selection and placement”, “I think there are few opportunities for insider promotion (R)”, “My job rotated regularly”, “My evaluation focuses on medium to long-term performance and team achievements”, “My salary is closely linked to both individual and team performance”, and “I believe there is a significant difference in individual salaries based on performance, even for the same job.”
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on the remaining 11 items loaded onto three factors (perception of CSR, climate of diversity, and perception of HPWS). The results showed that the model fit the data well, with χ2 = 73.084, df = 41, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.93, and RMSEA = 0.07, meeting the required standards.
The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s α) for the final 11 items constituting the perception of high-performance work systems was 0.91. Explaining the relationship between human resource management practices and individual performance is challenging. Moreover, this study aimed to conceptualize the perception of high-performance work systems as a single-dimensional construct. To confirm the suitability of conceptualizing the perception of high-performance work systems as a single dimension, a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted by integrating the three sub-factors constructed in the first-order CFA. The results, with χ2 = 73.011, χ2/df = 1.79, CFI = 0.95, GFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.94, and RMSEA = 0.07, indicated a good fit to the data. Notably, NFI was 0.93, suggesting that the improvement in the research model from the null model was 93%, indicating a good fit.

3.2.2. Diversity Climate

A positive diversity climate is defined as the shared perception among organizational members that encourages the inclusion of all members and is characterized by the fairness of the organization’s human resource practices [64]. It assesses how policies and procedures within an organization are perceived as fair and inclusive from the perspectives of fairness and inclusivity. This study’s measurement of the diversity climate was based on 10 items used in the studies by [75] and [76], which inherently encompass fairness and inclusivity. Specifically, the items included statements such as “I believe I am treated fairly based on my abilities, regardless of my diversity factors (gender, age, region, recruitment path, etc.)”, “Our company managers provide fair feedback and evaluations to employees regardless of their diversity factors (gender, age, region, recruitment path, etc.)”, and “Our company managers apply personnel policies and regulations fairly to all employees”.
An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted to validate the measurement using the ten survey items. After the factor analysis, the item “The ‘‘old boys network’’ is alive and well here” with a factor loading below 0.5 was removed. The reliability analysis of the remaining nine items resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.93, indicating a high level of reliability.

3.2.3. Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility

The perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) refers to the awareness of an organization’s responsibility, beyond profit-seeking, to comply with legal regulations, contribute to society through ethical actions, and ensure positive environmental decisions and behaviors. This definition is based on the conceptualization of organizational responsibility provided by [77]. The measurement items were adapted from the questionnaire of corporate social responsibility developed by [78-80]. A total of 18 items were utilized to assess this perception. Specifically, the items included statements like “Our company has been successful in maximizing profits”, “Our company’s management makes efforts to comply with the law”, “Our company has ethical standards that encompass all issues”, and “Our company provides diverse training programs for employees who seek education”. To ensure validity, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted, and the 4 items that did not load onto the expected factors or had factor loadings below 0.5 were excluded from the analysis. These items included “Our company supports local sports and cultural activities”, “Our company behaves as a good corporate citizen”, “Our company provides high quality products and services”, and “Our company aims to improve productivity continuously”.
The reliability coefficient (Cronbach’s α) for the final 14-item perception of a corporate social responsibility was 0.93. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted on the 14 items loading onto two factors. In previous studies, corporate social responsibility (CSR) variables were divided into four sub-dimensions: economic responsibility, legal responsibility, ethical responsibility, and philanthropic responsibility. However, in this study, they loaded onto the aforementioned factors. A second-order confirmatory factor analysis was performed to confirm whether measuring CSR perception with these four factors as a single dimension was appropriate. The results were χ2 = 168.52, χ2/df = 2.18, CFI = 0.92, GFI = 0.91, TLI = 0.93, and RMSEA = 0.08, meeting the required criteria. Moreover, the NFI was 0.89, indicating an improvement of 89% over the null model and confirming the suitability of the single-dimension measurement of CSR perception.
Table 2 summarizes the confirmatory factor analysis results of the abovementioned study variables.

3.2.4. Control Variables

This study was designed at the individual level. Demographic variables mainly related to individual characteristics were included as control variables, along with organizational-level control variables to control for response bias. The control variables related to individual characteristics included sex, age, education level, tenure, and job position. Sex was dummy-coded as 0 for male and 1 for female. Age was categorized as (1) 20s, (2) 30s, (3) 40s, and (4) 50s or above. Education level was divided into (1) high school graduate, (2) diploma degree, (3) Bachelor’s degree, (4) Master’s degree, and (5) doctoral degree. Tenure was categorized as (1) one year or more but less than five years, (2) five years or more but less than ten years, (3) ten years or more but less than fifteen years, (4) fifteen years or more but less than twenty years, and (5) twenty years or more. Job position was classified as (1) managerial, (2) research/development, (3) sales, (4) service, (5) production/technical, and (6) other. Additionally, industry was included as an organizational-level control variable. The industry was dummy coded as 1 for manufacturing and 0 for non-manufacturing.

3.3. Assessment of Common Method Bias

In this study, variables were examined at a specific point in time. Harman’s single-factor test was conducted to assess the potential issue of common method bias [81]. All variables were set as a single factor, and the results of the unrotated factor analysis showed that the total variance explained was less than 50% (44.21%), indicating no significant concerns regarding common method bias.

3.4. Analysis Method

The validity of the measurement tools used in this study was verified through a confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS 24.0, while reliability and hypothesis testing were conducted using SPSS 21.0. To examine the relationship between the perception of high-performance work systems and performance based on the diversity climate, the variables were analyzed using mean centering to minimize multicollinearity issues that could arise while verifying interaction effects [82]. Correlation analysis and hierarchical regression analysis were performed by calculating the mean values of each variable.

4. Empirical Analysis Results

4.1. Correlation Analysis

A correlation analysis was conducted to examine the means, standard deviations, and correlations of the variables. The correlation analysis included five individual-level control variables, one organizational-level control variable, and three variables measured through the confirmatory factor analysis. Among the control variables, sex and industry were dummy coded for measurement. The “means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients” among the variables are presented in Table 3. The correlation analysis revealed significant positive correlations among the perceptions of the high-performance work system, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and diversity climate variables.

4.2. Hypotheses Testing

The relationship between the perception of the high-performance work system (HPWS) and the perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the moderating effect of the diversity climate was examined using hierarchical regression analysis. In the first step, the control variables were entered. In the second step, the independent variable, HPWS perception, was entered. The moderating variable, the diversity climate, was included in the third step. Finally, the interaction term between HPWS perception and the diversity climate was added in the fourth step. To prevent multicollinearity due to the inclusion of interaction terms, mean centering was applied to the independent and moderating variables before creating the interaction terms [83]. The results of the hierarchical regression analysis are presented in Table 4. The results show that HPWS perception significantly and positively influenced CSR perception (β = 0.69, p < 0.001), supporting Hypothesis 1. Additionally, the moderating effect of the diversity climate was positively significant (β = 0.09, p < 0.10), supporting Hypothesis 2.
Based on these results, the moderating effect of the diversity climate was further examined and is presented in Figure 2. Upon analyzing the graph, it can be observed that, in groups with high levels of high-performance work system (HPWS) perception, the positive relationship between HPWS perception and corporate social responsibility (CSR) perception was significantly strengthened due to the moderating effect of the diversity climate. However, in cases where HPWS perception is low, the diversity climate moderating effect appeared weak. This indicates that, from the perspective of employees’ perceptions, both human resource management practices and the organizational climate are environmental factors provided by the organization. Consequently, groups of individuals within an organization who perceive these practices and the climate as inclusive and respectful are likely to have a positive evaluation of the organization.

5. Discussion

The results revealed that employees’ perceptions of HPWS positively influence their perceptions of the organization’s CSR. This finding aligns with that of prior research, including the analysis by [36], which showed that high-performance work systems positively impact a company’s social performance. According to the literature, high autonomy, the delegation of authority, and participation in the decision-making process are aspects of high-performance work systems that motivate people to be more responsible and increase their perception of the positive side of CSR activities.
Furthermore, this research revealed that a positive diversity climate enhances the positive relationship between employees’ perceptions of HPWS and their perceptions of CSR, strengthening the impact of HPWS on CSR perception among organizational members. These results imply that perceptions of high-performance work systems vary depending on individual characteristics. Corporate members with a positive diversity climate experience a stronger improvement in social performance due to the implementation of high-performance work systems compared to those in organizations with a negative diversity climate. Therefore, even with similar social stimuli, organizational members can interpret and attribute meanings differently, leading to differences in attitudes or behaviors among individuals. This aligns with the principles of social cognitive theory [23].
The implications of these study results are as follows: Firstly, previous studies have established that high-performance work systems contribute to organizational success by achieving economic outcomes [2]. This study reinforces this understanding by demonstrating that, when employees are aware of the high-performance work systems implemented within their organization, it enhances economic performance and increases their recognition of social performance, specifically the organization’s corporate social responsibility (CSR). These results suggest the potential of high-performance work systems to serve as a sustainable human resource management system, enhancing both economic and social outcomes.
Secondly, this study examined the diversity climate as a situational variable within the context of research on human resource management systems. This approach holds significant meaning, as it meticulously investigates the institutional effectiveness of high-performance work systems, expanding the research scope within human resource management systems. Research concerning organizational situational variables is limited in studies investigating the effective implementation of high-performance work systems [84-86]. This study, however, emphasizes the importance of the organizational climate as a crucial situational variable from a contextual perspective within the realm of strategic human resource management systems. It demonstrates that when employees perceive a high-performance work system as fostering diversity, their recognition of the organization’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) is elevated. A climate within the organization that embraces diversity respects its members’ values; maximizing human resources’ potential is essential in today’s intricate organizational settings. Therefore, practitioners in enterprises should work toward achieving an inclusive and fair organizational climate, specifically enhancing the diversity climate. This improvement would enable employees to foster positive attitudes, ultimately ensuring the organization’s efficient operation of human resource management systems.
Lastly, this study highlights the role of a positive diversity climate in enhancing social performance. It was observed that a high-performance work system positively influences corporate social responsibility (CSR). When there is a positive diversity climate, the positive impact of the relationship between high-performance work systems and CSR is even higher. This underscores the importance of a fair and inclusive climate, specifically a positive diversity climate, as it is a significant factor in enhancing a company’s social performance. Social performance variables within organizations are crucial in contemporary research emphasizing sustainable management. Sustainable management signals stakeholders about a company’s concern for environmental and social issues, gaining their support [87]. In the current context, where sustainable management is recognized as vital for a company’s long-term development, introducing sustainable human resource management systems is essential. Hence, it is suggested that companies consider a positive diversity climate, characterized by fairness and inclusivity, as a critical factor in shaping their sustainable human resource management systems.
While this study provides valuable insights into the relationship between high-performance work systems, CSR perception, and the moderating effect of the diversity climate, certain limitations should be acknowledged. First and foremost, this study focused on large Jordanian companies with 300 or more employees. Therefore, the findings might not directly apply to smaller enterprises or companies in different cultural contexts.
Secondly, this study used self-reported data, which could introduce response and social desirability biases. Thus, future studies could benefit from employing diverse methods, such as qualitative interviews or observations, to triangulate the findings.
Additionally, this study primarily examined the relationships at a specific point in time. Therefore, longitudinal studies could provide a more comprehensive understanding of how these relationships evolve over time and whether the observed effects remain consistent.
Furthermore, while the present study focused on high-performance work systems and the diversity climate as key variables, other contextual factors within organizations, such as leadership styles or organizational culture, must be thoroughly explored. Future research could delve deeper into these aspects to gain a more holistic perspective.
Lastly, this study concentrated on the perceptions and attitudes of employees. Incorporating the perspectives of other stakeholders, such as customers, shareholders, or community members, could provide a more comprehensive view of an organization’s social performance.
By addressing these limitations, future research could explore the nuanced dynamics of high-performance work systems, the diversity climate, and CSR across various organizational sizes, industries, and cultural backgrounds. Additionally, investigating the impact of different contextual variables and involving multiple stakeholders could further enrich the understanding of these complex relationships.

6. Conclusions

This study investigated the impact of high-performance work systems (HPWSs) on social performance among Jordanian companies with 300 or more employees. Specifically, this research explored how employees’ perceptions of HPWS influence their perceptions of corporate social responsibility (CSR) within the company. Additionally, this study analyzed the moderating effect of a positive diversity climate on this relationship. The results show that there is a positive relationship between the perception of high-performance work systems and the perception of a company’s CSR. Furthermore, this study found that a positive diversity climate could enhance the positive relationship between the perception of high-performance work systems and a company’s CSR. These findings suggest that high-performance work systems can contribute to the development of sustainable human resource management systems, and a positive diversity climate is essential in shaping sustainable human resource management systems within organizations.

Funding

This research received no external funding

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board/ Ethics Committee of Mutah University on 6/11/2023 (Ref. No 150/2023).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be available upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest with the present article.

Appendix A

The Study Questionnaire
A. 
Perception of High-Performance Work Systems practices
  • “I believe our company recruits employees through a very extensive selection process.”
  • “I participate in various training programs.”
  • “I think promotions are often determined by seniority.” (R).
  • “My performance evaluation is thoroughly conducted based on quantifiable results.”
  • “I am actively encouraged to participate in decision-making processes.”
  • “I regularly complete mandatory education/training programs.”
  • “I have a clear career development plan.”
  • “I am empowered to make decisions across tasks.”
  • “I have the opportunity to actively propose improvement ideas.”
  • "I experience an atmosphere of open exchange of opinions."
  • “My performance evaluation includes feedback for future competency enhancement and career development.”
B. 
Perception of Diversity Climate
  • “I believe I am treated fairly based on my abilities, regardless of my diversity factors (gender, age, region, recruitment path, etc.).”
  • “Our company managers provide fair feedback and evaluations to employees regardless of their diversity factors (gender, age, region, recruitment path, etc.).”
  • “Our company managers apply personnel policies and regulations fairly to all employees.”
  • “Our company managers have a track record of hiring and promoting company members objectively regardless of their race, sex, religion or age.”
  • “Our company managers here make promotion and tenure decisions fairly, regardless of such factors as the company member’s race, sex, age, or social background.”
  • “Our company managers apply personnel policies and regulations fairly to all employees.”
  • “Our company managers encourage the formation of company members’ network support groups.”
  • “There is a mentoring program in use here that identifies and prepares all company members for promotion.”
  • “The company spends enough money and time on diversity awareness and related training.”
C. 
Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility Activities
  • “Our company has been successful in maximizing profits.”
  • “Our company’s management makes efforts to comply with the law.”
  • “Our company has ethical standards that encompass all issues”
  • “Our company provides diverse training programs for employees who seek education”
  • “Our company communicates honestly to consumers about its products and services”
  • “Our company policies encourage the employees to develop their skills and careers”
  • “Our company seeks to comply with all laws regulating hiring and employee benefits”
  • “Our company seeks to reduce the pollution emissions and the production of residuals”
  • “Our company always pays its taxes on a regular and continuing basis”
  • “Our company takes care of the natural environment beyond what is required by law”
  • “Our company does everything it can do to satisfy customers”
  • “Our company always does what is ethically correct”
  • “Our company motivates employees to separate and set out waste to recycle”
  • “Our company has been successful in developing the community”

References

  1. Dixit, S. Corporate social responsibility: A critical appraisal. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 2023, 17, 421–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arian, A.; Sands, J.; Tooley, S. Industry and Stakeholder Impacts on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Financial Performance: Consumer vs. Industrial Sectors. Sustainability 2023, 15, 12254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Skudiene, V.; McCorkle, Y.; McCorkle, D.; Blagoveščenskij, D. The Quality of relationship with stakeholders, performance risk and competitive advantage in the hotel, restaurant and café market. Organ. Mark. Emerg. Econ. 2021, 12, 198–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. El Nemar, S.; El-Chaarani, H.; Dandachi, I.; Castellano, S. Resource-based view and sustainable advantage: A framework for SMEs. J. Strateg. Mark. 2022, 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Conteh, S.B.; Yuan, Y. The impact of high performance work system on employee service performance: The role of organizational support and organizational identification. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2022, 71, 2841–2864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Joo, M.K.; Lee, J.Y.; Kong, D.T.; Jolly, P.M. Gender diversity advantage at middle management: Implications for high performance work system improvement and organizational performance. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2022, 62, 765–785. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Katou, A.A. Human resources flexibility as a mediating mechanism between high-performance work systems and organizational performance: A multilevel quasi-longitudinal study. EuroMed J. Bus. 2022, 17, 174–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Park, J.; Ok, C.; Ryu, S. The two faces of HPWS in employee perceptions and organizational performance. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2023, 28, 519–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Zhai, X.; Tian, X. An institutional view on the relationship between high-performance work system and organizational performance: The role of country of origin. Pers. Rev. 2023, 52, 1051–1070. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dayarathna, N.W.K.D.K. Understanding High Performance Work Systems-Firm Performance Linkages: A Literature Review. Sri Lankan J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 9, 11–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhi, Z.; Abba, N.B.; Hamid, A.A. Employee Participation In Organizational Decision Making As A Motivational Factor For Building High Performance Work System In An Organization. Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Stud. (IJRAS) 2020, 7, 111–116. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ifeoma, I.O.M.; Uzochukwu, A.C.; Raphael, A.E. Influence of employees’ participation in decision making on organizational performance of selected indigenous firms in Nigeria. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Growth Eval. 2023, 4, 477–499. [Google Scholar]
  13. Kaushik, D.; Mukherjee, U. High-performance work system: A systematic review of literature. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2022, 30, 1624–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Naskar, S. The Influence of High-Performance Work Systems and Intangible Strategic Resources on the Entrepreneurial Orientation-Firm Performance Relationship. Master’s Thesis, University of Louisville, Louisville, KT, USA, 2018; Paper 3027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Bartram, T.; Cooper, B.; Cooke, F.L.; Wang, J. High-performance work systems and job performance: The mediating role of social identity, social climate and empowerment in Chinese banks. Pers. Rev. 2021, 50, 285–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liang-Chih, H.; Tzeng-Tian, H.; Chien-Bin, H. Companies to promote CSR impact on employees: High-performance work systems as a moderator. Bus. Ethics Environ. Responsib. 2022, 31, 999–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dogru, C. (Ed.) Role of Human Resources for Inclusive Leadership, Workplace Diversity, and Equity in Organizations; IGI Global: Hershey, PA, USA, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kundi, Y.M.; Aboramadan, M. A multi-level examination of the link between diversity-related HR practices and employees’ performance: Evidence from Italy. Eur. J. Work. Organ. Psychol. 2023, 32, 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Roziq, M.; Reawaroe, H.P.; Rosyidi, A.I. Investment Perspectives in Human Resources Management and Its Contribution on Organizational Performance and Competitive Advantages. J. Manag. Leadersh. 2021, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Chung, G.H.; Pak, J. Is there internal fit among ability-, motivation-, and opportunity-enhancing HR practices? Evidence from South Korea. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2021, 15, 2049–2074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ijigu, A.W.; Alemu, A.E.; Kuhil, A.M. High-Performance Work System and Employee Work Performance: A Moderated Mediation Model of Ambidextrous Leadership and Employee Ambidexterity. Int. J. Bus. Sci. Appl. Manag. 2023, 18, 46–62. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mehralian, G.; Sheikhi, S.; Zatzick, C.; Babapour, J. The dynamic capability view in exploring the relationship between high-performance work systems and innovation performance. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2023, 34, 3555–3584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Schunk, D.H.; Usher, E.L. Social cognitive theory and motivation. In The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2012; Volume 2, pp. 11–26. [Google Scholar]
  24. Lengnick-Hall, M.L.; Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Andrade, L.S.; Drake, B. Strategic human resource management: The evolution of the field. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2009, 19, 64–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Yuliusman, Y.; Zulma GW, M.; Azis, A.D. Contingency perspective: Company characteristics, risk management voluntary disclosure, and company performance. J. Penelit. Pendidik. Indones. 2023, 9, 1696–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Anwar, G.; Abdullah, N.N. The impact of Human resource management practice on Organizational performance. Int. J. Eng. Bus. Manag. (IJEBM) 2021, 5, 35–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zamzam, S.; Samdin, S.; Mahrani, S.; Syaifuddin, D.T.; Suleman, N.R.; Masri, M.; Zaludin, Z. Human resource management practices and situational leadership on organizational performance; mediated by employee engagement. World J. Adv. Res. Rev. 2023, 17, 632–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Silva Junior, A.D.; Martins-Silva, P.D.O.; Coelho, V.D.; Sousa, A.F.D. The corporate social responsibility pyramid: Its evolution and the proposal of the spinner, a theoretical refinement. Soc. Responsib. J. 2023, 19, 358–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bouichou, S.I.; Wang, L.; Zulfiqar, S. How corporate social responsibility boosts corporate financial and non-financial performance: The moderating role of ethical leadership. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 871334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Khaskheli, A.; Jiang, Y.; Raza, S.A.; Qureshi, M.A.; Khan, K.A.; Salam, J. Do CSR activities increase organizational citizenship behavior among employees? Mediating role of affective commitment and job satisfaction. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2941–2955. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Karadas, G.; Karatepe, O.M. Unraveling the black box: The linkage between high-performance work systems and employee outcomes. Empl. Relat. 2019, 41, 67–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Andersén, J.; Andersén, A. Are high-performance work systems (HPWS) appreciated by everyone? The role of management position and gender on the relationship between HPWS and affective commitment. Empl. Relat. Int. J. 2019, 41, 1046–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Wirba, A.V. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of Government in promoting CSR. J. Knowl. Econ. 2023, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Del-Castillo-Feito, C.; Blanco-González, A.; Díez-Martín, F.; Cachón-Rodríguez, G. Social capital and organizational legitimacy as competitive advantages in the information and communications technology sector. J. High Technol. Manag. Res. 2022, 33, 100441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Beekun, R.I.; Badawi, J.A. Balancing ethical responsibility among multiple organizational stakeholders: The Islamic perspective. J. Bus. Ethics 2005, 60, 131–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, M.; Di Fan, D.; Zhu, C.J. High-performance work systems, corporate social performance and employee outcomes: Exploring the missing links. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 120, 423–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zhang, J.; He, W.; Jiang, J.; Luo, X.; Li, G.; Li, Y.; Han, X. The Impact of high-performance work system perceived by medical staff on job satisfaction: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Psychol. Health Med. 2023, 29, 492–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Hasan, I.; Singh, S.; Kashiramka, S. CSR initiatives and stakeholder engagement amidst COVID-19 pandemic: Insights using content analysis and literature review. Soc. Responsib. J. 2023, 20, 503–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Lee, S.Y.; Seo, Y.W. Corporate social responsibility motive attribution by service employees in the parcel logistics industry as a moderator between CSR perception and organizational effectiveness. Sustainability 2017, 9, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gerhart, B.; Feng, J. The resource-based view of the firm, human resources, and human capital: Progress and prospects. J. Manag. 2021, 47, 1796–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wang, Y.; Xu, S.; Wang, Y. The consequences of employees’ perceived corporate social responsibility: A meta-analysis. Bus. Ethics Eur. Rev. 2020, 29, 471–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Keramatiyazdi, Z.; Alizadesani, M.; Hosseini, A. Investigating the Effect of High-Performance Work Systems (HPWS) on Organizational Performance. Iran. J. Manag. Stud. 2023, 16, 711–724. [Google Scholar]
  43. Mbukanma, I.; Strydom, K. Adopting the Ability, Motivation and Opportunity (AMO) Theory to Enhance Employees’ Performance in South African Public Service Organisations Amid the Covid-19 Outbreak. J. Public Adm. 2022, 57, 361–377. [Google Scholar]
  44. Li, S.; Jia, R.; Seufert, J.H.; Hu, W.; Luo, J. The impact of ability-, motivation-and opportunity-enhancing strategic human resource management on performance: The mediating roles of emotional capability and intellectual capital. Asia Pac. J. Hum. Resour. 2022, 60, 453–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Padamata, K.; Vangapandu, R.D. High-performance work systems and employee attitudes: Evidence from Indian healthcare industry. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. ahead-of-print. 2023. [Google Scholar]
  46. Arefin, M.S.; Faroque, O.; Zhang, J.; Long, L. High-performance work systems and organizational citizenship behavior: The role of goal congruence and servant leadership. Int. J. Emerg. Mark. 2022, 18, 5432–5453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Beikzadeh, J. Effects of high-performance work systems on service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior of shoe and leather industry employees. J. Account. Manag. Vis. 2023, 5, 23–39. [Google Scholar]
  48. Yan, L.; Zhao, J.; Zhang, Q.; Sass, M.D. Does high-performance work system bring job satisfaction? Exploring the non-linear effect of high-performance work system using the ‘too much of a good thing’ theory. J. Manag. Organ. 2022, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ashiru, J.A.; Erdil, G.E.; Oluwajana, D. The linkage between high performance work systems on organizational performance, employee voice and employee innovation. J. Organ. Chang. Manag. 2022, 35, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Bachrach, D.G.; Vlachos, P.A.; Irwin, K.; Morgeson, F.P. Does “how” firms invest in corporate social responsibility matter? An attributional model of job seekers’ reactions to configurational variation in corporate social responsibility. Hum. Relat. 2022, 75, 532–559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Crucke, S.; Bockaert, H. Exploring the attractiveness of social enterprises to job seekers: The role of perceived value fit and prestige. Ann. Public Coop. Econ. 2023, 94, 399–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Joshi, P.; Singh, P.; Tabuena, A.C.; Galapate, W.L. Role of Corporate Social Responsibility in Talent Acquisition and Retention: A Cross-Sectional Study. J. Inform. Educ. Res. 2023, 3, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  53. Bouichou, S.I.; Wang, L.; Feroz, H.M.B. How corporate social responsibility perceptions affect employees’ positive behavior in the hospitality industry: Moderating role of responsible leadership. Int. Rev. Public Nonprofit Mark. 2022, 19, 413–446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cunha, S.; Proença, T.; Ferreira, M.R. Employees Perceptions about Corporate Social Responsibility—Understanding CSR and Job Engagement through Meaningfulness, Bottom-Up Approach and Calling Orientation. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Orazalin, N.; Baydauletov, M. Corporate social responsibility strategy and corporate environmental and social performance: The moderating role of board gender diversity. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 1664–1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Guitart Martín, A.; Palomo Zurdo, R.J. Digital inability and social sustainability in the face of the fourth industrial revolution: A proposal of new non-financial indicators. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Rothenberg, S.; Hull, C.E.; Tang, Z. The impact of human resource management on corporate social performance strengths and concerns. Bus. Soc. 2017, 56, 391–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Duchek, S.; Raetze, S.; Scheuch, I. The role of diversity in organizational resilience: A theoretical framework. Bus. Res. 2020, 13, 387–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Al-Tit, A.A. The mediating role of knowledge management and the moderating part of organizational culture between HRM practices and organizational performance. Int. Bus. Res. 2016, 9, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sembiring, N.; Nimran, U.; Astuti, E.S.; Utami, H.N. The effects of emotional intelligence and organizational justice on job satisfaction, caring climate, and criminal investigation officers’ performance. Int. J. Organ. Anal. 2020, 28, 1113–1130. [Google Scholar]
  61. Newman, A.; Round, H.; Wang, S.; Mount, M. Innovation climate: A systematic review of the literature and agenda for future research. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2020, 93, 73–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Shanock, L.R.; Eisenberger, R.; Heggestad, E.D.; Malone, G.; Clark, L.; Dunn, A.M.; Woznyj, H. Treating employees well: The value of organizational support theory in human resource management. Psychol.-Manag. J. 2019, 22, 168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Huang, I.C.; Du, P.L.; Wu, L.F.; Achyldurdyyeva, J.; Wu, L.C.; Lin, C.S. Leader–member exchange, employee turnover intention and presenteeism: The mediating role of perceived organizational support. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2021, 42, 249–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Holmes, O., IV; Jiang, K.; Avery, D.R.; McKay, P.F.; Oh, I.S.; Tillman, C.J. A meta-analysis integrating 25 years of diversity climate research. J. Manag. 2021, 47, 1357–1382. [Google Scholar]
  65. Al Doghan, M.A.; Bhatti, M.A.; Juhari, A.S. Do psychological diversity climate, HRM practices, and personality traits (big five) influence multicultural workforce job satisfaction and performance? Current scenario, literature gap, and future research directions. Sage Open 2019, 9, 2158244019851578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Biswas, K.; Boyle, B.; Bhardwaj, S. Impacts of supportive HR practices and organisational climate on the attitudes of HR managers towards gender diversity—A mediated model approach. In Evidence-Based HRM: A Global Forum for Empirical Scholarship; Emerald Publishing Limited: Bradford, UK, 2021; Volume 9, pp. 18–33. [Google Scholar]
  67. McCallaghan, S.; Jackson, L.T.; Heyns, M.M. Examining the mediating effect of diversity climate on the relationship between destructive leadership and employee attitudes. J. Psychol. Afr. 2019, 29, 563–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Sang, H.W.; Kirui, J. Ethical Issues in Selected Human Resource Management Practices and Sustainable Human Resource Management. Int. J. Innov. Res. Adv. Stud. (IJIRAS) 2019, 6, 156–162. [Google Scholar]
  69. Mozgovoy, V. Does psychological work environment matter? Relationship between psychological climate reflecting individual perception of work environment and stress among public servants. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2022, 9, 2010483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Bani-Melhem, S.; Shamsudin, F.M.; Abukhait, R.; Al-Hawari, M.A. Competitive psychological climate as a double-edged sword: A moderated mediation model of organization-based self-esteem, jealousy, and organizational citizenship behaviors. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2023, 54, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Gomez, L.E.; Bernet, P. Diversity improves performance and outcomes. J. Natl. Med. Assoc. 2019, 111, 383–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Gaertner, K.N.; Nollen, S.D. Career experiences, perceptions of employment practices, and psychological commitment to the organization. Human Relat. 1989, 42, 975–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sun, L.Y.; Aryee, S.; Law, K.S. High-performance human resource practices, citizenship behavior, and organizational performance: A relational perspective. Acad. Manag. J. 2007, 50, 558–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Vandenberg, R.J.; Richardson, H.A.; Eastman, L.J. The impact of high involvement work processes on organizational effectiveness: A second-order latent variable approach. Group Organ. Manag. 1999, 24, 300–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Jauhari, H.; Singh, S. Perceived diversity climate and employees’ organizational loyalty. Equal. Divers. Incl. Int. J. 2013, 32, 262–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Mor Barak, M.E.; Cherin, D.A.; Berkman, S. Organizational and personal dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee perceptions. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 1998, 34, 82–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Paruzel, A.; Schmidt, L.; Maier, G.W. Corporate social responsibility and employee innovative behaviors: A meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 393, 136189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Aupperle, K.E.; Carroll, A.B.; Hatfield, J.D. An empirical examination of the relationship between corporate social responsibility and profitability. Acad. Manag. J. 1985, 28, 446–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Maignan, I.; Ferrell, O.C.; Hult, G.T.M. Corporate citizenship: Cultural antecedents and business benefits. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 1999, 27, 455–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Shih, H.M.; Chen, B.H.; Chen, M.H.; Wang, C.H. Organizational Citizenship Behavior and Corporate Social Responsibility: Evidence from Taiwan Listed Electronics Firms. Int. J. Mark. Stud. 2022, 14, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Podsakoff, P. M.; MacKenzie, S. B.; Lee, J. Y.; Podsakoff, N. P. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology. 2003, 88(5), 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Baron, R. M.; Kenny, D. A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of personality and social psychology. 1986, 51, 1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Iacobucci, D.; Schneider, M.J.; Popovich, D.L.; Bakamitsos, G.A. Mean centering, multicollinearity, and moderators in multiple regression: The reconciliation redux. Behav. Res. Methods 2017, 49, 403–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Dayarathna, D.K.; Dowling, P.J.; Bartram, T. The effect of high performance work system strength on organizational effectiveness: Opportunities for international joint ventures by foreign firms. Rev. Int. Bus. Strategy 2020, 30, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Do, H.; Budhwar, P.; Patel, C. High-performance work system practices in Vietnam: A study of managers’ perceptions. J. Organ. Eff. People Perform. 2019, 6, 145–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Jewell, D.O.; Jewell, S.F.; Kaufman, B.E. Designing and implementing high-performance work systems: Insights from consulting practice for academic researchers. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2022, 32, 100749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Almagtome, A.; Khaghaany, M.; Önce, S. Corporate governance quality, stakeholders’ pressure, and sustainable development: An integrated approach. Int. J. Math. Eng. Manag. Sci. 2020, 5, 1077–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Preprints 103478 g001
Figure 1. Study model.
Figure 1. Study model.
Preprints 103478 g001
Preprints 103478 g002
Figure 2. The moderating effect of a positive diversity climate.
Figure 2. The moderating effect of a positive diversity climate.
Preprints 103478 g002
Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics.
Table 1. Respondents’ characteristics.
Demographic Variable Category Number of Individuals Percentage
Sex “Male” 105 60.00
“Female” 70 40.00
Age “20 to less than 30” 31 17.71
“30 to less than 40” 58 33.14
“40 to less than 50” 53 30.29
“50 and above” 33 18.86
Education level “Secondary school” 8 4.57
“Diploma” 15 8.57
“Bachelor’s” 102 58.29
“Master’s” 40 22.86
“Ph.D.” 10 5.71
Experience “0 to less than 5 years” 20 11.43
“5 to less than 10 years” 48 27.43
“10 to less than 15 years” 40 22.86
“15 to less than 20 years” 46 26.28
“20 years or more” 21 12.00
Organizational sector “Manufacturing” 55 31.43
“IT/telecommunication” 15 8.57
“Finance” 28 16.00
“Distribution/service” 63 36.00
“Other industries” 14 8.00
175 100.00
Table 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2. Results of confirmatory factor analysis.
Constructs Items Standardized Regression Coefficients Average Variance Extracted (AVE) Construct Reliability (CR)
Perception of High-Performance Work System HPWS 1 0.72 *** 0.60 0.91
HPWS 2 0.74 ***
HPWS 3 0.86 ***
HPWS 4 0.78 ***
HPWS 5 0.77 ***
HPWS 6 0.84 ***
HPWS 8 0.86 ***
HPWS 14 0.78 ***
HPWS 15 0.79 ***
HPWS 16 0.77 ***
HPWS 17 0.74 ***
Diversity Climate DC 4 0.86 *** 0.77 0.93
DC 3 0.88 ***
DC 2 0.85 ***
DC 1 0.87 ***
DC 5 0.81 ***
DC 6 0.75 ***
DC 7 0.81 ***
DC 9 0.83 ***
DC 10 0.85 ***
Corporate Social Responsibility CSR 3 0.74 *** 0.65 0.93
CSR 2 0.78 ***
CSR 1 0.82 ***
CSR 17 0.71 ***
CSR 16 0.75 ***
CSR 15 0.77 ***
CSR 14 0.79 ***
CSR 12 0.88 ***
CSR 11 0.83 ***
CSR 9 0.81 ***
CSR 8 0.71 ***
CSR 7 0.77 ***
CSR 6 0.81 ***
CSR 18 0.79 ***
“Notes: (1) N = 175, *** p < 0.001. (2) Standardized regression coefficients in AMOS 24 output represent factor loadings.”.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables.
Table 3. Descriptive statistics and correlations among variables.
Mean Standard Deviation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Sex Dummy 0.13 0.32 1
2. Age 2.74 0.81 −0.25 ** 1
3. Education 2.98 0.69 −0.14 * 0.21 ** 1
4. Occupation 1.92 1.63 0.19 ** −0.15 ** −0.23 ** 1
5. Years of Experience 4.11 1.08 −0.10 * 0.39 ** −0.07 −0.09 1
6. Industry Dummy 0.49 0.43 0.04 −0.06 −0.14 * −0.02 0.01 1
7. HPWS Perception 3.64 0.79 −0.10 0.13 0.17 * −0.16 * 0.05 0.09 1
8. Diversity Climate 3.49 0.88 −0.14 * 0.05 0.11 −0.11 0.02 0.12 0.81 ** 1
9. CSR Perception 3.91 0.69 −0.06 0.09 0.13 −0.08 0.05 0.17 * 0.79 ** 0.85 ** 1
“Notes: 1: N = 175, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01. 2: 1. Sex: female (1); male (0) 2. Age: 20s (1), 30s (2), 40s (3), 50s or above (4) 3. Education: high school graduate (1), diploma degree (2), Bachelor’s degree (3), Master’s degree (4), doctoral degree (5) 4. Occupation: managerial (1), research/development (2), sales (3), service (4), production/technical (5), other (6) 5. Tenure: (1) one year or more but less than five years, (2) five years or more but less than ten years, (3) ten years or more but less than fifteen years, (4) fifteen years or more but less than twenty years, and (5) twenty years or more 6. Industry: manufacturing (1), non-manufacturing (0).”.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression analysis results for corporate social responsibility (CSR) perception.
Table 4. Hierarchical regression analysis results for corporate social responsibility (CSR) perception.
Perception of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
(Constant) (0.39) (0.28) (0.23) (0.23)
Sex −0.04 (0.13) −0.2 (0.09) 0.7 (0.08) 0.7 (0.08)
Age −0.03 (0.07) −0.04 (0.08) −0.02 (0.06) −0.02 (0.06)
Educational Level 0.15 (0.09) * 0.03 (0.06) 0.03 (0.07) 0.03 (0.07)
Occupation −0.03 (0.05) 0.04 (0.02) 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03)
Years of Experience 0.08 (0.06) 0.05 (0.04) 0.06 (0.02) + 0.07 (0.02) +
Industry 0.15 (0.09) * 0.08 (0.05) 0.04 (0.07) 0.06 (0.08)
High-Performance Work System Perception (HPWS) 0.69 (0.004) *** 0.24 (0.008) *** 0.23 (0.008) ***
Diversity Climate (DC) 0.59 (0.06) *** 0.61 (0.06) ***
HPWS × DC 0.09 (0.05) +
R2 0.07 0.49 0.67 69
∆R2 0.07 0.44 0.13 0.02
F 1.89 * 29.810 *** 54.890 *** 49.318 ***
“Note: (1) N = 175, + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, *** p < 0.001. All values are standardized regression coefficients (β) and unstandardized coefficients with standard errors.”.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated