Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

Enhancing Employees' Social Responsibility: The Roles of Continuous Improvement, Organization Identification, and Perceived Organization Support

Altmetrics

Downloads

45

Views

21

Comments

0

supplementary.pdf (361.36KB )

This version is not peer-reviewed

Environmental and Workplace Sustainability of the Industrial Processes

Submitted:

12 September 2024

Posted:

13 September 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
Social responsibility is imperative for its important function in the growth of societies and organizations. However, the research on corporate social responsibility (OSR) has predominantly focused on the actions of organizations. Not much has been discussed regarding the employee's behaviours in promoting the development of social responsibility within organizations. CI is known for its significant role in the organization's various outcomes, Although a conceptualization and some empirical support have been provided for its relationship with the behaviour of employees, However, the effect of CI on employee socially responsible behaviours has not yet been investigated. In this article, following OC and OI theories, we improve the research model which can describe mechanisms underpinning through which CI, OI and POS support actions for employees' social responsibility. Data was collected from members of service professionals in Saudi Arabia and examined using Structural Equation Modeling- Partial Least Squares. The findings indicated that CI actions and activities develop the skills that motivate employees to support social responsibility inside and outside the organization. Moreover, our research paper explained the mechanism under which CI activities reshape employees' socially responsible manners. The current study is among the first to look at how to modify the socially responsible behaviour of employees across organizations, which can be a starting point for transforming those employees into a sustainable society.
Keywords: 
Subject: Business, Economics and Management  -   Human Resources and Organizations

1. Introduction

To improve an image of social responsibility, many organizations have integrated organizational social responsibility (OSR) into their daily operations [1]. Those organizations have to do more than only create economic value and fulfil their legal requirements, considering their discretionary and ethical responsibilities to their employees and wider stakeholders is important as well [2]. Such consideration requires them to incorporate sustainability in their strategies and operations (Fu et al. 2022), and design policies that consider how an organization’s actions affect various stakeholder groups, such as communities, clients and employees [2]. Internal stakeholders (e.g., employees) are an integral part of the organization when implementing SR activities (Shen and Benson, 2016). This concept in literature is referred to as employees’ Socially Responsible Behavior (SRB) [1,3,4].
SRB is conceptualized as the voluntary choices and activities made by members of organizations to improve society’s well-being or to prevent negative social effects [5]. Roeck (2017) operationalized SRB as measures taken by staff members outside of the workplace to promote the well-being of the community. According to Veetikazhi (2021), this research examines four types of SRB: employees’ concern orientation employees, norm adherence orientation, perseverance and long-term value. Concern orientation is defined as a propensity for behaviour that is helpful and mindful of other people (coworkers, clients, or general members of society), and norm adherence orientation is characterized as the propensity for behaviour to adhere to moral standards and appropriate regulations. Perseverance is the continued efforts against obstacles, and long-term value is defined as refusing to accept a company’s short-term gain at the expense of long-term harm to society.
Both practitioners and researchers have begun to explore human resources factors that may encourage employees to show socially responsible manners [1,3,5,6,8]. Research in human resources management still has time to develop a research model about this matter [9]. In the past ten years, there has been a growing trend of engaging employees in social responsibility through the formulation of strategies, operations, and policies. (Berrone & Gomez-Mejia, 2009; Preuss, Haunschild, & Matten, 2009, Newman et al., 2015). However, the role played by human resource involvement in continuous improvement (CI) remains unclear both in research and in practice.
From the CI methodology view, human resources directly interact with change to improve an organisation’s productivity [10]. At the individual level, the change deals with factors such as motivation, attitude, behaviours and employees outcomes [10]. Hence, CI facilitates the transition toward attitude and behaviour within the organizations and surrounding community [9]. CI is a daily management system that can improve performance in both business and employee outcomes. [11]. In this line, CI can profoundly affect the employee’s attitude and behaviour, different researchers have studied them in different ways [12,13,14]. Nevertheless, based on our knowledge, the impact of CI practices on employees’ socially responsible behaviour has not been explored. This is an important question, because these practices are easy to implement, and every employee in the organization can participate, in addition, CI can be a prerequisite for other practices and projects in the organization. Therefore, more investigation is required to understand this phenomenon. [13].
From the Operant Conditioning (OC) theory view, the current research claims that the extent to which employees are engaged in CI activities develops their skills to support activities related to improving the organization and the stakeholders. The participation of the employees in the CI environment could develop their technical and social skills [15], and reshape their behaviour to the organization’s stakeholders and large society. The current research paper aims to give a clearer insight into how the involvement of employees in CI practices reshapes the employees’ outcomes in terms of showing socially responsible behaviour in Saudi Arabia’s service sector.
The additional contribution is to analyse the mechanisms underpinning how CI activities influence employees of an organization to support socially responsible actions. This paper suggests that CI, on its own, does not always have a beneficial impact. There are potential factors, which may affect the CI and SRB relationship. The possible factors are organization identification (OI) and Perceived Organization Support (POS). OI is a mediator factor and POS is a moderator factor. The mediator produces a pathway by which the independent variable affects the dependent variable ( Al-Hakim and Sevdalis 2021). A moderator factor is a variable that describes the relationship between an outcome variable and a specific independent variable. A moderator factor is a variable that defines the relationship between a specific independent variable and an outcome variable and can modify the relationship’s direction or size (increase or reduce) ( Al-Hakim and Sevdalis 2021).
Specifically, the main inquiry in the current study is to look for the mechanism under which the engagement of employees in continuous improvement actions improves employee’s behaviour toward society. Accordingly, we argue that the engagement of employees in the CI influences their behaviour toward improving community welfare. Moreover, from the social identity theory view (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), when teams are engaged in the CI activities they become more identified with the organization because their personal beliefs and values align with the organization. Hence, OI as a mediator variable explains how CI influence SRB. Furthermore, the degree to which the organization reward employees’ efforts toward CI is likely to determine how strong this influence is. Hence, employees with a high degree of organizational support perception from their department may develop more CI skills and receive positive effects in the organization’s workplace. The development of CI skills and the workplace’s positive effect motivates employees to act positively toward the organisation and society. They will voluntarily be involved in continuous improvement, enjoy improving their workplace, and solve problems, design and flow standard work. Contrarily, employees, who experience a low degree of support from their organization, are more likely to receive weak positive workplace influence [8]. Which results in a low level of CI engagement and related outcomes in terms of good acts to the surrounding community. The degree to which an organization offers sufficient support to address the employees’ interests is expected to have an impact on the strength of the CI SRB path.
To address the above-given gaps in the corporate social responsibility research, based on the Theory of OC and OI, the current paper forms a research model which makes how CI affects employees ‘ SRB. This research paper contributes to gaining a better understanding of the employees’ SRB outcomes that result from their involvement in the CI methodology in organizations. The results will provide awareness about the behavioural outcomes of engaging employees in daily CI management systems practitioners a stronger case for CI investments and inform linked stakeholders, such as organizational management, about whether CI policies encourage socially conscious behaviour from employees. Additionally, Business executives and other stakeholders hope to enhance the standard of living for their staff members and, consequently, the community at large will find this research to be an invaluable resource.

Literature and Theory

Theory of Operant Conditioning

The theory of OC is utilized to explore many research areas, for example, psychology, learning process and individual behaviour [17]. It is a process by which the characteristics of operant behaviour are gradually modified by environmental influences [18]. Researchers, such as Jablonsky and DeVries (1972) have utilized the theory of OC in their behavioural research. Based on [17] To comprehend individuals’ behaviour, one must consider the behavioural outcomes, and sources of the actions. The fundamental idea of OC is that actions are caused by their antecedents, and what determines whether the behaviour will likely recur in the future is the reinforcement [15]. The literature on OC theory explains that the environment in which employees work influences how they behave [1,18]. Hence, SRB represents the dependent (operant behaviours), while the independent variable is CI (the environmental consequences). Accordingly, the current study argues that, when employees are engaged in CI activities at an organization workplace (environmental consequences), they are more likely to develop hard and soft skills that motivate them to repeat such CI involvement in the future and support actions to improve the organization as well as all societies surrounding wellbeing. In the next section, a hypothesis is developed based on this reasoning.

Continuous Process Improvement and Employees’ Socially Responsible Behaviour

Our examination of the potential impacts of CI on employees’ SRB includes how OC helps explain such an effect. Employee’s behaviour is typically influenced by their immediate workplace, such as CI (Zhang, M, Griffeth 2011). Based on the CI approach, organizations work in a dynamic setting that is always changing in terms of societal values, technology, quality, law, and performance [10]. These changes have implications for the employees of an organization [10]. (CI) is defined more generally as a culture of sustained incremental improvement targeting the elimination of non-value activities (e.g., waste) in the value stream of an organization process. It involves all organization members working together to make improvements without necessarily making huge capital investments [12]. Such members are extremely involved and dedicated because they have the opportunity to propose and design new working methods. CI can occur through evolutionary improvement, in which the process improvements are incremental as a result of creative ideas or new technology [12].
Improvement is achieved using several CI tools such as 5s workplace, standardization, seven quality control, total productive maintenance, etc. 5s (sort, set in order, shine, standardize, and sustain) is the most basic approach to enhancing and increasing productivity in the workplace. The standardizing process is about creating standardized, consistent process documentation and business procedures for carrying out particular tasks. Organizational leaders use this technique to determine how teams handle related issues and decide on a single, best solution that should be applied universally. Quality control is employed for data sorting, problem analysis, and countermeasure identification. Total Productive Maintenance is a method to maintain the functionality and health of equipment used in the workshop or the workplace, while total quality management is a quality management system that encompasses concepts, instruments, and methods of improving quality [20]. Based on Brännmark and Benn (2012), we defined CI as the engagement of employees in the activities of incremental continuous improvement of organization processes and operations [19]. These activities include continuous process improvement (CPI), process control (PC), and employee suggestions and feedback systems (ESFS). The definition of Zhang, M, and Griffeth (2011) is more closely associated with descriptions of continuous improvement found in the operations literature because of its focus on the improvement of operational processes and systems.
From the OC perspective, when employees are engaged in CI activities, they will develop social skills. Social skills represent the capacity to build harmonious and fruitful relationships with other stakeholders (i.e., suppliers, customers, coworkers, community members). Social skills also represent the capacity to employ suitable social actions that support such stakeholders in interpersonal settings. The social skills involves interpersonal skills, leadership, teamwork, and communication. CI tools influence (i.e., process control circles and 5S workplace activities) develop employees’ social skills. A process control circle is a common small-group activity that emphasizes teamwork. The 5S method likewise relies on group effort, wherein employees are initially asked to create a more organized and productive workplace, and the group decides how to conduct 5S activities. At the end of the process, participants will have agreed on how to maintain the workspace. Therefore, social skills can be developed through these hands-on experiences and communication with coworkers. Social skills represent the capacity to build harmonious and fruitful relationships with others or the capacity to employ suitable social actions that people find agreeable in interpersonal settings.
Such an argument is supported by previous researchers, for instance, Danica Bakotić (2016). Identified three elements of employee attitude and behaviour because of CI orientation, in terms of communication, knowledge sharing, and motivation. Bortolotti et al. (2018) confirmed that kaizen (CI) initiatives improve social outcomes (i.e., capabilities and attitude). This influence is consistent with the findings of Longoni et al. (2013), their study showed that lean has the potential to improve not only operational outcomes but also because of its potential to improve the health and safety of the workers who run the system. Hence, the employees can see the link between their CI actions and the positive influence that occurs to them. Learning by doing experiences lets them immediately understand and recognize the positive influence of CI initiatives, assisting them in broadening their skill set and increasing their capabilities to improve the workplace environment inside the organization and the surrounding society [13].
The positive effect of CI may affect workers’ ongoing attempts to overcome challenges and difficulties at work, the positive effect might help them to think creatively since it minimizes defensiveness and promotes tolerance of the situation [24]. People with positive workplace effects appear to have more social influence [5,24]. As a result, the positive effect at the workplace is likely to assist staff members in analyzing complicated social concerns, reflecting carefully on social challenges, and coming up with creative solutions [5]. Finally, employees with positive effects (e.g., CI environment or workplace) are more inclined to surround themselves with a varied range of people [25] as well as they define a group membership more broadly [26]. This may increase the propensity to support actions related to the organization and its stakeholders (employees, clients, and community members).
Moreover, CI might facilitate employees’ adherence to social norms and regulations. According to Imai (1986), to achieve consistent employee CI behaviour, Personnel must first develop standards, and then strictly adhere to them once they have been set. Workers may spend the majority of their time performing the standard work [27]. The personnel must go beyond the requirements of the present standards to support continuous development.
CI requires employees to not only follow the current standards but also go beyond them. Therefore, as employees become more capable, they may begin to recognize problems in the standard work and recommend solutions. From the OC perspective [17], employees whore are involved in the establishment of work standards and behave according to such standards work at the workplace are more likely adherence to regulations inside and outside their organization. Based on Brunet and New (2003), To consistently solve issues at the workplace, implementing continuous improvement calls for creativity (thinking outside the box) [27]; which in turn reshapes their behaviour to be more resilient in the face of obstacles in their workplace and society. For all these reasons, CI is expected to enhance employees’ SRB.
H1. 
Employees who are engaged in CI activities are more likely to positively associate with a propensity to engage in SRB

Continuous Improvement and Organization Identification

Social identity theory holds that people typically classify themselves and others into social groups to establish a good self-concept by associating with groups that boost their self-esteem (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Hence, Social identity is the foundation for OI (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). OI is defined as feelings of belonging to and they feel a sense of unity with the organization [28]. From a social identity view, we posit that, when the employees engage in continuous improvement practices, Congruence between their values (positive effect) positive effect and the values of the organization leads to their identification with that particular organization. From Social Identity Theory, when an individual’s values and beliefs align with those of an organization, OI should happen [29].
Studies indicate that a good view of the work environment can strengthen organizational identity and lead to favourable outcomes [30,31,32] According to Benkarim and Imbeau (2021), the alignment of Employees with the organization’s culture and values is enhanced by the participation of the organization’s human resources in CI actions, as well as, the positive feelings individuals experience at work [31]. Positive attitudes about the company are likely to develop in employees who have a good workplace environment, and this will result in an emotional attachment and identification with the organization [33]. Similarly, Fredrickson (2001) supports the impact of employees’ positive attitude affective responses on the outcomes, Hence, it seems reasonable to assume that when employees obtain the positive workplace influence of the CI efforts, they feel like important members of the organization. Therefore, CI is one of the contextual factors that might positively impact how much a person identifies with their firm. Following the above reasoning, we accordingly propose:
H2. 
Employees who are engaged in CI activities are more likely to attach to their organization.
The link between OI and various individual outcomes has been studied by many researchers [2,34]. For instance, according to Newman, Miao, and Hofman (2015), OI is associated with higher work motivation, and employees’ citizenship behaviour [2]. The identification of employees with the organization may result in several benefits that workers may obtain from the company in the form of favourable outcomes [35]. For this reason, workers who have a strong sense of organizational identity often see group objectives as inherently motivating [34]. Employees’ motivation is generated based on the fulfilment of the need for belonging [35]. Likewise, the identities of employees drive them to behave consistently with these identities [35]. When the employees have a strong sense of identity with the company, they are more inclined to put in more effort to achieve the goals of an organization [35]. Employees who have a positive perception of the organization are more likely to work harder for the group’s success to keep that positive perception [35].
Consequently, organization personnel who have an emotional connection to the company are more likely to collaborate. through acts of citizenship and extra-role behaviour thus makes sense as it effectively contributes positive support to the organization and community around them (i.e., socially responsible behaviour) [35]. Additionally, those personnel will be more inclined to cooperate with the organization and the society. [36]. According to Van Knippenberg (2000), furthermore, the personnel who identify with their organization tend to see the organization objectives, and values as their own, and experience a sense of belonging and unity with the organization. This increases the person’s drive and dedication to the company, which frequently leads to extra roles that support the organization and the well-being of society.
Consequently, we propose the following:
H3. 
Employees who are attached to their organization, are expected to demonstrate SRB
From SIT view, it seems plausible that IO could mediate the path between CI and SRB. Within the involvement of employees in CI practices in organizations, specifically, CI teams engaged in process improvement events [37], Therefore, CI offers rationalizations that connect workers’ identities to the group or organization’s overall identity, boosting workers’ intrinsic desire to perform their jobs [37]. Enhancing the level of collective self-identity among employees could potentially lead to a higher likelihood of cooperative behaviour aimed at long-term value for customers and society, as opposed to short-term gains for a business. CI has been mainly associated with a positive effect on the employees at the workplace. Therefore, the current research paper suggests that the positive influence of the CI may increase the sense of identifying employees in the organization, leading them to show a more socially responsible manner.
CI meet employees’ needs, subsequently, they might believe that their requirements for acceptance and acknowledgement have been met. They are naturally driven to work hard to advance the interests of the organization. and overall community surroundings. Thus, the high OI of employees which resulted from adapting CI culture and mindset may lead to behavioural motivation, reflected in more efforts at the workplace and more employee SRBs. In summary, CI may play an important role in organizational identification because CI make the employee’s job easier and more enjoyable. CI may represent a specific situation where OI is a major factor in employee behaviours [35]. This is particularly valid for voluntary behaviours, employees who participate in CI applications are more likely to define their job responsibilities more widely and feel more accountable for workplace issues, which leads them to take part in initiatives that advance the organization, as well as the society. Consequently, the following is the fourth hypothesis:
H4. 
Organizational identification mediates the relationship between CI and the employee’s SRB

2.3. The Role of Perceived Organization Support

POS is described as the degree to which workers believe that their employer values their contributions and is concerned about their welfare [38]. POS is also defined as the desire of the organization to give its employees suitable jobs and workplaces [38]. As previously mentioned, based on the OC perspective, the current research paper argued that, in the organizational context, when employees are engaged in the CI, they are expected to receive positive influence (social and technical development). Positive views about the company are likely to develop in employees who have good work experience, and this will result in an emotional attachment and identification with the company [33]. According to OC theory, an organization’s members will modify their behaviour if several sources of change (i.e., CI and POS all encourage the same reactions [18]. Hence, If employees are involved in continuous improvement programs, and at the same time the organization and department appreciate their efforts in those programs, this will lead to maximizing their identification with the organization.
Accordingly, we argue, that employees who perceive that their department and supervisors value their continuous improvement efforts they are more likely to be connected to their organization. Contrarily, employees, who perceive that their CI effort is ignored by their department and supervisors are more likely to show weak positive workplace influence [8] and a low level of connection to the organization. Thus, the following individual-level moderation hypotheses were proposed: Therefore, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 5 
The POS will moderate the direct effects of CI on OI, such that the impact will be stronger when the POS level is higher and weaker when the level of POS is low.
The current research paper argued that, in the organizational context, when employees are engaged in the CI, they are expected to receive positive influence, which lets them repeat similar behaviour in the organization outside the organization. The influence of CI on employees’ behaviour tends to be strengthened when a high level of POS is perceived; whereas such influence tends to be decreased with a low, level of POS is perceived. The results of Hur et al. (2014) confirmed that employees are better able to actively promote CI in their everyday work routines when they feel a high level of organizational support from their supervisors and, as well as when they perceive a positive impact of their efforts. As mentioned previously, from OC perspectives, an organization’s work environment can reinforce the behavioural change in its members if the multiple factors (i.e., CI and POS) all support similar responses [18].
Based on such reasoning, the current research paper argued that employees, who perceived a high level of organizational support from their department during the CI engagement, are more likely to receive positive workplace influence such as developing social and technical skills [20]. As mentioned previously, social skills represent the capacity to employ suitable social actions that support stakeholders such as coworkers, suppliers etc. [20]. They will voluntarily be involved in continuous improvement, enjoy improving their workplace, and solve problems, design and flow standard work. Contrarily, employees, who believe there is little organizational support, are more likely to show weak positive workplace influence [8]. This relationship’s strength is probably impacted by whether an organization and department value the employee’s effort regarding continuous improvement effort and provide adequate support to meet the interests and needs of employees. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 6 
The POS will moderate the indirect effects of CI on SRB, such that the impact will be stronger when the POS level is higher and weaker when the level of POS is low
Figure 1, shows the research framework

Participants and Procedures

For this study, a cross-sectional, quantitative, survey-based, non-contrived research methodology was chosen. Google Forms was used to create a questionnaire. The back-to-back translation was used to translate the questionnaire. Three Arabic-speaking academic faculty members with doctorates in business management from five Saudi Arabian universities were asked to complete the translated questionnaire to verify its content validity. The study population include professional employees in Saudi Arabia’s service sector [40]. An important factor in the diversification and development of Saudi Arabia’s economy is the service industry. With the implementation of the nation’s ambitious Vision 2030 plan, the service sector is anticipated to play an even more significant role in boosting economic growth and decreasing reliance on oil earnings [41]. The sector includes a broad range of industries, including retail, healthcare, education, tourism, and finance, all of which are significantly transformed by the national development strategy. Furthermore, the government has introduced numerous initiatives in various industries, including corporate social responsibility (CSR) programs, community involvement programs, and sustainable development goals (SDG) alignment, as part of Saudi Vision 2030 [42].
To contact professionals in the service industry, one of the authors sent emails to business school alumni who are currently working in Saudi Arabian service firms, explaining the purpose of the study and providing a link to the Google Forms survey. Further, additional emails were sent to individuals within a professional network associated with service-oriented firms. The number of 550 emails were sent out, and then two follow-up emails were sent every 15 days. Two months after the first emails were sent, there was a deadline for responses. A total of 382 replies were received by the deadline. 25 of these questionnaires were discarded because the respondents were not relevant to the service sector. In addition, eight (8) more responses were excluded because they were inconsistent and had missing values that were higher than twenty per cent. As a result, 349 surveys were kept for examination. Table 1 presents the analysis of demographics.

Measures

The socially responsible behaviour was assessed using a Veetikazhi (2021) scale. Concern orientation, perseverance, socio-centric orientation, and norms adherence orientation are the four sub-divisions of the 16-item measure. One example of a sample item for the concern orientation dimension is “I am involved in social and volunteer work that benefits my community”. The answers were recorded on a five-item Likert scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly agree. The greater tendency towards socially responsible action is indicated by a higher score. Continuous improvement was measured using 15 items. These measures include three (3) dimensions: continuous process improvement; process control; and employee suggestions and feedback, which are adapted from Zhang, M, Griffeth (2011). The respondents responded with how they engaged in the continuous improvement of their organization. For example, “management takes all product/service and process improvement suggestions seriously”. To assess OI, the 5-item developed by Ashforth and Mael (1989) was utilized, such as this one example (when someone criticizes my organization, it feels personal insult). The eight (8) item POS Scale by Eisenberger et al. (1986) was employed to assess the perceived organisational support for employees by their departments, for instance, one example is given “My department values my contribution to its overall success”. For all the items, respondents rate their level of agreement with each statement on a Likert scale, typically ranging from one (1) (strongly disagree) to five (5) (strongly agree).

Assessment of the PLS-SEM Results

As discussed in the previous chapter, this study used the Smart-Pls software analysis based on PLS-SEM as a statistical tool for the analyses required. According to Hair et al.(2010), the use of the PLS-SEM technique for data analysis involves testing the measurement model and the structural model.

Assessment of the Measurement Model

This section discusses the process of testing the measurement model to ascertain the validity and reliability of the research variables. The assessment model involves convergent validity (Item loadings and Constructs Reliability, Cross loading, Discriminant validity, Fornnel-Larcker criterion, and Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio). Convergent validity is measured by two methods: item loadings and the average variance extracted (AVE), which are discussed in more detail in the subsequent sections.

Constructs Reliability

The current study employed Cronbach’s Alpha, Composite Reliability, and Average Variance Extract to assess the reliability of the constructs. The question of whether the indicators for latent variables exhibit convergent validity is answered by Cronbach’s alpha [44]. A Cronbach’s Alpha scale that is at least 0.7 is considered appropriate. A composite reliability of greater than 0.70 is appropriate [45]. Other academics, however, confirmed that 0.60 is also a valid value. An approved AVE is more than 0.50. When the construct achieves an AVE of 0.5 or higher, the validity of the construct is considered satisfactory. The values of AVE, composite reliabilities, and Cronbach’s Alpha for the constructions are shown in Table 2 and range between 0.879, 0.901, 0.592, and 0.967, 0.974, and 0.704 respectively. Consequently, it offers proof of the validity of convergent constructs [45].

Discriminant Validity

In this research, discriminant validity is assessed utilizing three (3) methods: (1) Cross-loading, (2) Fornnell-Larcker Criterion, and (3) Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio criterion. By comparing the item scores for each latent variable with the scores of every other item in the model, cross-loading evaluates the values for each item [46]. The loadings of indicators that are linked to a specific latent variable (LV) should be greater than the loadings on other LVs to achieve discriminant validity [47], accordingly, This criterion was met by the results shown in Table 3.
From the Fornell Larcker criterion view, when the square root of the AVE is higher than the correlation estimates of other constructs, discriminant validity is verified [48]. Because all of the squared roots of AVE for each construct—that is, the diagonal values shown in bold fonts—are bigger than the off-diagonal correlation values with other constructs, as can be seen in Table 4, discriminant validity is demonstrated in this study. Thus, these findings offer enough proof of the constructs’ discriminant validity.
The Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT) is used to describe the average of the correlations between indicators within a construct and the correlations between indicators within distinct constructs [49]. Hair et al. (2018) recommended that equivalent constructs have a score below 0.90 and divergent constructs have a value below 0.85. The HTMT ratios (refer to Table 5) show that there is no issue with discriminant validity between the constructs. The greatest inter-construct HTMT that has been measured is 0.842, which is less than 0.85 (i.e., between CPI and POS). As a result, the study provides adequate proof of discriminant validity. After constructing the measurement model, the analysis can move on to the next phase, where the structural model will be evaluated and the hypotheses concerning the primary relationships in the study will be tested.

Results of the Direct Relationships

One of the components of a PLS path model is the structural model which consists of the constructs and their relationships. Three (3) primary statistics are used to evaluate the structural model in PLS-SEM: (1) the path coefficient (β), (2) the coefficient of determination (R2), and (3) the bootstrap statistics (i.e., t-value and p-value (Garson (2016). As a rule of thumb, a 5000-bootstrap re-sample It has been suggested that t-statistics values of 1.65 at a significance level of 10%, 1.96 at a significance level of 5%, and 2.57 at a significance level of 1% should be used to evaluate critical path coefficients for a two-tailed test [45]. Path coefficients with less than 5% probability error at a 95% confidence level are considered significant for the majority of research. The results of a hypothesis test and the structural model’s conclusions are shown in the next section.

Hypotheses Testing for Direct Relationships

The structural model has nine predicted direct relationships. The PLS algorithm is applied to this relationship to obtain the path coefficients (β) and the coefficient of determination (R2). Then, the significance of the proposed hypothesis is calculated using the 5000-bootstrapping process. The path coefficients’ summarized outcomes and the corresponding significance test results are shown in Table 6.
Findings showed that most of the natural relationships in the study were supported. Specifically, CI was shown to be directly and positively correlated with SRB (β = 0.179 and t-value = 2.074, p < 0.05). Similarly, the direct and positive relationships between CI and OI were also confirmed in the study (β = 0.411 and t-value = 7.774, p < 0.05). The findings also support the direct effects of OI on SRB (β = 0.476 and t-value = 2.074, p < 0.05). Finally, for the direct paths, we found the mediation effect of CI on SRB through OI to be significant. (H2c), (β = 0.195 and t-value = 4.127, p < 0.05). The interaction effect of CI and POS on SRB (H5a) was significant, (β = 0.181 and t-value = 0.217, p ˃ 0.05). However, POS have not significantly moderated the path between CI and OI (β = 0.009 and t-value = 3.104, p < 0.05). This significant interaction effect is presented in Figure 2 at three levels of POS. The graph indicates that as the level of POS increases, so the effect of CI becomes more profound. Table 7 provides the Summary of Results for the Hypotheses testing.

Discussion and Conclusions

To date, most empirical studies have begun to explore the CSR role played by human resources factors that may change favourable attitudes and behaviour across organizations and surrounding society [1,3,5,6,8]. These conclusions are essential to demonstrate the significance of social human resources management to the employees. The environment in which businesses operate daily (e.g., continuous improvement) also it is also significant [10]. Hence, the human resources management community still has time to explore innovative research findings regarding getting employees involved in socially responsible acts [9]. One of the factors which could help organizations reshape their employee’s behaviour is CI. CI is a daily management system that can improve performance both inside and outside the organization [11]. In this line, CI can profoundly affect the employee’s attitude and behaviour. CI and employee behaviour have been investigated by numerous researchers [12,13,14]. However, based on the existing empirical research, there are no empirical studies that have assessed the employee’s SRB performance of the CI impact.
The goal of this study is to overcome this constraint by developing an integrative framework that explores the reasons and circumstances in which employees’ participation in CI can influence their actions for improving civil society’s well-being. Accordingly, informed by OC theory and OI, we aim to contribute to the analysis of factors that have the potential to influence employees’ reactions to social sustainability. Hence, the main concern is to expand conceptual and empirical understanding of how human resources participation in CI reshapes their ‘ socially responsible behaviour. First, to investigate potential associates between CI and employees’ SRB. The second is to determine whether the links between CI and employees’ SRB can be enhanced through OI. Third, whether there were significant attraction effects of POS and CI on employees SRB, and finally the effect of such interaction effect on OI, and if so, what the nature and direction of these interactions affects.

Theoretical Contributions

The findings of this research paper (given in Table 7) support the importance of OC theory in helping employees to react in a socially responsible way as a result of CI efforts. The fundamental idea of OC is that actions are caused by their antecedents, what determines whether the behaviour will likely recur in the future is the reinforcement. Our research paper revealed that OI is essential to understand why the engagement of employees in the constant improvement effort produces higher levels in their organization and society roles. An individual’s ability to incorporate the organization’s principles and ideals into their self-concept increases with their level of identification with the employer. As a result, the person becomes more driven to work hard in support of initiatives about all of the organization’s stakeholders and more devoted to the organization’s goals. The findings support that the involvement of employees in CI activities supports the likelihood that workers would identify with their company and, as a result, encourage their participation in SRB. Employees’ SRB was also found to be improved when these employees were attached to their organization. Moreover, the participation of employees in CI actions enhancing the attachment of employees to their organization can also affect employees’ societal behaviour actions oriented toward community well-being.
Finally, CI and POS have interaction power to modify employees’ behaviour and make it more socially responsible. These findings are conceptually supported by Jablonsky and DeVries (1972) who recognized that ultimate forces for behavioural change such as SRB, arise from the interplay of the various reinforcing contingencies. (i.e., CI, OI, POS), however, our paper contributed empirically to how this variables are connected. Since, the empirical literature that investigated employees SRB mainly relies on theories such as social exchange and social identity theories [2,4,8,39,51].
Our results support the importance of OC theory in helping employees become more attached to their firms, because of the positive effect of CI, which results in reshaping employee acts in a socially responsible way. As mentioned earlier, OC theory argues that, Behaviors are a result of their antecedents, and reinforcement is what establishes whether or not these behaviours will likely repeat in the future. From an OC view, the practices that an employee uses to follow within an organization (i.e., CI) are similar to the behaviour he depicts outside his organization [3]. Employee behavior is therefore influenced by more than just personal traits [5], but also through the context of the work environment in which they operate [6]. As such, employees’ positive affect which received from their organizational engagement in CI helps them to engage in SRB.

Managerial Contributions

Businesses must foster CI in daily management systems that spread CI culture in other organization departments\unit, as well as extend these cultures and practices outside the organization (suppliers, distributes, customers, and all society). This study suggests that organizations’ departments, supervisors, and human resources management should support continuous improvement initiatives and activities in their organization’s processes. These individuals must participate in the subordinates’ coaching, training, information-sharing, and actual CI implementation and program implementation in addition to effectively communicating with them [1]. This will assist organization human resources management by implementing such principles outside of organizations and into society; sustainable development goals can be achieved. The current research will aid firms’ management, employees, and relevant stakeholders by illuminating how they may reshape a responsible attitude and behaviour towards social development as outcomes of the daily CI improvement system within the organization and partners (stakeholders).

Limitations and Future Research Directions

The fact that the study primarily examines organizations in Saudi Arabia, a developing Asian nation, is one of its shortcomings. Future research should therefore evaluate this paradigm in other developed or underdeveloped countries. Furthermore, the current study’s objectives were only achieved through the application of quantitative approaches. To determine the factors that encourage social responsibility inside and outside the workplace, future research can employ a mixed-method approach. Future research should look into the role of continuous improvement in the supply chain and employee responsibility in the community. Continuous improvement in the supply chain has the potential to reshape employees’ behaviours, specifically outside the organization (e.g., suppliers, customers, distributors, logistics and transportation, etc.)

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at the website of this paper posted on Preprints.org.

Author Contributions

Each author has made a significant contribution to the research paper. Literature review: I.D. Research design: F.S., I.D. Data collection R.B.A. Dada analysis: F.S. Findings validation: R.B.A., F.S.A. Supervision and funding: R.B.A. Writing and original draft preparation: I.D. Writing: R.B.A., F.S. and I.D.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The Research Ethics Committee, Deanship of Graduate Studies at Bisha University, granted ethical approval for this research paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest

References

  1. Pan, C.; Abbas, J.; Álvarez-Otero, S.; Khan, H.; Cai, C. Interplay between corporate social responsibility and organizational green culture and their role in employees’ responsible behavior towards the environment and society. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Newman, A.; Miao, Q.; Hofman, P.S. The impact of socially responsible human resource management on employees ’ organizational citizenship behaviour : the mediating role of organizational identification. 2015. [CrossRef]
  3. Abbas, J.; Dogan, E. The impacts of organizational green culture and corporate social responsibility on employees’ responsible behaviour towards the society. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 60024–60034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. John, A.; Qadeer, F.; Shahzadi, G.; Jia, F. Getting paid to be good: How and when employees respond to corporate social responsibility? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 784–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Crilly, D.; Schneider, S.C.; Zollo, M. Psychological antecedents to socially responsible behavior. Eur. Manag. Rev. 2008, 5, 175–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Roeck, K. De Corporate Social Responsibility and Ethical Leadership : Investigating Their Interactive Effect on Employees ’ Socially Responsible Behaviors. J. Bus. Ethics 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Veetikazhi, R. SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE BEHAVIOUR AT WORK : THE IMPACT OF GOAL DIRECTED ACTION AND LEADERSHIP Department of Management Studies. 2021.
  8. Shen, J.; Benson, J. When CSR Is a Social Norm: How Socially Responsible Human Resource Management Affects Employee Work Behavior. J. Manage. 2016, 42, 1723–1746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. De Stefano, F.; Bagdadli, S.; Camuffo, A. The HR role in corporate social responsibility and sustainability: A boundary-shifting literature review. Hum. Resour. Manage. 2018, 57, 549–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Blaga, P. The Importance of Human Resources in the Continuous The Importance of Human Resources in Quality the Continuous Improvement of the Production Improvement Petru of the Production Quality. Procedia Manuf. 2020, 46, 287–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Abbas, J. Impact of total quality management on corporate green performance through the mediating role of corporate social responsibility. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 242, 118458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Styhre, A. Kaizen, ethics, and care of the operations: Management after empowerment. J. Manag. Stud. 2001, 38, 795–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bortolotti, T.; Boscari, S.; Danese, P.; Medina Suni, H.A.; Rich, N.; Romano, P. The social benefits of kaizen initiatives in healthcare: an empirical study. Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manag. 2018, 38, 554–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Benders, J.; Bal, M.; Vermeerbergen, L. Structure please; Continuous improvement and employee consequences in a dynamic task environment. Sustain. 2019, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Smith, R.G.; Iwata, B.A. Antecedent Influences on Behavior Disorders. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 1997, 30, 343–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Al-Hakim, L.; Sevdalis, N. A novel conceptual approach to lean: Value, psychological conditions for engagement with work and perceived organizational support in hospital care. Int. J. Qual. Heal. Care 2021, 33, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Skinner, B.F. Walden Two. Hackett, Indianapolis. 1984.
  18. Jablonsky, S.F.; DeVries, D.L. Operant conditioning principles extrapolated to the theory of management. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1972, 7, 340–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zhang, M , Griffeth, R.W. and F.D.D. Corporate social responsibility, continuous process improvement orientation, organizational commitment and turnover intentions. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2011, 25.
  20. Jin, K. Kaizen and Non-cognitive Skills Development in Africa in the Age of Digitalization; Springer Nature Singapore, 2024; ISBN 9789819942381.
  21. Brännmark, M.; Benn, S. A Proposed Model for Evaluating the Sustainability of Continuous Change Programmes. J. Chang. Manag. 2012, 12, 231–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Danica Bakotić, A.K. Exploring the relationship between business process improvement and employees’ behavior. Eletronic Libr. 2016, 7, 397–412. [Google Scholar]
  23. Longoni, A.; Pagell, M.; Johnston, D.; Veltri, A. When does lean hurt? - An exploration of lean practices and worker health and safety outcomes. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2013, 51, 3300–3320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Staw, B.M.; Barsade, S.G. Affect and Managerial Performance: A Test of the Sadder-but-Wiser vs. Happier-and-Smarter Hypotheses. Adm. Sci. Q. 1993, 38, 304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dovidio, J.F. HELPING BEHAVIOR AND ALTRUISM : AN EMPIRICAL AND CONCEPTUAL OVERVIEW. 1984.
  26. Urada, D.I.; Miller, N. The impact of positive mood and category importance on crossed categorization effects. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2000, 78, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Bhargava, A.; Mv, M.; Gupta, A. Role of Personal Anxiety in individual Kaizen behavior and performance. 2023, 9, 297–304.
  28. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. I act in an environmentally responsible fashion since my firm is socially responsible: A pathway for transition to a responsible society. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pratt, M.G. To Be or Not to Be?: Central Questions in Organizational Identification. Identity Organ. Build. Theory Through Conversations 2012, 171–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Benkarim, A.; Imbeau, D. Organizational commitment and lean sustainability: Literature review and directions for future research. Sustain. 2021, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Çinar, E. Does Workplace Friendship Influence Organizational Identification? The Mediator Role of Positive Affectivity. İş ve İnsan Derg. 2023, 10, 157–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Fredrickson, B.L. TThe Role of Positive Emotions in Positive Psychology. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 218–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Meyer, J.; Allen, N. Three Component Conceptualization of Organizational Commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ellemers, N.; De Gilder, D.; Haslam, S.A. Motivating individuals and groups at work: A social identity perspective on leadership and group performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2004, 29, 459–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Piccoli, B.; Callea, A.; Urbini, F.; Chirumbolo, A. Job insecurity and performance : the mediating role of organizational identification Article information : 2017. [CrossRef]
  36. Lee, H.J. The role of competence-based trust and organizational identification in continuous improvement. J. Manag. Psychol. 2004, 19, 623–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stone, K.B. Kaizen teams: Integrated hrd practices for successful team building. Adv. Dev. Hum. Resour. 2010, 12, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Eisenberger, R.; Huntington, R.; Hutchison, S.; Sowa, D. Perceived organizational support. J. Appl. Psychol. 1986, 71, 500–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hur, W.-M.; Han, S.-J.; Yoo, J.-J.; Moon, T.W. The moderating role of perceived organizational support on the relationship between emotional labor and job-related outcomes. Manag. Decis. 2014, 53, 605–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. AlMulhim, A.F. Knowledge management capability and organizational performance: a moderated mediation model of environmental dynamism and opportunity recognition. Bus. Process Manag. J. 2023, 29, 1655–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Moshashai, D.; Leber, A.M.; Savage, J.D. Saudi Arabia plans for its economic future: Vision 2030, the National Transformation Plan and Saudi fiscal reform. Br. J. Middle East. Stud. 2020, 47, 381–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Alghamdi, A.A. University social responsibility under the influence of societal changes: Students’ satisfaction and quality of services in Saudi Arabia. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Hair, J.; Anderson, R.; Babin, B.; Black, W. Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective 2010.
  44. Garson, G.D. Partial Least Squares: Regression and Structural Equation Models; 2016; ISBN 9781626380097.
  45. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Hopkins, L.; Kuppelwieser, V.G. Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM); 2014; Vol. 26; ISBN 9781452217444.
  46. Chin, W. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. Mod. methods Bus. Res. 1998, 295, 295–336. [Google Scholar]
  47. Ramayah, T.; Cheah, J.; Chuah, F.; Ting, H.; Memon, M.A. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) using SmartPLS 3.0: An Updated Guide and Practical Guide to Statistical Analysis; (2nd ed.; Pearson, 2017.
  48. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error: Algebra and statistics. SAGE Publ. 1981. [Google Scholar]
  49. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2015, 43, 115–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Hair, J.; Black, W.; Babin, B.; Anderson, R. Multivariate data analysis; Eiehth edi.; Annabel Ainscow, 2018.
  51. Farooq, M.; Farooq, O.; Jasimuddin, S.M. ‘ Employees response to corporate social responsibility : Exploring the role of employees ’ collectivist orientation ’. 2014.
Preprints 118035 g001
Figure 1. Research Framework.
Figure 1. Research Framework.
Preprints 118035 g001
Preprints 118035 g002
Figure 2. Slope for moderation effect of POS and CI on SRB.
Figure 2. Slope for moderation effect of POS and CI on SRB.
Preprints 118035 g002
Table 1. The Demographics Analyses.
Table 1. The Demographics Analyses.
Variables Category Frequency Percentage (%)
Gender Females 42 12.0
Males 307 88.0
Age in years less than 30 76 21.8
31 to 40 120 34.4
41 to 50 122 35.0
51 to 60 26 7.4
greater than 60 5 1.4
Marital Status Married 277 79.4
Single 72 20.6
Educational Level High School 26 7.4
Diploma 14 4.0
Bachelors 166 47.6
Masters 109 31.2
Post Graduate 34 9.7
Years of Experience less than 5 70 20.1
6 -10 46 13.2
11 - 15 78 22.3
16 - 20 60 17.2
21 - 25 57 16.3
more than 25 38 10.9
Current Job Tenure less than 5 105 30.1
6 - 10 51 14.6
11 - 15 64 18.3
16 - 20 55 15.8
21 - 25 39 11.2
more than 25 35 10.0
Organizational Size less than 50 60 17.2
51 to 100 61 17.5
101 to 250 59 16.9
251 to 500 49 14.0
more to 500 120 34.4
Industry Information Technology 92 26.4
Hotel and Tourism 86 24.6
Financial Services 75 21.5
Education 46 13.2
Others 50 14.3
Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha, A.
Table 2. Cronbach’s Alpha, A.
Cronbach’s alpha Composite reliability Average variance extracted (AVE)
CI 0.967 0.974 0.699
OI 0.893 0.904 0.704
POS 0.879 0.901 0.73
SRB 0.954 0.956 0.592
Table 3. Discriminant Validity.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity.
CI OI POS SRB
CI_CPI1 0.707 0.461 0.525 0.343
CI_CPI2 0.748 0.501 0.519 0.353
CI_CPI3 0.676 0.537 0.534 0.411
CI_CPI4 0.322 0.094 0.156 0.026
CI_F1 0.802 0.440 0.522 0.307
CI_F2 0.794 0.418 0.519 0.321
CI_F3 0.757 0.366 0.534 0.280
CI_F4 0.764 0.405 0.539 0.311
CI_F5 0.735 0.449 0.474 0.332
CI_PC1 0.695 0.412 0.514 0.286
CI_PC2 0.713 0.393 0.502 0.314
CI_PC3 0.741 0.436 0.531 0.335
CI_PC4 0.749 0.413 0.528 0.278
CI_PC5 0.746 0.449 0.582 0.308
CI_PC6 0.769 0.443 0.539 0.284
OI1 0.402 0.654 0.375 0.265
OI2 0.501 0.771 0.492 0.391
OI3 0.443 0.785 0.446 0.389
OI4 0.430 0.801 0.400 0.511
OI5 0.455 0.739 0.343 0.418
POS1 0.581 0.497 0.806 0.392
POS4 0.546 0.337 0.714 0.174
POS6 0.503 0.412 0.747 0.237
POS8 0.536 0.397 0.781 0.341
SRB_CO1 0.320 0.369 0.311 0.675
SRB_CO2 0.265 0.337 0.262 0.673
SRB_CO3 0.285 0.354 0.250 0.623
SRB_LTV1 0.216 0.313 0.213 0.709
SRB_LTV2 0.270 0.366 0.272 0.627
SRB_LTV3 0.306 0.326 0.302 0.620
SRB_NAO1 0.275 0.363 0.283 0.725
SRB_NAO2 0.319 0.352 0.283 0.695
SRB_NAO3 0.262 0.311 0.227 0.708
SRB_NAO5 0.348 0.351 0.280 0.670
SRB_PER1 0.356 0.455 0.256 0.764
SRB_PER2 0.320 0.405 0.302 0.704
SRB_PER3 0.290 0.414 0.252 0.731
Table 4. Squared of AVEs.
Table 4. Squared of AVEs.
CPI OI POS SRB
CPI 0.836
OI 0.643 0.839
POS 0.788 0.619 0.854
SRB 0.467 0.584 0.427 0.769
Table 5. The Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).
Table 5. The Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio (HTMT).
CPI OI POS
CPI
OI 0.679
POS 0.848 0.684
SRB 0.471 0.619 0.444
Table 6. Outcomes for the Indirect, Moderate, Moderated, Mediation, and Direct Paths.
Table 6. Outcomes for the Indirect, Moderate, Moderated, Mediation, and Direct Paths.
Β T statistics P values 2.50%
CPI -> Org Identification 0.411 4.882 0 0.252 0.579
CPI -> SRB 0.179 2.074 0.038 0.022 0.359
OI -> SRB 0.476 7.774 0 0.356 0.596
POS -> Org Identification 0.3 3.628 0 0.133 0.455
POS -> SRB 0.086 1.211 0.226 -0.062 0.22
POS x CPI -> OI 0.009 0.217 0.828 -0.062 0.099
POS x CPI -> SRB 0.181 3.104 0.002 0.058 0.284
CPI->OI ->SRB 0.195 4.127 0 0.111 0.298
POS x CPI -> OI -> SRB 0.004 0.22 0.826 -0.031 0.045
Table 7. Findings from the Hypothesis testing.
Table 7. Findings from the Hypothesis testing.
No Hypothesis Statement Remark
H1 CI have a significant relationship with SRB Supported
H2 CI has a significant influence on IO Supported
H3 IO has a significant influence on SRB Supported
H4 CI and SRB have a significant relationship through IO Supported
H5 POS and CI have an interaction effect on SRB. Not Supported
H6 POS and CI have an interaction effect on SRB Supported
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