| Literature DB >> 35719599 |
Sha Hu1.
Abstract
This study investigates the role of socially responsible management as a significant determining factor for employees' morale engagement (EME), employee vitality (EV), and employee-based brand equity (EBBE). Human resource management policies and strategies are important for addressing the interests of the employees and boosting the overall effectiveness of the organization. To examine this, this study analyzes the role of socially responsible management and organizational morality on EME with the mediation of EV. Also, the study examines the role of EME in EBBE. To conduct this study, the data were obtained from 310 female employees working in software houses from home in China. The sampling technique used in the study is purposive sampling. A partial least square structural equation modeling technique is used to analyze the data of the study. The study found that socially responsible management has a positive effect on both EME and EV. The study also reveals that organizational morality has a positive impact on EME and consequently impacts the EBBE in a positive way. The results of the mediation analysis show that EV mediates the relationship between socially responsible management and EME. The study provides practical implications, explaining the strategies and policies that can be adopted by the HR department of the organization to boost employee interests. The study also provides some limitations and future recommendations, such as sample size, the context of the study, and adding new variables to the existing framework.Entities:
Keywords: employee vitality; employee-based brand equity; employees’ moral engagement; organizational morality; socially responsible management
Year: 2022 PMID: 35719599 PMCID: PMC9204150 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.910483
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
FIGURE 1Theoretical framework.
Demographic analysis.
| Demographics | Frequency | Percentage (%) |
|
| ||
| 20–30 | 74 | 23.87 |
| 31–40 | 127 | 40.97 |
| 41–50 | 65 | 20.97 |
| Above 50 | 44 | 14.19 |
|
| ||
| Bachelors | 79 | 25.48 |
| Masters | 143 | 46.13 |
| Ph.D. and others | 88 | 28.39 |
|
| ||
| Less than 1 | 72 | 23.23 |
| 1–3 | 112 | 36.13 |
| 4–6 | 87 | 28.06 |
| More than 6 | 39 | 12.58 |
N = 310.
FIGURE 2Output of measurement model. SRMP, socially responsible management; OM, organizational morality; EV, employee vitality; EME, employees’ morale engagement; EBBE, employee-based brand equity.
Model assessment (direct model).
| Construct reliability and validity | |||||
| Factor loadings | VIF | α | Composite reliability | AVE | |
|
| |||||
| SRMP1 | 0.785 | 2.645 | |||
| SRMP2 | 0.850 | 2.859 | |||
| SRMP3 | 0.747 | 3.525 | 0.831 | 0.846 | 0.644 |
| SRMP4 | 0.793 | 2.408 | |||
| SRMP5 | 0.706 | 2.166 | |||
| SRMP6 | 0.804 | 2.262 | |||
|
| |||||
| OM1 | 0.896 | 2.017 | |||
| OM2 | 0.873 | 1.986 | 0.816 | 0.890 | 0.730 |
| OM3 | 0.791 | 1.598 | |||
|
| |||||
| EV1 | 0.750 | 1.938 | |||
| EV2 | 0.775 | 2.751 | |||
| EV3 | 0.753 | 2.389 | |||
| EV4 | 0.735 | 1.679 | |||
| EV5 | 0.754 | 2.763 | 0.891 | 0.911 | 0.562 |
| EV6 | 0.746 | 2.708 | |||
| EV7 | 0.710 | 2.507 | |||
| EV8 | 0.774 | 3.277 | |||
|
| |||||
| EME1 | 0.875 | 3.109 | |||
| EME2 | 0.764 | 2.651 | |||
| EME3 | 0.882 | 3.079 | 0.830 | 0.847 | 0.683 |
| EME4 | 0.875 | 2.950 | |||
| EME5 | 0.827 | 4.890 | |||
|
| |||||
| EBBE1 | 0.769 | 1.812 | |||
| EBBE2 | 0.805 | 4.033 | |||
| EBBE3 | 0.840 | 2.669 | 0.831 | 0.846 | 0.644 |
| EBBE4 | 0.874 | 3.328 | |||
| EBBE5 | 0.793 | 3.926 | |||
| EBBE6 | 0.786 | 3.295 | |||
SRMP, socially responsible management; OM, organizational morality; EV, employee vitality; EME, employees’ morale engagement; EBBE, employee-based brand equity; VIF, variance inflation factor; α, Cronbach’s alpha; AVE, average variance extracted.
Discriminant validity.
| Fornell–Larcker criterion | Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio | ||||||||||
| Constructs | EBBE | EME | EV | OM | SRMP | Constructs | EBBE | EME | EV | OM | SRMP |
| EBBE | 0.863 | EBBE | |||||||||
| EME | 0.605 | 0.885 | EME | 0.646 | |||||||
| EV | 0.626 | 0.581 | 0.750 | EV | 0.670 | 0.612 | |||||
| OM | 0.340 | 0.538 | 0.377 | 0.854 | OM | 0.386 | 0.605 | 0.424 | |||
| SRMP | 0.466 | 0.557 | 0.513 | 0.703 | 0.815 | SRMP | 0.483 | 0.585 | 0.530 | 0.849 | |
N = 310.
SRMP, socially responsible management; OM, organizational morality; EV, employee vitality; EME, employees’ morale engagement; EBBE, employee-based brand equity.
R-square values for the variables.
| EBBE | 0.364 | 0.248 |
| EME | 0.462 | 0.341 |
| EV | 0.258 | 0.129 |
| OM | 0.108 | |
| SRMP | 0.112 |
N = 310.
SRMP, socially responsible management; OM, organizational morality; EV, employee vitality; EME, employees’ morale engagement; EBBE, employee-based brand equity.
Collinearity statistics (inner-VIF values).
| EBBE | EME | EV | OM | SRMP | |
| EBBE | |||||
| EME | 1.000 | ||||
| EV | 1.357 | ||||
| OM | 1.976 | 1.974 | |||
| SRMP | 2.299 | 1.974 |
N = 310.
SRMP, socially responsible management; OM, organizational morality; EV, employee vitality; EME, employees’ morale engagement; EBBE, employee-based brand equity.
FIGURE 3Structural model bootstrapping. SRMP, socially responsible management; OM, organizational morality; EV, employee vitality; EME, employees’ morale engagement; EBBE, employee-based brand equity.
Direct effects of the variable.
| Paths | H | O |
| SD | Effect size ( | Results | ||
| SRMP → EME | H1 | 0.171 | 0.173 | 0.070 | 2.424 | 0.021 | 0.016 |
|
| OM → EME | H2 | 0.269 | 0.270 | 0.079 | 3.388 | 0.072 | 0.001 |
|
| SRMP → EV | H3 | 0.499 | 0.499 | 0.068 | 7.324 | 0.164 | 0.000 |
|
| OM → EV | H4 | 0.044 | 0.048 | 0.084 | 0.519 | 0.001 | 0.604 |
|
| EME → EBBE | H7 | 0.578 | 0.579 | 0.047 | 12.236 | 0.576 | 0.000 |
|
N = 310, ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.005, *p < 0.05.
SRMR = 0.085, NFI = 0.753. H, hypothesis; O, original sample; M, sample mean; SD, standard deviation; SRMP, socially responsible management; OM, organizational morality; EV, employee vitality; EME, employees’ morale engagement; EBBE, employee-based brand equity.
Indirect effects of the variable.
| Paths | H | O |
| SD | Results | ||
| SRMP→ EV→ EME | H5 | 0.197 | 0.197 | 0.043 | 4.537 | 0.000 |
|
| OM→ EV→ EME | H6 | 0.017 | 0.020 | 0.034 | 0.514 | 0.608 |
|
N = 310, ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.005, *p < 0.05.
H, hypothesis; O, original sample; M, sample mean; SD, standard deviation; SRMP, socially responsible management; OM, organizational morality; EV, employee vitality; EME, employees’ morale engagement; EBBE, employee-based brand equity.