Next Article in Journal
A Systematic Review of Architecture Stimulating Attention through the Six Senses of Humans
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainable Development through Fintech: Understanding the Adoption of Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) Applications by Generation Z in Saudi Arabia
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impact of Organizational Culture on Employee Performance: A Case Study at Foreign-Invested Logistics Service Enterprises Approaching Sustainability Development

1
Faculty of Economics and International Business, Thuongmai University, Hanoi 11300, Vietnam
2
Institute of Business Administration, Thuongmai University, Hanoi 11300, Vietnam
3
Centre of Science and Technology Research and Development (CSTRAD), Thuongmai University, Hanoi 11300, Vietnam
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(15), 6366; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156366
Submission received: 28 May 2024 / Revised: 19 July 2024 / Accepted: 20 July 2024 / Published: 25 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Economic and Business Aspects of Sustainability)

Abstract

:
The study aims to assess the impact of organizational culture on employee performance in foreign-invested logistics service enterprises from the sustainability perspective. We developed a theoretical framework on organizational culture and explored the factors shaping organizational culture, from which three research hypotheses are proposed. Based on a research sample of 162 foreign-invested logistics service enterprises, the multiple linear regression results indicate that 5 factors of organizational culture positively impact employee performance, including employees’ beliefs, corporate focus of human life, leadership style and authority division, corporate values, relationship with business environment. Based on these findings, we proposed recommendations for improving employee performance in foreign-invested logistics service enterprises from a sustainability perspective.

1. Introduction

Schein [1] defined culture as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that was learned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, that has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems” (p. 17). In an enterprise, this refers to organizational culture, which is a significant determinant of organizational success [2,3]. Organizational culture not only determines employees’ behavior and attitudes, but also creates and strengthens the customer service culture within the enterprise [4,5]. By improving service quality from a sustainability perspective, the enterprise can also retain customers through their satisfaction, resulting in lower costs than regaining lost customers or attracting new ones. Therefore, enhancing customer service effectively can contribute significantly to organizational performance as well as customer and employee satisfaction [6,7].
However, the role of organizational culture in achieving sustainable development and business success is not fully recognized by Vietnamese enterprises. Organizational culture is typically built through a combination of factors and processes within an organization [8]. In Vietnam, particularly in logistics services, this development has been fragmented despite its critical role in supply chains, mainly due to rapid growth and the dominance of foreign-invested enterprises. According to the Vietnam Ministry of Planning and Investment, in 2023, there were over 30,000 logistics providers in Vietnam, with 89% being domestic. Despite this, domestic providers only account for 30% of the market share, with the remainder held by foreign-invested ones, including 25 of the world’s leading forwarding enterprises that provide services in Vietnam and significantly contribute to the domestic GDP.
Thus, by focusing on foreign-invested logistics service enterprises, this study addresses an interesting field where cultural integration and performance optimization intersect, highlighting the potential for organizational culture to act as a catalyst for sustainable development in Vietnam. Also, despite the extensive literature on organizational culture and its impact on employee performance, there remains a significant gap in research specifically addressing the context of foreign-invested logistics service enterprises. Most existing studies focus on enterprises in general or specific industries, often neglecting the challenges and dynamics faced by foreign-invested logistics service enterprises.
In practice, foreign-invested logistics service enterprises implement competitive strategies based on certain factors, such as high service quality, competitive pricing, short transit times, and green development, etc. [9,10]. They tend to establish a productive organizational culture aimed at enhancing productivity, competitiveness, and sustainable development by ensuring a balance between economic profitability, social equity, and environmental objectives. From the sustainability perspective, foreign-invested logistics service enterprises focus on customer service management to improve service quality based on management performance [11,12].
In this context in Vietnam, this article examines the role of organizational culture, specifically the impact of its constituent factors on employee performance in foreign-invested logistics service enterprises. From a sustainability perspective, understanding how organizational culture influences employee performance can contribute to fostering environmentally responsible practices and long-term viability in the logistics sector. The research findings will serve to propose recommendations for enhancing organizational culture aimed at improving employee performance in foreign-invested logistics service enterprises from a sustainability perspective.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Literature Review on Organizational Culture

In the literature, scholars have proposed various definitions of organizational culture including the well-known one by Schein [1,13] as presented at the beginning of this article. Moreover, Uttal [14] suggested that organizational culture is a system of shared values and beliefs that interact with the organizational structure and control systems to establish behavioral norms. In other words, corporate culture is a complex system including the development of an enterprise together with its values and beliefs, which are deeply ingrained [15]. Organizational culture reflects the core values and beliefs of the organization, which promote leadership and human resource management through exemplary behavior with employees [4,16].
In general, organizational culture can be understood as a set of values, beliefs and behaviors that are shared by each member in the enterprise [12]. Organizational culture involves cultural values formed throughout the enterprise’s development, which subsequently become ingrained values, perspectives, customs, and traditions in corporate operations. Such culture governs the relationships, thoughts, and behaviors of organizational members in the pursuit of and in achieving corporate objectives.
Scholars have argued that organizational culture represents the values and behaviors that contribute to corporate success and that this culture will be shared among new employees [5]. Loyal employees often explore the enterprise through corporate culture; thus, organizational culture serves as a powerful tool to establish stability and sustainability of the enterprise [17]. Once organizational culture is popularized and imposed consistently, fewer conflicts occur, and more positive interactions happen as a result. Therefore, evaluating and building organizational culture are indeed absolutely crucial to the business success of an enterprise.
Empirical studies supported that organizational culture is a powerful tool that influence employees’ behavior and improve performance [2]. Organizational culture is one of the key success factors for enterprises, fostering unity in organizational awareness and actions, and linking its members together [4,18]. For enterprises to achieve and sustain a strong market positioning, they must not only possess strategic financial, human, and technological resources, but also adopt an appropriate organizational culture. Cameron and Quinn [13] highlighted that organizational culture comprises a set of complex, overlapping, and ambiguous elements. Therefore, a profound understanding of organizational culture is crucial for assisting employees in effectively managing interactions with customers, colleagues, and other stakeholders, enabling them to adjust their actions and behaviors to align with corporate objectives.

2.2. Elements Constituting Organizational Culture

Structurally, Schein [1] and O’Reilly et al. [19] specified that organizational culture consists of three levels: cultural artifacts, espoused values, and basic assumptions. Artifacts include tangible elements, such as language, slogans, architecture, and layout. Espoused values represent the criteria or set of norms that enterprises use to evaluate operations, product/service quality, personnel, and actions. The core of organizational culture refers to the basic assumptions that guide how businesses operate, interact, and establish relationships with customers and social communities [4]. We specifically explore these elements of organizational culture as follows.
Firstly, tangible structural elements are the most visible aspects of organizational culture. In this research, we focus on behavioral norms, and physical structures [6]. Specifically, behavioral norms including language and slogans are the characteristics of corporate brand identity, distinguishing one enterprise from the others and demonstrating its professionalism and reputation to customers [20,21]. Physical structures, including architecture, products, machinery, and equipment, are important elements constituting organizational culture. Corporate architecture representing the relational patterns between organizational divisions, and corporate infrastructure, such as offices, factories, campuses, etc., has been progressively developed since the inception of the enterprise [22,23]. These elements constitute the working environment for employees, the space for interacting with customers, and the common location for all employees of the enterprise. Additionally, the product represents the output (physical or virtual) that meets customers’ needs, thereby generating revenue and profits for the enterprise. Machinery and equipment refer to tools and devices essential for product manufacturing and efficient business operations.
Secondly, espoused values represent the principles, ideas, and core behaviors that every member within the enterprise must believe in and adhere to, encompassing fundamental operational principles governing the relationships of the enterprise with its customers and the community [1]. This second layer of organizational culture also consists of statements (such as corporate knowledge, leadership style, and authority division) and core values (such as corporate mission and vision). Corporate knowledge, as evidence of the truth of belief, is the process through which organizational members demonstrate their qualifications and skills [24]. Organizational knowledge includes that of leaders and employees, which is inherited and accumulated through business activities and production practices, thus strongly influencing employee performance and organizational performance. Leadership style and authority division are crucial factors that constitute organizational culture. Leadership style plays a significant role in coordinating all business activities, inspiring and harnessing positive energy, and motivating employees toward organizational objectives [25]. Authority division refers to the hierarchical distribution of decision-making rights within an enterprise; decentralization increases as more critical decisions are delegated to lower hierarchical levels.
Thirdly, basic assumptions include unconscious perceptions (such as the focus of human life, i.e., beliefs) and mental models of ideals (such as relationships with the natural environment, i.e., activity modality). The corporate foci of human life are motivations and values that shape people to sympathize, share, perceive, and appreciate phenomena [1,26]. When the corporate focus aligns with that of each individual, it enables the enterprise to achieve greater organizational performance. Belief is each individual member’s perception of right and wrong; it is consciously formed, assessed through actions, words, and achievements of the enterprise. Belief regulates members’ behaviors according to organizational rules and fosters greater cohesion among individual members [27]. As they are strongly influenced by their environment, enterprises employ diverse methods of relating to their environment, such as mastery, harmony, and obedience [28]. Finally, activity modality, which also shapes organizational culture, refers to the perception of individuals or organizations regarding ethical values. Thus, enterprises must establish clear ethical standards, which serve as important guidelines for the thoughts and behaviors of employees [29].

2.3. Employee Performance

Employee performance is the ability of an employee in achieving individual or organizational goals by allocating available resources effectively [30]. Employee performance means how well employees fulfill their duties and the desired results. Employee performance is often measured by the following factors:
Work quality or service quality: This is an important factor to measure employee performance. Scholars [31] define work quality or service quality as the differences between expectations versus actual results. Similarly, service quality is the customers’ assessment about the outstanding features of a product/service based on actual experiences [32].
Ability to retain customers: This is key factor in evaluating employee performance, since customers play important role in generating revenue and profits and maintaining the organizational performance of the firm. Great employee achievement refers to individuals who are skillful in persuading, retaining loyal customers, and increasing potential customers at the same time [33].
Employee commitment: This is an emotional attachment and involvement of employees who demonstrate responsibility and a desire to contribute to the overall development of the enterprise. Commitment provides employees with a sense of responsibility, obligation, and attachment to the enterprise [34].
Employee attitude towards colleagues and customers: apart from the abovementioned factors, employee attitude towards colleagues and customers plays a crucial role in evaluating employee performance [35]. It is one of the prior factors affecting customer engagement with the enterprise’s services. The professionalism and dedication of employees aid in developing customer satisfaction in terms of service quality. In addition, an employee attitude toward colleagues that involves gentle, friendly, and respectful relationships with working partners would create a positive working environment, hence enhancing work quality, which improves corporate reputation as a consequence.

2.4. Hypothesis Development

Deal and Kennedy [2] indicate that a strong and normative culture in an organization is greatly beneficial in improving employee performance. Organizational culture is considered an influential element in achieving organizational objectives, including from the sustainability perspective [6]. Specifically, the relationship between cultural components and employee performance is as follows:
  • The relationship between artefacts and employee performance:
Tangible structural elements of an enterprise include language, slogans, corporate architecture, products, machinery, equipment, etc. These elements are formed in association with the establishment and development process of an enterprise, hence directly affecting employees’ thoughts, awareness, beliefs and values. The language and slogans of an enterprise differentiate it from others. They demonstrate the professionalism and reputation of the enterprise to customers, which raises awareness as well as adjusts behavior between employees and customers [36] Corporate architecture and other machinery not only represent physical assets of an enterprise but also serve as a workplace and communication space for both employees and customers. Additionally, product or service quality attract customers and improve employee performance. In this perspective, the first research hypothesis is proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 1. 
Artifact factors positively influence employee performance in enterprises.
  • The relationship between espoused values and employee performance:
Espoused values include statements and core values. Statements refer to corporate knowledge, leadership style, and authority division. These are intangible attributes that influence employees of the enterprise for a long period of time. They act as a foundation for creating trust that promote employees’ loyalty, desire for contribution, and long-term commitment to the enterprise. Similarly, core values are expressed through the corporate vision and mission, which can impact significantly on employee motivation and performance. Employees set clear and straightforward directions with their work and develop working goals and behaviors toward customers and colleagues. In this perspective, the second hypothesis is proposed as follows:
Hypothesis 2. 
Espoused values positively influence employee performance in enterprises.
  • The relationship between basic assumptions and employee performance:
Basic assumptions include the focus of human life, beliefs, relationship with the business environment, and activity modality. The focus of human life and beliefs are remarkable motivations in shaping an employee’s working contribution for achieving individual goals and organizational objectives. The nature of any organization is the basis for each employee to adjust their behavior towards the surrounding environment as well as relationships with customers and colleagues [28]. The relationship with the business environment and activity modality in the enterprise are the orientation for the employee to develop appropriate behavior and increase productivity, which effectively improve employee performance. From this perspective, we propose our third research hypothesis as follows:
Hypothesis 3. 
Assumption factors positively influence employee performance in enterprises.
From the abovementioned discussions, a research model is developed as shown in the following Figure 1:

3. Research Methodology

3.1. Data Collection and Research Sample

To assess the impact of organizational cultural factors on employee performance in foreign-invested logistics enterprises in Vietnam, data were collected through a structured questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was designed to gather insights into three groups of organizational cultural factors, such as artifacts, espoused values, and basic assumption. Questions were formulated based on our understanding of the organizational culture literature and tailored to the specific context of logistics operations in Vietnam through interviews with five logistics experts.
The final questionnaire comprises three parts. Part 1 is about the general information of the foreign-invested logistics service enterprises, Part 2 includes questions addressing their organizational cultural factors, and Part 3 consists of questions about employee performance at the enterprise. The questions in Parts 2 and 3 were all formulated using a 5-level Likert scale (from 1 to 5).
Next, we proceeded to collect primary data by distributing questionnaires over a period of 3 months via postal mail, phone, and primarily through an online Google Form survey among foreign-invested logistics service enterprises listed in the Vietnam Logistics Business Association (VLA) membership database. With the fulfilled questionnaires collected, we filtered and excluded the ones that were missing important information, such as those related to organizational cultural factors or employee performance. Finally, the research sample comprised 162 foreign-invested logistics enterprises in Vietnam (Table 1).

3.2. Variable Measurement and Regression Method

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), summarized in Table 2, shows that the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients and Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin values for each variable are greater than 0.7, with significant KMO and Bartlett’s tests at a confidence level of 95%. The first principal component created by all research variables explains more than 50% of the information from the items forming it. These results validate the measurement of research variables in this study (see Appendix A for the final constructs of variables).
To verify the proposed hypotheses, we used multiple linear regression with 10 independent variables representing organizational cultural factors and a dependent variable of employee performance. The regression equation is formulated as follows:
Y = a0 + a1X1 + a2X2 + a3X3 + a4X4 + a5X5 + a6X6 + a7X7 + a8X8 + a9X9 + a10X10 + ε
where
Y: employee performance of foreign-invested logistics enterprises in Vietnam;
a0, a1, …, a10: coefficients to estimate;
X1, X2, …, X10: components of organizational culture of foreign-invested logistics enterprises in Vietnam;
ε: standard error.
As the variable measurements were validated, we proceeded to conduct the regression analysis. The regression results will be presented and discussed in the next section.

4. Results and Discussions

Regression results obtained from SPSS 25 are presented in Table 3. The dependent variable is employee performance of foreign-invested logistics service enterprises in Vietnam, whereas the independent ones are factors constituting organizational culture that are expected to have a positive impact on employee performance of foreign-invested logistics enterprises. The F-statistic of the model is 43,130 with p value (Sig.) = 0.000, which indicates the appropriateness of the model and collected data.
The adjusted R-squared value reached 0.724, which shows that the independent variables throughout the model explained 72.4% of the variation in the dependent variable. The results of the multicollinearity analysis of the model show that VIF values are all less than 2, which indicates that this phenomenon does not exist in our regression model. These results confirmed the reliability of the regression model.
In addition, the ANOVA table obtained from SPSS 25 demonstrates statistically significant differences between groups (Hypothesis H0: There is no significant difference among various factors constituting organizational culture). Results show value Sig. = 0.000 < 0.05; therefore, H0 is rejected. Therefore, there is a statistically significant difference in employee performance of Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics service enterprises among factors contributing to organizational culture.
According to the regression results, among the 10 independent variables, there are 5 statistically significant variables, whereas the remaining 5 variables do not have an impact on the employee performance at foreign-invested logistics service enterprises at confidence level of 95%. Our analysis and discussions will focus on the five cultural factors influencing employee performance, as follows:
The regression results demonstrate that independent variable X5 (leadership style and authority division) has an impact on employee performance within foreign-invested logistics enterprises in Vietnam at 95% (B = 0.214; Sig. = 0.000). This finding is consistent with the literature’s economic theory and other previous research. Therefore, leadership style and authority division generate positive influence on employee performance in Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics service enterprises. An appropriate leadership style and authority division within an enterprise promote productivity in an effective way.
In practice, leadership style is one of the elements of organizational culture that plays a particularly critical role in coordinating activities within an enterprise. Leadership style inspires work, transmits energy to employees, and acts as a prerequisite for creating organizational culture. Leadership style possesses a profound effect on employee performance and organizational success. Empirical studies show that inappropriate leadership style results in a 48% decrease in working effort and a 38% decrease in working quality, which negatively impact the employee performance of the enterprise. Additionally, a set of appropriate and specific authority divisions enables foreign-invested logistics service enterprises to make decisions at ease. Decision making is made in the host country based on the hierarchy of power division, instead of spending time consulting parent firm. This enables employees to solve problems sufficiently, while saving time and effectively achieving productivity in the logistics process.
One of the current situations relating to foreign-invested logistics service enterprises that should be mentioned is DHL, a world-leading corporation in the logistics industry, specializing in international transportation and delivery services. It was founded by Adrian Dalsey, Larry Hillblom, and Robert Lynn in 1969. A creative and pioneering leadership style together with an appropriate authority division have helped DHL to improve employee performance and develop rapidly in a sustainable direction in the world in general and in Vietnam in particular.
The regression results indicate the independent variable of X6 (corporate values) has a positive impact on employee performance at Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics service enterprises at a confidence level of 95% (B = 0.119; Sig. = 0.007). This finding is consistent with previously mentioned studies in the literature review. Therefore, factors from corporate values have a significant positive effect on employee performance in foreign-invested logistics enterprises. This implies that corporate values are profound thoughts that orient employees and all activities throughout the enterprise; they are guidelines for all actions, aiming for high productivity and optimal performance in sustainable production. Corporate values are crucial elements constituting organizational culture, and they act as the key to enhancing employee performance and organizational success [37]. Corporate values are a common ideology that all employees aim for, which are rigid and intransigent despite internal fluctuations, thus creating sustainable development for the enterprise.
According to the Vietnam Logistics Business Association (VLA), foreign-invested enterprises account for 80% of Vietnam’s logistics market. Many large logistics corporations in the world invest capital in Vietnam, providing for a full range of companies from international transportation services to domestic transportation with wide international networks and modern IT systems [38]. Most enterprises develop their corporate values based on cooperation, creativity, interaction, friendliness, and sustainability [15]. Core values focused on close cooperation, shared benefits, customers oriented, mutual development, etc., serves as an important foundation to help each employee plan for their work and career, improve employee performance, and create widespread logistics networks and added value for sustainable development. Green logistics is the mission that foreign-invested logistics service enterprises are aiming for; several approaches, such as using electric vehicles, solar energy, biological packaging, etc., are employed to reduce carbon emissions, thus promoting sustainable development. This current situation confirms that factors related to corporate values do indeed have strong positive impact on employee performance for foreign-invested logistics service enterprises in a sustainability approach.
The regression results show that the independent variable X7 (focus of human life) has a positive impact on the performance of employees at Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics service enterprises at a confidence level of 95% (B = 0.373; Sig. = 0.000). The impact of this variable on employee performance is remarkable with the regression coefficient (B = 0.373). This finding is consistent with previous studies, which means that the correct focus of human life in enterprise will boost an individual’s working spirit and enhance employee commitment to the organization, thereby promoting productivity.
In practice, the focus of human life in enterprise is a driving force that help employees share, understand, engage, and sympathize with all situations and events [1,33]. This factor is not only a crucial element constituting organizational culture but also has a strong impact on employees and employee performance, especially at logistics enterprises. Once the focus of human life of the enterprise is well-connected with the employees’ vision, it enables employees to confidently demonstrate their professional capacity and talent, improving productivity and achieving business service effectively. Currently, Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics enterprises often possess modern facilities, a dynamic working environment, a professional working style, mutual cooperation and respect, constant development, and an aim to become globally oriented [38]. These elements ideally encourage employee to contribute towards organizational objectives. Foreign-invested logistics service enterprises have tendency to increase their capital and broaden their technological investment, expanding their market share to support the connectivity of society economic development, which creates a high and stable source of income for employees, attracting the long-term commitment of skillful employees and, thus, improving productivity and promoting sustainability.
The regression results show that independent variable X8 (Employee belief) has a positive impact on employee performance at Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics service enterprises at a confidence level of 95% (B = 0.399; Sig. = 0.000). The finding is consistent with various studies. Employee belief is a key element that constitutes organizational culture, which is positively associated with employee performance at foreign-invested logistics service enterprises.
Employee belief is formed from an employee’s consciousness about righteousness and activity modality. The rules of organizational culture are a crucial foundation for regulating employee behavior and strengthening trust, thus tightly connecting people [27] and thereby improving work quality and productivity. In addition, employee belief in the enterprise serves to promote work innovation and creativity and to enhance employee loyalty. For Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics service enterprises, employee belief enhances working motivation and resolves order conflicts or other related issues that might arise. The entire logistics process with customers and employees is built on a common responsibility in a constructive spirit [6]. Furthermore, employees can share information and take advantage of the chance to support each other at various service stages, helping orders to be shipped faster at the highest performance level.
Empirical studies have demonstrated that high levels of employee belief create productive and highly committed employees at work; new employees are strongly associated with the support and corporation process [4]. Findings by [39] indicate that high employee beliefs in enterprise were considered trustworthy by 75% of surveyed respondents. The current situation shows that foreign-invested logistics enterprises with strategic thinking, a global perspective, and great remuneration can promote employee commitment, improve employee performance, and enhance productivity, thus supporting the sustainability of the enterprise.
The regression results indicated that the independent variable X9 (People’s relationship with the business environment) has a positive impact on employee performance at Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics service enterprises at a confidence level of 95% (B = 0.085; Sig. = 0.000). The higher the people’s relationship with the business environment is, then the better the employee performance is as a result. Connectivity methods between enterprises and environments, such as mastery, harmony, and obedience [28], have a strong influence on employee performance. In terms of physical existence, people’s relationship with the business environment and corporate social responsibility have a positive effect on human capital and employee behaviors, thereby promoting employee performance and business development in a sustainable way. FDI enterprises in general and Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics enterprises in particular are raising awareness and focusing on environmental responsibility via green FDI flows of capital, which result in promoting employee performance and ensuring the sustainable development of the enterprise.
It is obvious that foreign-invested logistics service enterprises in Vietnam are on their way towards implement green management for employees to comply with environmental regulations [40]. This is indeed a driving factor in improving service performance and determining the competitive advantages of the enterprise, especially in the context of a knowledge economy and green intelligence that drive competitive advantage towards sustainable development. Nowadays, the green logistics trend and improving performance associated with environmental protection have become the orientation for numerous Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics enterprises. Specific actions that should be mentioned include the use of recycled or biodegradable materials packages, fuel-efficient means of transportation, renewable energy, strict transportation assessment, etc.
Additionally, the regression results indicate the insignificant impact of five independent variables, including language and slogans (X1), corporate architecture (X2), equipment, products, machinery (X3), corporate knowledge (X4), and activity modality (X10). These findings reveal that in the economic and social context in Vietnam, these factors have not significantly influenced employee performance in Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics service enterprises.
In summary, the research findings do not support Hypothesis 1, i.e., that artifact factors (such as language and slogans, corporate architecture, and products, machinery, and equipment) do not influence employee performance at Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics service enterprises. Hypothesis 2 is partially valid, as we found that despite the insignificant impact of corporate knowledge, two other espoused values factors (leadership style and authority division, and corporate values) positively influence employee performance. Finally, as all four basic assumption factors (focus of human life, beliefs, relationship with the business environment, and activity modality) have a significant impact on employee performance at Vietnamese foreign-invested logistics service enterprises, Hypothesis 3 is, therefore, validated.

5. Managerial Implications and Recommendations

Based on the research findings on the impact of organizational cultural factors, managerial implications and recommendations are proposed for foreign-invested logistics service enterprises, particularly those in Vietnam. Specifically, they are as follows:
Developing a culture of employee belief: Foreign-invested logistics service enterprises are often diverse in terms of personnel, nationality, and employee culture; thus, special attention needs to be paid when creating and developing a culture of trust. First, enterprises are required to define clear logistics service business goals that each employee is clear about. This helps effectively in guiding the whole team to be consistent and to coordinate smoothly towards a common connective spirit throughout the enterprise. Secondly, it is vital for logistics service enterprises to create appropriate remuneration policies, ensuring stable and sustainable income for every employee in the host country as well as in the foreign country. Employees’ contributions at work should be recognized and appraised to strengthen belief in the enterprise and to improve motivation. Moreover, organizations can foster open discussion and communication to improve collaboration and engagement between people within the same organization. Training and fostering of professional expertise should occur frequently, focusing on soft skills as well as the behavioral culture among employees.
Building leadership style: An appropriate leadership style should be developed and adopted to coordinate all activities within the foreign-invested logistics service enterprise. Leaders and managers in enterprises must identify and set an appropriate activity modality. This will contribute to improving work quality and performance, fostering friendly and supportive communication with customers in the host country. Also, leaders must be equipped with professional qualifications and ethical qualities with a thorough emphasis on the importance of organizational culture, especially in multinational logistics service enterprises. Leaders’ responsibility must be highlighted; decisions must be clear, powerful, and appropriate based on the hierarchy within various stages of the logistics process. Leadership methods should be developed properly to be flexible with differences in multicultural and cross-border cooperation.
Establishing and enhancing corporate values. Foreign-invested logistics service enterprises should take into account human and uniqueness factors when creating a business philosophy to make a positive impression on customers and partners. A corporate vision must evoke the cohesion of all employees, as the small strength of individual employees can assemble into a great power for the business as a whole; each employee acts as an important player in each stage of the logistics activities, creating great quality in the entire ordering process. Furthermore, variety in leadership styles, development orientation, business strategies, and organizational culture should be emphasized and analyzed to best suit the customers’ tastes in the host country.
Establishing an organizational culture associated with environmental and social responsibility in the sustainability approach. Foreign-invested logistics service enterprises should focus on building strategies and solutions towards the trends of “greening” or “greening logistics”, putting effort into implementing environment responsibility.

6. Conclusions

In enterprise, organizational culture plays a remarkable role in promoting employee performance from a sustainability approach. Our empirical findings provide robust support for this perspective by identifying five critical organizational cultural factors that have a positive impact, including employees’ beliefs, the corporate focus of human life, leadership style and authority division, corporate values, and the relationship with the business environment. These factors collectively contribute to shaping a work environment that enhances employee performance, and an organizational work environment. The insights gained from this study underscore the importance of cultivating a strong organizational culture as a strategic priority for foreign-invested logistics service enterprises, particularly those operating in Vietnam. By aligning managerial practices with these cultural dimensions, enterprises can foster a more supportive and effective workplace, ultimately driving sustainable business success.
Specifically, managerial contributions are relevant for foreign-invested logistics enterprises. Our research findings act as fundamentals for establishing and implementing organizational cultural practices to enhance employee performance from a sustainability approach, particularly in foreign-invested logistics service enterprises. Our managerial implications aim to develop a culture of employee belief, build leadership style, build inspiring corporate values, and establish an organizational culture associated with environmental and social responsibility.
Despite the research’s achievements, the study still has some limitations, such as differences in enterprise size and employee qualifications across various logistics activities (from warehousing, loading and unloading, and delivery to import–export services). Moreover, due to time and data limitations, other factors (such as the national culture of the foreign investors, firm characteristics, and socioeconomic factors) have not been analyzed. Further studies should take these limitations into consideration for a deeper investigation.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, T.N.Q.V. and V.K.P.; Investigation, T.N.Q.V.; Data curation, V.K.P.; Writing—original draft, T.N.Q.V.; Writing—review and editing, N.A.N., Revision—extensive review and editing, T.T.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Thuongmai University, Hanoi, Vietnam (grant number NNC23-10).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy and confidentiality considerations.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. Constructs of Variables in the Survey Questionnaire

After implementing EFA (exploratory factor analysis) and CFA (confirmatory factor analysis), the final constructs of variables are as follows:
  • Language and slogans (X1)
X1_1: How frequently do employees in your enterprise use the organizational slogans or language from the substantiality perspective in their daily work and internal communications?
(1: Never, 2: Rarely, 3: Occasionally, 4: Frequently, 5: Always)
X1_2: How effectively do these slogans and language reflect the values and mission of the enterprise?
(1: Not effective, 2: Slightly effective, 3: Moderately effective, 4: Significantly effective, 5: Very effective)
X1_3: How often do employees incorporate the organizational slogans or language from the substantiality perspective into their interactions with clients or customers?
(1: Never, 2: Rarely, 3: Occasionally, 4: Frequently, 5: Always)
X1_4: How do the organizational slogans or language contribute to fostering a cohesive and unified organizational identity of your enterprise from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not contributing, 2: Slightly contributing, 3: Moderately contributing, 4: Significantly contributing, 5: Very contributing)
  • Corporate architecture (X2)
X2_1: How prominently does the physical design of workplace (e.g., office layout, decor) reflect the organizational values and identity of your enterprise from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Slightly, 3: Moderately, 4: Considerably, 5: Extensively)
X2_2: To what extent do the architectural elements of your enterprise’s corporate buildings or offices contribute to a sense of community and collaboration among employees?
(1: Not contributing, 2: Slightly contributing, 3: Moderately contributing, 4: Significantly contributing, 5: Very contributing)
X2_3: How well does your enterprise’s corporate architecture support the daily business operations from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not well, 2: Slightly well, 3: Moderately well, 4: Well, 5: Very well)
  • Equipment, products, machinery (X3)
X3_1: How well do the equipment and machinery used in your enterprise reflect the organizational values and goals from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not well, 2: Slightly well, 3: Moderately well, 4: Well, 5: Very well)
X3_2: To what extent do the products or services offered by your enterprise embody the corporate identity and brand values from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
X3_3: How effectively do the tools and equipment provided support employees in achieving their daily tasks and responsibilities from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Slightly, 3: Moderately, 4: Considerably, 5: Extensively)
X3_4: How much do the physical products or materials used in your enterprise contribute to creating a positive work environment and fostering team collaboration from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not contributing, 2: Slightly contributing, 3: Moderately contributing, 4: Significantly contributing, 5: Very contributing)
  • Corporate knowledge (X4)
X4_1: To what extent are employees aware of and knowledgeable about the history and heritage of your enterprise?
(1: Not aware, 2: Slightly aware, 3: Moderately aware, 4: Significantly aware, 5: Very aware)
X4_2: How effectively does your enterprise promote continuous learning and development among employees to uphold organizational values from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not effectively at all, 2: Slightly, 3: Moderately, 4: Significantly, 5: Very effectively)
X4_3: How well do employees apply the knowledge and principles learned about the organizational values in their daily work and decision-making in your enterprise from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not well, 2: Slightly well, 3: Moderately well, 4: Well, 5: Very well)
  • Leadership style and authority division (X5)
X5_1: How transparent is the division of authority and decision-making responsibilities among leaders within your enterprise from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not transparent at all, 2: Slightly, 3: Moderately, 4: Transparent, 5: Very transparent)
X5_2: To what extent do leaders in your enterprise demonstrate a participative leadership style that encourages input from members from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
X5_3: How effectively do leaders in your enterprise communicate organizational goals and expectations to employees at all levels from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not effectively, 2: Slightly effectively, 3: Moderately effectively, 4: Effectively, 5: Very effectively)
X5_4: How well do leaders in your organization empower employees to take initiative and make decisions within their roles from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not well, 2: Slightly well, 3: Moderately well, 4: Well, 5: Very well)
  • Corporate values (X6)
X6_1: How clearly are the corporate values communicated to employees at all levels of your enterprise from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not clear, 2: Slightly clear, 3: Moderately clear, 4: Clear, 4: Very clear)
X6_2: To what extent do employees understand and align their work with the corporate values in your enterprise from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
X6_3: How well are corporate values integrated into your enterprise’s policies and procedures from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not well, 2: Slightly well, 3: Moderately well, 4: Well, 5: Very well)
X6_4: How effectively do corporate values influence decision-making processes within your enterprise from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not effectively, 2: Slightly effectively, 3: Moderately effectively, 4: Effectively, 5: Very effectively)
  • Focus of human life (X7)
X7_1: How much does your enterprise organization prioritize work-life balance for its employees from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
X7_2: To what extent does your enterprise recognize and support employees’ personal growth and well-being outside of work from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
X7_3: How effectively does your enterprise integrate employees’ personal values with the organization’s goals and objectives from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not effectively, 2: Slightly effectively, 3: Moderately effectively, 4: Effectively, 5: Very effectively)
X7_4: To what extent does your enterprise foster a sense of purpose and meaning in the work employees do from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
  • Employee beliefs (X8)
X8_1: How well do employees believe that their contributions are valued and recognized by your enterprise from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not well, 2: Slightly well, 3: Moderately well, 4: Well, 5: Very well)
X8_2: To what extent do employees believe from the substantiality perspective that your enterprise provides fair opportunities for career advancement?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
X8_3: How strongly do employees believe that your enterprise’s leadership is trustworthy and transparent from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not strongly, 2: Slightly strongly, 3: Moderately strongly, 4: Strongly, 5: Very strongly)
X8_4: To what extent do employees believe that your enterprise’s values align with their personal values from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
  • Relationship with business environment (X9)
X9_1: How effectively does your enterprise adapt to changes in the business environment (e.g., market trends, economic shifts) from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not effectively, 2: Slightly, 3: Moderately, 4: Effectively, 5: Very effectively)
X9_2: To what extent does your enterprise engage with industry stakeholders (e.g., customers, suppliers, regulators) from the substantiality perspective to stay competitive?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
X9_3: How aligned are your enterprise’s strategies with the broader industry standards and best practices from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not aligned, 2: Slightly aligned, 3: Moderately aligned, 4: Aligned, 5: Very aligned)
  • Activity modality (X10)
X10_1: How flexible are the work processes and procedures within your enterprise to accommodate different working styles from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not flexible, 2: Slightly flexible, 3: Moderately flexible, 4: Flexible, 5: Very flexible)
X10_2: How well does your enterprise balance formal and informal work practices to achieve its goals from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not well, 2: Slightly well, 3: Moderately well, 4: Well, 5: Very well)
X10_3: How effectively does your enterprise integrate teamwork and individual work to optimize performance from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not effectively, 2: Slightly, 3: Moderately, 4: Effectively, 5: Very effectively)
X10_4: To what extent are your organizational activities aligned with corporate strategic objectives and mission from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
  • Employee performance (Y)
Y_1: How would you assess the general quality of work produced by employees in your enterprise from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Very poor, 2: Poor, 3: Average, 4: Good, 5: Excellent)
Y_2: To what extent do employees in your enterprise contribute to retaining customers and maintaining long-term client relationships from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not at all, 2: Small extent, 3: Moderate extent, 4: Large extent, 5: Completely)
Y_3: How committed are employees in your enterprise to the goals and values of our organization from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not committed, 2: Slightly committed, 3: Moderately committed, 4: Committed, 5: Very committed)
Y_4: How positively do employees in your enterprise interact with their colleagues and customers from the substantiality perspective?
(1: Not positively, 2: Slightly positively, 3: Moderately positively, 4: Positively, 5: Very positively)

Appendix B. Descriptive Statistics

NMinimumMaximumMeanStd. Deviation
X1_11621.05.02.6671.236
X1_21621.05.03.1481.222
X1_31621.05.03.1481.301
X1_41621.05.03.5801.225
X2_11621.05.02.6420.896
X2_21621.05.02.7900.915
X2_31621.05.02.6981.093
X3_11622.05.03.6301.021
X3_21621.05.03.1420.984
X3_31621.05.02.9071.173
X3_41621.05.02.4071.161
X4_11621.05.02.7841.130
X4_21621.05.02.7721.035
X4_31621.05.02.8091.043
X5_11621.05.02.8150.967
X5_21621.05.02.8400.971
X5_31621.05.03.0800.841
X5_41621.05.02.8890.892
X6_11621.05.02.9200.849
X6_21621.05.03.2041.004
X6_31621.05.02.8950.831
X6_41621.05.03.1360.975
X7_11621.05.03.2471.164
X7_21621.05.02.9071.194
X7_31621.05.03.4141.183
X7_41621.05.03.2411.173
X8_11621.05.02.7841.294
X8_21621.05.03.3091.222
X8_31621.05.02.6791.096
X8_41621.05.02.8521.389
X9_11621.05.02.9320.913
X9_21621.05.03.3700.891
X9_31621.05.03.6671.103
X10_11622.05.03.0560.907
X10_21622.05.03.0860.935
X10_31622.05.03.3770.952
X10_41622.05.03.4940.954
Y_11621.05.03.8461.224
Y_21621.05.03.8091.177
Y_31621.05.03.6790.923
Y_41621.05.03.6231.266
X1162−1.7981.5750.0001.000
X2162−2.0342.3120.0001.000
X3162−1.7521.9280.0001.000
X4162−1.9512.0430.0001.000
X5162−2.1692.7530.0001.000
X6162−2.8291.7000.0001.000
X7162−2.0441.6700.0001.000
X8162−1.7121.8940.0001.000
X9162−2.5581.8890.0001.000
X10162−1.7102.4410.0001.000
Y162−2.5031.2710.0001.000

References

  1. Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture and Leadership, 3rd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  2. Deal, T.E.; Kennedy, A.A. Strong Cultures: The Rites and Rituals of Corporate Life; Addison Wesley Publishing Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1982; p. 126. [Google Scholar]
  3. Salehipour, A.; Ah Mand, A. The Impact of Organizational Culture and Performance Work System on Employees’ Performance. Int. Bus. Res. 2018, 11, 199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Denison, D.R.; Mishra, A.K. Toward a Theory of Organizational Culture and Effectiveness. Organ. Sci. 1995, 6, 204–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Schein, E.H. Organizational Culture. Am. Psychol. 1990, 45, 109–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Metz, D.; Ilieş, L.; Nistor, R.L. The Impact of Organizational Culture on Customer Service Effectiveness from a Sustainability Perspective. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Barney, J.B. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. J. Manag. 1991, 17, 99–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Truong, T.H.X.; Nguyen, D.H.; Nguyen, T.P. Organizational culture of enterprises in Thua Thien Hue province with Denison model. Hue Univ. J. Sci. Econ. Dev. 2019, 128, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Hung, Y.C.; Su, T.C.; Lou, K.R. Impact of Organizational Culture on Individual Work Performance with National Culture of Cross-Strait Enterprises as a Moderator. Sustainability 2022, 14, 6897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cherian, J.; Gaikar, V.; Paul, R.; Pech, R. Corporate Culture and Its Impact on Employees’ Attitude, Performance, Productivity, and Behavior: An Investigative Analysis from Selected Organizations of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Bagshaw, K.B. Logistics Management from Firms’ Performance Perspective. Int. J. Supply Chain Logist. 2017, 1, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Osei, M.; Papadopoulos, T.; Acquaye, A.; Stamati, T. Improving Sustainable Supply Chain Performance through Organisational Culture: A Competing Values Framework Approach. J. Purch. Supply Manag. 2023, 29, 100821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Cameron, K.S.; Quinn, R.E. Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, 3rd ed.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  14. Uttal, B. The corporate culture vultures. Fortune 1983, 108, 66. [Google Scholar]
  15. Magsi, H.B.; Ong, T.S.; Ho, J.A.; Hassan, A.F.S. Organizational Culture and Environmental Performance. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Marcoulides, G.A.; Heck, R.H. Organizational Culture and Performance: Proposing and Testing a Model. Organ. Sci. 1993, 4, 209–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Schein, E.H. Culture: The Missing Concept in Organization Studies. Adm. Sci. Q. 1996, 41, 229–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gálvez, A.; Tirado, F.; Martínez, M.J. Work–Life Balance, Organizations and Social Sustainability: Analyzing Female Telework in Spain. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. O’Reilly, C.A.; Chatman, J.; Caldwell, D.F. People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. Acad. Manag. J. 1991, 34, 487–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bansal, P. From Issues to Actions: The Importance of Individual Concerns and Organizational Values in Responding to Natural Environmental Issues. Organ. Sci. 2003, 14, 510–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Samovar, L.A.; Porter, R.E. Intercultural Communication: A Reader, 8th ed.; Wadsworth Publishing Company: Belmont, CA, USA, 1997; p. 467. [Google Scholar]
  22. Kast, F.E.; Rosenzweig, J.E. Organization and Management: A Systems and Contingency Approach; Subsequent Edition; McGraw-Hill College: New York, NY, USA, 1985; p. 720. [Google Scholar]
  23. Forehand, G.A.; Von Haller, G. Environmental Variation in Studies of Organizational Behavior. Psychol. Bull. 1964, 62, 361–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Nonaka, I.; Takeuchi, H. Knowledge-Creating Company, 1st ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1995; p. 304. [Google Scholar]
  25. Alvesson, M. Understanding Organizational Culture, 2nd ed.; Sage Publication: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  26. Pham Van, K.; Tran Thi Thu, H.; Trang Pham, T.; Nguyen, K.H.; Thao Vu, P. Application of Low-Carbon Measures in Logistics Service Providers in Vietnam: A Comparative Study between Domestic and Foreign-Invested Companies. Sustainability 2023, 15, 14405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Dess, G.G.; Davis, P.S. Porter’s (1980) Generic Strategies as Determinants of Strategic Group Membership and Organizational Performance. Acad. Manag. J. 1984, 27, 467–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Kluckhohn, F.; Strodtbeck, F.L. Variations in Value Orientations; New Edition; Greenwood Press: London, UK, 1973; p. 437. [Google Scholar]
  29. Bahsri, N.B.; Zakaria, A.B. Systematic literature review on the job satisfaction of employees in the logistics industry. Int. J. Ind. Manag. 2023, 17, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Daft, R.L. Organization Theory and Design, 11th ed.; Cengage Learning: Boston, MA, USA, 2012; p. 688. [Google Scholar]
  31. Piwowar-Sulej, K. Pro-Environmental Organizational Culture: Its Essence and a Concept for Its Operationalization. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yanney, J.P. Business Strategy and Leadership Style: Impact on Organizational Performance in the Manufacturing Sector of Ghana. Am. J. Ind. Bus. Manag. 2014, 04, 767–775. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Almerri, H.S.H. Investigating the Impact of Organizational Culture on Employee Retention: Moderating Role of Employee Engagement. J. Syst. Manag. Sci. 2023, 13, 488–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. John, P.M.; Allen, N.J. A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1991, 1, 61–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Qasim, S.; Ahmed, W.; Frooghi, R. Influence of Employees’ Beliefs and Values on Shaping Green Work Culture for Boosting Firm’s Environmental Performance. Int. J. Ethics Syst. 2023, 40, 320–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Iqbal, Q.; Piwowar-Sulej, K.; Kallmuenzer, A. Sustainable Development through Frugal Innovation: The Role of Leadership, Entrepreneurial Bricolage and Knowledge Diversity. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Atatsi, E.A.; Stoffers, J.; Kil, A. Factors Affecting Employee Performance: A Systematic Literature Review. J. Adv. Manag. Res. 2019, 16, 329–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bui, T.T.H.; Phung, T.V.K.; Nguyen, T.T.M. Development of Logistics Vietnam Services: Situation and Solutions. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. Anal. 2023, 6, 3849–3855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sarpong, S.A.; Akom, M.S.; Kusi-Owusu, E.; Ofosua-Adjei, I.; Lee, Y. The Role of Commitment in the Relationship between Components of Organizational Culture and Intention to Stay. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Edelman. In Brands We Trust, Edelman Trust Barometer. 2019. Available online: https://edelman.com/research/trust-barometer-special-report-in-brands-we-trust (accessed on 28 November 2023).
Figure 1. Theoretical research model.
Figure 1. Theoretical research model.
Sustainability 16 06366 g001
Table 1. Research sample.
Table 1. Research sample.
Years in OperationFrequencyPercentNumber of EmployeesFrequencyPercent
<3 years2213.58<10 persons169.88
3–<5 years5634.5710–<100 persons8049.38
5–<10 years4225.93100–<300 persons3722.84
10–<20 years2414.81>300 persons2917.90
>20 years1811.11
Total162100Total162100
Table 2. Variable measurement.
Table 2. Variable measurement.
No.VariableAbbreviationNumber of ItemsCronbach’s AlphaKaiser–Meyer–OlkinSig.Variance Explained of First Component (%)
1Language and slogansX140.9650.8080.00090.695
2Corporate architectureX230.8420.7160.00076.313
3Equipment, products, machineryX340.9560.7830.00088.979
4Corporate knowledgeX430.8210.7200.00073.718
5Leadership style and authority divisionX540.8460.8010.00068.476
6Corporate valuesX640.7920.7310.00061.694
7Focus of human lifeX740.9330.7250.00083.458
8Employee beliefsX840.9130.8040.00079.576
9Relationship with business environmentX930.9240.7300.00087.439
10Activity modalityX1040.7600.7030.00058.833
11Employee performanceY40.8810.7800.00073.738
Table 3. Regression results.
Table 3. Regression results.
Unstandardized CoefficienttSig.Multicollinearity Statistics
BStandard ErrorToleranceVIF
(Constant)−6.452 × 10−170.0410.0001.000
X1−0.0030.042−0.0720.9420.9531.049
X20.0470.0431.0840.2800.9201.087
X30.0020.0480.0410.9670.7361.358
X40.0120.0480.2400.8100.7451.342
X50.214 ***0.0583.6700.0000.5041.983
X60.119 **0.0442.7150.0070.8881.126
X70.373 ***0.0556.7390.0000.5591.788
X80.399 ***0.0577.0260.0000.5311.882
X90.085 *0.0431.9770.0500.9381.066
X10−0.0550.044−1.2550.2110.9071.103
R = 0.861; R Square = 0.741; Adjusted R Square = 0.724; Durbin-Watson = 2.011; F = 43.130; Sig. = 0.000; * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
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.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pham, V.K.; Vu, T.N.Q.; Phan, T.T.; Nguyen, N.A. The Impact of Organizational Culture on Employee Performance: A Case Study at Foreign-Invested Logistics Service Enterprises Approaching Sustainability Development. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156366

AMA Style

Pham VK, Vu TNQ, Phan TT, Nguyen NA. The Impact of Organizational Culture on Employee Performance: A Case Study at Foreign-Invested Logistics Service Enterprises Approaching Sustainability Development. Sustainability. 2024; 16(15):6366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156366

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pham, Van Kiem, Thi Nhu Quynh Vu, Thanh Tu Phan, and Ngoc Anh Nguyen. 2024. "The Impact of Organizational Culture on Employee Performance: A Case Study at Foreign-Invested Logistics Service Enterprises Approaching Sustainability Development" Sustainability 16, no. 15: 6366. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156366

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop