Exploring the link between human resource management practices and financial performance: The moderating effect of organizational culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates the relationship between Human Resource Management Practices (HRMP) and Financial Performance in the Jordanian Banking Sector, with a particular focus on the moderating effect of Organizational Culture. Employing a quantitative research approach, data was collected through surveys distributed among 353 employees in the Jordanian Banking Sector using a structured questionnaire. Random sampling was adopted as the sampling method. The findings from a partial least square structural path analysis reveal significant positive relationships between HRM practices (Employees Training, Incentives, Recruitment, Decentralization, and Job Security) and Financial Performance. Notably, Decentralization emerges as the strongest positive influencer, while Job Security exhibits a negative association with Financial Performance. Furthermore, the results from moderation analysis indicate significant interaction effects between Organizational Culture and various factors on Financial Performance in particular, the relationship with Employees Training, Incentives and Decentralization is positive toward Financial Performance that concludes a significant organizational culture increases HRM practices effects on financial results. On the other hand, allocation of job security dampens Financial Performance that suggests instead a healthy firm culture may neutralize over and above what is gained from guaranteeing employee job. On the other hand, in nonreciprocal interactions such as Organizational Culture and Recruitment does not substantially influence Firm’s financial performance; this implies that culturally organizational may play an insignificant moderating role between recruitment practices than to firm outcomes. These research findings further elaborate the intricate relation in between HRM practices, Organizational Culture and Financial Performance through Jordanian Banking Sector. This study is vital and important to both researchers for the argument that this paper has advanced above all, as well as managers in practice who should do their best at creating such a positive organizational culture which will enable HRM practices becoming more effective., thereby leading to better financial performance of banking organizations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".