Next Article in Journal
Organizational Commitment and Administrative Management in Public Service Delivery: Evidence from an Emerging Governance Context
Previous Article in Journal
Modelling Municipal Cost Inefficiencies in the Frances Baard District of South Africa and Their Impact on Service Delivery
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Administrative Sciences
Volume 15
Issue 6
10.3390/admsci15060230
admsci-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Exploring the Nexus Between a Supportive Workplace Environment, Employee Engagement, and Employee Performance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

by
Samma Faiz Rasool
1,2,
Hana Mohelska
2,
Fazal Ur Rehman
3,
Hamid Raza
4,* and
Muhammad Zaheer Asghar
5
1
Department of Management, College of Economics, Management & Information Systems, University of Nizwa, Nizwa 616, Oman
2
Department of Management, Faculty of Informatics and Management, University of Hradec Králové, 50003 Hradec Králové, Czech Republic
3
Science and Research Center, Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Pardubice, 53210 Pardubice, Czech Republic
4
School of Economics and Management, Tongji University, Shanghai 200092, China
5
Learning and Educational Technology Research Lab, Oulu University, 90570 Oulu, Finland
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(6), 230; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15060230
Submission received: 14 March 2025 / Revised: 28 May 2025 / Accepted: 29 May 2025 / Published: 16 June 2025
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Grounded in motivation theory, this study examines the direct relationship between a supportive workplace environment (SWE) and employee performance (EP). The SWE has been identified into three dimensions, i.e., work recognition (WR), work motivation (WM), and career development (CD). Moreover, we focused on the mediating effect of employee engagement (EE) on the relationship between SWE and EP. A quantitative research method was used, and data were collected through a questionnaire survey. Data were collected from 349 respondents. The target population were the senior managers, middle managers, and administrative staff working in the semi-government organizations based in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The data were analyzed using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) software version 4.0. The results indicate that in the direct relationship, workplace recognition, workplace motivation, and career development are positively connected with EP. Similarly, the findings show that employee engagement positively mediates between an SWE (work recognition, work motivation, and career development) and EP. This study suggests that managers can establish practices acknowledging and appreciating employee contributions, leading to increased motivation and improved performance. Creating a work environment that fosters work motivation by addressing employees’ physical and safety, social, and egoistic needs can further enhance employee engagement and performance. The study highlights the significant role of work recognition, work motivation, career development, and employee engagement in influencing employee performance. This study also recommends some practical implications for the semi-governmental organizations. First, it was suggested that organizations create a workplace environment in which employees feel appreciated, valued, and happy. Second, the organizations introduce the employee engagement culture at the department level as well as at the organizational level. Third, the organizations also introduce flexible work schedules for middle-level and administrative staff. Finally, Saudi organizations recognize the output of their employees and provide them with monetary incentives.

1. Introduction

The semi-government organizations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are playing a vital role in its economic development of the country (Abdullateef et al., 2023). Saudi Aramco has been concentrating on expanding renewable energy production and decreasing the nation’s reliance on fossil fuels (AlNemer et al., 2023). Further, Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) has invested in advanced manufacturing technologies and fostered innovation to develop novel goods and solutions. It helps the country compete globally and provides new employment opportunities for its expanding workforce (Almulhim & Al-Saidi, 2023). To contribute to Vision 2030, these semi-governmental organizations acknowledge the importance of linking work recognition, work motivation, and employee performance (Sarwar, 2022). Contemporary Saudi semi-government organizations invest in employee training and development, offer competitive remuneration, and create growth prospects to recruit and retain premier talent (Alenazy, 2022). Regular performance reviews provide staff with positive feedback on their work, highlight areas for enhancement, and take the necessary steps to enhance their abilities. As envisioned by Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, this strategy ensures that semi-government organizations maintain a high-performing workforce equipped to contribute to the country’s sustainable growth and diversification (Salam, 2022).
Despite such immense potential for the semi-government sector in Saudi Arabia, most of the semi-government organizations fail to successfully accomplish their objectives. Semi government organizations situated in Saudi Arabia face toxic workplace environments and leadership issues, such as traditional and despotic leadership practices, negative workplace behavior, incivility, burnout, bullying, and favoritism (Albuainain et al., 2022). However, a study highlights that a supportive workplace environment can help organizations and policymakers improve the motivation level of the workers and employees (Bradley et al., 2023). This study develops its premise on the sustainable workplace environment categorized in previous studies (Shkoler & Kimura, 2020). Rasool et al. (2022) demonstrate that an environment in which employees feel appreciated, feel valued, are engaged with the work, have a flexible schedule, receive work recognition, and receive empowerment is called a sustainable workplace environment. Similarly, Taylor (2008) highlights that work motivation, acknowledgement of achievement, employees’ autonomy, and helpful colleagues are the elements of an SWE. Moreover, Cooke et al. (2019) describe in their study that the career development, succession planning, leadership support, and motivation of employees bring a supportive and productive environment that, as a result, enhances individual performance. According to the motivation theory, work appreciation, work recognition, work motivation, and career development increase the employee’s productivity (Aboelmaged, 2018). However, different researchers have given different names to the concept of a supportive workplace environment in the studies mentioned above. Therefore, the above-discussed literature and theory classified supportive workplace environment into three general groups: work recognition (WR), work motivation (WM), and career development (CD). These are the three main supportive workplace elements that greatly affect employee performance (EP).
Employee recognition is a psychological and human need to motivate individuals and is considered to be positive feedback to shape employees’ behavior and individual productivity (Rasool et al., 2022). Therefore, staff morale, motivation, and loyalty can all be increased through well-designed employee recognition programs. Consequently, providing opportunities for professional development through training can serve as an effective means of recognizing employees’ efforts and potential. According to motivation theory, employee recognition inspires employees to do their best in their current positions and to seek opportunities to advance in the organization (Monje Amor & Calvo, 2023).
Work motivation is a multifaceted concept that measures how dedicated, enthusiastic, and invested an individual is in their job (Ahakwa et al., 2021). Engaged employees are associated with high levels of energy, optimism, and commitment to their work and a strong identification with the goals and values of their organization (Majid et al., 2020). Employee engagement increased job satisfaction, enhanced performance, and decreased turnover (Yan & Donaldson, 2022). A supportive workplace environment enhances employee engagement and boosts individual work performance. According to motivation theory, feedback and coaching, customized training, and redesigned jobs contributed to high work engagement (Trépanier et al., 2023). Thus, work motivation and employee engagement are linked because motivated workers are engaged. Moreover, the motivation theory also suggests that intrinsic motivation is vital in encouraging dedication and work engagement to exhibit tremendous enthusiasm and produce better results.
Career development is a continual process of acquiring the skills, knowledge, and experiences required to accomplish one’s career objectives (Ruparel et al., 2023). It entails identifying strengths and areas for improvement, exploring career opportunities, and acting to attain career goals. According to motivation theory, career development is essential for achieving work motivation in the workplace. Karaca-Atik et al. (2023) discovered that training, a crucial aspect of career development, positively affects work performance and career advancement. This study also identified that motivation mediates the connection between training, achievement on the job, and advancement in one’s career. It emphasizes aligning employee career advancement possibilities with their motivations and interests to boost staff involvement. Therefore, opportunities for professional growth are crucial in boosting employee morale.
Employee engagement (EE) is the level at which employees are vested in their jobs, enthusiastic about their work, and satisfied with their roles and responsibilities (London, 1993). According to Riyanto et al. (2021), employees engaged in their work profoundly affect the organizational bottom line, as employees show more dedication towards strategic goals. Similarly, in light of the motivational theory, training and development programs, recognition and feedback, and positive workplace interactions helped boost EE and productivity (Pincus, 2022). Therefore, EE is directly related to the motivation of employees to work in an organizational setting and adds value to business outcomes. In addition, employee engagement can be increased by providing a workplace that encourages employees to take the initiative in their development, values constructive criticism, and encourages open lines of communication. It includes fostering a culture that places a premium on employees’ health and happiness by providing opportunities to learn new skills and advance in their careers (Turner & Turner, 2020). Managers also require training in effective communication with their staff so that they can provide timely, constructive feedback, acknowledgement, and support. All these factors enhance employee motivation at work with intrinsic benefits (Chandani et al., 2016).
According to Niati et al. (2021), employee performance refers to how effectively an individual executes their job-related duties and responsibilities. Organizations usually evaluate their employees’ performance on an annual or quarterly basis. Well-defined goals and performance measures allow an organization to channel its resources into areas with a significant impact on performance and help it move closer to its long-term objectives. Monitoring performance data can identify areas where resources are underutilized or overutilized and adjust resource allocation accordingly. It can ensure that the organization’s resources are used most efficiently to further its strategic objective (Diamantidis & Chatzoglou, 2019).
The aim of this study is to examine the relationship between a sustainable workplace environment, such as work recognition, motivation, and career development, and employee performance in the context of the Saudi semi-government organizations. Moreover, this study investigates the mediating role of employee engagement in the relationship between a supportive workplace environment and employee performance. This gap calls for more focused and context-specific research to better understand the idiosyncratic characteristics of unique cultural, social, and organizational factors that influence these relationships. Investigating this meditation can offer substantial insights into improving employee performance and the organization’s overall success. By bridging these research gaps, future studies can contribute to the current body of knowledge and offer valuable contributions to semi-government organizations in Saudi Arabia with actionable recommendations for enhancing employee performance and overall effectiveness. The conceptual framework is derived from the motivation theory, which posits that employees who perceive relatedness, autonomy, and growth opportunities will likely be engaged and perform better (Abrutyn & Lizardo, 2022; Aboelmaged, 2018; Furnham et al., 2021). The study identifies the gap based on the previous literature. Therefore, based on the above discussion, we proposed the two below-mentioned RQs (research questions).
RQ1: Does a supportive workplace environment enhance employee performance?
RQ2: Does employee engagement intervene between a supportive workplace environment and employee performance?

2. Hypothesis Development

2.1. Supportive Workplace Environment and Employee Performance

A sustainable workplace environment means an environment where employees happily work and support other employees (Taylor, 2008). It is an environment in which organizations provide direct and indirect benefits to the employees as well as work for the well-being of employees. Clarke (2005) demonstrates that a supportive workplace environment is an organizational environment in which supervisors motivate their subordinates to manage and develop their careers and personality and also recognize their work. According to Bradley et al. (2023), an SWE is one where job performance and emotional, physical, and mental well-being are valued. Motivation theory also suggests that to increase employee performance, organizations motivate their employees, retain their employees, and reduce turnover. Moreover, using motivation theory, organizations recognize their employees and work for the well-being of employees, which enhances job satisfaction among their employees (Abrutyn & Lizardo, 2022). However, after carefully examining the prior studies, we focus on the following factors of a supportive workplace environment: (1) work recognition, (2) work motivation, and (3) career development.
Work recognition is an essential strategy in any organization to motivate and reward their employees for their diligent work and positive impact. Usually, the strategies of appreciation, respect, and rewards for employees’ efforts are applied to foster a positive workplace culture, boost employee morale, reduce their job stress, and increase job performance in organizations (Owoeye et al., 2020). Studies such as Raziq and Maulabakhsh (2015) have observed that work recognition increases job satisfaction among employees and leads them towards higher engagement and productivity. Moreover, research has also shown that work recognition is a helpful tactic to reduce job stress, boost confidence among employees, improve their productivity level, and increase the motivation of employees (Kwarteng et al., 2023). Consequently, work recognition creates a culture of a positive workplace and helps to reduce the turnover in the organization, in turn reducing recruitment and training costs (Aubouin-Bonnaventure et al., 2023). Motivation theory noted that work recognition is a core aspect of an organization talent management strategy, as it enhances relationships between managers and employees and demonstrates to the workforce that the organization values for their hard work and dedication (Simon et al., 2023). Moreover, the strategy of work recognition can foster trust among employees, build a culture of a supportive working environment, and enhance the level of confidence among employees to stay for a more extended period in an organization (Kundi & Aboramadan, 2023). Therefore, work recognition is a transparent criterion to extend positive aspects of the organization toward employees (Brun & Dugas, 2008). Hence, we can hypothesize the following:
H1a. 
Work recognition has a positive impact on employee performance.
Work motivation plays a significant role in achieving the lofty goals of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030. Winkelhaus et al. (2022) posit that higher motivation can improve the capacity of work engagement, creativity, and productivity among organizations. Usually, motivated employees show productivity and stay engaged in their work, show commitment to their duties, and display job satisfaction. Motivated employees claim ownership of their workplace and take productive and initiative steps for the organization. Furthermore, employee motivation decreases turnover, extends employees’ stay with organizations, allows workers to develop essential skills, and builds strong relationships among co-workers (Yousaf et al., 2022). According to motivation theory, employees stay active in organizations, search for new developmental opportunities for organizations, and generate new ideas for improvement (Ikhide et al., 2023). In this regard, the strategies of job recognition, reward systems, training, and career development opportunities provide new blood of motivation among employees. These strategies can help create a positive sense among employees, help them feel like an asset to the organization, take employees toward productive initiatives, encourage them to invest extra effort in their jobs, and encourage them to remain with the organization for longer. Motivation is an essential strategy to achieve Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 and enhance employee productivity in the working environment (T. Hussain & Zhang, 2023). Therefore, based on the theory and previous discussions, we can hypothesize the following:
H1b. 
Work motivation has a positive impact on employee performance.
Career development has a significant impact on employee performance (Ruparel et al., 2023). Particularly, under the scope of Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, the strategies of employee career development can equip them with the necessary resources and skills to achieve the long-lasting strategic objectives of organizations. Implementing these strategies can ensure organizations’ success and lead to exploring new developmental opportunities (Herr, 2001). CD strategies (like training, mentorship, and guidance) can foster the motivation and engagement of the workforce to achieve organizational strategic goals. Specifically, mentorship programs can boost employees’ motivation, guide and support them towards the right track, and encourage them to clarify their goals and try to achieve them (Napitupulu et al., 2017). Mentors can also provide honest feedback and constructive criticism, which can help the employees improve their performance and grow professionally (Achtenhagen et al., 2022). Moreover, career development positively impacts problem-solving skills among employees and brings new knowledge towards the workplace (Barhate & Dirani, 2022). With this conceptualization, consistent with motivation theory, the strategy of investing in employee recognition and reward programs can dually enhance career development and employee performance within organizations (Pirsoul et al., 2023). Therefore, by investing in career development and employee recognition, Saudi Arabian organizations can improve employees’ motivation levels and engagement and equip them to contribute to the country’s long-term sustainable growth and Vision 2030 (Albejaidi & Nair, 2019). Hence, based on the prior literature, we can hypothesize the following:
H1c. 
Career development has a positive impact on employee performance.

2.2. Work Recognition and Employee Engagement

Recognition is an integral strategy of work motivation. Mostly, employees seek recognition and appreciation of their efforts and accomplishments and measure their performance in the working environment. Work recognition keeps engaging the employees in their work and leads to achieving the organizational strategic objectives. It also helps in productivity, motivation, and job commitment in the workplace; enhances the relationship between employees and managers; and improves employee job satisfaction (Knight et al., 2017). Due to these reasons, many organizations apply the strategies of verbal recognition, awards, bonuses, and promotion to sustain workplace engagement (Mehmood et al., 2023). Moreover, the recognition for specific tasks and accomplishments usually allows the employees to see the direct impact of their hard work. Therefore, in light of the motivation theory, recognition and employee engagement are essential components of a supportive workplace to achieve the long-lasting objectives of organizations (Nehra, 2023). Employee recognition can catalyze the development and growth of employees and update their skills to reach organizational goals. Hence, the recognition strategy can lead Saudi Arabian organizations to improve their performance and contribute to Vision 2030. Therefore, we can hypothesize the following:
H2a. 
Work recognition has a positive impact on employee engagement.

2.3. Work Motivation and Employee Engagement

Work motivation forces employees to initiate and maintain work-related behaviors that can lead to reaching the desired outcomes (Chung et al., 2022). Employee engagement pertains to the emotional and cognitive connection that employees have with their work and organization as well as their willingness to invest time and effort to achieve organizational goals (Huang et al., 2016). However, prior studies have observed a positive relationship between work motivation and EE. For instance, the employee’s motivation can divert them towards greater engagement in their work, lead to the employee displaying job satisfaction, lead towards better job performance, and reduce turnover rates in organizations. Usually, engaged employees display motivated behavior to perform their duties, invest in their abilities, and know the meaning of their purpose and work in the organization. Highly motivated employees are likely to be more proactive, innovative, and persistent in pursuing their goals, which results in higher productivity in the workplace (Kwarteng et al., 2023). Similarly, the motivation theory highlights that motivated employees can take additional responsibilities to complete projects well on time or can work for extra hours to ensure the quality of their workplace. To be precise, employees’ motivation directly impacts their performance, work engagement, and productivity (Hartnell et al., 2023). Therefore, based on the aforementioned literature, we can hypothesize in this study the following:
H2b. 
Work motivation has a positive impact on employee engagement.

2.4. Career Development and Employee Engagement

Organizations often invest in employee career development programs to enhance efficiency in the workplace, improve their well-being, and boost EE (Jena & Nayak, 2023). The CD programs improve the employees’ skills, create a sense of job engagement and organizational belonging, and increase their job satisfaction and motivation, which ultimately results in job performance (Du et al., 2023). The career development programs include on-the-job training, mentorship, opportunities for professional development, career coaching, job postings, and professional certifications to encourage EE. This approach can be made through regular communication and feedback, offering recognition and rewards and fostering a culture of collaboration and innovation (Michaelson, 2005). Feedback also helps the employees to understand their performance and outline clearer goals for future development. Therefore, the motivation theory suggests that career development programs help employees set their goals and future targets, clarify job responsibilities, and engage actively, which ultimately contributes to organizational success (Reizer et al., 2019). Therefore, based on the prior literature, we can hypothesize the following:
H2c. 
Employee engagement has a positive impact on employee performance.

2.5. Employee Engagement and Employee Performance

Engaged employees typically find greater fulfillment in their work, which contributes to higher job satisfaction. This contentment translates into a higher quality of work and greater dedication (Bedarkar & Pandita, 2014). Susanto et al. (2023) demonstrate that engaged employees are typically more inclined to contribute innovative ideas and solutions, as they are deeply invested in the success of the organization. Prior studies suggest that employee engagement correlates with increased pride in their work, resulting in higher-quality outputs and a commitment to meeting and exceeding standards (Obschonka et al., 2023). EE programs often lead to increased team morale, creating a positive work environment that motivates employees to perform at their best (Rehman & Zeb, 2023). In conclusion, fostering employee engagement is a strategic imperative for organizations seeking to optimize employee performance, leading to numerous benefits that positively impact the bottom line and overall success of the business.
H3. 
Employee engagement has a positive impact on employee performance.

2.6. Mediating Effects of Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is perceived as a key mediating factor between work recognition, work motivation, career development, and employee performance (Arwab et al., 2022). EE is an emotional connection with workers and their organization that influences their emotions to invest their efforts and time to accomplish the organizational goals (Bakker, 2022). The employee’s emotional connection is important in creating a motivated, productive, and successful workforce (Aldabbas et al., 2023). However, prior studies have observed the mediating effect of EE between WR, WM, CR, and EP in several contexts (Popescu, 2023). For example, a study by Popescu (2023) has noted that EE serves as a mediator in the connection between WM and EP. Sometimes, a challenging working environment enables employees to grow and gain a sense of job satisfaction that can enhance their motivation and engagement and lead to higher performance. In addition, earlier studies also found that EE mediates between CD and EP. We turn to motivation theory career development programs to help employees stay motivated and engaged in their work, improving job satisfaction and performance (Alamri, 2023). Moreover, the prior studies also found that EE mediates the relationship between work recognition and the employee’s performance (Saks et al., 2022). Therefore, by prioritizing these factors and promoting employee engagement, Saudi organizations can enhance employee performance and contribute to the realization of Vision 2030 in these domains. The comprehensive research model of this study is presented in Figure 1.
H4a. 
Employee engagement mediates the relationship between work recognition and employee performance.
H4b. 
Employee engagement mediates the relationship between work motivation and employee performance.
H4c. 
Employee engagement mediates the relationship between career development and employee performance.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Approach

In the study, we used the questionnaire survey approach to collect data (Asghar et al., 2022). We used questionnaire survey approach for three reasons. Firstly, using a survey analysis approach, we collected maximum data using the minimum time (Chaudhry et al., 2023). Secondly, the questionnaire survey was cost-effective as compared to the interview and observation methods (Rasool et al., 2023). Third, the questionnaire respondents may feel more comfortable and honest in responding to the questions when the questioner is anonymous, so we anonymized the results.

3.2. Questionnaire Design

In this study, we used a 5-point Likert scale to examine the impact of sustainable workplace environment items such as work recognition, work motivation, and career development on employee performance and employee engagement. The questionnaire was divided into two parts. The first part of the questionnaire consisted of the objectives of the study, and the second part of the instrument consisted of the demographic information of the respondents. The third part of the instrument consisted of the items of the variables that we used in this study. The questionnaire was developed in the English language and later translated into the Arabic language because most of the respondents of the study were more comfortable understanding the Arabic language compared to English. A pilot study was conducted to verify the pre-validity of the questionnaire. The pilot study respondents were the five managers from the Saudi semi-government organizations and the five academic professors from the Saudi Universities who were aware of this research topic. The respondents suggested some improvements in the questionnaire. Therefore, according to the suggestions of the respondents, we improved the questionnaire and distributed it among the target populations.

3.3. Ethical Considerations

This study was conducted in the semi-government organizations in Saudi Arabia with full respect for ethical research standards. In the start of the questionnaire, the participants were informed about the purpose of the research, and their consent was obtained prior to data collection. Confidentiality and anonymity of all participants were strictly maintained. Moreover, we also informed the respondents that we conducted this study only for research purposes, not for any commercial purpose. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the ethics committee of the institutions.

3.4. Variables Measurements

3.4.1. Work Recognition

The five items of work reorganization were adopted and modified by Furnham et al. (2021). The acceptable value of Cronbach’s Alpha is above 0.70 (M. Hussain et al., 2023). The items of the work recognition are given in the Appendix A. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of work recognition was 0.867. Therefore, the results confirmed that the items used in this study are reliable and valid.

3.4.2. Work Motivation

The five items of workplace motivation were adopted and modified by Gegenfurtner and Quesada-Pallarès (2022). The items of work motivation are given in the Appendix A Cronbach’s Alpha value of work motivation was 0.893. Therefore, the results confirmed that the items used in this study are reliable and valid.

3.4.3. Career Development

The items of career development were taken from Hirschi et al. (2018). The items of career development are given in Appendix A The Cronbach’s Alpha value of career development was 0.817. Therefore, the results confirmed that the items used in this study are reliable and valid.

3.4.4. Employee Engagement

The four items for employee engagement were adopted and modified by Rasool et al. (2021). The items of employee engagement are given in Appendix A. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of employee engagement was 0.792. Therefore, the results confirmed that the items used in this study are reliable and valid.

3.4.5. Employee Performance

The four items of employee performance were adopted and modified from Rasool et al. (2021). The items of performance are given in Appendix A. The Cronbach’s Alpha value of employee engagement was 0.861. Therefore, the results confirmed that the items used in this study are reliable and valid.

3.5. Sampling and Data Collection

The current research was conducted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and data were collected from senior, middle, and administrative staff working in semi-government organizations. We chose Riyadh because of its status as the capital of Saudi Arabia, where the majority of the semi-government headquarters are located. The data were collected from July 2024 to December 2024. We adopted a random sampling technique to collect data from the target population. We collected data through the self-administrative survey. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed to the target participants for analysis. Out of the 500 distributed questionnaires, we received 389 responses for a response rate of 78%, including 40 incomplete or that had missing data. Therefore, the researchers excluded these incomplete questionnaires from the analysis, resulting in a final sample size of 349 complete questionnaires. However, the final analysis was conducted based on the 349 complete questionnaires.

3.6. Demographics

The comprehensive detail of the demographics of the respondents is given below in Table 1. The male respondent’s ratio was 79%, and the female respondent’s ratio was 21%. The male ratio was more than female because recently, in 2017, the Saudi government allowed women to work in public and private organizations. Before 2017, women were not openly allowed to work in Saudi Arabia (Macias-Alonso et al., 2023). The participants’ educational level was also measured, and the result revealed that 1% of employees had a doctoral education, 55% of employees had a master’s degree, and 44% had an undergraduate education level. Similarly, the breakdown of research participants by position was 24% senior managers, 37% middle managers, and 39% supporting staff. Finally, the study also measured their expertise and experience in semi-government organizations. The research indicated that 40% of employees had less than 5 years of experience, 32% had between 6–10 years of experience, and 28% had over 10 years of experience.

4. Results

This study has applied the procedure of SPSS (29.0) to detect missing values, outliers, normality, and multi-collinearity in the data set. In SPSS, the study performed the test of descriptive statistics and confirmatory factor analysis to confirm the data set reliability. However, the outcomes clarified that no such issues were identified in the data set, which may pose challenges for the analysis procedure and results. Subsequently, this study assessed the collected data by utilizing PLS-SEM to display the image of outcomes. PLS-SEM has the advantage of analyzing the collected data only in one click, having no data normality requirement, handling a small sample size, being preferable in formative theoretical consideration, and dealing with complex models (Rehman & Zeb, 2022). Therefore, PLS-SEM was the ideal choice to deal with the data collected in this study.

4.1. Measurement Model

In the PLS-SEM analysis procedure, a two-step analytical procedure of measurement model and structural model is applied (Ringle et al., 2015). The measurement model is the first step to validate the perfection and authentication of the model and is divided into two steps to confirm the accuracy of various aspects of the model. In the first step, we investigate the factor loading of each item, and our findings demonstrate that each item’s factor loading value is above the threshold value. Similarly, in the second step, we evaluated Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability. The outcomes revealed that Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability values are higher than the recommended threshold range. The acceptable range of factor loading Cronbach’s Alpha and composite reliability is above 0.7. In the next stage, we examined the average variance extracted (AVE), where the results indicated that the values were greater than the acceptable threshold value. The limit of the acceptable threshold value for AVE is 0.5 (Rasool et al., 2022; Sein & Dmytrenko, 2023). Table 2 presents detailed information of factor loading, Alpha, and AVE.
In the second step, discriminant validity and HTMT are assessed to verify the validity of the model (Rehman & Prokop, 2023). PLS-SEM analysis usually does not use cross-loadings to check the correctness of discriminant validity (Table 2); instead, it uses HTMT as a new method (Rehman & Al-Ghazali, 2022). “The findings of discriminant validity indicate that the diagonal values are higher in the corresponding rows and columns, and they approve the validity of the model”. In addition, the study examined the variance inflation factor (VIF) to determine the multicollinearity among constructs. The results indicated that there are no multicollinearity concerns within the constructs analyzed in this study. These findings validate the measurement model, allowing for progression to the next step of the PLS-SEM analysis. Table 3 presents discriminant validity and HTMT.

4.2. Structural Model

To assess the structural model’s robustness and interpretability, multiple diagnostic criteria were examined, including multicollinearity, effect sizes, explained variance, predictive relevance, and overall model fit. The variance inflation factor (VIF) values across all predictor paths ranged from 1.482 to 2.055, as shown in Table 4. These values are well below the conservative cut-off of 5.0 (Hair et al., 2019), indicating that multicollinearity is not a concern and that the predictor constructs maintain distinct explanatory roles in the model.
The effect size (F2) results provide additional insights into the strength of the relationships between constructs. Using Cohen’s (1988) thresholds—0.02 for small, 0.15 for medium, and 0.35 for large effects—the model demonstrated a range of effect sizes. The relationships from CD → EE (F2 = 0.035), WM → EE (F2 = 0.021), and WR → EE (F2 = 0.042) reflect moderate effect sizes, suggesting modest yet significant contributions to employee engagement, as shown in Table 4. Similarly, CD → EP (F2 = 0.032) had a small effect. However, WM → EP (F2 = 0.261) and WR → EP (F2 = 0.243) showed moderate effect sizes, indicating more substantial influence on employee performance. The strongest effect was observed for EE → EP (F2 = 0.521), representing a large effect size and underscoring employee performance as a central predictor in the model.
Regarding the explained variance (R2), employee engagement yielded a value of 0.363, indicating that approximately 36.3% of its variance is explained by career development, workplace motivation, and workplace recognition, as shown in Table 4. This suggests a moderate level of explanatory power. For employee performance, the R2 was notably higher at 0.692, which reflects substantial explanatory strength. According to Hair et al. (2019), R2 values exceeding 0.26 are considered strong in behavioral research, thereby validating the model’s adequacy in capturing the variance in employee performance.
The predictive relevance (Q2) values, obtained through blindfolding, further supported the model’s utility. Q2 values above zero indicate that the model has predictive accuracy beyond random chance (Hair et al., 2019). In this case, the Q2 for employee engagement was 0.348 and for employee performance was 0.384, both of which are substantially above the zero benchmark, as shown in Table 4. These results confirm that the model has meaningful predictive relevance for both outcome variables.
The overall model fit was also assessed by comparing the saturated and estimated models. The Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) value increased only slightly from 0.041 in the saturated model to 0.042 in the estimated model, indicating a minor decline in fit quality but still remaining well within the acceptable threshold of 0.08 (Hair et al., 2019). Additionally, the values of d_ULS, d_G, and Chi-square were higher in the estimated model, suggesting a slight loss of fit precision. Despite these changes, the Normed Fit Index (NFI) remained stable at 0.843, indicating a very good fit and minimal deviation from the saturated model. Overall, while the estimated model showed a marginal decline in fit relative to the saturated model, it continued to demonstrate strong global fit indicators and retained its structural validity.
Turning to the inner model evaluation (path analysis), all hypothesized relationships were statistically significant and supported, confirming the theoretical structure proposed. The path from career development to employee engagement was significant (β = 0.430, t = 5.241, p < 0.001), indicating that higher career development increased employee engagement. The influence of workplace motivation on employee engagement was also significant (β = 0.162, t = 2.862), although comparatively weaker. The workplace-recognition-to-employee-engagement path, while showing a smaller coefficient (β = 0.042), remained statistically significant (t = 2.513), demonstrating that even minor resource support can reduce employee engagement. The relationship between career development and employee performance was statistically significant (β = 0.084, t = 1.996), though its effect was relatively small. Workplace motivation had a positive impact on employee performance, supported by a coefficient of 0.036 and a t-value of 1.972. Workplace recognition had a stronger and significant effect (β = 0.124, t = 2.594), emphasizing its role in supporting better employee performance. Most notably, the path from employee engagement to employee performance yielded the highest effect (β = 0.681, t = 19.993, p < 0.001), revealing that reducing emotional exhaustion significantly enhances employee effectiveness, as shown in Table 4.
Moreover, the results have shown that EE (β = 0.294, p < 0.05) intervenes between CD and EP in the defined settings (Table 5). The findings have also indicated that EE intervenes between WM and EP (β = 0.110, p < 0.05). Further, the outcomes have confirmed that EE mediates the relationship between WR and EP (β = 0.029, p < 0.05). Notably, based on the outcomes of the indirect relationship, we have confirmed that all the hypotheses are supported in this study’s defined theoretical setting. Table 5 and Figure 2 exhibits indirect relationships.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to examine the impact of a sustainable workplace environment on employee performance in semi-government entities in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It examined the direct relationships between work recognition, work motivation, career development and employee performance. Moreover, in this study, we examined the mediating effect of employee engagement between the relationship of work recognition, work motivation, career development, and employee performance.
First, we investigated the direct relationship between work recognition, work motivation, career development, and employee performance. The outcomes of this study confirmed that there is a positive and direct relationship, as shown in H1a, H1b, and H1c. Previous studies also support our results (Chen et al., 2004; Niati et al., 2021; Osborne & Hammoud, 2017). Chen et al. (2004) conducted a study among Taiwanese organizations, and their study confirmed that career development and work recognition enhance individual performance. In the review of motivation theory, Osborne and Hammoud (2017) demonstrated that managers who recognized and valued their employees in return increased their productivity at the workplace. Niati et al. (2021) also conducted research on the relationship between work motivation, career development, and worker performance. According to the outcomes of this study, work motivation and career development have a positive relationship with worker performance.
Second, we also examined the direct connection between work recognition, work motivation, career development, and employee engagement. The results of our study show that work recognition, work motivation, and career development are positively related to employee engagement, which support H2a, H2b, and H2. Past studies also support our outcomes (Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Ghosh et al., 2020; Rao, 2017). Rao (2017) conducted a study to identify the innovative tools and techniques that enhance employee engagement. The results of this study indicate that through work recognition practices, organizations enhance employee engagement. Furthermore, Ghosh et al. (2020) conducted a study involving 288 full-time Japanese employees to explore the role of intrinsic motivation in predicting employee engagement. The findings of his study suggest that career development initiatives in Japanese organizations enhance employee engagement, which also aligns with the results of our study. Bakker and Demerouti (2008) utilize the theory of motivation to analyze the critical success factors that profoundly influence employee engagement. The findings of this study affirm that work engagement and career development foster a supportive workplace environment within organizations.
Third, we verified the connection between employee engagement and employee performance. The results confirmed the positive and direct link between employee engagement and employee performance, which supports H3. Previous studies and motivation theory also support our results (Guan & Frenkel, 2019; Ugwu et al., 2014). Guan and Frenkel (2019) conducted research in two Chinese manufacturing organizations, and the findings revealed that training and development, the listing of employees, and employee recognition enhance employee performance. Similarly, the study by Ugwu et al. (2014) was carried out among 715 employees across seven commercial banks and four pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria. The results of this study confirmed that organizational trust, employee empowerment, and engagement enhance an employee’s performance.
Finally, we investigated the mediating effect of employee engagement on the relationship between work recognition, work motivation, career development, and employee performance. The findings demonstrated that employee engagement positively mediates between work recognition, work motivation, career development, and employee performance. Earlier studies and motivation theory also support our findings (Chughtai & Buckley, 2011; Shuck et al., 2014). Chughtai and Buckley (2011) display in their results that employee engagement positively affects individual performance and enhances the supportive workplace environment. Shuck et al. (2014) conclude that their study using employee engagement as a critical success factor in firms reduces employee turnover and increases the profit of the organizations. Moreover, this study also describes that employee engagement enhances the level of morale and increases the satisfaction of the employees.

6. Conclusions and Implications

6.1. Conclusions

In this study, we investigate the effect of a sustainable workplace environment, including work recognition, work motivation, career development, and employee engagement on employee performance in semi-government organizations located in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The results of this study indicate that a sustainable workplace environment, such as work recognition, work motivation, and career development, boosts individual employee performance in semi-government organizations in Saudi Arabia. Based on motivation theory, our findings highlight the significant role of a sustainable workplace environment and employee engagement in enhancing the productivity of employees. To conclude, Saudi semi-government organization create a workplace environment in which employees feel appreciated, valued, and happy. Moreover, Saudi semi-government organizations introduce the employee engagement culture at the department level as well as at the overall organizational level. Saudi semi-government organizations also introduce flexible work schedules for middle-level and administrative staff. Furthermore, these organizations recognize the output of their employees and provide them with monetary incentives.

6.2. Implications

By understanding and leveraging these factors, managers in semi-government organizations can enhance performance outcomes, increase job satisfaction, and create a supportive work environment. This study provides valuable knowledge and practical implications for managers in this industry, guiding them in implementing strategies to optimize employee performance. By recognizing the importance of work recognition, managers can establish practices that acknowledge and appreciate employee contributions, leading to increased motivation and improved performance. Introducing the supporting workplace environment promotes work motivation by addressing employees’ physical, safety, social, and egoistic needs, which can further enhance employee engagement and performance. Additionally, investing in career development opportunities and providing growth prospects can boost employee engagement and ultimately lead to better performance outcomes. Managers can leverage these practical implications to foster a supportive workplace environment and maximize employee performance in semi-government organizations.
This study offers several important theoretical contributions. First, it integrates the literature into motivation theory. It develops and empirically tests a theoretical model to address those relationships in a semi-government organization based in Riyadh. Secondly, this study makes a direct contribution to motivation theory by extending our understanding on how work appreciation, work recognition, work motivation, and career development increase the employee’s productivity. Lastly, our results also emphasize developing an SWE within the semi-government organizations in Riyadh to improve employee performance. The findings extend the current literature and motivation theory, which contribute to the current knowledge of the field.

7. Limitations and Future Research Directions

This study has some limitations and future research directions. First, this study is limited to the semi-government organization placed in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which may not fit for under-developing or developing countries. Therefore, to generalize the results in the future, such a kind of study can be investigated in developed or under-developed countries. Second, in this research, we employed Smart PLS-SEM, which, while suitable for exploratory research and complex models, may limit the generalizability of the findings due to its predictive rather than confirmatory nature. Third, this study is only based on motivation theory. Therefore, in the future, researchers may use social exchange theory or resource-based view theory.
In this study, we investigate the mediating role of employee engagement between work recognition, work motivation, career development, and employee performance, while future research will examine the moderating role of employee competencies and knowledge-sharing culture in organizations. Further, the present study has assessed the association among defined constructs. In contrast, future studies might consider examining the addition of control variables like gender, the size and age of the firms, and the education level of the employees to broaden understanding and knowledge in this domain. This study is based only on the concept of motivation theory, while future studies can evaluate the combination of social exchange theory and motivation theory to provide a more solid theoretical background.

Author Contributions

S.F.R. developed research ideas and theoretical framework and wrote the introduction and conclusion. H.M. work on the discussion and H.R. worked on the research methodology part of the study. F.U.R. worked on the hypothesis development part. M.Z.A. worked on the statistical analysis part of the study. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of School of Economics and Management, Tongji University (protocol code SEM/EC/2025/041 and date of approval 15 April 2025).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Data set available on request from the authors.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Research Instrument
Supportive Workplace Environment
i. Work Recognition
1.In my organization, I receive enough recognition for my work.
2.In my organization, I feel that I am valued.
3.I know about the recognition program provided in my organization.
4.Being recognized by your line manager is more important than being recognized by the general manager.
ii. Work Motivation
5.I am satisfied with the traditional motivational initiatives offered by my organization such as bonuses and annual raises
6.The increase of work motivation initiatives in my organization affects my work performance positively.
7.In your opinion, money is the only motivation to do your work.
8.Assigning new types of tasks will motivate your work performance positively.
9.Being empowered by your manager to take decisions will motivate your work performance positively.
iii. Career Development
10.Providing continuance work training will motivate your work performance positively.
11.Having a clear career path in your organization will motivate your work performance positively.
12.You think there are enough opportunities for promotions within your organization.
13.In your organization, being promoted after doing excellent work over the year will motivate you to work harder the next year.
Employee Engagement
14.Your organization cares about its employees.
15.My opinions are sought on issues that affect me at my organization.
16.My manager helps me understand how my work is important to the organization.
17.There are opportunities for my own advancement in my organization.
Employee Performance
18.I do only the work I am required to do as per my contract, no more no less.
19.Not being fired by your organization is the only reason you do your job perfectly.
20.Having a supportive manager will motivate your work performance positively.
21.Checking attendance and leaving hours will negatively affect my work performance negatively.

References

  1. Abdullateef, S. T., Musa Alsheikh, R., & Khalifa Ibrahim Mohammed, B. (2023). Making Saudi vision 2030 a reality through educational transformation at the university level. Labour and Industry, 33(2), 231–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aboelmaged, M. G. (2018). Knowledge sharing through enterprise social network (ESN) systems: Motivational drivers and their impact on employees’ productivity. Journal of Knowledge Management, 22(2), 362–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Abrutyn, S., & Lizardo, O. (2022). A motivational theory of roles, rewards, and institutions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 53(2), 200–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Achtenhagen, L., Haag, K., Hultén, K., & Lundgren, J. (2022). Torn between individual aspirations and the family legacy–individual career development in family firms. Career Development International, 27(2), 201–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ahakwa, I., Yang, J., Tackie, E. A., & Atingabili, S. (2021). The influence of employee engagement, work environment and job satisfaction on organizational commitment and performance of employees: A sampling weights in PLS path modelling. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 4(3), 34–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Alamri, M. (2023). Transformational leadership and work engagement in public organizations: Promotion focus and public service motivation, how and when the effect occurs. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 44(1), 137–155. [Google Scholar]
  7. Albejaidi, F., & Nair, K. S. (2019). Building the health workforce: Saudi Arabia’s challenges in achieving Vision 2030. The International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 34(4), e1405–e1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Albuainain, H. M., Alqurashi, M. M., Alsadery, H. A., Alghamdi, T. A., Alghamdi, A. A., Alghamdi, R. A., Albaqami, T. A., & Alghamdi, S. M. (2022). Workplace bullying in surgical environments in Saudi Arabia: A multiregional cross-sectional study. Journal of Family & Community Medicine, 29(2), 125. [Google Scholar]
  9. Aldabbas, H., Pinnington, A., & Lahrech, A. (2023). The influence of perceived organizational support on employee creativity: The mediating role of work engagement. Current Psychology, 42(8), 6501–6515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alenazy, A. A. K. (2022). Exploring antecedents and outcomes of corporate social responsibility in Saudi Arabia. La Trobe. [Google Scholar]
  11. Almulhim, A. I., & Al-Saidi, M. (2023). Circular economy and the resource nexus: Realignment and progress towards sustainable development in Saudi Arabia. Environmental Development, 46, 100851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. AlNemer, H. A., Hkiri, B., & Tissaoui, K. (2023). Dynamic impact of renewable and non-renewable energy consumption on CO2 emission and economic growth in Saudi Arabia: Fresh evidence from wavelet coherence analysis. Renewable Energy, 209, 340–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Arwab, M., Adil, M., Nasir, M., & Ali, M. A. (2022). Task performance and training of employees: The mediating role of employee engagement in the tourism and hospitality industry. European Journal of Training and Development, 47(9), 900–920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Asghar, M. Z., Barbera, E., Rasool, S. F., Seitamaa-Hakkarainen, P., & Mohelská, H. (2022). Adoption of social media-based knowledge-sharing behaviour and authentic leadership development: Evidence from the educational sector of Pakistan during COVID-19. Journal of Knowledge Management, 27(1), 59–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Aubouin-Bonnaventure, J., Chevalier, S., Lahiani, F.-J., & Fouquereau, E. (2023). Well-being and performance at work: A new approach favourable to the optimal functioning of workers through virtuous organisational practices. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 32(4), 608–623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bakker, A. B. (2022). The social psychology of work engagement: State of the field. Career Development International, 27(1), 36–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Barhate, B., & Dirani, K. M. (2022). Career aspirations of generation Z: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(1/2), 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Bedarkar, M., & Pandita, D. (2014). A study on the drivers of employee engagement impacting employee performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 133, 106–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bradley, L., McDonald, P., & Cox, S. (2023). The critical role of co-worker involvement: An extended measure of the workplace environment to support work-life balance. Journal of Management & Organization, 29(2), 304–325. [Google Scholar]
  21. Brun, J.-P., & Dugas, N. (2008). An analysis of employee recognition: Perspectives on human resources practices. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 19(4), 716–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Chandani, A., Mehta, M., Mall, A., & Khokhar, V. (2016). Employee engagement: A review paper on factors affecting employee engagement. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(15), 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Chaudhry, N. I., Rasool, S. F., Raza, M., Mhelska, H., & Rehman, F. U. (2023). Exploring the linkage between workplace precaution measures, COVID-19 fear and job performance: The moderating effect of academic competence. Current Psychology, 42(23), 20239–20258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Chen, T.-Y., Chang, P.-L., & Yeh, C.-W. (2004). An investigation of career development programs, job satisfaction, professional development and productivity: The case of Taiwan. Human Resource Development International, 7(4), 441–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chughtai, A. A., & Buckley, F. (2011). Work engagement: Antecedents, the mediating role of learning goal orientation and job performance. Career Development International, 16(7), 684–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Chung, S., Zhan, Y., Noe, R. A., & Jiang, K. (2022). Is it time to update and expand training motivation theory? A meta-analytic review of training motivation research in the 21st century. Journal of Applied Psychology, 107(7), 1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Clarke, N. (2005). Workplace learning environment and its relationship with learning outcomes in healthcare organizations. Human Resource Development International, 8(2), 185–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cohen, S. (1988). Psychosocial models of the role of social support in the etiology of physical disease. Health Psychology, 7(3), 269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cooke, F. L., Wang, J., & Bartram, T. (2019). Can a supportive workplace impact employee resilience in a high pressure performance environment? An investigation of the Chinese banking industry. Applied Psychology, 68(4), 695–718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Diamantidis, A. D., & Chatzoglou, P. (2019). Factors affecting employee performance: An empirical approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(1), 171–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Du, Y., Li, J., & Xu, Q. (2023). Are you satisfied when your job fits? The perspective of career management. Baltic Journal of Management, 18(5), 563–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Furnham, A., MacRae, I., & Tetchner, J. (2021). Measuring work motivation: The facets of the work values questionnaire and work success. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 62(3), 401–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gegenfurtner, A., & Quesada-Pallarès, C. (2022). Toward a multidimensional conceptualization of motivation to transfer training: Validation of the transfer motivation questionnaire from a self-determination theory perspective using bifactor-ESEM. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 73, 101116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Ghosh, D., Sekiguchi, T., & Fujimoto, Y. (2020). Psychological detachment: A creativity perspective on the link between intrinsic motivation and employee engagement. Personnel Review, 49(9), 1789–1804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Guan, X., & Frenkel, S. (2019). How perceptions of training impact employee performance: Evidence from two Chinese manufacturing firms. Personnel Review, 48(1), 163–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Hartnell, C. A., Christensen-Salem, A., Walumbwa, F. O., Stotler, D. J., Chiang, F. F., & Birtch, T. A. (2023). Manufacturing motivation in the mundane: Servant leadership’s influence on employees’ intrinsic motivation and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 188(3), 533–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Herr, E. L. (2001). Career development and its practice: A historical perspective. The Career Development Quarterly, 49(3), 196–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hirschi, A., Nagy, N., Baumeler, F., Johnston, C. S., & Spurk, D. (2018). Assessing key predictors of career success: Development and validation of the career resources questionnaire. Journal of Career Assessment, 26(2), 338–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Huang, L.-C., Ahlstrom, D., Lee, A. Y.-P., Chen, S.-Y., & Hsieh, M.-J. (2016). High performance work systems, employee well-being, and job involvement: An empirical study. Personnel Review, 45(2), 296–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hussain, M., Rasool, S. F., Xuetong, W., Asghar, M. Z., & Alalshiekh, A. S. A. (2023). Investigating the nexus between critical success factors, supportive leadership, and entrepreneurial success: Evidence from the renewable energy projects. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(17), 49255–49269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Hussain, T., & Zhang, Y. (2023). The influences of cross-cultural adjustment and motivation on self-initiated expatriates’ innovative work behavior. Personnel Review, 52(4), 1255–1272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ikhide, J. E., Timur, A. T., & Ogunmokun, O. A. (2023). A balanced perspective on the affordance of a gamified HRM system for employees’ creative performance. Personnel Review, 52(3), 631–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jena, L., & Nayak, U. (2023). Organizational career development and retention of millennial employees: The role of job engagement and organizational engagement. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration. ahead-of-print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Karaca-Atik, A., Meeuwisse, M., Gorgievski, M., & Smeets, G. (2023). Uncovering important 21st-century skills for sustainable career development of social sciences graduates: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 39, 100528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Knight, C., Patterson, M., & Dawson, J. (2017). Building work engagement: A systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the effectiveness of work engagement interventions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(6), 792–812. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kundi, Y. M., & Aboramadan, M. (2023). A multi-level examination of the link between diversity-related HR practices and employees’ performance: Evidence from Italy. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(2), 245–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kwarteng, S., Frimpong, S. O., Asare, R., & Wiredu, T. J. N. (2023). Effect of employee recognition, employee engagement on their productivity: The role of transformational leadership style at Ghana Health Service. Current Psychology, 43(6), 5502–5013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. London, M. (1993). Relationships between career motivation, empowerment and support for career development. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 66(1), 55–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Macias-Alonso, I., Kim, H., & González, A. L. (2023). Self-driven Women: Gendered mobility, employment, and the lift of the driving ban in Saudi Arabia. Gender, Place & Culture, 30(11), 1574–1593. [Google Scholar]
  51. Majid, M., Ramli, M. F., Badyalina, B., Roslan, A., & Hashim, A. J. (2020). Influence of engagement, work-environment, motivation, organizational learning, and supportive culture on job satisfaction. International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 10(4), 186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Mehmood, I., Macky, K., & Le Fevre, M. (2023). High-involvement work practices, employee trust and engagement: The mediating role of perceived organisational politics. Personnel Review, 52(4), 1321–1344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Michaelson, C. (2005). Meaningful motivation for work motivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 235–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Monje Amor, A., & Calvo, N. (2023). Individual, job, and organizational dimensions of work engagement: Evidence from the tourism industry. Baltic Journal of Management, 18(1), 70–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Napitupulu, S., Haryono, T., Laksmi Riani, A., Sawitri, H. S. R., & Harsono, M. (2017). The impact of career development on employee performance: An empirical study of the public sector in Indonesia. International Review of Public Administration, 22(3), 276–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Nehra, N. S. (2023). Can employee engagement be attained through psychological detachment and job crafting: The mediating role of spirituality and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 10(3), 368–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Niati, D. R., Siregar, Z. M. E., & Prayoga, Y. (2021). The effect of training on work performance and career development: The role of motivation as intervening variable. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute (BIRCI-Journal): Humanities and Social Sciences, 4(2), 2385–2393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Obschonka, M., Pavez, I., Kautonen, T., Kibler, E., Salmela-Aro, K., & Wincent, J. (2023). Job burnout and work engagement in entrepreneurs: How the psychological utility of entrepreneurship drives healthy engagement. Journal of Business Venturing, 38(2), 106272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Osborne, S., & Hammoud, M. S. (2017). Effective employee engagement in the workplace. International Journal of Applied Management and Technology, 16(1), 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Owoeye, I., Kiiru, D., & Muli, J. (2020). Recognition practices and employee performance: Understanding work engagement as a mediating pathway in kenyan context. Journal of Human Resource Management, 8(3), 163–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Pincus, J. D. (2022). Employee Engagement as Human Motivation: Implications for Theory, Methods, and Practice. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 57(4), 1223–1255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Pirsoul, T., Parmentier, M., & Nils, F. (2023). One step beyond emotional intelligence measurement in the career development of adult learners: A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework. Current Psychology, 42(7), 5834–5850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Popescu, I. A. (2023). Do existing theories still hold for the creative labor market? A model of creative workers’ engagement and creative performance from a management and organization perspective. In The creative class revisited: New analytical advances (pp. 41–81). World Scientific. [Google Scholar]
  64. Rao, M. (2017). Innovative tools and techniques to ensure effective employee engagement. Industrial and Commercial Training, 49(3), 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Rasool, S. F., Chin, T., Wang, M., Asghar, A., Khan, A., & Zhou, L. (2022). Exploring the role of organizational support, and critical success factors on renewable energy projects of Pakistan. Energy, 243, 122765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rasool, S. F., Samma, M., Mohelska, H., & Rehman, F. U. (2023). Investigating the nexus between information technology capabilities, knowledge management, and green product innovation: Evidence from SME industry. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(19), 56174–56187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Rasool, S. F., Wang, M., Tang, M., Saeed, A., & Iqbal, J. (2021). How toxic workplace environment effects the employee engagement: The mediating role of organizational support and employee wellbeing. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(5), 2294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Raziq, A., & Maulabakhsh, R. (2015). Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Procedia Economics and Finance, 23, 717–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Rehman, F. U., & Al-Ghazali, B. M. (2022). Evaluating the influence of social advertising, individual factors, and brand image on the buying behavior toward fashion clothing brands. Sage Open, 12(1), 21582440221088858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rehman, F. U., & Prokop, V. (2023). Interplay in management practices, innovation, business environment, degree of competition and environmental policies: A comparative study. Business Process Management Journal, 29(3), 858–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Rehman, F. U., & Zeb, A. (2022). Translating the impacts of social advertising on Muslim consumers buying behavior: The moderating role of brand image. Journal of Islamic Marketing, 14(9), 2207–2234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Rehman, F. U., & Zeb, A. (2023). Investigating the nexus between authentic leadership, employees’ green creativity, and psychological environment: Evidence from emerging economy. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 30(49), 107746–107758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Reizer, A., Brender-Ilan, Y., & Sheaffer, Z. (2019). Employee motivation, emotions, and performance: A longitudinal diary study. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(6), 415–428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Ringle, C., Wende, S., & Becker, J. (2015). SmartPLS 3 [Computer software]. SmartPLS. Available online: http://www.smartpls.com (accessed on 12 March 2025).
  75. Riyanto, S., Endri, E., & Herlisha, N. (2021). Effect of work motivation and job satisfaction on employee performance: Mediating role of employee engagement. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(3), 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Ruparel, N., Bhardwaj, S., Seth, H., & Choubisa, R. (2023). Systematic literature review of professional social media platforms: Development of a behavior adoption career development framework. Journal of Business Research, 156, 113482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Saks, A. M., Gruman, J. A., & Zhang, Q. (2022). Organization engagement: A review and comparison to job engagement. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People and Performance, 9(1), 20–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Salam, A. A. (2022). Saudi Arabia’s labor market transitions to thrive vision 2030: A demographic appraisal. In The palgrave handbook of global social problems (pp. 1–22). Springer. Available online: https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-3-030-68127-2_315-1 (accessed on 7 September 2022).
  79. Sarwar, S. (2022). Impact of energy intensity, green economy and blue economy to achieve sustainable economic growth in GCC countries: Does Saudi Vision 2030 matters to GCC countries. Renewable Energy, 191, 30–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Sein, Y. Y., & Dmytrenko, D. (2023). Translating the impact of internal and external factors in achieving the sustainable market competitiveness: The mediating role of management practices. Journal of Competitiveness, 15(1), 168. [Google Scholar]
  81. Shkoler, O., & Kimura, T. (2020). How does work motivation impact employees’ investment at work and their job engagement? A moderated-moderation perspective through an international lens. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 487698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Shuck, B., Twyford, D., Reio, T. G., Jr., & Shuck, A. (2014). Human resource development practices and employee engagement: Examining the connection with employee turnover intentions. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 25(2), 239–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Simon, D., Chen, J. M., Sherman, J. W., & Calanchini, J. (2023). A recognition advantage for members of higher-status racial groups. British Journal of Psychology, 114, 188–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Susanto, P. C., Syailendra, S., & Suryawan, R. F. (2023). Determination of motivation and performance: Analysis of job satisfaction, employee engagement and leadership. International Journal of Business and Applied Economics, 2(2), 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Taylor, S. E. (2008). Fostering a supportive environment at work. The Psychologist-Manager Journal, 11(2), 265–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Trépanier, S.-G., Peterson, C., Gagné, M., Fernet, C., Levesque-Côté, J., & Howard, J. L. (2023). Revisiting the multidimensional work motivation scale (MWMS). European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 32(2), 157–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Turner, P., & Turner, P. (2020). What is employee engagement? Springer. [Google Scholar]
  88. Ugwu, F. O., Onyishi, I. E., & Rodríguez-Sánchez, A. M. (2014). Linking organizational trust with employee engagement: The role of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 43(3), 377–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Winkelhaus, S., Grosse, E. H., & Glock, C. H. (2022). Job satisfaction: An explorative study on work characteristics changes of employees in Intralogistics 4.0. Journal of Business Logistics, 43(3), 343–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Yan, Q., & Donaldson, S. I. (2022). What are the differences between flow and work engagement? A systematic review of positive intervention research. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 18(3), 449–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Yousaf, S., Rasheed, M. I., Kaur, P., Islam, N., & Dhir, A. (2022). The dark side of phubbing in the workplace: Investigating the role of intrinsic motivation and the use of enterprise social media (ESM) in a cross-cultural setting. Journal of Business Research, 143, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Admsci 15 00230 g001
Figure 1. Research model.
Figure 1. Research model.
Admsci 15 00230 g001
Admsci 15 00230 g002
Figure 2. Measurement model.
Figure 2. Measurement model.
Admsci 15 00230 g002
Table 1. Demographic of the respondents.
Table 1. Demographic of the respondents.
Demographics ClassificationsFrequency (n)Percentage (%)
Gender Male27679
Female7321
Total349100.0
Education Undergraduate 15444
Master19255
Doctorate 31
Total349100.0
PositionsSenior Managers8424
Middle Level Managers12937
Supporting Staff13639
Total349100.0
Work ExperienceLess than 5 years 14040
6–10 years11232
Above 10 years9728
Total349100.0
Table 2. Factor loading, Cronbach’s Alpha, composite reliability, and AVE.
Table 2. Factor loading, Cronbach’s Alpha, composite reliability, and AVE.
ConstructItemsFactor LoadingCronbach’s AlphaComposite Reliability (roh_a)AVE
Work RecognitionWR10.8330.8670.8780.654
WR20.889
WR30.766
WR40.763
WR50.786
Work MotivationWM10.9060.8930.9010.703
WM20.790
WM30.912
WM40.793
WM50.782
Career DevelopmentCD10.8490.8170.820.647
CD20.792
CD30.796
CD40.777
Employees EngagementEE10.7680.7920.8260.613
EE20.842
EE30.733
EE40.785
Employees PerformanceEP10.7170.8610.8880.710
EP20.929
EP30.914
EP40.791
Note: CD = career development; WM = work motivation; WR = work recognition; EE = employee engagement; EP = employee performance.
Table 3. Discriminant validity and HTMT.
Table 3. Discriminant validity and HTMT.
Discriminant Validity
VariablesCDWMWREEEP
CD0.804
WM0.5920.783
WR0.5610.5110.842
EE0.4030.5390.5640.839
EP0.4620.4920.4550.5570.809
HTMT
CD
WM0.421
WR0.3280.532
EE0.3390.4280.546
EP0.3030.3710.4390.452
Note: CD = career development; WM = work motivation; WR = work recognition; EE = employee engagement; EP = employee performance.
Table 4. Direct relationship (hypothesis testing).
Table 4. Direct relationship (hypothesis testing).
RelationshipEstimateMeanSDt-ValueR2F2VIFQ2Results
CD → EE0.4300.4310.0825.2410.3630.0352.0550.348Supported
WM → EE0.1620.1610.0872.8620.0211.615Supported
WR → EE0.0420.0450.0822.5130.0421.708Supported
CD → EP0.0840.0840.0651.9960.6920.0321.7070.384Supported
WM → EP0.0360.0340.0621.9720.2611.577Supported
WR → EP0.1240.1240.0482.5940.2431.599Supported
EE → EP0.6810.6830.03419.9930.5211.482Supported
Note: CD = career development; WM = workplace motivation; WR = workplace recognition; EE = employee engagement; EP = employee performance.
Table 5. Indirect relationship (hypothesis testing).
Table 5. Indirect relationship (hypothesis testing).
RelationshipEstimateMeanSDt-ValueCILLCIULResults
CD → EE → EP0.2930.2940.0585.0230.1840.411Supported
WM → EE → EP0.1100.110.061.8360.0050.23Supported
WR → EE → EP0.0290.030.0561.7130.0820.142Supported
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

Rasool, S.F.; Mohelska, H.; Rehman, F.U.; Raza, H.; Asghar, M.Z. Exploring the Nexus Between a Supportive Workplace Environment, Employee Engagement, and Employee Performance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Adm. Sci. 2025, 15, 230. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15060230

AMA Style

Rasool SF, Mohelska H, Rehman FU, Raza H, Asghar MZ. Exploring the Nexus Between a Supportive Workplace Environment, Employee Engagement, and Employee Performance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Administrative Sciences. 2025; 15(6):230. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15060230

Chicago/Turabian Style

Rasool, Samma Faiz, Hana Mohelska, Fazal Ur Rehman, Hamid Raza, and Muhammad Zaheer Asghar. 2025. "Exploring the Nexus Between a Supportive Workplace Environment, Employee Engagement, and Employee Performance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia" Administrative Sciences 15, no. 6: 230. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15060230

APA Style

Rasool, S. F., Mohelska, H., Rehman, F. U., Raza, H., & Asghar, M. Z. (2025). Exploring the Nexus Between a Supportive Workplace Environment, Employee Engagement, and Employee Performance in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Administrative Sciences, 15(6), 230. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15060230

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

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop