Organizational Culture and Perceived Performance: Mediation of Perceived Organizational Support and Moderation of Motivation

Abstract

This study aimed to investigate the effect of organizational culture on employee-perceived performance and whether this relationship is mediated by perceived organizational support and moderated by employee motivation. Three hundred individuals working in organizations located in Portugal and Angola participated in this study. This is a quantitative, exploratory, correlational, and cross-sectional study. The results indicate that only goal culture, rule culture, affective organizational support perception, and identified motivation have a positive and significant effect on perceived performance. Supportive culture and goal culture have a positive and significant effect on affective organizational support perception. All dimensions of organizational culture have a significant effect on cognitive organizational support perception, with the effects of the supportive culture and the goal culture being positive and significant, while the effects of the innovative culture and the rule culture are negative and significant. The perception of affective organizational support has a total mediating effect on the relationship between goal culture and perceived performance. Intrinsic motivation and identified motivation have a moderating effect on the relationship between all dimensions of organizational culture and perceived performance. This study is expected to help human resource managers understand the importance of the type of organizational culture that prevails in their organization to enhance employees’ perception of organizational support and performance.

1. Introduction

Organizational culture, defined by Schein (2004) as the set of values, beliefs, norms and practices shared within an organization, has been taking on an increasingly central role in the study of organizations. The academic literature has shown considerable interest in the study of organizational culture due to its significant implications for employee performance and organizational success (Carvalho et al., 2023). Organizational culture involves sharing a set of values, attitudes, assumptions, and beliefs among all individuals who are part of an organization (Ouellette et al., 2020; Yip et al., 2020). Organizational culture has been analyzed from various perspectives, such as exploring the role that culture can play in sustainable practices encouraged by organizations (Stojanovic et al., 2020) and how organizational culture can be affected by various factors (Polyanska et al., 2019). From the perspective of Salvador et al. (2022), the perception of organizational culture can be seen as an indicator of the quality of organizational support. In this scenario, the perception of organizational support (POS), conceptualized by Eisenberger et al. (1986), which considers the extent to which employees believe the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being, has been identified as a crucial factor. Studies show that employees who perceive high support from the organization tend to have higher levels of motivation and loyalty and superior performance in their roles (Darolia et al., 2010; Huang, 2025; Li et al., 2022; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Motivation at work, understood as the set of internal or external forces that influences how employees act to achieve their professional goals (Deci & Ryan, 1985), is intrinsically linked to POS. In turn, performance, which refers to the level of effectiveness and efficiency with which tasks are performed (Deal & Kennedy, 1982), is a key indicator for measuring an employee’s contribution to organizational results. According to Forson et al. (2021), motivation can be considered a predictor of performance.

The intersection between organizational culture and perceived organizational support provides fertile ground for understanding the mechanisms that drive employee motivation and performance. Companies that promote a strong, transparent, and inclusive organizational culture tend to create environments where employees feel more supported and motivated to achieve high levels of performance while also demonstrating greater loyalty to the organization (Schein, 2010). This relationship can be interpreted in light of social identity theory (Tajfel, 1978); according to this theory, when employees feel like members of the organization to which they belong, absorbing its characteristics, such as the perception of organizational support, their performance tends to improve.

However, a gap remains in the literature regarding the synthesis of the main dimensions, perspectives, and orientations of organizational culture (Tadesse Bogale & Debela, 2024). The relevance of this topic becomes even more evident when considering the relationship between organizational culture and organizational outcomes. In an era where organizations face complex challenges, understanding how organizational culture influences perceptions of support and, ultimately, employee motivation and performance is essential to creating positive and productive work environments. This study is particularly relevant in the Portuguese organizational context, where there is a growing need to understand the cultural and support dynamics that can improve talent retention and competitiveness.

In this context, the present research seeks to answer the following central question: What is the influence of organizational culture on the perception of organizational support and its relationship with employee motivation and performance? Although there are studies that address the relationship between organizational culture and performance (Hung et al., 2022; Strengers et al., 2022), few explore the perception of organizational support as a mediator of this process, especially in the Portuguese context. This study aims to fill this gap and provide a theoretical model that explains the interactions between these three constructs in the organizational environment.

The objective of this investigation is, therefore, to analyze the influence of organizational culture on the perception of organizational support and its relationship with employee motivation and perceived performance. Through theoretical and empirical analysis, we aim to identify which aspects of organizational culture contribute most to a high perception of organizational support and, at the same time, understand how this perception translates into increased motivation and improved employee-perceived performance.

These factors are crucial in today’s job market, where talent retention and productivity are essential pillars for sustainable organizational success. Thus, organizations that manage to align their culture with practices that foster a positive perception of support are better positioned to face the challenges of the contemporary business environment and achieve lasting competitive advantages.

This study is structured in six sections:

Section 1—Introduction, explaining the relevance of the study.

Section 2—Literature review, reviewing the literature on the constructs studied and the relationship between them. Ultimately, the research model is presented.

Section 3—Methodology, which presents the Design and Research Flowchart, explains the data collection and analysis procedure, presents the instruments used in this study, and describes the sample.

Section 4—Results, which presents the descriptive statistics of the variables under study, studies the association between the variables under study, and tests the hypotheses formulated.

Section 5—Discussion, where the results obtained are discussed. The limitations, practical implications, and theoretical implications are presented.

Section 6—Conclusions, where the main conclusions of this study are presented.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. Organizational Culture

The concept of organizational culture emerged in the literature in the 1970s and 1980s, with authors such as Pettigrew (1979) presenting it to explain differences between organizations, emphasizing the importance of shared values and norms.

Several authors have defined organizational culture with different emphases. According to Schein (2010), organizational culture is composed of three distinct levels: artifacts (visible and tangible elements, such as physical structures, rituals, and language), shared values (what is considered important to the members of the organization), and underlying assumptions (unconscious and ingrained beliefs). This allows for a deep understanding of the cultural layers that influence organizational behavior. Cameron and Quinn (2011) propose that culture can be understood through four main typologies based on shared values and assumptions, which we will discuss in detail later. More recently, Groysberg et al. (2018) expanded this view by arguing that organizational culture is a set of tacit norms and values that guide behavior in the absence of regulations, reflecting its influence on the perception of organizational support and the intrinsic motivation of employees.

In this study, we will focus on the competing values framework (CVF), developed by Quinn and Cameron (1983), which is a widely recognized theoretical model for assessing and understanding organizational culture. This model emerged from research on the leading indicators of organizational effectiveness and has been extensively used in management research and practice (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). From the perspective of Tian et al. (2021), this model is the most widely used in performance-oriented organizational studies.

The CVF is structured around two main dimensions: flexibility versus stability and internal versus external focus. These dimensions form four quadrants, each representing a distinct type of organizational culture: supportive, innovative, goals, and rules (Cameron & Quinn, 2011). A unique set of values, beliefs, and organizational practices characterizes each type of culture.

1. Supportive Culture: Characterized by a collaborative and family-like environment. Cameron and Quinn (2011, p. 46) describe it as follows: ‘Organizations with a clan culture are like extended families. Typical characteristics of clan companies are teamwork, employee involvement programs and corporate commitment to employees’.

2. Innovative Culture: This type of culture is characterized by its emphasis on innovation and adaptability. Cameron and Quinn (2011, p. 49) indicate that ‘the main purpose of an adhocracy is to promote adaptability, flexibility and creativity, especially in contexts where uncertainty, ambiguity and information overload prevail’.

3. Goal Culture: Focuses on competitiveness and achieving results. Cameron and Quinn (2011, p. 44) explain as follows: ‘The market-oriented organization focuses on transactions with its external constituents, including suppliers, customers, contractors, licensees, unions and regulators’.

4. Rule Culture: This culture values structure, control, and operational efficiency. According to Cameron and Quinn (2011), it is characterized by a formal and well-organized work environment, where defined procedures regulate employees’ activities.

Cultural Differences Between Angola and Portugal

The late renowned scholar and researcher Geert Hofstede conducted one of the most famous studies on national culture, which began in the 1970s. The study was later expanded to include a larger sample of nations (The Culture Factor Group, 2025). Angola thus reveals itself to be much less individualistic than Portugal (scoring 18 against 59 on this dimension). Neither culture is oriented towards achievement and success, with Angola being even more concerned with quality of life (scoring 20, compared to Portugal’s 31, in terms of motivation for achievement and success). An equally important conclusion relates to power distance, with Angola being even more hierarchical than Portugal (scores of 83 and 63, respectively). Angola has a very short-term orientation (15, compared to 42 for Portugal, in terms of long-term orientation). Angola is also an indulgent culture, with a high score of 83 (compared to Portugal’s 33, where there is considerably more restriction in society). Regarding innovation, which is essential for any organizational strategy, as without innovation there can be no strategy (Porter, 1980), Angolan culture does not reveal favorable trends. Portugal has a greater advantage in this regard (Amabile, 1998), as it is less hierarchical, more success-oriented, less collectivist, more long-term-oriented, and less forgiving of mistakes.

2.2. Performance

Work performance is a multidimensional concept that refers to the actions and behaviors of employees that contribute to organizational objectives. Sonnentag et al. (2008) define performance as a construct that includes both the behavioral aspects of what people do at work and the results of those behaviors.

In the organizational context, performance is often conceptualized as the sum of two main components: task performance and contextual performance. Task performance refers to activities that contribute directly to the technical core of the organization. In contrast, contextual performance encompasses behaviors that support the social and psychological environment in which the technical core must function. Parker et al. (2017) highlight that job design has a significant impact on organizational performance. Job characteristics, such as autonomy, task variety, and feedback, directly influence employee performance. Bakker and Demerouti (2017) argue, based on the Job Demands–Resources Theory, that the balance between job demands and available resources is crucial for optimal performance. When employees have sufficient resources to manage job demands, their performance tends to improve.

Organizational Culture and Perceived Performance

The relationship between organizational culture and performance has been the subject of extensive research in management and organizational behavior literature. When an employee feels that they are part of the corporate culture, they work harder to achieve the organization’s goals. In a dynamic organization seeking to develop a competitive advantage by enhancing organizational performance, organizational culture becomes crucial to achieving its goals (Bashayreh, 2019). According to Mohd Rasdi et al. (2023), one of the most significant predictors of performance is organizational culture.

Several studies have demonstrated a significant relationship between organizational culture and performance (Guan et al., 2014; Vieira-dos-Santos & Gonçalves, 2018). Aggarwal (2024) investigated the impact of organizational culture dimensions on employee satisfaction and performance levels in selected organizations. The study revealed that different dimensions of organizational culture have varying impacts on employee satisfaction and performance, highlighting the complexity of this relationship.

Iskamto (2023) corroborated these results, demonstrating that organizational culture has a significant effect on employee performance. The study concluded that organizational culture contributed 26.6% to employee performance, highlighting its importance as a determinant of performance.

It is important to note that the relationship between organizational culture and performance may vary depending on the context. Aboramadan et al. (2020) observed that industry-specific factors, such as regulation in the banking sector, may moderate the impact of organizational culture on performance.

Empirical evidence supports a significant relationship between organizational culture and performance. This relationship is complex and multifaceted, operating through various mechanisms that include promoting innovation, increasing employee engagement, and enhancing job satisfaction. Future research should consider longitudinal and multi-method approaches to better understand the dynamics of this relationship over time and in different organizational contexts.

Hypothesis 1. 

Organizational culture has a positive and significant effect on perceived performance.

2.3. Perceived Organization Support

Perceived organizational support (POS) has emerged as a fundamental concept in organizational psychology and human resource management in recent decades. POS can be defined as how employees perceive the value that the organization places on their contributions and the level of concern for their well-being (Alcover et al., 2018; Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). This initial conceptualization highlights two crucial elements of POS: valuing employees’ work and caring about their overall well-being (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

In a comprehensive review of the literature, Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002) emphasized the subjective nature of POS, arguing that this perception is formed over time through the employee’s experiences in the organization. They suggest that employees tend to attribute human characteristics to the organization, interpreting its actions as indicative of a positive or negative attitude towards them (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

It is important to note that POS is not simply a direct reflection of organizational policies and practices. Instead, it is a psychological construct based on employees’ subjective interpretation of these policies and practices (Eisenberger et al., 1986; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002). This implies that two employees in the same organization may develop different levels of POS depending on their individual experiences and interpretations.

POS differs from other related constructs, such as organizational commitment or job satisfaction. While the latter focuses on the employees’ attitudes towards the organization, POS focuses on the employee’s perception of the organization’s attitude towards them (C. Hu et al., 2014; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002).

Eisenberger and Stinglhamber (2011) argue in favor of the one-dimensionality of POS, suggesting that it reflects a general assessment of organizational support. However, recent research has proposed the existence of distinct dimensions of POS. For example, Kraimer and Wayne (2004) suggest three dimensions—adjustment support, career support, and financial support—each focusing on different aspects of organizational support.

Understanding POS has significant implications for human resource management and organizational behavior. Eisenberger and Stinglhamber (2011) argue that POS explains employees’ reactions to the treatment they receive from the organization. By recognizing that employees form perceptions about organizational support, organizations can develop more effective strategies to improve employee well-being, increase commitment, and, consequently, improve organizational performance (Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002; Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011).

2.3.1. Organizational Culture and Perceived Organizational Support

Organizational culture and perceived organizational support are fundamental constructs that significantly influence employees’ attitudes and behaviors in the workplace. Organizations should take action and promote initiatives, as well as inform employees about these actions, clarifying any ambiguities that may exist and increasing workers’ trust in the organization (Vieira-dos-Santos & Gonçalves, 2018).

Nurcholis and Budi (2020) conducted a comprehensive study that examined the impact of organizational culture and perceived organizational support on employee engagement. The results revealed that both organizational culture and perceived support have a significant positive effect on employee engagement. Salvador et al. (2022) deepened the understanding of this relationship by exploring the mediating effects of perceived organizational support and job insecurity on the relationship between organizational culture and turnover intentions.

The study revealed a complex and multifaceted relationship in which organizational culture directly influences perceived organizational support, which, in turn, negatively affects job insecurity, and this, in turn, has a positive impact on turnover intentions. This serial mediating effect suggests that organizational culture can influence turnover intentions through its impact on the perception of support and, consequently, on the sense of job security. The authors emphasize the importance of considering these multiple paths of influence when developing strategies to reduce turnover.

Aulia et al. (2022) corroborated and expanded on the findings of Nurcholis and Budi (2020), focusing specifically on the public service context. The study demonstrated that organizational culture has a positive and significant impact on employee engagement. Perceived organizational support also positively influences employee engagement, and there is a significant interaction between organizational culture and perceived support in their influence on engagement. The authors argue that an organizational culture that promotes values such as innovation, teamwork, and results orientation can increase the perception of support, leading to greater employee engagement. This is particularly relevant in the context of public service, where employee engagement can have a direct impact on the quality of services provided to citizens.

Berson et al. (2009) consider that the perception of organizational culture is a precursor to the perception of organizational support. This relationship can be interpreted in light of the social identity theory developed by Tajfel (1978), according to which, when employees perceive themselves as members of the organization to which they belong, they absorb its characteristics, including POS. This reasoning leads us to formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2. 

Organizational culture has a positive and significant effect on perceived organizational support.

2.3.2. Perceived Organizational Support and Perceived Performance

According to the existing literature, when employees have a high perception of POS, both task performance and goal achievement improve, as well as extra-functional performance and organizational citizenship behaviors (Eisenberger et al., 2001; Sabir et al., 2022). This relationship can be interpreted considering social exchange theory, developed by Blau (1964), because when employees perceive high POS, they repay that support by improving their performance.

The study by Park et al. (2020) examines the impact of organizational support on adaptive performance, highlighting the relationships between job crafting, work engagement, and adaptive performance. The authors conclude that strong organizational support improves employee adaptation and increases their performance. Perceived support facilitates employee engagement in their tasks, leading to better adaptive performance in dynamic environments.

The systematic review conducted by Tamimi et al. (2023) provides a comprehensive overview of how organizational support affects employee performance. The authors analyze several studies and conclude that there is a positive relationship between perceived support and performance, reinforcing the idea that organizations that offer a supportive environment tend to have more satisfied and effective employees.

These studies demonstrate that the perception of organizational support plays a crucial role in increasing employee performance. When employees feel that their organization supports them, they are more likely to engage fully in their roles, adapt to change, and contribute positively to the organization’s culture. Thus, promoting a supportive environment can be an effective strategy for improving individual and collective performance within organizations. These previous studies lead us to formulate the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3. 

Perceived organizational support has a positive and significant effect on performance.

2.3.3. Organizational Culture, Perceived Organizational Support, and Perceived Performance

Considering the challenges and demands of work in today’s world, organizations must invest in promoting a healthy work environment by developing strategies that foster a positive atmosphere through the mobilization and participation of workers. This led us to hypothesize that organizational culture can enhance the perception of POS, which, in turn, can improve performance. By fostering a positive environment, employees will be motivated to achieve the organization’s goals.

Despite extensive bibliographic research, no studies were found related to organizational culture and performance with POS as a mediator. However, several studies present POS as a mediator in the relationship between organizational culture and variables such as employee engagement (Najeemdeen et al., 2018; Zhong et al., 2016), organizational identification (Luo, 2020), and innovative work behavior (Ekmekcioglu & Öner, 2024). This reasoning led us to hypothesize that the perception of organizational support is the mechanism that explains the relationship between the perception of organizational culture and performance. This relationship can be explained by the social exchange theory, developed by Blau (1964), which helps us develop and suggest a model for a positive work environment. Below are some studies that relate these variables, but never the three variables under study.

Salau (2022) investigated the moderating role of organizational culture in the relationship between perceived organizational support (POS) and employee performance. The study revealed that POS has a significant positive impact on employee performance and that this relationship is strengthened by organizational culture. This suggests that a positive organizational culture can amplify the beneficial effects of POS on employee performance.

Iskamto (2023) corroborated these results, demonstrating that organizational culture has a direct and significant impact on employee performance. The study concluded that organizational culture contributes 26.6% to employee performance, underlining the importance of cultivating a positive organizational culture to improve performance.

Bohle et al. (2018) explored the role of POS in the relationship between job insecurity and performance. The authors found that POS can mitigate the negative effects of job insecurity on employee performance. This study emphasizes the significance of POS as a vital resource that enables employees to navigate challenging work situations and sustain high levels of performance.

Rubel et al. (2023) examined the effect of high-commitment performance management on supervisor performance, considering the role of POS. The results indicated that POS partially mediates the relationship between high-commitment performance management practices and supervisor performance. This suggests that organizational practices that demonstrate commitment to employees can increase POS, which, in turn, leads to improved performance.

Rhoades and Eisenberger’s (2002) comprehensive review of POS provides a solid theoretical basis for understanding these results. The authors identified three main categories of favorable treatment received by employees (fairness, supervisor support, and organizational rewards and working conditions) that contribute to POS. In addition, they found that POS is associated with favorable outcomes for employees (e.g., increased job satisfaction) and the organization (e.g., increased performance and reduced turnover).

Together, these studies suggest an intricate relationship between organizational culture, POS, and performance. Organizational culture plays a key role in shaping POS and strengthening its relationship with performance. An organizational culture that values and supports its employees can increase POS, which, in turn, can lead to better performance. Furthermore, POS functions as a mechanism through which organizational practices and culture influence employee performance.

The following hypothesis is therefore formulated:

Hypothesis 4. 

Perceived organizational support has a mediating effect on the relationship between organizational culture and perceived performance.

2.4. Motivation

Motivation is a central concept for understanding employee behavior and performance in the organizational environment. When we refer to motivation at work, we mean the desire to perform a task, combined with enthusiasm and determination to see it through. Motivation acts as the driving force that propels an individual to take proactive steps and achieve their goals (Bandhu et al., 2024). Motivation can be intrinsic or extrinsic. For some authors, intrinsic motivation originates internally, stemming from an individual’s interests and goals, whereas extrinsic motivation originates from external variables, such as incentives and penalties (Amaro et al., 2021; Sharma & Gupta, 2025).

According to Roberts and O’Reilly (1979), motivation is closely linked to job satisfaction, indicating that job characteristics and the organizational environment play a significant role in employee engagement. The self-determination theory, discussed by Ryan and Deci (2000), offers a broad approach to conceptualizing motivation as a process that facilitates social development, well-being, and intrinsic engagement. This theory highlights that motivation is influenced by basic psychological needs, such as autonomy, competence, and social relationships, which promote voluntary and authentic behavior.

Building on this perspective, Gagné and Deci (2005) elaborate on the distinction between intrinsic motivation (motivation that arises from self-interest) and extrinsic motivation (motivation driven by external rewards). The authors suggest that the satisfaction of these basic needs is fundamental to the development of engaged and sustainable behavior. Empirical studies have shown that work environments that promote autonomy, competence, and relationships tend to increase employees’ intrinsic motivation, leading to improvements in innovation, productivity, and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Van den Broeck et al., 2016).

In the organizational context, Luthans and Youssef (2007) address positive organizational behavior, including motivational aspects and the role of motivation in creating a work environment that promotes employee well-being and performance. On the other hand, the demand–resource theory, as emphasized by Bakker and Demerouti (2017), suggests that the balance between job demands and available resources has a strong influence on motivation, affecting the psychological health and performance of employees.

2.4.1. Motivation and Perceived Performance

One of the primary objectives of human resource management in an organization is to foster a strong and positive relationship with its employees. However, the needs of employees differ, driven by various motivators. For some, the motivators are internal (intrinsic motivation), and for others, the motivators are external (extrinsic motivation). Therefore, human resource managers must understand the factors that motivate their employees to enhance organizational performance.

Nomutsa et al. (2020) investigated the impact of employee motivation on their performance. The study concluded that there is a significant positive relationship between motivation and employee performance. The results indicated that motivated employees tend to be more productive, efficient, and committed to organizational goals.

In turn, Okine et al. (2021) examined the effects of employee motivation on their productivity and performance. The authors identified several motivational factors that positively influence performance, including the following:

• Rewards and recognition: Employees who receive adequate rewards and recognition for their work tend to perform at higher levels.
• Development opportunities: Offering training and opportunities for professional growth is associated with better employee performance.
• Positive work environment: An organizational environment that promotes employee well-being and satisfaction contributes to better performance.
• Effective communication: Clear and transparent communication between managers and employees is related to higher levels of motivation and performance.

Both studies highlight the importance of implementing appropriate motivation strategies to improve organizational performance. The authors stress that organizations should adopt a holistic approach to motivation, considering both intrinsic and extrinsic factors. The following hypothesis is therefore formulated:

Hypothesis 5. 

Motivation has a positive and significant effect on perceived performance.

2.4.2. Moderating Effect of Motivation

Motivation plays a crucial role in organizations, not only as a direct factor influencing performance but also as a possible moderator in various organizational relationships.

A study published in the International Journal of Business Economics (IJBE, 2021) examined the moderating effect of motivation at work. The results indicated that motivation could act as an amplifier or attenuator of the relationship between organizational variables. Specifically, the study found that work motivation moderated the relationship between human resource management practices and organizational performance, suggesting that the impact of these practices may be more pronounced when employees are highly motivated.

Paais and Pattiruhu (2020) demonstrated that motivation interacts in complex ways with leadership and organizational culture, affecting both employee satisfaction and performance. Although not explicitly focused on the moderating effect, this study suggests that motivation can alter the strength of the relationships between these organizational variables.

Makambe and Charles (2020) examined the moderating effect of the reward system on the relationship between organizational culture and employee motivation in a telecommunications company in Botswana. The study demonstrates how organizational factors can moderate the relationship between culture and motivation. The authors found that the reward system acted as a significant moderator, strengthening the positive relationship between organizational culture and employee motivation. This study suggests that motivation may act as a moderator in similar organizational relationships.

Finally, we refer to the study conducted by Afif and Ferine (2024), in which organizational culture has a positive and significant effect on employee performance, and work motivation moderates this relationship. These studies provide substantial evidence of the moderating role of motivation in various organizational contexts. The following hypothesis is formulated:

Hypothesis 6. 

Motivation has a moderating effect on the relationship between organizational culture and perceived performance.

The literature review conducted above leads us to study the effect of organizational culture on perceived performance and whether this relationship is mediated by perceived organizational support and moderated by motivation. The research model presented in Figure 1 summarizes the hypotheses formulated in this study.

3. Methodology

3.1. Design and Research Flowchart

This study presents a quantitative, correlational, and cross-sectional research methodology. Figure 2 summarizes the flowchart of the research methodology used.

3.2. Data Collection Procedure

A total of 300 individuals working in organizations based in Portugal and Angola participated voluntarily in this study. Sampling followed a non-probabilistic method, using a convenient approach and the snowball sampling technique (Trochim, 2000). The research is exploratory and cross-sectional, with data collection carried out at a single point in time.

The questionnaire was made available online through the Google Forms platform. The link was shared via email, LinkedIn, WhatsApp, and Instagram, using the researchers’ network of contacts.

Before starting to fill out the questionnaire, participants were provided with informed consent, which outlined the study’s objectives, the voluntary nature of participation, and the guarantee of confidentiality for their responses, as required by current ethical and legal guidelines. Only after reading and accepting the informed consent form was it possible to proceed with the questionnaire. In the event of refusal, the participant was directed to the end of the form.

The questionnaire included sociodemographic questions to characterize the sample, as well as four distinct scales: one referring to Organizational Culture, another to the perception of organizational support, a third relating to perceived performance and a fourth on motivation. The questionnaire was posted online, and data collection took place between January and March 2025.

3.3. Participants

The sample for this study consists of 300 participants who volunteered, aged between 19 and 68, with an average age of 38.54 and a standard deviation of 10.88 (

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the sample.

	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Female	194	64.7%
Male	106	35.3%
Educational Qualifications
Equivalent to or lower than 12th grade	34	11.3%
Bachelor’s degree	123	41.0%
Master’s degree or higher	143	47.7%
Seniority in Position
Less than 1 year	56	18.7%
1 to 3 years	86	28.7%
4 to 6 years	48	16.0%
7 to 10 years	29	9.7%
10 to 15 years	29	9.7%
More than 15 years	52	17.3%
Type of Contract
Uncertain Term	40	13.3%
Fixed Term	59	19.7%
No Term	170	56.7%
Self-Employed	13	4.3%
Other	18	6.0%
Activity Sector
Public	73	24.3%
Private	183	61.0%
Public/Private	44	14.7%
Country
Angola	101	33.7%
Portugal	199	66.3%

). In terms of gender, 64.7% of participants were female (n = 194) and 35.3% were male (n = 106) (Table 1). In terms of educational qualifications, 11.3% of the sample had an education level equal to or lower than 12th grade (n = 34), 41% held a bachelor’s degree (n = 123), and 47.7% had a master’s degree or higher (n = 143) (Table 1). In terms of length of service, most of the sample (28.7%, n = 86) had between 1 and 3 years of experience. In addition, 18.7% have less than 1 year (n = 56), 16% have between 4 and 6 years (n = 48), 9.7% have between 7 and 10 years (n = 29), 9.7% have between 11 and 15 years (n = 29), and 17.3% have more than 15 years (n = 52) (Table 1). Concerning the type of contract, 56.7% have a permanent contract (n = 170), 19.7% have a fixed-term contract (n = 59), 13.3% have an indefinite contract (n = 40), 4.3% are self-employed (n = 13), and 6% indicated another type of contract (n = 18) (Table 1). Regarding the country, most participants (66.3%, n = 199) work in Portugal, while 33.7% (n = 101) work in Angola (Table 1). In terms of sector of activity, 61% work in the private sector (n = 183), 24.3% in the public sector (n = 73), and 14.7% in the public/private sector (n = 44) (Table 1).

3.4. Data Analysis Procedure

After data collection, the data were imported into SPSS Statistics 29 software for further analysis. The first step was to test the metric qualities of the instruments used in this study.

The validity of the instruments was tested through confirmatory factor analyses using AMOS Graphics 30 software. Confirmatory factor analyses were chosen because the factor structure of all instruments is known, as they have already been extensively tested. The procedure followed a “model generation” logic (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993), considering the results obtained interactively when analyzing their fit: for chi-square (χ²) ≤ 5; for the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI) > 0.90; for the Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI) > 0.90; for the Comparative Fit Index (CFI) > 0.90; for the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) ≤ 0.08 (McCallum et al., 1996); and for the root mean square residual (RMSR), a lower value corresponds to a better fit (L.-T. Hu & Bentler, 1999). According to Hair et al. (2017), only items with factor weights equal to or greater than 0.50 will be considered in the following statistical analysis. With the data obtained from the confirmatory factor analysis, the reliability of the construct was calculated for each dimension of each instrument, with a value of greater than 0.70. Convergent validity was tested by calculating the average extracted variance (AVE), which must be greater than 0.50 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). However, values above 0.40 can be accepted if the Cronbach’s alpha value of the instrument is above 0.70 (Hair et al., 2017). Finally, the discriminant validity of each factor of the instruments was also tested by comparing the square root of the AVE values with the correlation values between factors. The square root of AVE must be greater than the correlation value between factors.

Internal consistency was assessed by calculating Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, whose value should range from 0 to 1, excluding negative values (Hill & Hill, 2002). A value greater than 0.70 was considered the minimum acceptable in organizational studies (Bryman & Cramer, 2003). Regarding the sensitivity study, several measures of central tendency, dispersion, and distribution were calculated for the different items of the scales used. This approach allowed us to analyze the normality of all items and scales in question. The items presented responses distributed across the entire scale, avoiding extreme concentration at the limits. Additionally, the absolute values of asymmetry and kurtosis for the items were less than 2 and 7, respectively, as recommended by Finney and DiStefano (2013).

Next, a descriptive statistical analysis of the sample and the variables under study was performed. As the sample for this study consists of participants from Angola and Portugal, we examined whether there were differences in the variables under study between the two countries, using Student’s t-tests for independent samples. The association between the variables was tested using Pearson correlations.

The hypotheses formulated were tested using simple and multiple linear regressions, considering a significance level of 0.05. This approach enabled us to examine the relationships between the variables and assess the statistical significance of the proposed hypotheses. The predictor selection method was the stepwise method. The advantage of this method is that it allows the removal of a variable whose significance in the model is reduced by the addition of new variables (Marôco, 2021). This model is appropriate when there are significant correlations between the independent variables, which was the case in our model (Marôco, 2021). As Hypothesis 6 assumed a moderating effect, Macro Process 4.2 (Model 1), developed by Hayes (2022), was used.

3.5. Instruments

To assess the variable perception of organizational culture, the organizational culture scale from the FOCUS (first organizational culture unified search) instrument was used, validated, and adapted for the Portuguese population (Neves, 2000), consisting of 35 items with a 6-point Likert response (Appendix A). This scale consists of four dimensions that correspond to the four types of culture in the Contrasting Values Model: innovative culture (items 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 33); supportive culture (items 1, 17, 20, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, and 34); goal culture (items 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, and 12); and rule culture (items 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, and 35). To test the validity of this instrument, a confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on four factors. The adjustment indices obtained were adequate or very close to adequate values (χ²/df = 1.95; GFI = 0.86; CFI = 0.93; TLI = 0.92; RMSEA = 0.057; SRMR = 0.071). All items had factor weights greater than 0.50. Regarding construct reliability, the following values were obtained: 0.94 for supportive culture, 0.84 for goal culture, 0.91 for innovative culture, and 0.87 for rule culture. Regarding convergent validity, supportive culture (AVE = 0.58), innovative culture (AVE = 0.50), and rule culture (AVE = 0.50) demonstrate good convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Rule culture has an AVE value of 0.47, below 0.50. However, since Cronbach’s alpha value exceeds 0.70, it can be considered an acceptable value (Hair et al., 2017). All AVE square root values are higher than the correlations between the respective factors, which indicates the existence of discriminant validity. Regarding internal consistency, all dimensions have Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.80, ranging from 0.86 (goal culture) to 0.94 (support culture).

Perceived performance was measured using the task performance dimension of the instrument developed by Williams and Anderson (1991), which consists of seven items rated on a five-point scale (from 1, “Strongly disagree”, to 5, “Strongly agree”) (Appendix A). A confirmatory factor analysis was performed on one factor. The adjustment indices obtained were adequate (χ²/df = 1.64; GFI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.99; RMSEA = 0.046; SRMR = 0.008). Items 6 and 7 had to be removed because they exhibited low factor loadings. Regarding construct reliability, a value of 0.82 was obtained. Convergent validity was established with an AVE value of 0.48, which is below 0.50. However, as Cronbach’s alpha value is above 0.70, it can be considered acceptable (Hair et al., 2017). Regarding internal consistency, Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.81 was obtained.

To measure perceived organizational support (POS), we used the SPOS (Survey of Perceived Organizational Support) instrument, developed by Eisenberger et al. (1997), which consists of eight items classified on a 7-point Likert scale (from 1, “Strongly disagree”, to 7, “Strongly agree”) (Appendix A). This instrument, adapted and validated for the Portuguese population by Santos and Gonçalves (2010), consists of two dimensions: affective POS (items 1, 4, 6, and 8) and cognitive POS (items 2, 3, 5, and 7). The validity of this instrument was tested using a two-factor confirmatory factor analysis. The fit indices obtained were adequate (χ²/df = 2.14; GFI = 0.97; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.98; RMSEA = 0.062; SRMR = 0.071). All items had factor loadings greater than 0.50. Regarding construct reliability, the following values were obtained: 0.91 for perceived affective organizational support and 0.87 for perceived cognitive organizational support. Concerning convergent validity, the perceived affective organizational support (AVE = 0.71) and the perceived cognitive organizational support (AVE = 0.62) show good convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). The square root of AVE values is higher than the correlations between the two factors, which indicates the existence of discriminant validity. Regarding internal consistency, the dimensions exhibit Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.80, with 0.91 for perceived affective organizational support and 0.87 for perceived cognitive organizational support.

Motivation was measured using the instrument developed by Gagné et al. (2010), consisting of 12 items classified on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 ‘Strongly disagree’ to 5 ‘Strongly agree’) (Appendix A). This instrument consists of four dimensions: intrinsic motivation (items 1, 2, and 3); identified motivation (items 4, 5, and 6); introjected motivation (items 7, 8, and 9); and extrinsic motivation (items 10, 11, and 12). The validity of this instrument was assessed through a confirmatory factor analysis with four factors. The adjustment indices obtained were adequate or very close to adequate values (χ²/gl = 3.05; GFI = 0.94; CFI = 0.95; TLI = 0.93; RMSEA = 0.083; SRMR = 0.076). Item 12 was removed because it had a low factor loading. Regarding construct reliability, the following values were obtained: 0.85 for intrinsic motivation, 0.84 for identified motivation, 0.77 for introjected motivation, and 0.78 for extrinsic motivation. Regarding convergent validity, intrinsic motivation (AVE = 0.65), identified motivation (AVE = 0.64), introjected motivation (AVE = 0.54), and extrinsic motivation (AVE = 0.65) demonstrate good convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). All AVE square root values are higher than the correlations between the respective factors, which indicates the existence of discriminant validity. Regarding internal consistency, all dimensions exhibit Cronbach’s alpha values above 0.70, ranging from 0.76 (introjected motivation) to 0.88 (intrinsic motivation).

To verify whether the items discriminate between subjects, the sensitivity of the items was assessed. It was found that no item has a median close to either extreme, and all items have responses at all points. The absolute values of asymmetry and kurtosis are below 2 and 7, respectively, which indicates that they do not grossly violate normality (Finney & DiStefano, 2013).

The country (Angola or Portugal) will be used as a control variable, since the sample consists of participants from both countries.

4. Results

Two models were tested: one with a single factor and one with 11 factors. Almost all adjustment indices for the one-factor model proved inadequate (χ²/df = 4.10; GFI = 0.47; CFI = 0.57; TLI = 0.55; RMSEA = 0.102; RMSR = 0.165). On the other hand, the fit indices for the 11-factor model were almost all adequate (χ²/df = 1.60; GFI = 0.81; CFI = 0.92; TLI = 0.91; RMSEA = 0.045; RMSR = 0.112). As can be seen, only the GFI is below 0.90; however, this is acceptable since it is above 0.80. These results indicate that theoretical conceptualization, which determines eleven variables, adequately represents the observed data. The correlations are consistent with the theorized pattern of relationships.

Next, the average of each dimension or instrument used in this study was calculated. When calculating the average values, the ordinal variables were transformed into quantitative variables, allowing for the following tests to be performed: Student’s t-test for one sample, Student’s t-test for independent samples, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlations, and linear regression.

4.1. Descriptive Statistics of the Variables Under Study

To understand the participants’ responses to the constructs studied, descriptive statistics were performed on the variables under examination. For this purpose, Student t-tests were performed on a sample.

Except for innovative culture, all participants’ responses regarding organizational culture are significantly above the midpoint of the scale (3.5) (

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of the variables under study.

Variable	t	df	p	d	Mean	SD
Supportive Culture	3.06 **	299	0.002	0.17	3.69	1.06
Goal Culture	3.54 ***	299	<0.001	0.20	3.72	1.09
Innovative Culture	−0.20	299	0.845	−0.01	3.49	1.00
Rule Culture	11.12 ***	299	<0.001	0.64	4.05	0.86
Perceived Affective Organizational Support	6.69 ***	299	<0.001	0.39	4.57	1.49
Perceived Cognitive Organizational Support	5.05 ***	299	<0.001	0.29	4.44	1.52
Perceived Performance	45.68 ***	299	<0.001	2.64	4.32	0.50
Intrinsic Motivation	13.23 ***	299	<0.001	0.76	3.71	0.93
Identified Motivation	11.88 ***	299	<0.001	0.69	3.64	0.93
Introjected Motivation	−0.89	299	0.373	−0.05	2.95	0.95
Extrinsic Motivation	2.39 *	299	0.018	0.14	3.15	1.05

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

). These results indicate that the participants in this study perceive a high level of support, a goal-oriented culture, and a rule-oriented culture. The dimension with the highest average is rule-oriented culture.

Both affective and cognitive perceptions of organizational support are also significantly above the midpoint of the scale (4), which means that the participants in this study have a high perception of organizational support (Table 2).

Regarding perceived performance, it is evident that the participants’ responses are significantly above the midpoint of the scale (3), with a very high value (Table 2). This result indicates a generally high perception of performance by the participants.

Regarding motivation, it is evident that, except introjected motivation, all dimensions are significantly above the midpoint (3) (Table 2). These results indicate that the participants in this study demonstrate high levels of intrinsic motivation, identified motivation, and extrinsic motivation, with the former having the highest average value. These data suggest that, in general, participants engage in their tasks out of personal interest, satisfaction, or appreciation for their content rather than internal pressures or external rewards. Introjected motivation, in turn, has a meaning close to the midpoint and is not statistically significant, indicating that participants’ behaviors are not highly motivated by feelings of obligation, guilt, or internal impositions.

As the sample for this study consists of participants working in Angola and Portugal, it was decided to verify whether the fact that they live and work in different countries had a significant effect on the variables under study. To this end, several Student t-tests were carried out for independent samples.

The country exhibits a statistically significant effect on only some specific variables under study (

Table 3. Effect of country (Angola and Portugal) on the variables under study.

Variable	t	df	p	d	Angola		Portugal
					Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Supportive Culture	−2.50 *	298	0.013	0.31	3.47	1.18	3.80	0.99
Goal Culture	−0.51	298	0.611	0.06	3.68	1.14	3.75	1.07
Innovative Culture	−2.87 **	298	0.004	0.35	3.26	1.20	3.61	0.86
Rule Culture	0.62	298	0.539	0.08	4.09	0.96	4.03	0.80
Perceived Affective Organizational Support	−0.20	298	0.838	0.03	4.55	1.47	4.59	1.50
Perceived Cognitive Organizational Support	−0.50	298	0.615	0.06	4.38	1.48	4.47	1.54
Perceived Performance	0.26	298	0.791	0.03	4.33	0.50	4.31	0.50
Intrinsic Motivation	−1.32	298	0.187	0.16	3.61	1.05	3.76	0.86
Identified Motivation	−1.19	298	0.233	0.15	3.55	0.95	3.68	0.92
Introjected Motivation	3.95 ***	298	<0.001	0.48	3.24	0.94	2.80	0.92
Extrinsic Motivation	3.16 ***	298	<0.001	0.39	3.41	1.02	3.01	1.04

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

). Regarding the support culture, participants from Portugal reported significantly higher levels than those from Angola (Table 3). This result suggests that Portuguese individuals perceive, on average, an organizational environment that is more oriented towards interpersonal support, cooperation, and employee appreciation.

In the case of innovation culture, a statistically significant difference was also observed, with Portuguese participants scoring higher than Angolan participants (Table 3). This finding indicates that respondents in Portugal perceive their organizations as more open to creativity, change, and experimentation with new ideas.

Regarding introjected motivation, the results show that Angolan participants exhibit significantly higher levels than Portuguese participants (Table 3). This difference suggests that employees in Angola are more likely to act out of internal pressures, such as a sense of obligation or a desire to avoid blame, which may reflect cultural differences in the internalization of organizational norms.

Finally, a statistically significant effect of country was also observed on extrinsic motivation, with Angolan participants revealing higher levels in this dimension (Table 3). This result indicates that, on average, individuals from Angola attach greater importance to external factors, such as tangible rewards, incentives, or formal recognition, in their work relationships.

4.2. Association Between the Variables Under Study

The supportive culture is positively and significantly correlated with perceived performance, as well as with perceptions of affective and cognitive organizational support, and with intrinsic, identified, and introjected motivation (

Table 4. Association between the variables under study.

	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.4	2	3.1	3.2	4.1	4.2	4.3	4.4
1.1. Supportive Culture	--
1.2. Goal Culture	0.58 ***	--
1.3. Innovative Culture	0.74 ***	0.66 ***	--
1.4. Rule Culture	0.56 ***	0.53 ***	0.51 ***	--
2. Perceived Performance	0.22 ***	0.25 ***	0.21 ***	0.24 ***	--
3.1. Perceived Affective Organizational Support	0.74 ***	0.52 ***	0.55 ***	0.39 ***	0.26 **	--
3.2. Perceived Cognitive Organizational Support	0.61 ***	0.47 ***	0.42 ***	0.27 ***	0.16 **	0.74 ***	--
4.1. Intrinsic Motivation	0.67 ***	0.50 ***	0.53 ***	0.39 ***	0.25 **	0.66 ***	0.51 ***	--
4.2. Identified Motivation	0.53 ***	0.42 ***	0.38 ***	0.37 ***	0.29 ***	0.54 ***	0.42 ***	0.68 ***	--
4.3. Introjected Motivation	0.12 *	0.17 **	0.13 *	0.12 *	0.15 **	0.18 **	0.07	0.25 ***	0.38 ***	--
4.4. Extrinsic Motivation	0.07	0.16 **	0.06	0.10	0.14 *	0.19 **	0.17 **	0.11	0.37 ***	0.33 ***	--

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

). These results suggest that organizational contexts characterized by interpersonal support and positive involvement are associated with higher levels of motivation and perceived support, as well as better perceived performance evaluation.

The culture of innovation also reveals positive and significant correlations with perceived performance, as well as with both dimensions of perceived organizational support and all forms of motivation analyzed, with particular emphasis on intrinsic and identified motivation (Table 4). This pattern suggests that innovative organizational environments are associated with greater employee engagement, both in terms of motivation and perceived institutional support, as well as perceived performance.

In the rule-based culture, there are also positive and statistically significant associations with perceived performance, as well as with both dimensions of perceived organizational support and with the more self-determined forms of motivation (Table 4). These results show that even more structured organizational contexts, when well perceived, can contribute positively to employee engagement and effectiveness.

Perceived performance shows positive and significant correlations with perceptions of affective and cognitive organizational support, as well as intrinsic and identified motivation, and with all dimensions of organizational culture analyzed (Table 4). These results show that a favorable organizational environment, in terms of culture and support, is associated with a greater sense of effectiveness at work.

The perception of affective organizational support is positively correlated with all dimensions of the organizational culture under study, as well as with perceived performance and all forms of motivation, especially intrinsic motivation (Table 4). This pattern reinforces the importance of affective relationships within organizations, which enhance the well-being and perceived performance of employees.

The perception of cognitive organizational support exhibits positive and statistically significant correlations with all dimensions of organizational culture (support, objectives, innovation, and rules), as well as with perceived performance and all forms of motivation analyzed (Table 4). These results indicate that the greater the employees’ perception that the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being rationally and instrumentally, the greater their involvement, motivation, and perception of effectiveness at work tend to be.

4.3. Hypotheses

Hypotheses 1–3 and 5 were tested using multiple linear regressions with the stepwise method. This method allows the removal of a variable whose importance in the model is reduced by the addition of new variables. This method is appropriate when there are significant correlations between the independent variables (Marôco, 2021). As the independent variables are significantly correlated (Table 4), this method was chosen.

The results indicate that only the goal culture (β = 0.17, p = 0.009) and the rule culture (β = 0.15, p = 0.025) have a positive and significant effect on perceived performance (

Table 5. Association between organizational culture and perceived performance.

Independent Variables	Dependent Variable	F	p	R2a	β	p
Goal Culture	Perceived Performance	12.68 ***	<0.001	0.07	0.17 **	0.009
Rule Culture					0.15 *	0.025

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

). The model explains 7% of the variability in perceived performance (Table 5). The model is statistically significant (F (2, 297) = 12.68; p < 0.001) (Table 5).

The results indicate that both the supportive culture (β = 0.69, p < 0.001) and goal culture (β = 0.12, p = 0.012) have a positive and statistically significant effect on perceived affective organizational support (

Table 6. Association between organizational culture and perceived organizational support.

Independent Variables	Dependent Variable	F	p	R2a	β	p
Supportive Culture	Perceived Affective Organizational Support	129.66 ***	<0.001	0.56	0.69 ***	<0.001
Goal Culture					0.12 *	0.012
Country					−0.09 *	0.021
Supportive Culture	Perceived Cognitive Organizational Support	52.39 ***	<0.001	0.41	0.66 ***	<0.001
Goal Culture					0.28 ***	<0.001
Rule Culture					−0.16 **	0.004
Innovative Culture					−0.17 *	0.020

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001. Legend: Country: 0 = Angola; 1 = Portugal.

). There is also a significant effect of the country on the perception of affective organizational support (β = 0.09, p = 0.021). For participants working in Portugal, the perception of affective organizational support is stronger than for participants working in Angola. The model explains 56% of the variability in perceived affective organizational support (Table 6). The model is statistically significant (F (3, 296) = 129.66; p < 0.001) (Table 6).

The results indicate that a supportive culture (β = 0.66; p < 0.001) and a goal culture (β = 0.28; p < 0.001) have a positive and statistically significant effect on perceived cognitive organizational support, while rule culture (β = −0.16; p = 0.004) and innovative culture (β = −0.17; p = 0.020) have a negative and significant effect on the same variable (Table 6). The model explains 41% of the variability in perceived cognitive organizational support (Table 6). The model is statistically significant (F (4, 295) = 52.39; p < 0.001) (Table 6).

The results indicate that perceived affective organizational support has a positive and statistically significant effect on perceived performance (β = 0.26; p = 0.008) (

Table 7. Association between perceived organizational support and perceived performance.

Independent Variables	Dependent Variable	F	p	R2a	β	p
Perceived Affective Organizational Support	Perceived Performance	21.06 ***	<0.001	0.06	0.26 **	0.008

Note. ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

). The model explains 6% of the variability in perceived performance (7). The model is statistically significant (F (1, 298) = 21.06; p < 0.001) (Table 7).

As Hypothesis 4 assumed a mediating effect, the procedures outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986) were followed.

A multiple linear regression was performed in two steps. In the first step, the predictor variable was introduced as the independent variable, and in the second step, the mediating variable was introduced.

The results indicate that perceived affective organizational support has a partial mediating effect on the relationship between goal culture and perceived performance (

Table 8. Results of the mediating effect.

Variables	Perceived Performance
	β Step 1	β Step 2
Goal Culture	0.25 ***	0.16 *
Perceived Affective Organizational Support		0.17 **
F	20.01 ***	13.81 ***
R2a	0.06	0.08
Δ		0.02 **

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

). When the mediating variable was introduced into the regression equation, the effect of goal culture on perceived performance remained significant but decreased in intensity (Table 8). The model explains 8% of the variability in perceived performance (Table 8). The increase in variability is statistically significant (ΔR²a = 0.02, p < 0.01) (Table 8. Both models are statistically significant (F) (Table 8).

The Sobel test confirmed the partial mediation effect (Z = 2.28; p = 0.022).

The results reveal that the identified motivation has a positive and statistically significant effect on perceived performance (β = 0.29; p < 0.001) (

Table 9. Association between motivation and perceived performance.

Independent Variable	Dependent Variable	F	p	R2a	β	p
Identified Motivation	Perceived Performance	26.65 ***	<0.001	0.08	0.29 ***	<0.001

Note. *** p < 0.001.

). The model explains 8% of the variability in perceived performance (

Table 10. The mediating effect of motivation on the relationship between supportive culture and performance.

Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Supportive Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.11; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.25 ***	0.03	132.41 ***	<0.001	[4.18; 4.31]
Supportive Culture	0.04	0.03	1.21	0.226	[−0.03; 0.11]
Intrinsic Motivation	0.14 ***	0.04	3.46	<0.001	[0.06; 0.23]
SC×IntM	0.10 ***	0.03	3.84	<0.001	[0.05; 0.15]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Supportive Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.12; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.27 ***	0.03	137.25 ***	<0.001	[4.21; 4.33]
Supportive Culture	0.05	0.03	1.52	0.129	[−0.01; 0.11]
Identified Motivation	0.14 ***	0.03	3.96 ***	<0.001	[0.07; 0.21]
SC×IdM	0.09 **	0.03	2.96 **	0.003	[0.03; 0.14]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Supportive Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.06; p < 0.001)
Constante	4.31 ***	0.03	153.05 ***	<0.001	[4.26; 4.37]
Supportive Culture	0.10 ***	0.03	3.63 ***	<0.001	[0.04; 0.15]
Introjected Motivation	0.07 *	0.03	2.26 *	0.025	[0.01; 0.13]
SC×IntrojM	−0.01	0.03	−0.16	0.870	[−0.06; 0.05]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Supportive Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.07; p < 0.001)
Constante	4.32 ***	0.03	153.91 ***	<0.001	[4.26; 4.37]
Supportive Culture	0.10 ***	0.03	3.74 ***	<0.001	[0.05; 0.16]
Extrinsic Motivation	0.06 *	0.03	2.30 *	0.022	[0.01; 0.11]
SC×ExtM	−0.01	0.03	−0.39	0.699	[−0.06; 0.04]

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

). The model is statistically significant (F (1, 298) = 26.65; p < 0.001) (Table 9).

Hypothesis 6 was tested in Macro Process 4.2 (Model 1), developed by Hayes (2022). The results indicate that intrinsic motivation (B = 0.10; p < 0.001) and identified motivation (B = 0.09; p = 0.003) have a moderating effect on the relationship between supportive culture and performance (Table 10).

For participants who have high intrinsic and identified motivation, a supportive culture becomes particularly relevant in enhancing their performance compared to those with low intrinsic and identified motivation.

The results indicate that intrinsic motivation (B = 0.10; p < 0.001) and identified motivation (B = 0.06; p = 0.011) have a moderating effect on the relationship between support culture and performance (

Table 11. The mediating effect of motivation on the relationship between goal culture and performance.

Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Goal Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.13; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.27 ***	0.02	143.42 ***	<0.001	[4.20; 4.32]
Goal Culture	0.07 ***	0.02	2.76 ***	<0.001	[0.02; 0.13]
Intrinsic Motivation	0.11 ***	0.03	3.45 ***	<0.001	[0.05; 0.18]
GC×IntM	0.10 ***	0.02	3.89 ***	<0.001	[0.04; 0.14]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Goal Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.12; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.28 ***	0.02	146.05 ***	<0.001	[4.22; 4.34]
Goal Culture	0.07 **	0.02	2.77 **	0.005	[0.02; 0.13]
Identified Motivation	0.12 ***	0.03	3.81 ***	<0.001	[0.05; 0.18]
GC×IdM	0.06 *	0.06	2.54 *	0.011	[0.01; 0.11]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Goal Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.08; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.31 ***	0.02	152.72 ***	<0.001	[4.25; 4.37]
Goal Culture	0.10 ***	0.02	4.05 ***	<0.001	[0.05; 0.15]
Introjected Motivation	−0.05	0.03	1.95	0.051	[−0.00; 0.11]
GC×IntrojM	0.00	0.02	0.23	0.810	[−0.04; 0.06]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Goal Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.08; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.31 ***	0.02	152.90 ***	<0.001	[4.25; 4.36]
Goal Culture	0.10 ***	0.02	4.05 ***	<0.001	[0.05; 0.16]
Extrinsic Motivation	0.05	0.02	1.88	0.060	[0.00; 0.10]
GC×ExtM	0.01	0.02	0.64	0.521	[−0.03; 0.06]

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

).

For participants with high intrinsic and identified motivation, compared to those with low intrinsic and identified motivation, the goal culture becomes more relevant in enhancing their performance.

The results indicate that intrinsic motivation (B = 0.10; p < 0.001) and identified motivation (B = 0.06; p = 0.043) have a moderating effect on the relationship between innovative culture and performance (

Table 12. The mediating effect of motivation on the relationship between innovative culture and performance.

Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Innovative Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.11; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.27 ***	0.03	141.54 ***	<0.001	[4.21; 4.32]
Innovative Culture	0.06	0.03	1.89	0.059	[−0.01; 0.12]
Intrinsic Motivation	0.13 ***	0.04	3.68 ***	<0.001	[0.06; 0.20]
IC×IntM	0.10 ***	0.02	3.63 ***	<0.001	[0.04; 0.14]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Innovative Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.11; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.29 ***	0.02	145.54	<0.001	[4.23; 4.35]
Innovative Culture	0.06 *	0.03	2.17 *	0.030	[0.01; 0.12]
Identified Motivation	0.12 ***	0.03	4.00 ***	<0.001	[0.06; 0.19]
IC×IdM	0.06 *	0.03	2.03 *	0.043	[0.01; 0.12]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Innovative Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.06; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.31 ***	0.02	152.11 ***	<0.001	[4.26; 4.37]
Innovative Culture	0.10 ***	0.02	3.30 ***	<0.001	[0.03; 0.14]
Introjected Motivation	0.06 *	0.03	2.23 *	0.026	[0.01; 0.12]
IC×IntrojM	−0.01	0.03	−0.04	0.967	[−0.06; 0.06]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Innovative Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.06; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.31 ***	0.02	153.36 ***	<0.001	[4.26; 4.37]
Innovative Culture	0.10 ***	0.02	3.41 ***	<0.001	[0.04; 0.15]
Extrinsic Motivation	0.06 *	0.02	2.32 *	0.020	[0.01; 0.11]
IC×ExtM	−0.01	0.02	−0.10	0.915	[−0.05; 0.05]

Note. * p < 0.05; *** p < 0.001.

).

For participants with high intrinsic and identified motivation, compared to those with low intrinsic and identified motivation, innovative culture becomes more relevant to enhancing their performance.

The results indicate that intrinsic motivation (B = 0.11; p < 0.001) and identified motivation (B = 0.10; p = 0.004) have a moderating effect on the relationship between rule culture and performance (

Table 13. The mediating effect of motivation on the relationship between rule culture and performance.

Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Rule Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.12; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.28 ***	0.02	148.92 ***	<0.001	[4.22; 4.33]
Rule Culture	0.11 ***	0.03	3.28 ***	<0.001	[0.04; 0.18]
Intrinsic Motivation	0.10 ***	0.03	3.17 ***	<0.001	[0.03; 0.16]
RC×IntM	0.11 ***	0.03	3.64 ***	<0.001	[0.05; 0.17]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Rule Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.13; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.28 ***	0.02	149.53 ***	<0.001	[4.23; 4.34]
Rule Culture	0.10 **	0.03	2.90 **	0.004	[0.03; 0.16]
Identified Motivation	0.12 ***	0.03	4.10 ***	<0.001	[0.06; 0.19]
RC×IdM	0.10 *	0.03	2.94 *	0.031	[0.03; 0.15]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Rule Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.07; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.31 ***	0.02	153.82 ***	<0.001	[4.26; 4.37]
Rule Culture	0.13 ***	0.03	3.98 ***	<0.001	[0.06; 0.19]
Introjected Motivation	0.06 *	0.02	2.17 *	0.030	[0.01; 0.12]
RC×IntrojM	0.01	0.03	0.20	0.836	[−0.05; 0.06]
Variable	B	SE	t	p	95% CI
	Rule Culture → Perceived Performance (R2 = 0.07; p < 0.001)
Constant	4.31 ***	0.02	153.83 ***	<0.001	[4.26; 4.37]
Rule Culture	0.13 ***	0.03	4.00 ***	<0.001	[00.06; 0.19]
Extrinsic Motivation	0.06 *	0.02	2.12 *	0.034	[0.01; 0.10]
RC×ExtM	0.01	0.03	0.12	0.897	[−0.05; 0.06]

Note. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

).

For participants with high intrinsic and identified motivation, compared to those with low intrinsic and identified motivation, rule culture become more relevant in enhancing their performance.

5. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate the effect of organizational culture on employee-perceived performance and whether this relationship is mediated by the perception of organizational support and moderated by employee motivation.

First, it was confirmed that only goal culture and rule culture have a positive and significant effect on perceived performance. These results align with the existing literature. According to Aggarwal (2024), different dimensions of organizational culture have varying impacts on employee-perceived performance, highlighting the complexity of this relationship. When employees feel that they are part of the organization where they work and value its culture, they tend to improve their performance, thereby helping them to achieve organizational goals. This relationship can be interpreted in light of the Reciprocity Norm (Gouldner, 1960).

Secondly, the results reveal that the support culture and the goal culture have a positive and significant effect on the perception of organizational support, both in its affective and cognitive dimensions. In turn, the country also has a significant negative effect on the perception of affective organizational support. For participants working in Portugal, the perception of affective organizational support is stronger than for participants working in Angola. However, it was found that rule culture and innovation culture have a negative and significant effect on the cognitive perception of organizational support. In a study conducted by Salvador et al. (2022), the culture of rules also had a negative and significant effect on the perception of cognitive organizational support. It should also be noted that among the dimensions of organizational culture, supportive culture has the strongest effect on both affective and cognitive perceived organizational support. These results suggest that, although specific dimensions of organizational culture promote the perception of support, others may have the opposite effect, possibly because they are associated with more rigid structures or environments that are less open to autonomy. This pattern confirms the arguments of Aggarwal (2024), who argues that the effects of organizational culture are not uniform and highlights the complexity of the relationship between culture and perceptions of organizational support. Innovative culture is not well understood, as innovative people, both in Angola and Portugal, go against the norm (seeking achievement and success rather than quality of life) and may suffer ostracism or worse (dismissal) (Walter & Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2022), since negative organizations (where there is no meritocracy) abound (Graça & Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2024) in these relationship cultures (as opposed to transactional cultures, found only in the US and Canada) (Solomon & Schell, 2009). Rule cultures also run counter to the desire for benevolent autocrats in these cultures (The Culture Factor Group, 2025)—since rules hold people accountable, rather than allowing them to “get away with” inferior work, organizational commitment, and/or competence. When employees realize that they are members of the organization where they work, they absorb their characteristics, including POS. This relationship can be interpreted through social identity theory, developed by Tajfel (1978).

Thirdly, the results showed that the perception of affective organizational support has a positive and statistically significant effect on perceived performance. This association suggests that the greater the employees’ understanding that the organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being, the greater their perception of effectiveness at work tends to be. These results are consistent with the theoretical frameworks of Eisenberger et al. (1986) and Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002), which highlight the direct impact of organizational support on employee attitudes and behaviors. This result further reinforces the idea that organizational contexts that promote clarity, recognition, and trust in labor relations enhance individual performance. Tamimi et al. (2023) highlight a positive relationship between perceived support and performance, reinforcing the idea that organizations that offer a supportive environment tend to have more satisfied and effective employees. When an employee perceives a high level of support from the organization, they strive to reciprocate with improved performance, thereby contributing to the achievement of organizational goals. This relationship can be interpreted through social exchange theory (Blau, 1964).

Fourthly, the results confirm that the perceived affective organizational support was found to have a partial mediating effect on the relationship between the goal culture and perceived performance. These results are in line with the literature, which recognizes the role of organizational support as an explanatory mechanism between cultural practices and employee behavior. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), a partial mediation effect occurs when the mediating variable reduces, but does not eliminate, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable, as found in this study. From the perspective of Eisenberger et al. (2001), affective support reinforces employees’ commitment to the organization, enhancing their performance. These results reinforce the idea that different psychosocial mechanisms are involved in how organizational culture influences individual outcomes, highlighting the complexity of these interactions, as already pointed out by Aggarwal (2024). These relationships can be understood in the context of various theories. When employees perceive themselves as members of the organization where they work, they absorb its characteristics, including POS (social identity theory), and reciprocate this support by working hard to improve their performance, thereby helping to achieve organizational goals (social exchange theory).

Fifthly, the motivation identified was shown to have a positive and significant effect on perceived performance. These results align with the existing literature, which associates high levels of autonomous motivation with enhanced engagement and professional performance. According to the self-determination theory, when individuals identify with their tasks and recognize their value, they tend to show greater commitment and effectiveness (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Gagné & Deci, 2005). From the perspective of Luthans and Youssef (2007), identified motivation, which involves a conscious internalization of the organization’s goals, contributes significantly to the sustained performance of employees.

Sixthly, the results indicated that intrinsic motivation and identified motivation moderate the relationship between organizational culture and perceived performance. These results align with the existing literature. Yusof et al. (2017) found that motivation, influenced by work attitudes, can act as a moderator in other organizational relationships. It is worth noting that only intrinsic motivation and identified motivation have a moderating effect on the relationship between organizational culture and performance. When combined, these two dimensions of motivation (intrinsic and identified) are considered autonomous motivation (Gagné et al., 2015; Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to these authors, autonomous motivation is associated with higher levels of performance and is characterized by behaviors of strong commitment to work.

Regarding the descriptive statistics of the variables under study, all variables are significantly above the midpoint of the scale, except for innovation culture and introjected motivation. Among the four dimensions of organizational culture (supportive culture, goal culture, innovation culture, and rule culture), the one with the highest average is rule culture. These results align with the existing literature. According to Hofstede (1991), Portugal is a country where hierarchical distance is very high, and in an organization with a rule-based culture, there is a very vertical hierarchy. We should also point out that when the association between gender and rule-oriented culture was analyzed, it was found that female participants had a higher perception of rule-oriented culture than male participants. Once again, these results align with the existing literature. In a study conducted by Rebelo et al. (2024) on women’s perceptions of discrimination in the workplace, the authors concluded that women feel discriminated against in their careers, not only because of persistent gender stereotypes but also due to long working hours. The dimension with the lowest average is innovation culture. These results are also in line with the literature, as Hofstede (1991) notes that Portugal is a country with a high aversion to uncertainty, characterized by a low tendency towards innovation. Regarding motivation, the dimensions with the highest average scores are intrinsic motivation and identified motivation, indicating that the participants in this study are motivated in their workplace.

Regarding the differences between participants working in Portugal and those working in Angola, in terms of the variables under study, there are significant differences in supportive culture, innovation culture, introjected motivation, and extrinsic motivation. Participants working in Portugal have a higher perception of a supportive culture and innovation than those working in Angola. On the other hand, participants working in Angola have higher levels of introjected motivation and extrinsic motivation. In a study conducted with nurses in Angola, Zeng et al. (2022) concluded that half of nurses are driven by extrinsic motivation in the workplace.

5.1. Limitations and Future Research

Although this study makes a significant contribution to understanding the relationship between organizational culture, perceived organizational support, motivation, and perceived performance, it is essential to acknowledge several limitations that may have influenced the results obtained and that should be considered in future research.

One of the main limitations is the cross-sectional nature of the study, which prevents the establishment of causal relationships between the variables analyzed. Despite the multiple regression, mediation, and moderation models tested, the nature of the design does not allow us to infer the direction of the relationships with certainty. According to Maxwell and Cole (2007), longitudinal studies allow causal relationships to be tested with greater rigor. Thus, future research may employ longitudinal or experimental designs to better understand the evolution and effects of these variables over time.

Additionally, the sample used was a convenience sample, primarily composed of participants from Portugal and Angola. Although this geographical diversity brings cultural richness, it does not allow the results to be generalized to other populations. It is suggested that future studies consider representative samples by sector, country, or type of organization and explore the role of national cultural variables, as proposed by Hofstede et al. (2010) and McSweeney (2002).

Another methodological limitation concerns the exclusive use of self-report questionnaires, which may have introduced common method bias because all variables were collected from the same source and at the same time (Podsakoff et al., 2003). This type of bias may have artificially inflated the correlations between variables. Future research could employ mixed methods, including qualitative interviews, performance evaluations by supervisors, or objective measures, to triangulate the collected information.

Regarding the variables under study, it is important to note that motivation was considered only as a moderating factor, which may have limited the exploration of its more dynamic role. It would be relevant for future research to analyze the differential and independent effects of each type of motivation (intrinsic, identified, introjected, and extrinsic), for example, by testing parallel mediation models, as suggested by Gagné and Deci (2005).

Another limitation of this study is that, when testing the hypotheses formulated, only the country where the participant works was used as a control variable. Finally, it is essential to acknowledge that this study did not account for other relevant organizational variables, such as leadership style, organizational climate, affective commitment, or organizational justice, all of which are widely recognized as influential on employee performance (Meyer & Allen, 1997; Colquitt et al., 2001). These variables could be integrated into more comprehensive theoretical models in the future, allowing for a more holistic and ecological analysis of the factors that influence work behavior.

In summary, despite these limitations, this study offers relevant theoretical and empirical contributions, serving as a basis for future research that aims to deepen the understanding of the impact of organizational culture on individual and organizational outcomes through motivational and perceptual mechanisms.

5.2. Practical Implications

The results of this study offer valuable contributions to human resource management practice, with relevance to building organizational cultures that promote employee well-being, engagement, and performance. Evidence suggests that specific dimensions of organizational culture directly influence performance and indirectly through perceived organizational support and motivation, allowing key areas for organizational intervention to be identified.

Firstly, the confirmation that goal culture and rule culture have a positive impact on perceived performance suggests that organizations should reinforce practices of clear goal setting, results orientation, and transparent communication of norms. The application of methodologies such as the Balanced Scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1992) can facilitate alignment between the organization’s strategic objectives and the individual objectives of employees, promoting clarity and focus. In addition, the existence of well-structured and -understood rules can contribute to a sense of security and predictability, which, in turn, favors performance, especially in more formal or hierarchical organizational contexts.

Secondly, the data reveal that a supportive culture is crucial for strengthening the perception of affective organizational support, a factor with a significant impact on motivation and performance. Therefore, organizations should adopt people-centered management practices, such as individualized recognition (Brun & Dugas, 2008), mentoring programs, transformational leadership actions, and relational competence development in team managers (Eisenberger & Stinglhamber, 2011). In the Portuguese context, where values such as interpersonal respect and stability are culturally valued (Hofstede et al., 2010), these practices may have a particularly positive impact.

Additionally, research has shown that the perception of organizational support has a direct influence on performance and serves as a mediating factor in the relationship between organizational culture and performance. This mediating effect indicates that employees tend to be more involved when they perceive that their personal goals are aligned with those of the organization. It is, therefore, essential that organizations encourage the internalization of organizational values through practices such as transparent institutional communication, active participation in decisions, and meaningful projects, as proposed by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Gagné & Deci, 2005).

In the case of organizations in different cultural contexts, such as Angola, it may be necessary to adapt these practices, reinforcing formal structures of recognition and support to fill any perceived gaps. Building a strong organizational culture consistent with local values can be an effective way to increase the sense of belonging and, consequently, organizational performance and commitment.

Finally, these results highlight the importance of human resource managers adopting a strategic and proactive approach to developing organizational culture, treating it not as a static element but as a dynamic management tool capable of enhancing motivation, the perception of support, and, ultimately, employee performance.

5.3. Theoretical Implications

This study offers a relevant theoretical contribution to understanding organizational dynamics by integrating the dimensions of organizational culture, perceived organizational support, motivation, and employee performance into a single conceptual model. This integrated approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that influence organizational behavior, thereby overcoming the fragmentation observed in parts of the existing literature.

First, the study reinforces the theoretical validity of the competing values structure proposed by Cameron and Quinn (2011), demonstrating that different cultural types do not exert a uniform influence on individual variables. The confirmation of the positive effects of goal and rule culture on perceived performance, in contrast to the negative effects of innovation and rule culture on cognitive organizational support, highlights the complexity and contingent nature of organizational culture, as suggested by Hartnell et al. (2019). These results point to the need for a critical approach to culture as a multifaceted construct whose effectiveness depends on context and employee perception.

Secondly, this study deepens the understanding of the role of perceived organizational support (POS) as a mediating mechanism in the relationships between organizational culture and performance, supporting the assumptions developed by Eisenberger et al. (1986) and Rhoades and Eisenberger (2002). The distinction between affective and cognitive support broadens the theoretical understanding of POS, recognizing that different dimensions of support influence employee behavior in different ways. This aspect is particularly relevant given the scarcity of studies that address these dimensions independently.

In addition, the introduction of motivation as a moderating variable helps to consolidate the applicability of self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 1985) in the organizational domain. The results obtained suggest the relevance of more autonomous forms of motivation in explaining performance, indicating that the alignment between personal and organizational values enhances the impact of cultural practices and organizational support. This finding corroborates recent studies (Gagné et al., 2018) that defend the importance of autonomous motivation in promoting sustainable organizational results.

It is also important to highlight the contribution of this study to theoretical advances in the context of interactional and multidimensional analysis. By proposing a relational model that considers mediations and moderations between contextual and individual variables, this study offers a more comprehensive theoretical perspective, aligning with contemporary approaches that advocate for integrative and ecological models in the analysis of organizational behavior (Ployhart & Moliterno, 2011).

Finally, the results suggest that the variability of effects as a function of sociodemographic characteristics (such as country or sector) may be theoretically relevant. This observation highlights the need to incorporate elements of national or contextualized organizational culture into theoretical models, following the calls of authors such as Hofstede et al. (2010) and McSweeney (2002), who argue that local cultural values significantly influence the interpretation and impact of organizational practices.

In short, this study not only confirms some fundamental theoretical assumptions but also proposes an expansion of these assumptions by highlighting the complexity of the interactions between culture, support, motivation, and performance and by emphasizing the importance of context in organizational analysis.

6. Conclusions

The main objective of this study was to analyze the influence of organizational culture on the perception of organizational support and its relationship with employee motivation and performance. Based on an integrative conceptual model, different relationships between contextual variables (culture and support) and individual variables (motivation and performance) were tested through mediation and moderation analyses.

The results obtained confirmed the hypotheses formulated, demonstrating that organizational culture influences employees’ perceived performance, directly and indirectly, through the perception of organizational support and the motivation identified. More specifically, it was observed that goal-oriented and rule-oriented cultures have a positive and significant impact on performance. At the same time, the perception of affective organizational support acts as a mediator, and motivation was identified as a moderating and predictive variable.

These results contribute to the organizational literature by integrating constructs that are usually studied in isolation into a single model. From a theoretical perspective, the study reinforces the assumptions of Cameron and Quinn’s (2011) competing values framework, self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000), and perceived organizational support theory (Eisenberger et al., 1986). It proposes a relational and contextualized model that reflects the complexity of organizational phenomena.

Methodologically, the study stands out for its articulation of various statistical analyses, including multiple linear regressions, mediations, and moderations, which allow hypothetical causal relationships to be tested with a degree of sophistication appropriate to second-cycle research.

In practical terms, the results highlight the importance of fostering cohesive organizational cultures that focus on clarity of objectives, structure, and human support. Organizations seeking to enhance the performance of their employees should invest in culturally aware leadership, recognition practices, and strategies that reinforce the link between organizational values and the personal values of their professionals.

Despite its theoretical and applied contributions, the study has limitations, including its cross-sectional nature and the use of self-report measures, which may have influenced some of the observed relationships. These limitations pave the way for future research with longitudinal, qualitative approaches and more diverse samples, as well as the exploration of additional variables, such as leadership style, organizational climate, or perceived justice.

In an era of increasing complexity in labor relations, marked by challenges such as hybrid work, cultural diversity, and digitalization, the results of this research are particularly relevant. An integrated understanding of culture, organizational support, and motivation proves to be a promising avenue for promoting sustainable performance and employee well-being, representing a significant contribution to the advancement of research and practice in human resource management.