Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

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

Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(8), 307; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15080307

by Denise José¹, Ana Palma-Moreira^1,*

and Manuel Au-Yong-Oliveira^2,3

Reviewer 1:

Mahmoud Mousavi Shiri

Reviewer 2:

Pouya Zargar

Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Adm. Sci. 2025, 15(8), 307; https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15080307

Submission received: 29 June 2025 / Revised: 2 August 2025 / Accepted: 5 August 2025 / Published: 6 August 2025

(This article belongs to the Special Issue International Human Resource Management: Challenges, Opportunities, and Further Advancements)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Thank you for sending your paper to the journal; the following concerns should be addressed in the next version:

The opening sentence in the introduction, which defines organizational culture, would be better presented in a more precise way, from the perspective of recent research, and it needs to be accompanied by a reference to the increasing importance of organizational culture in new workplace challenges
Key concepts such as perceived organizational support (POS), motivation, and performance are each defined separately, but the theoretical relationship between them is not well established. The introduction needs to clarify how organizational culture affects performance through POS and by moderating motivation. These relationships should be explained using a conceptual model or reference to previous research. Therefore, clearly state the relationships between the three main constructs and explain the theoretical position of the mediating and moderating variables.
In line 36, you mentioned that several studies have indicated that employees who... When you state something like this and refer to several studies, you should cite more than two references, whereas you have only cited one reference, which is also very old.
The references used are very limited and very old. It is recommended that you use up-to-date and valid references from 2021-2025 in your research to add credibility to the research.
In line 59, you mentioned that there are studies that address the relationship between organizational culture and performance. In this section, you should refer to these studies and their findings. This will help to clarify the research gap that is an important part of the introduction.
On line 65, it is better to use the word "research" or "paper" instead of "dissertation."
It is not clear what exactly this research is innovative about or what aspect of this relationship it explores in the Portuguese context that has not been studied before. State the innovation of the research more clearly and completely at the end of the introduction. Also, state the contribution and assistance this research can have to various stakeholders.
Please state the structure of the research at the end of the introduction.
There is no need to provide so many definitions of organizational culture in Section 2.1. It is sufficient to provide a definition that is most relevant to your research and avoids redundancy.
All references used in Section 2.1 are also outdated, which reduces the validity of the research topic. It is expected that updated references from 2022-2025 will be used.
It would be better to explain the reason for using CVF more fully in section 2.1.
It seems that you have entered the subheading numbers incorrectly. You have given 2.1 for organizational culture, 2.2 for performance, and 2.2.1 to explain the relationship between culture and performance. It seems that 2.3 should be given to explain the relationship between culture and performance. Or you could have a main title called Theoretical Foundations and Hypothesis Development and consider 2.1 for Theoretical Foundations and include the subheading, and consider 2.2 for Hypothesis Development and then consider the subheadings.
The development of hypothesis 2.2.1 has not started well. You have only stated the background and research related to your topic. If you should first state the main problem and explain the relationship, then state the related background.
It is better to present the background in such a way that only the final result is presented, because the final result makes it clear what the research has investigated.
In Section 2.2.1, it is stated several times separately that “organizational culture has a positive impact on performance”, without providing any significant difference in the analyses or theoretical models. In particular, references to Aggarwal (2024) are made in two different places (sentences 146 and 165) with similar statements that do not add any new scientific knowledge.
Although mechanisms such as “innovation,” “work commitment,” and “job satisfaction” are proposed, these mechanisms are presented in isolation and are not integrated into a unified theoretical model. The reader is left with no understanding of why and how these causal pathways related to culture and performance emerge.
The concept of "performance" is used throughout the text, but in the final hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) the term "performance perception" is used, which is inconsistent with the previous text and can cause confusion in the definition of the dependent variable. A specific term should be used throughout the text.
In general, in the section on theoretical foundations and hypothesis development, it is clearly evident that the numbering of the main headings and subheadings has not been done well. First, you should address the definitions and statement of the theoretical foundations of the main variables and then develop each hypothesis separately.
I think it would be better to integrate the theoretical foundations stated in sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 into each hypothesis development by first talking about the main variables and their relationship to each other and then providing relevant background. This will reduce confusion for referees and readers. Because, as I said, none of the hypotheses have started well and have only been about stating the background.
In various parts of this text, Eisenberger et al. (1986) and Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002) are frequently referenced, and similar points such as “the two main components of POS” or “its subjective nature” are repeated several times (in sentences 186–190, 192–198, and again in 200–202). These repetitions have increased the length of the text without adding any specific meaning.
In general, the references used in the text are very old.
The punctuation marks in the text are not well observed, for example, there is no full stop at the end of the third hypothesis.
There is not enough information in the text about perceived performance.
Please revise the entire section on theoretical foundations and development of hypotheses according to the comments that have been made so far.
Change the title of Section 3 to Methodology.
It only mentions "between January and March 2025", without mentioning the region or country where the data was collected.
On line 493, in the organizational culture section, the items related to goal culture are listed as (3, 6, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12), and the order of 6 before 4 may be a typographical error. It is necessary to correct the order of the items and check the accuracy of the item numbers.
In two instruments (performance and motivation), items were removed due to low factor loadings. It would be good to provide a brief explanation of the criteria for item removal and its impact on the structure of the instrument.
It would be better to change the title of Section 5 to Discussion and Conclusion.
In the discussion and conclusion section, the word hypothesis is not mentioned and only the final results are stated.
In Section 5, in many cases, references to reputable sources are cited, which is good, but more emphasis could be placed on how the results of this study match or differ from previous research. This helps to highlight the novelty or validity of the results. This comparison with previous research results should be done separately for each result.

Author Response

Article

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

- REVISION 1 -

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in red in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: The opening sentence in the introduction, which defines organizational culture, would be better presented in a more precise way, from the perspective of recent research, and it needs to be accompanied by a reference to the increasing importance of organizational culture in new workplace challenges.

Thanks for the comment. The beginning of the introduction has been changed.

Comment 2: Key concepts such as perceived organizational support (POS), motivation, and performance are each defined separately, but the theoretical relationship between them is not well established. The introduction needs to clarify how organizational culture affects performance through POS and by moderating motivation. These relationships should be explained using a conceptual model or reference to previous research. Therefore, clearly state the relationships between the three main constructs and explain the theoretical position of the mediating and moderating variables.

In line 36, you mentioned that several studies have indicated that employees who... When you state something like this and refer to several studies, you should cite more than two references, whereas you have only cited one reference, which is also very old.

Thanks for the comment. References have been added.

Comment 3: The references used are very limited and very old. It is recommended that you use up-to-date and valid references from 2021-2025 in your research to add credibility to the research.

Thanks for the comment. We tried to include more recent references.

Comment 4: In line 59, you mentioned that there are studies that address the relationship between organizational culture and performance. In this section, you should refer to these studies and their findings. This will help to clarify the research gap that is an important part of the introduction.

Thanks for the comment. The relevant references have been added.

Comment 5: On line 65, it is better to use the word "research" or "paper" instead of "dissertation."

Thanks for the comment. The word dissertation has been replaced with investigation.

Comment 6: It is not clear what exactly this research is innovative about or what aspect of this relationship it explores in the Portuguese context that has not been studied before. State the innovation of the research more clearly and completely at the end of the introduction. Also, state the contribution and assistance this research can have to various stakeholders.

Thank you for your comment. What makes this study innovative is the relationship between these variables, as it was very difficult to find studies linking organizational culture to perceptions of organizational support and performance.

Comment 7: Please state the structure of the research at the end of the introduction.

Thanks for the comment. The research structure has been added to the end of the introduction.

Comment 8: There is no need to provide so many definitions of organizational culture in Section 2.1. It is sufficient to provide a definition that is most relevant to your research and avoids redundancy.

Thanks for the comment. Some paragraphs have been cut from this section.

Comment 9: All references used in Section 2.1 are also outdated, which reduces the validity of the research topic. It is expected that updated references from 2022-2025 will be used.

Thanks for the comment. The references have been updated.

Comment 10: It would be better to explain the reason for using CVF more fully in section 2.1.

Thanks for the comment. This explanation has been added to the section.

Comment 11: It seems that you have entered the subheading numbers incorrectly. You have given 2.1 for organizational culture, 2.2 for performance, and 2.2.1 to explain the relationship between culture and performance. It seems that 2.3 should be given to explain the relationship between culture and performance. Or you could have a main title called Theoretical Foundations and Hypothesis Development and consider 2.1 for Theoretical Foundations and include the subheading, and consider 2.2 for Hypothesis Development and then consider the subheadings.

Thanks for the comment. I'm accustomed to publishing in this Journal, and this is the standard structure I typically use.

Comment 12: The development of hypothesis 2.2.1 has not started well. You have only stated the background and research related to your topic. If you should first state the main problem and explain the relationship, then state the related background.

Thanks for the comment. An explanation for this relationship has been added.

Comment 13: It is better to present the background in such a way that only the final result is presented, because the final result makes it clear what the research has investigated.

Thanks for the comment. We've tried to improve the presentation of the context.

Comment 14: In Section 2.2.1, it is stated several times separately that “organizational culture has a positive impact on performance”, without providing any significant difference in the analyses or theoretical models. In particular, references to Aggarwal (2024) are made in two different places (sentences 146 and 165) with similar statements that do not add any new scientific knowledge.

Thanks for the comment. We have attempted to revise this section to clarify the relationship between organizational culture and perceived performance.

Comment 15: Although mechanisms such as “innovation,” “work commitment,” and “job satisfaction” are proposed, these mechanisms are presented in isolation and are not integrated into a unified theoretical model. The reader is left with no understanding of why and how these causal pathways related to culture and performance emerge.

Thanks for the comment. We've tried to make these relationships clearer.

Comment 16: The concept of "performance" is used throughout the text, but in the final hypothesis (Hypothesis 1) the term "performance perception" is used, which is inconsistent with the previous text and can cause confusion in the definition of the dependent variable. A specific term should be used throughout the text.

Thanks for the comment. This has been corrected.

Comment 17: In general, in the section on theoretical foundations and hypothesis development, it is clearly evident that the numbering of the main headings and subheadings has not been done well. First, you should address the definitions and statement of the theoretical foundations of the main variables and then develop each hypothesis separately.

Thank you for your comment. As I mentioned earlier, I am accustomed to publishing in this journal, and this is the typical structure of the manuscripts.

Comment 18: I think it would be better to integrate the theoretical foundations stated in sections 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 into each hypothesis development by first talking about the main variables and their relationship to each other and then providing relevant background. This will reduce confusion for referees and readers. Because, as I said, none of the hypotheses have started well and have only been about stating the background.

Thank you for your comment. As I mentioned earlier, I am accustomed to publishing in this journal, and this is the typical structure of the manuscripts.

Comment 19: In various parts of this text, Eisenberger et al. (1986) and Rhoades & Eisenberger (2002) are frequently referenced, and similar points such as “the two main components of POS” or “its subjective nature” are repeated several times (in sentences 186–190, 192–198, and again in 200–202). These repetitions have increased the length of the text without adding any specific meaning.

Thank you for your comment. We do indeed refer to these authors frequently, as they are the ones who have studied organizational support perception the most.

Comment 20: In general, the references used in the text are very old.

Thanks for the comment. The references have been updated.

Comment 21: The punctuation marks in the text are not well observed, for example, there is no full stop at the end of the third hypothesis.

Thanks for the comment. The final point has been placed.

Comment 22: There is not enough information in the text about perceived performance.

Thanks for the comment. Perceived performance was considered because performance was measured using a self-report scale. In Appendix A, we have included the perceived performance scale.

Comment 23: Please revise the entire section on theoretical foundations and development of hypotheses according to the comments that have been made so far.

Thanks for the comment. This entire section has been revised.

Comment 24: Change the title of Section 3 to Methodology.

Thanks for pointing that out. The title of section 3 has been changed.

Comment 25: It only mentions "between January and March 2025", without mentioning the region or country where the data was collected.

Thank you for your comment. The countries where the data was collected were specified at the beginning of the data collection process.

Comment 26: On line 493, in the organizational culture section, the items related to goal culture are listed as (3, 6, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12), and the order of 6 before 4 may be a typographical error. It is necessary to correct the order of the items and check the accuracy of the item numbers.

Thanks for the comment. The change has been made.

Comment 27: In two instruments (performance and motivation), items were removed due to low factor loadings. It would be good to provide a brief explanation of the criteria for item removal and its impact on the structure of the instrument.

Thank you for your comment. The justification has been added in the data analysis procedure.

Comment 28: It would be better to change the title of Section 5 to Discussion and Conclusion.

Thank you for your comment. According to this journal's guidelines, Discussion and Conclusions are two separate chapters.

Comment 29: In the discussion and conclusion section, the word hypothesis is not mentioned and only the final results are stated.

Thanks for the comment. The word “hypothesis” has been removed from the discussion.

Comment 30: In Section 5, in many cases, references to reputable sources are cited, which is good, but more emphasis could be placed on how the results of this study match or differ from previous research. This helps to highlight the novelty or validity of the results. This comparison with previous research results should be done separately for each result.

Thanks for the comment. We've tried to improve section 5.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of my co-authors,

References added to the manuscript

(Afif, & Ferine, 2024) Afif, M. F., & Ferine, K. F. (2024). The Role of Motivation in Moderating the Influence of Organizational Culture and Work Discipline on Performance Employees at The Employment BPJS Se-Medan Raya. Best Journal of Administration and Management, 3(2), 93–107. https://doi.org/10.56403/bejam.v3i2.211

(Alcover et al., 2018) Alcover, C. M., Chambel, M. J., Fernandez, J. J., & Rodriguez, F. (2018.) Perceived organizational support-burnout-satisfaction relationship in workers with disabilities: the moderation of family support. Scand J Psychol 59,1–11

(Amaro et al., 2021) Amaro, H., Sanchez, M., Bautista, T., & Cox, R. (2021). Social vulnerabilities for substance use: Stressors, socially toxic environments, and discrimination and racism. Neuropharmacology, 188, 108518, 10.1016/J.NEUROPHARM.2021.108518

(Bandhu et al., 2024) Bandhu, D., Mohan, M. M., Nittala, N. A. P., Jadhav, P., Bhadauria, A., & Saxena, K. K. (2024). Theories of motivation: A comprehensive analysis of human behavior drivers. Acta Psychologica, 244, 104177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104177.

(Bashayreh, 2019) Bashayreh, A. M. (2019). Organizational culture and organizational performance. In Human performance technology: Concepts, methodologies, tools, and applications (pp. 1378–1393). Business Science Reference/IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-8356-1.ch067

(Berson et al., 2009) Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2009). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 615–33

(Blau, 1964) Blau, P. M. (1964) Justice in Social Exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34, 193-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x

(Carvalho et al., 2023) Carvalho, A. M., Sampaio, P., Rebentisch, E., McManus, H., Carvalho, J. Á., & Saraiva, P. (2023). Operational excellence, organizational culture, and agility: Bridging the gap between quality and adaptability. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 34(11–12), 1598–1628. https://doi.org/10.1080/14783363.2023.2191844

(Darolia et al., 2010) Darolia, C. R., Kumari, P., & Darolia, S. (2010). Perceived organizational support, work motivation, and organizational commitment as determinants of job performance. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 36(1), 69–78.

(Ekmekcioglu & Öner, 2024) Ekmekcioglu, E.B., & Öner, K. (2024). Servant leadership, and innovative organizational culture: the mediating role of perceived organizational support. European Journal of Management and Business Economics, 33(3), 272-288. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-08-2022-0251

(Firson et al., 2021) Forson, J.A., Ofosu-Dwamena, E., Opoku, R.A., & Adjavon, S. E. (2021). Employee motivation and job performance: a study of basic school teachers in Ghana. Future Business Journal, 7, 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-021-00077-6

(Gagné et al., 2015) Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., Bellerose, J., Benabou, C., Chemolli, E., Güntert, S. T., Halvari, H., Indiyastuti, D. L., Johnson, P. A., Molstad, M. H., Naudin, M., Ndao, A., Olafsen, A. H., Roussel, P., Wang, Z., & Westbye, C. (2015). Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t45942-000

(Gouldner, 1960) Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623

(Guan et al., 2014) Guan, X., Sun, T., Hou, Y., Zhao, L., Luan, Y-Z., & Fan, L-H. (2014). The relationship between job performance and perceived organizational support in faculty members at Chinese universities: a questionnaire survey. BMC Medical Education, 14, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6920-14-50

(Hair et al., 2017) Hair, J. F., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C.M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2nd Edition, Sage Publications Inc., Thousand Oaks, CA.

(Hu et al., 2014) Hu, C., Wang, S., Yang, C. C., & Wu, T. Y. (2014) When mentors feel supported: relationships with mentoring functions and protégés’ perceived organizational support. J Organ Behav 35:22–37

(Huang, 2025) Huang, R.-T. (2025), "Exploring the roles of self-determined motivation and perceived organizational support in organizational change", European Journal of Management and Business Economics, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 193-210. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJMBE-03-2022-0056

(Hung et al., 2022) Hung, Y.-C.; Su, T.-C.; Lou, K.-R. (2022) Impact of Organizational Culture on Individual Work Performance with National Culture of Cross-Strait Enterprises as a Moderator. Sustainability, 14, 6897. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116897

(Li et al., 2022) Li, M., Jameel, A., Ma, Z., Sun, H., Hussain, A., & Mubeen, S. (2022). Prism of Employee Performance Through the Means of Internal Support: A Study of Perceived Organizational Support. Psychology Research and Behavior Management, 15, 965—976. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S346697

(Luo, 2020) Luo, H. W. (2020) Review of Research Progress on Perceived Organizational Support and Organizational Identity. Open Journal of Business and Management, 8, 809-819. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2020.82050

(Mohd Rasdi et al., 2023) Mohd Rasdi, R., Tauhed, S. Z., Zaremohzzabieh, Z., & Ahrari, S. (2023), "Determinants of research performance of university academics and the moderating and mediating roles of organizational culture and job crafting", European Journal of Training and Development, 47(7/8), 711-728. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJTD-11-2021-0192

(Najeemdeen et al., 2018) Najeemdeen, I. S., Abidemi, B. T., Rahmat, F. D., & Bulus, B. D. (2018) Perceived Organizational Culture and Perceived Organizational Support on Work Engagement. Academic Journal of Economic Studies, 4(3), 199-208. https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:khe:scajes:v:4:y:2018:i:3:p:199-208

(Ouellette et al., 2020) Ouellette, R. R., Goodman, A. C., Martinez-Pedraza, F., Moses, J. O., Cromer, K., Zhao, X., Pierre, J., & Frazier, S. L. (2020). A systematic review of organizational and workforce interventions to improve the culture and climate of youth-service settings. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 47(5), 764–778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-020-01037-y

(Polyanska et al., 2019) Polyanska, A., Zapukhliak, I., & Oksana, D. (2019). Culture of organization in conditions of changes as an ability of efficient transformations: The case of gas transportation companies in Ukraine. Oeconomia Copernic., 10, 561–580.

(Sabir et al., 2022) Sabir, I., Ali, I., Majid, M.B., Sabir, N., Mehmood, H., Rehman, A.U. & Nawaz, F. (2022). Impact of perceived organizational support on employee performance in IT firms – a comparison among Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 30(3), 795-815. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOA-10-2019-1914

(Sharma & Gupta, 2025) Sharma, N. P., & Gupta, V. (2025). Human Behavior in a Social Environment. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL). PMID: 34662015

(Stojanovic et al., 2020) Stojanovic, E. T., Vlahovic, M., Nikolic, M., Mitic, S., & Jovanovic, Z. (2020) The relationship between organizational culture and public relations in business organizations. J. Bus. Econ. Manag., 21, 1628–1645

(Strengers et al., 2022) Strengers, J., Mutsaers, L., van Rossum, L. and Graamans, E. (2022), "The organizational culture of scale-ups and performance", Journal of Organizational Change Management, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 115-130. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2021-0268

(Tadesse Bogale & Debela, 2024) Tadesse Bogale, A., & Debela, K. L. (2024). Organizational culture: a systematic review. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2340129

(Tajfel, 1978) Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between Social Groups. Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.

(Tian et al., 2021) Tian, M., Deng, P., & Wu, B. (2021), “Culture and innovation in the international context: a literature overview”, The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 34 No. 4, pp. 426-453.

(Vieira-dos-Santos, & Gonçalves, 2018) Vieira-dos-Santos, J., & Gonçalves, G. (2018). Organizational culture, internal marketing, and perceived organizational support in Portuguese higher education institutions. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 34(1), 38–45. https://doi.org/10.5093/jwop2018a5

(Yip et al., 2020) Yip, J. A., Levine, E. E., Wood, A., & Schweitzer, M. E. (2020). Research in organizational behavior worry at work: How organizational culture promotes anxiety. Research in Organizational Behavior, 40, 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2020.100124

(Zhong et al., 2016) Zhong, L., Wayne, S. J., & Liden, R. C. (2016). Job engagement, perceived organizational support, high‐performance human resource practices, and cultural value orientations: A cross‐level investigation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(6), 823–844. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2076

References removed from the manuscript

(Deal & Kennedy, 1982) Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Addison-Wesley.

(kao et al., 2023) Kao, J.-C., Cho, C.-C., & Kao, R.-H. (2023). Perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior: A study of the moderating effect of volunteer participation motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1082130. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1082130

(Schneider et al., 2013) Schneider, B., Ehrhart, M. G., & Macey, W. H. (2013). Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 361-388. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809

(Sundararajan et al., 2020) Sundararajan, T. P. K., Kee Mui Hung, D., Albert, P. J., Subramaniam, M., Thirupathi, H., Cuellar Angarita, L. S., Pérez-Restrepo, C., Ardila Lopez, C., Vashney, K., Prem Kumar, K., & Pandey, R. (2020). The Effects of Organizational

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript;

here are my comments:

abstract should also mention the methodology briefly.
introduction lacks contextual setting
also it lacks theoretical setting, aim, and contributions to literature
literature review also lacks context
all hypothesis, introduction and literature all lack inclusion of theory
4.1 the references for all sections are old and thus, arguments are irrelevant
data collection procedure is incomplete
sample size calculation?
how was the data collected?
how was the data treated for dimensionality?
justification of analytical technique?
measurements?
lack of meaningful discussion on results and findings - due to aforementioned issues
inadequacy of analytical reports
conclusion, practical and theoretical implications are contrived - due to aforementioned issues

Comments on the Quality of English Language

there are tonal, lexical, and structural issues in the writing.

Author Response

Article

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

- REVISION 1 -

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in red in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: abstract should also mention the methodology briefly.

Thanks for the comment. It has been added to the abstract.

Comment 2: introduction lacks contextual setting

also it lacks theoretical setting, aim, and contributions to literature

Thanks for the comment. We've tried to improve the introduction.

Comment 3: literature review also lacks context

Thanks for the comment. We've tried to improve the literature review.

Comment 4: all hypothesis, introduction and literature all lack inclusion of theory

Thanks for the comment. We've tried to improve all these situations.

Comment 5: the references for all sections are old and thus, arguments are irrelevant

Thanks for the comment. The references have been updated.

Comment 6: data collection procedure is incomplete

Thanks for the comment. We've improved the data collection process.

Comment 7: sample size calculation?

Thank you for your comment. No calculation was made for the sample size, as participants were required to work in organizations based in Portugal and Angola. It was agreed among the researchers that we should have at least 300 participants to perform a confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS Graphics software.

Comment 8: how was the data collected?

Thank you for your comment. The data collection procedure explains how the data was collected.

Comment 9: how was the data treated for dimensionality?

Thank you for your comment. It has been added at the beginning of the results how the dimensions of the instruments were calculated.

Comment 10: justification of analytical technique?

Thank you for your comment. It has been added in the data analysis procedure.

Comment 11: measurements?

Thank you for your comment. It is in the subsection “instruments” how the variables under study were measured.

Comment 12: lack of meaningful discussion on results and findings - due to aforementioned issues

Thanks for your comment. The discussion has been improved.

Comment 13: inadequacy of analytical reports

Thank you for your feedback. We have tried to improve the analytical results.

Comment 14: conclusion, practical and theoretical implications are contrived - due to aforementioned issues

Thank you for your comment. As we have attempted to address all the questions raised above, we believe that this situation is no longer artificial.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of my co-authors,

References added to the manuscript

(Berson et al., 2009) Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2009). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 615–33

(Blau, 1964) Blau, P. M. (1964) Justice in Social Exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34, 193-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x

(Gouldner, 1960) Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623

(Sharma & Gupta, 2025) Sharma, N. P., & Gupta, V. (2025). Human Behavior in a Social Environment. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL). PMID: 34662015

(Tajfel, 1978) Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between Social Groups. Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.

References removed from the manuscript

(Deal & Kennedy, 1982) Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Addison-Wesley.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your manuscript. This study focuses on the impact of organizational culture on performance, examining the mediating role of perceived organizational support and the moderating effect of motivation. Overall, the topic is relevant and practical, the empirical design is sound. However, from the perspective of academic originality and theoretical contribution, there is considerable room for improvement. It is recommended that the authors focus on the following aspects in their revisions: strengthening theoretical integration and the innovativeness of variable selection, redrawing the model diagram to enhance logical clarity, explaining cross-national differences from a cultural theoretical perspective, and enriching the discussion with deeper theoretical insights. Addressing these points will significantly enhance the study’s academic value and publication potential. Please refer to the attached file for detailed comments and suggestions. I hope the feedback will be helpful for your revision.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Article

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

- REVISION 1 -

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in red in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: First, the research model constructed is relatively conventional. The selected variables (organizational culture, POS, motivation, performance) and their relationships have been extensively studied in the organizational behavior literature, lacking theoretical innovation, extension, or breakthrough. Although the sample covers Portugal and Angola, the paper does not fully explore the theoretical value of the cross-cultural perspective, nor does it systematically analyze how variable relationships differ across cultural contexts.

Thank you for your comment. In fact, despite conducting extensive bibliographic research, we did not find any studies in which the perception of organizational support mediates the relationship between organizational culture and performance. This difference has not been tested. We could have included the country variable (Portugal or Angola) as a control variable, but we did not. The fact that we did not use control variables was considered a limitation of this study.

Comment 2: Second, while the literature review is comprehensive, it is largely descriptive and lacks critical integration and logical synthesis of theories. For example, regarding the dimensionality of perceived organizational support, the literature presents debates between unidimensional and multidimensional approaches, yet the authors do not clearly justify their choice to adopt both affective and cognitive dimensions. Additionally, classic theories cited (such as organizational culture theory, POS framework, and self-determination theory) are mostly referenced passively and are not systematically integrated into the model development and hypothesis formulation, resulting in insufficient explanation of causal logic between variables.

Thank you for your comment. We have tried to improve the entire literature review.

Comment 3: Third, the model diagram lacks clarity, particularly as it does not differentiate between the affective and cognitive dimensions of POS, causing inconsistencies between the figure and empirical analyses. From a theoretical standpoint, it is recommended that the authors consider whether motivation might play a moderated mediation role in the relationship between organizational culture, perceived support, and performance, beyond its current conceptualization as a moderator. Furthermore, the operational definitions of key variables are not sufficiently clear; the authors are encouraged to include detailed measurement information, especially for performance, in an appendix to enhance transparency.

Thank you for your comment. We have made an effort to improve this situation. The research model has been revised to enhance clarity. The performance scale used has been added as an appendix.

Comment 4: Fourth, the discussion section is relatively brief and lacks deeper reflection on the theoretical implications and cultural perspectives. For instance, the negative correlations found between rule culture and innovative culture with cognitive POS lack clear theoretical grounding and merit exploration—whether due to measurement issues, cultural differences, or sample characteristics. Moreover, the Angolan sample shows significantly higher levels of introjected and extrinsic motivation compared to the Portuguese sample, possibly reflecting cultural values or social structure differences, yet this is not adequately discussed.

Thanks for your comment. We've tried to improve the discussion.

Comment 5: Finally, the methods section is overly lengthy with some redundancy. It is recommended to streamline the background introduction, focusing more tightly on defining key variables, sample design, and handling of control variables. The regression models show relatively low explanatory power (R² between 0.06 and 0.08), which should be acknowledged as a limitation in the discussion. Additionally, in human resource research, the inclusion of control variables is generally considered essential. This paper, however, does not incorporate any control variables, which is clearly unconventional. Future studies should consider including relevant control variables and employing longitudinal designs or experimental methods to enhance the explanatory power of the model and the robustness of causal inferences.

Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. We acknowledge that the method section is very long, but all the content is necessary, so we have not removed anything. As I mentioned earlier, this study did not utilise control variables, which was considered a limitation. Some lower values of the coefficient of determination were also considered a limitation.

Comment 6: Summary recommendation:

Overall, this manuscript demonstrates certain methodological strengths but requires further improvement in theoretical innovation and academic depth. It is recommended that the authors focus on the following aspects in their revisions: strengthening theoretical integration and the innovativeness of variable selection, redrawing the model diagram to enhance logical clarity, explaining cross-national differences from a cultural theoretical perspective, and enriching the discussion with deeper theoretical insights. Addressing these points will significantly enhance the study’s academic value and publication potential.

We appreciate your recommendations. We have attempted to improve the manuscript as a complete work.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of my co-authors,

References added to the manuscript

(Berson et al., 2009) Berson, Y., Oreg, S., & Dvir, T. (2009). CEO values, organizational culture and firm outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 615–33

(Blau, 1964) Blau, P. M. (1964) Justice in Social Exchange. Sociological Inquiry, 34, 193-206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-682X.1964.tb00583.x

(Gouldner, 1960) Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092623

(Sharma & Gupta, 2025) Sharma, N. P., & Gupta, V. (2025). Human Behavior in a Social Environment. In: StatPearls. StatPearls Publishing, Treasure Island (FL). PMID: 34662015

(Tajfel, 1978) Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between Social Groups. Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. London: Academic Press.

References removed from the manuscript

(Deal & Kennedy, 1982) Deal, T. E., & Kennedy, A. A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rituals of corporate life. Addison-Wesley.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear author,

Thank you for sending your revised paper; in this version you addressed my comments and it stands at a standard level

Author Response

Article

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

- REVISION 2 -

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Comment 1: Thank you for sending your revised paper; in this version you addressed my comments and it stands at a standard level

Thanks for the comment.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of my co-authors,

References added to the manuscript

(Amabile, 1998) Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity, Harvard Business Review, setembro-outubro, pp.77-87.

(Graça & Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2024) Graça, B., & Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2024). Competitiveness strategies for negative organizations: Challenging the status quo. Springer Nature. Série de livros - Engenharia e Gestão de Sistemas de Informação - ISEM, vol. 1.

(Marôco, 2021) Marôco, J. (2021). Análise estatística com o SPSS statistics (8th ed.). Report Number LDA. https://www.bertrand.pt/livro/analise-estatistica-com-o-spss-statistics-joao-maroco/24699154

(Porter, 1980) Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York, Free Press.

(Solomon & Schell, 2009) Solomon, C.M., & Schell, M.S. (2009). Managing across cultures – The seven keys to doing business with a global mindset. EUA: McGraw-Hill.

(The Culture Factor Group, 2025) The Culture Factor Group (2025). Ferramenta de comparação entre países. Angola versus Portugal. Disponível em: https://www.theculturefactor.com/country-comparison-tool?countries=angola%2Cportugal. (Accessed on 01 August 2025).

(Walter & Au-Yong-Oliveira, 2022) Walter, C.E., & Au-Yong-Oliveira, M. (2022). An exploratory study on the barriers to innovative behavior: the spiteful effect of envy. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 35 (6): 936–960. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-02-2022-0034

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

authors have responded to my comments and have edited the article accordingly.

kudos

Author Response

Article

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

- REVISION 1 -

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript.

Comment 1: authors have responded to my comments and have edited the article accordingly.

Thanks for the comment.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of my co-authors,

References added to the manuscript

(Amabile, 1998) Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity, Harvard Business Review, setembro-outubro, pp.77-87.

(Porter, 1980) Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York, Free Press.

(Solomon & Schell, 2009) Solomon, C.M., & Schell, M.S. (2009). Managing across cultures – The seven keys to doing business with a global mindset. EUA: McGraw-Hill.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
The revised manuscript demonstrates improvements in the clarity of the model, transparency of construct measurement, and partial theoretical justification of the perceived organizational support (POS) dimensions. However, several critical issues remain insufficiently addressed. These include the absence of control variables, limited theoretical integration of cultural perspectives, and a lack of in-depth discussion on key empirical anomalies, such as the observed negative associations and cross-cultural differences. In addition, the appendix should include measurement items for all variables, not just those related to performance. While the revision represents a step in the right direction, further efforts are needed to enhance the theoretical depth and methodological rigor of the study in order to strengthen its academic value and explanatory power.

Author Response

Article

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

- REVISION 2 -

Dear Reviewer 3

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in red in the re-submitted files.

Comment 1: The revised manuscript demonstrates improvements in the clarity of the model, transparency of construct measurement, and partial theoretical justification of the perceived organizational support (POS) dimensions. However, several critical issues remain insufficiently addressed. These include the absence of control variables, limited theoretical integration of cultural perspectives, and a lack of in-depth discussion on key empirical anomalies, such as the observed negative associations and cross-cultural differences. In addition, the appendix should include measurement items for all variables, not just those related to performance. While the revision represents a step in the right direction, further efforts are needed to enhance the theoretical depth and methodological rigor of the study in order to strengthen its academic value and explanatory power.

Thank you for your comment.

The country was included as a control variable, since the data were collected in two different countries (Angola and Portugal). However, as the stepwise method was used for extraction, this variable only has a significant effect on the perception of affective organizational support. The justification for using this method was added to the data analysis procedure and at the beginning of the hypothesis testing.

Some literature on cultural differences between Angola and Portugal was added (Section 2.1.1).

A discussion on the results of Hypothesis 2 was added, as innovation culture and rule culture have a negative and significant effect on the perception of cognitive organizational support.

The organizational culture, organizational support perception, and motivation instruments used in this study are listed in Appendix A.

Yours sincerely,

On behalf of my co-authors,

References added to the manuscript

(Amabile, 1998) Amabile, T.M. (1998). How to kill creativity, Harvard Business Review, setembro-outubro, pp.77-87.

(Porter, 1980) Porter, M.E. (1980). Competitive Strategy: Techniques for Analyzing Industries and Competitors. New York, Free Press.

(Solomon & Schell, 2009) Solomon, C.M., & Schell, M.S. (2009). Managing across cultures – The seven keys to doing business with a global mindset. EUA: McGraw-Hill.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After refining the overall formatting of the paper, including the appendix fonts, it may be considered for publication.

Article Menu

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

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI