Corporate culture, management commitment, and HRM effect on operation performance: The mediating role of just-in-time

Figures & data

Figure 1. Research framework (Author construction).

Table 1. List of the proposed hypothesis

Hypothesis	Description	Path	JIT presence
${\mathrm{H}}_1:$	Corporate Culture has a significant influence on organizational performance.	cc→OP	NA
${\mathrm{H}}_2:$	The association between corporate culture and operational performance positively mediate by Just-in-Time	CC→JIT→OP	Mediating
${\mathrm{H}}_3:$	HRM practices positively influence on operational performance	HRM→OP
${\mathrm{H}}_4:$	The association between Human resource Management and operational performance positively mediate by Just-in-Time	HRM→JIT→OP	Mediating
${\mathrm{H}}_5:$	Management commitment positively influence on operational performance	MC→OP
${\mathrm{H}}_6:$	The association between management commitment and operational performance positively mediate by Just-in-Time	MC→JIT→OP	Mediating
${\mathrm{H}}_7:$	Corporate culture influence on JIT implementation	CC→JIT
${\mathrm{H}}_8:$	Management commitment influence on JIT implementation	MC→JIT
${\mathrm{H}}_9:$	HRM practices influence on JIT implementation	HRM→JIT
${\mathrm{H}}_{10}:$	JIT positively influence on operational performance	JIT→OP

Table 2. Demographic profile

Business age (Years)	n	%	Export experience	n	%
less than 5	45	11%	Less than 5	45	11%
between 5–10	125	30%	between 5–10	125	30%
between 10–15	170	41%	between 10–15	170	41%
more than 20	70	17%	More than 15	70	17%
Firm size			Respondents education
less than 25	128	31%	HSC	65	16%
between 50–75	144	35%	Graduate	73	18%
between 75–100	78	19%	Post graduate	259	63%
more than 100	60	15%	PhD	14	3%
Respondent age (year)
between 25–30	89	22%
between 30–35	95	23%
between 35–40	155	38%
more than 40	71	17%

Source: Author compilation

Table 3. Measures of operational performance

Operational performance	Reference	CFA
. Improved product/service quality.	Baird et al. (2011); Kaynak (2003); Chen (2015), (Cua et al., 2001; Davenport & Glaser, 2002; Matsui, 2007; Yunis et al., 2013)	($X_5^2=15.10$, NFI = 0.958, RFI = 0.874, GFI = 0.974, IFI = 0.963 and CFI = 0.963).
. Increased productivity.
. Reduced costs of defects and rework.
. A reduced delivery lead time of finished products/services to customers.
. Reduced customer complaints

Table 4. Measures of management commitment

Management commitment		CFA
The positive attitude of management to solve problems concerned with employees	Alharthi et al. (2019) Albadry (2016);Pollanen et al. (2017) Ahyaruddin and Akbar (2016), Cavalluzzo and Ittner (2004) Nurkhamid (2008)	($X_4^2=4.62$, NFI = 0.989 RFI = 0.966, GFI = 0.974, IFI = 0.993 and CFI = 0.993.
Top management support for implementing quality-related programs
Top management supports middle management for quality performances
Tower level managers/supervisors conduct the daily meeting before starting the work
Senior managers attend JIT, Lean and quality-related seminars and workshops

Table 5. Measures of HRM practices

Human Resources Management		CFA
Feedback is given properly to the employees where necessary	Sparrow et al. (2016); (Becker & Gerhart, 1996) (Delery & Roumpi, 2017) (Sparrow et al., 2016; Collings et al., 2018; Delery & Roumpi, 2017; Oakland, 2014)	($X_5^2=29.83$, NFI = 0.970 RFI = 0.975, GFI = 0.974, IFI = 0.975 and CFI = 0.975).
Management gives careful attention to the recruitment of employees
Harmonized employment and promotion related terms and conditions apply for all
Strong communication and coordination exist among management and employees
Employees work as a team rather than an individual in our company

Table 6. Measures of corporate culture

Corporate Culture	Reference	CFA
Employees are supportive if asked to work longer hours	Baird et al. (2011), Lee and Yu (2004), Sofi and Devanadhen (2015),
Priority on organizational interest over personal interest
Management participates with the employees in the social gathering
Mid-level management participation is encouraged in the decision-making process
Employees are committed to work

Table 7. Measures of JIT

Just in Time
We usually complete our daily schedule as planned.	Danese et al. (2012); Bortolotti et al. (2013)	($X_5^2=29.83$, NFI = 0.970 RFI = 0.975, GFI = 0.974, IFI = 0.975 and CFI = 0.975).
The layout of our shop floor facilitates low inventories and fast throughput.
We use a Kanban pull system for production control.
We have low setup times of equipment in our plant.
We emphasize small lot sizes, to increase manufacturing flexibility.

Table 8. Mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis of latent constructs

	level	Mean	Standard deviaton	Skewness	Kurtosis
Corporate culture	CC1	3.72	1.230	−.733	−.402
	CC2	3.55	1.124	−.439	−.624
	CC3	3.39	1.246	−.522	−.655
	CC4	3.65	1.207	−.769	−.272
	CC5	3.84	1.109	−.632	−.466
Management commitment	MC1	3.56	1.284	−.561	−.768
	MC2	3.83	1.263	−.902	−.238
	MC3	3.78	1.234	−.780	−.392
	MC4	3.83	1.187	−.845	−.208
	MC5	3.74	1.324	−.842	−.469
Human Resources Management	HRM1	3.96	1.095	−1.059	.507
	HRM2	3.67	1.296	−.797	−.463
	HRM3	3.60	1.262	−.692	−.561
	HRM4	3.87	1.115	−.685	−.429
	HRM5	3.55	1.285	−.545	−.787
Just-in-time	JIT1	4.20	1.127	−1.511	1.572
	JIT2	3.71	1.379	−.744	−.751
	JIT3	4.12	1.172	−1.299	.822
	JIT4	3.55	1.490	−.544	−1.157
	JIT5	3.73	1.357	−.730	−.732
Operational Performance	OP1	3.72	1.242	−.804	−.327
	OP2	3.66	1.215	−.631	−.541
	OP3	3.72	1.174	−.714	−.368
	OP4	3.62	1.305	−0.678	−.637
	OP5	3.4572	1.21419	−0.535	−.630

Table 9. Construct details and validity results

		Factor loading	Cronbach’s alpha	kmo	CR	AVE	SAVE
Corporate culture	CC1	0.802	0.868	0.789	0.915	0.686	0.618
	CC2	0.717
	CC3	0.889
	CC4	0.883
	CC5	0.842
Management commitment	MC1	0.877	0.872	0.792	0.936	0.746	0.636
	MC2	0.857
	MC3	0.910
	MC4	0.845
	MC5	0.829
Human Resources Management	HRM1	0.782	0.896	0.811	0.928	0.721	0.613
	HRM2	0.829
	HRM3	0.879
	HRM4	0.880
	HRM5	0.874
Just-in-time	JIT1	0.801	0.815	0.752	0.923	0.707	0.686
	JIT2	0.876
	JIT3	0.809
	JIT4	0.843
	JIT5	0.873
Operational Performance	OP1	0.842	0.913	0.798	0.928	0.748	0.629
	OP2	0.904
	OP3	0.864
	OP4	0.851
	OP5	0.786

Note Composite reliability (CR), average variance extracted (AVE) and average shared squared variance (ASV).

Table 10. Discriminant validity

	Human resources management	Just-in-time	Corporate Culture	Management Commitment	Operational performance
Human resources management	0.894
Just-in-time	0.318	0.841
Corporate Culture	0.489	0.383	0.828
Management Commitment	0.281	0.431	0.125	0.864
Operational performance	0.362	0.204	0.450	0.019	0.928

Table 11. Fit model index (CFA)

Fit indices	Recommended value	Measurement model
χ2/d.f.	≤ 3.00	2.04
NFI	≥ 0.90	0.974
CFI	≥ 0.90	0.945
AGFI	≥ 0.80	0.910
RMR	≤ 0.05	0.035
RMSFA	≤0.10	0.087

Table 12. Direct effects of the construct

Hypothesis	Exogenous		Endogenous	Std. Estimation	C.R	remarks
01	Corporate culture	→	Operational performance	0.133^a	4.166	Support
02	Corporate culture	→	Just in time	0.112 ^a	8.901	Support
03	Management commitment	→	Just in time	0.684 ^a	10.722	Support
04	Human resources management	→	Just in time	0.303 ^a	3.982
05	Management commitment	→	Operational performance	1.795 ^a	3.406	Support
06	Human resources management	→	Operational performance	0.165 ^a	4.206	Support
07	Just in time	→	Operational performance	0.335 ^a	3.107	Support

The superscript “a” indicates level of significance at 1%.

Table 13. Indirect effects of contract

Hypothesis	Exogenous	Mediating variable	Endogenous	Indirect effect	Direct effect
01	Corporate culture (1)	Just in time (2)	Operational performance (3)	1→2: 0.122 ^a 2→3:0.039 ^a	1→3 0.133 ^a
05	Management commitment (1)	Just in time (2)	Operational performance (3)	1→2:0.684^a 2→3:0.151 ^a	1→3 1.795 ^a
06	Human resources management (1)	Just in time (2)	Operational performance (3)	1→2:0.303 ^a 2→3:0.130 ^a	1→3 0.165 ^a

the superscript “a” indicates level of significance at 1%.

Figure 2. Results of the proposed model of Management Commitment, Corporate culture, HRM on performance through JIT implementation.

Table 14. Theoretical and observed fit index

Fit indices	Recommended value	The value extracted from Structured equation
χ2/d.f.	≤ 3.00	2.04
NFI	≥ 0.90	0.974
CFI	≥ 0.90	0.945
AGFI	≥ 0.80	0.910
RMR	≤ 0.05	0.035
RMSFA	≤0.10	0.087

Baird, K., Hu, K. J., & Reeve, R. (2011). The relationships between organizational culture, total quality management practices and operational performance. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 31(7), 789–814. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111144850

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kaynak, H. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405–435. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(03)00004-4

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Chen, Z. (2015). The relationships among JIT, TQM and production operations performance. Business Process Management Journal, 21(5), 1015–1039. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-09-2014-0084

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cua, K. O., McKone, K. E., & Schroeder, R. G. (2001). Relationships between implementation of TQM, JIT, and TPM and manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19(6), 675–694. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(01)00066-3

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Davenport, T. H., & Glaser, J. (2002). Just-in-time delivery comes to knowledge management. Harvard Business Review, 80(107–111), 126. https://www.elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=4502012

 Google Scholar

Matsui, Y. (2007). An empirical analysis of just-in-time production in Japanese manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 108(1–2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2006.12.035

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yunis, M., Jung, J., & Chen, S. (2013). TQM, strategy, and performance: A firm‐level analysis. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 30(6), 690–714. https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711311325638

 Google Scholar

Alharthi, B. A. F., Khalifa, G. S., & Bhaumick, A. (2019). Redesign University Operational Performance through Strategic indicators, and Employees’ commitment. commitment, 25, 26. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gamal_Khalifa/publication/334415825_Redesign_University_Operational_Performance_through_Strategic_indicators_and_Employees'_commitment/links/5d28394492851cf4407b0b96/Redesign-University-Operational-Performance-through-Strategic-indicators-and-Employees-commitment.pdf

 Google Scholar

Albadry, O. M. (2016). Strategic management and its impact on university’s service quality: The role of organisational commitment.

 Google Scholar

Pollanen, R., Abdel-Maksoud, A., Elbanna, S., & Mahama, H. (2017). Relationships between strategic performance measures, strategic decision-making, and organizational performance: Empirical evidence from Canadian public organizations. Public Management Review, 19(5), 725–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1203013

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ahyaruddin, M., & Akbar, R. (2016). The relationship between the use of a performance measurement system, organizational factors, accountability, and the performance of public sector organizations. Journal of Indonesian Economy and Business, 31(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.22146/jieb.10317

 Google Scholar

Cavalluzzo, K. S., & Ittner, C. D. (2004). Implementing performance measurement innovations: Evidence from government. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 29(3–4), 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0361-3682(03)00013-8

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Nurkhamid, M. (2008). Implementasi inovasi sistem pengukuran kinerja instansi pemerintah. Jurnal Akuntansi Pemerintah, 3(1), 45–76.

 Google Scholar

Sparrow, P., Brewster, C., & Chung, C. (2016). Globalizing human resource management. Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Becker, B., & Gerhart, B. (1996). The impact of human resource management on organizational performance: Progress and prospects. Academy of Management Journal, 39(4), 779–801. https://doi.org/10.5465/256712

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Delery, J. E., & Roumpi, D. (2017). Strategic human resource management, human capital and competitive advantage: Is the field going in circles? Human Resource Management Journal, 27(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12137

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Collings, D. G., Wood, G. T., & Szamosi, L. T. (2018). Human resource management: A critical approach. Human Resource Management, Routledge, 1–23.

 Google Scholar

Oakland, J. S. (2014). Total quality management and operational excellence: Text with cases. Routledge.

 Google Scholar

Lee, S. K. J., & Yu, K. (2004). Corporate culture and organizational performance. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 9(4), 340-359.

 Google Scholar

Sofi, M. A., & Devanadhen, K. (2015). Impact of organizational culture on organizational performance: An empirical assessment of banking sector in Jammu and Kashmir India. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 4(9), 34–44.

 Google Scholar

Danese, P., Romano, P., & Bortolotti, T. (2012). JIT production, JIT supply and performance: Investigating the moderating effects. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 112(3), 441–465. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571211210068

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Bortolotti, T., Danese, P., & Romano, P. (2013). Assessing the impact of just-in-time on operational performance at varying degrees of repetitiveness. International Journal of Production Research, 51(4), 1117–1130. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.678403

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar