The Impacts of Work-Family Conflict and Corporate Innovation on Organizational Performance

Conservation of Resources Theory (COR)

The conservation of resources theory claims that in to deal with depression and stress, individuals invest, safeguard, and acquire resources they value. Speaking of “Resources,” they are broadly defined as all valued objects, competencies, human qualities, energies, or situations (Hobfoll, 1989). Numerous publications contain criticisms of this imprecise definition (He et al., 2019). Resources have been known and stated as everything considered by employees as assisting them in achieving their objectives. This newly proposed goal-based explanation facilitates a better understanding of resource features and how they contribute to goal achievement. Employees are incentivized to conserve their resources and reinvest them to acquire more; the gain or loss of resources is contingent on the availability of other excess resources (Öge et al., 2018). Since the 1990s, work-family interaction has been extensively studied using the conservation of resources theory. It asserts that when employees devote an excessive amount of their scarce resources to one position, they have limited resources available for the other ones. Workers will attempt to preserve or regain their resources by spending additional resources (e.g., time, energy, and money) in the threatened role. Time and energy are limited resources for employees, thus it might be challenging to balance home and work responsibilities due to their competing time and energy needs or contradictory behaviors (Hobfoll et al., 2018). Work-related resource depletion might result in resource constraints and difficulties meeting family sphere demands, hence increasing work-family conflict. Therefore, it may be concluded that employees with greater resources have lower work-family conflict. Conservation of resources theory has two fundamental principles: resource conservation and resource acquisition. Resource conservation suggests that people are driven to avoid events or activities that are thought to pose a hazard to their resources in order to prevent resource loss or potential future threats; the concept of resource acquisition proposes that people actively engage with their surroundings to expand their resource reserves. The conservation of resources theory also predicts that individuals will attempt to optimize resource aggregation through purposeful investment of resources, such as demonstrating high workplace engagement or work performance for the sake of promotion or compensation. Thus, workplace resources are frequently reinvested in work-related behaviors (He et al., 2019). Notably, Hobfoll et al. (2018) offered two corollaries to the conservation of resources theory principle of resource investment. The first hypothesis implies that people with additional resources are less susceptible to resource losses and can invest existing resources more effectively, whereas the second hypothesis suggests that a scarcity of resources typically makes investment more challenging and increases the vulnerability to further resource losses. Since Hobfoll et al. (2018) initially introduced the conservation of resources theory, numerous resources have been characterized and investigated by scholars. Recent research has identified cognitive intercultural competence as a psychological skill that promotes job commitment and life satisfaction among ex-pats (Le et al., 2018). Grandey and Cropanzano (1999) argued that the conservation of resources theory describes individual differences in the work-family conflict process to a great extent. Individual differences can influence responses to stress and loss of resources. For example, Individuals with high intercultural competence may, for instance, deal with cross-cultural issues more effectively; they are also less prone to resource loss since they are confident in their ability to do so (Le et al., 2018). This study concludes, based on the conservation of resources theory, that expats with high intercultural competence are motivated to invest more resources at work to acquire additional resources. By creating a model of moderated mediation, we further investigate the underlying principle of cultural intelligence’s impact on work-family conflict amongst Chinese academic ex-pats (He et al., 2019).

Innovative Human Resource Management (IHRM)

In the past two decades, a study has revealed that the strategic HRM application is considered to constitute one of the key influential Organizational performance predictors. Scientists have uncovered supporting proof connecting HRM activities with the performance of corporations (P. M. Wright et al., 2005). This research investigates the influence of strategic HRM practices on business performance during substantial macroenvironmental shifts, drawing on the extensive literature on strategic HRM. In this research, HRM is conceived as a guardedly designed collection of activities that are aimed at enhancing organizational effectiveness and, thus, producing superior performance outcomes. P. M. Wright and McMahan (1992) state it as: “the planned HR initiatives and actions designed to help a firm accomplish its objectives.” HR deployments represent the basic perceptions regarding the (positive) understanding of HRM and what it accomplishes, specifically that it effectively and precisely adapts to the framework of the organization and supports other structures and variables as well (Boselie et al., 2005). A study of the connection between HR methods and company success is likely the most influential and acknowledged work in this field. His finding corroborates a configurational perspective on HRM practices, in which strategies tend to operate synchronously (Huselid, 1995). Another study discovered that behaviors aligned with a highly involved HRM strategy, including highly selected employment, incentives and benefits, and development, were positively correlated with organizational performance (Delaney & Huselid, 1996). Innovative HRM practices are defined in this article as HRM practices that differ from traditional HRM practices. It refers to the modification of an HRM system, policy, program, or practice that is planned to affect or enhance the skills of the employee along with interactions and behaviors and that is more likely to provide the basis for strategic planning and the ways for strategy implementation, is looked upon as new, and generates current expertise and capabilities (Som, 2006, 2008). Following a comprehensive literature review and considering the proposed description of inventive HRM activities, this research analyzed that the HRM department’s responsibility, hiring, holding back the employees, redeployment, performance reviews, and remuneration and incentive practices are the most significant factors (Som, 2008).

Self-Determination Theory (SDT)

Self-determination theory as a concept of work motivation is unique in this kind, by distinguishing between autonomous and controlled motivation, it has demonstrated that self-efficacy, but not controlled motivation, supports both elevated performance and employee health. Thus, the concept has been able to achieve the conventional objective of organizational psychologists, which is to facilitate profitability while also promoting employee well-being. Self-determination theory has long been associated with specifying empirically the social-contextual circumstances that foster autonomous motivation. All humans have three core psychological requirements, including autonomy, ability, and relatedness, which, when addressed, support autonomous motivation, health, and effective performance. Thus, self-determination theory has been primarily focused on improving the need-supportive settings across dimensions that facilitate people’s autonomous motivation and, consequently, their productive work and positive emotions. Research on job features, kinds of justice, supervisory support, and leadership types has proliferated since work environments that meet basic behavioral needs provide greater results.

The concept of basic psychological requirements for autonomy, competence, and relatedness provides the context for comprehending SDT’s consequences for the workplace. Every policy and practice enacted inside a workplace has the potential to either assist or impede basic psychological needs. Anyone interested in enhancing the work environment inside a business and, by extension, the productivity and health of its employees could examine any proposed policy or practice based on its likelihood of doing so by (a) allowing employees to acquire skills and/or to feel secure, (b) experimenting with and begin their activities without feeling pressured and manipulated to perform as directed, and (c) feeling a sense of respect and belonging with both supervisors and colleagues. Policies or practices that assist employees in these three areas are likely to promote autonomy, well-being, and superior efficiency. Those who impede any of these employee experiences are likely to foster controlled motivation, as well as bad health and, at best, volume but not performance quality (Deci et al., 2017).

Social Exchange Theory (SET)

Social exchange theory is one of the most prominent models for comprehending workplace behavior. Its venerable origins can be traced back to at least the 1920s (Malinowski, 1922), linking key disciplines such as anthropology (Firth, 1967), social psychology (Gouldner, 1960), and sociology (Blau, 1968). Although several viewpoints on social exchange have appeared, scholars agree that it comprises a series of contacts that generate commitments (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Social exchange theory usually explains that these relationships are interconnected and dependent on the practices of a third party (Blau, 1968). Social exchange theory emphasizes that interdependent interactions can build high-quality connections, but only under certain conditions. Networks (Brass et al., 2004), board independence (McLeod et al., 2021), psychological contracts (Birtch et al., 2016), social power (Molm et al., 1999), organizational fairness (Roch et al., 2019), and leadership (Zhang et al., 2018), and are among other factors that have benefited from SET’s explanatory power. Recent assessments, however, have shown difficulties with the hypothesis. Coyle-Shapiro and Conway (2004), for instance, emphasized theoretical uncertainties and empirical requirements, whereas Cropanzano et al. (2001), and others bemoaned typical misconceptions of the broad social exchange theory model.

Homans (1958) provided a concept of exchange-based social behavior over half a century ago. Essentially, he proposed the notion that trades carry symbolic value in addition to material items (e.g., prestige and approval). His writings spanned multiple disciplines and spawned divergent conceptions of social interaction. Although scholars disagree on specifics, they agree on the fundamental “nature” of social exchange theory: Social exchange consists of behaviors depending upon the rewarding responses of employees, which over time result in communally beneficial transactions and relationships (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005).

Work-Family Conflict and Psychological Safety

Work-family connections add to the development of constructs psychologically at the workplace, whereas a positive psychological ambiance generates the notion of psychological safety within the organization. An organization is deemed to have a psychologically ambient atmosphere when staff or employees perceive enhancement of their well-being by the working environment (Obrenovic et al., 2020). Without a positive psychological atmosphere, the psychological safety grade is almost certainly low. Work-family conflict has also been connected to mental health issues, and it may result in a deterioration in a person’s cognitive ability (Eshak, 2019). If individuals’ workload is echoed in their relationships with family members, a decrease in the efficiency of their job and family responsibilities may have negative effects on their psychological wellbeing and psychological safety. A crucial psychological condition, psychological safety, influences the inhabitation about individuals in their organizational responsibilities. Psychological safety symbolizes the concept that employees can express and use themselves without worry about damaging their self-image, position, or careers (Newman et al., 2017). Recent research and extensions of conservation of resources theory indicate that loss of resources directly indicated the incidence of work-family conflict, whereas resource gain decreased the positive link between work-family conflict and resource loss (S. Chen et al., 2015). Therefore, when resources get less, there is more conflict (Obrenovic et al., 2020). As critical resources are discovered to be in jeopardy, employees’ perceptions of psychological safety are impacted by stressful events. All the risks of resource loss like economic instability, a risk to self-content, anxiety about employees’ marital status or job assurance, monetary devastation, or an ailing family member, induces stress (Reizer et al., 2010). This theory depicts marital status and tenure as valuable and sought-after resources, given that married individuals have more access to resources like emotional assistance, affinity, and cash, whereas tenure guarantees higher psychological safety and greater performance. For illustration, if a partner’s financial resources at work rise, the other partners might be offered encouragement and contribute to the other’s wellbeing. The conservation of resources model provides an adequate justification for both inter- and intra-role pressure, where family and career pressure are reciprocally associated, expressively, issues in one domain lead to problems in another (Obrenovic et al., 2020). In addition, it is suggested by the crossover model (Westman, 2001) that psychological pressure and work-family conflict may spread via the encroachment impact on other peers. These experiences are associated with a need to limit resource loss, which may result in unfavorable outcomes for the organization, like resignation or sick leave. Work-life balance is a crucial aspect influencing the quality of life of employees, and it can impact personal satisfaction, safety, and health (Obrenovic et al., 2020). Occasionally, work-family conflict produces negative effects like depression (Y. Wang & Peng, 2017) and intoxication (Wolff et al., 2013). There is also a positive consequence of decreased work-family conflict, which is increased work commitment and self-gratification (Obrenovic et al., 2020), both of which are elements that promote psychological safety. Accordingly, the subsequent hypothesis can be proposed.

Work-Family Conflict and Psychological Wellbeing

Psychological wellbeing is a wide notion that encompasses emotional and mental states, work satisfaction, and life satisfaction as a whole. Psychological wellbeing, which is generally used to quantify hedonic levels of satisfaction, defines an individual’s total psychological functioning efficacy. Psychological wellbeing is enhanced by a sense of control over family and work responsibilities (Obrenovic et al., 2020). Work-family balance is defined as the time individuals understand as accessible to perform their responsibilities-related roles and, is characterized by a sense of control. Work-family conflict causes a decline in employee satisfaction and an increase in psychological stress (Fotiadis et al., 2019). There is a correlation between occupational stress and psychological wellbeing. For example, moderate job pressure causes people to grow professionally by taking the challenge, leading to positive psychological wellbeing (Harter et al., 2002). Abrogating work-family interactions reduces psychological wellbeing as a result of depleted mental resources and elevated psychological stress (Obrenovic et al., 2020). By situating work-family conflict and work-family enrichment inside a single resource-exchange economy, the conservation of resources offers an integrated conceptual framework that clarifies both opposing and enhancing processes of resource investment procedures, specifically the interrelationship of work-family conflict and work-family enrichment (Hobfoll et al., 2018). According to a fundamental principle of conservation of resources, the relationship between work and family is seen as a stockpile of resources, whereas a gain, loss, or danger in one domain can have an impact on the fundamental nature of the other. When demands in one function conflict with expectations in another, stress from handling numerous responsibilities manifests as work-family conflict. This causes pressure, saps energy, and forces the person to devote more mental and physical resources to the troublesome area. When there is more conflict in one area, there are lesser resources available to play one’s part in another. When balancing job and family obligations, resources are depleted, which leads to conflict or a decreased sense of being—Conflict. Employees who lost their passion in the past and demonstrated greater exhaustion concerns also reported a stronger rise in work stress, working hours, and barriers between family and work, supporting the conservation of resources hypothesis regarding resource loss (ten Brummelhuis et al., 2011). Furthermore, there is a strong link between work-family conflict, individual burnout, and distress signs (Obrenovic et al., 2020). The reasons for the change in labor demography and rise in female empowerment, work-family conflict was the primary factor impacting employee welfare in South-East Asian countries (Ibrahim et al., 2009). Work-family conflict has increased as a result of growing female labor force involvement (Lestari et al., 2019), shifting family role expectations, technology advancements, and a greater emphasis on “work anytime, anywhere,” hence creating psychological strain and negatively affecting employees’ psychological wellbeing. Sedaroglu (2021) conducted research that identified some work-family conflict-specific variables that influence psychological wellbeing. We conclude, based on the results presented above, that work-family conflict is a major predictor of employee psychological wellbeing. Accordingly, the subsequent hypothesis can be proposed.

Innovative HRM Practices and Psychological Wellbeing

Individual psychological wellbeing is a multifaceted concept that researchers have conceptualized in a variety of ways. For instance, Ryff and Keyes (1995) describe it as a depiction of health, which is conceptualized as lifelong progressions of development. Similarly, Panaccio and Vandenberghe (2009) define PWB as being defined by the coexistence of job and life satisfaction as well as the presence of positive affect and the lack of negative affect. Psychological wellbeing, in the opinion of Diener et al. (1997), might manifest as ideas or as an effect. This is in accordance with the psychological wellbeing model that was developed by Ryff, which includes the six elements of autonomy, self-acceptance, personal progress, purpose in life, positive relations with others, and environment mastery (Ryff & Keyes, 1995). In the context of psychological wellbeing, hedonic (positive feelings) and eudemonic (positive functionality) wellbeing are frequently distinguished (Guest, 2017). Life/job satisfaction is a common representation of hedonistic wellness, which is said to be motivated by the desire for rewards and pleasure as well as the avoidance of unpleasant events. Inversely, eudemonic wellbeing, as seen in the work of Ryff and Keyes (1995), offers the chance for consciousness and is derived from the judgment that one’s living position is meaningful. Researchers have discovered a correlation between psychological wellbeing and certain outcomes. Higher psychological wellbeing levels at work are associated with better health, longer lifespans, and happier lives (Cartwright & Cooper, 2008). Moreover, another study evaluated psychological wellbeing in the framework of HRM and revealed a favorable association between job performance and psychological wellbeing (T. A. Wright & Cropanzano, 2000). Similar findings concerning HRM were reported by Robertson et al. (2012), who discovered that psychological wellbeing was more predictive of self-reported levels of performance than positive job and work attitudes. Among the antecedents of psychological wellbeing are many innovative HRM policies and practices that have been studied by researchers, among these are transformative leadership and authentic leadership, and psychological capital (H. Xu et al., 2022), Baluch (2017) investigated emotional quotient, Arnold and Dupré (2012) investigated the perception of organizational support. These results demonstrate the growing scientific interest in psychological wellbeing. Recent considerations argue that, due to changes in workplace conditions such as the entrance of information systems, financial unrest, economic, political, and global upheavals, etc., for companies to boost their performance, they must first address the well-being of their employees (Loon et al., 2019). Employers have so concentrated on putting policies into place that could promote employee psychological wellbeing. These activities, which mostly fall within the purview of HR management, frequently provide paradoxical problems for the company due to the conflicts between those that have a good impact on psychological wellbeing and those that aim to raise psychological wellbeing costs. Using the paradox metatheory lens, this study intends to deconstruct and synthesize the literature to distinguish between HR staff psychological wellbeing behaviors that complement or compete with strategies enabling Organizational performance and change, drawing on the work of Guest (2017). Accordingly, the subsequent hypothesis can be proposed.

Innovative HRM Practices and Physical Wellbeing

Guest (2017) asserts that good physical, mental, and social health at work are indicators of excellent well-being. Physical wellbeing is the investigation of a person’s internal states of well-being and vitality. Well-being at work is fostered by effective HRM practices like inspiring, which includes energizing followers and giving them the impression that they contribute to important tasks, strengthening, which includes promoting autonomy and responsibility, and connecting, which includes encouraging cooperation and teamwork. Further, it is suggested that to satisfy the fundamental psychological demands, well-being is represented as work engagement (Schaufeli, 2015). It might be asserted that quality of working life, a precursor of work-related well-being, should be evaluated at the job, workplace, and work-life balance levels (Grote & Guest, 2017). According to self-determination theory (2000), strengthening HRM activities can be viewed as supporting practices since they are job resources that nurture the human requirements of autonomy and relatedness (Strauss & Parker, 2014). A set of six key HRM characteristics, including training, autonomy, supervisor support, error tolerance, recognition, and safe working circumstances, is offered to boost job resources and encourage positive, valuable behavior. The development of self-efficacy, which is a determinant of well-being, is facilitated by strengthening competence, which is a prerequisite for task performance (Salas-Vallina et al., 2020). A supportive atmosphere is one in which employees feel safe and supported by their employer. This comprises leader assistance, which is vital for employee well-being (Salas-Vallina & Alegre, 2018; Salas-Vallina et al., 2020) in terms of basic notions of feeling safe on the job and enhancing error tolerance and recognition. So, both physical wellbeing and psychological wellbeing would rise as a result. Accordingly, the subsequent hypothesis can be proposed.

Innovative HRM Practices and Social Wellbeing

Social wellbeing comprises a favorable impression of interpersonal interactions, social support, and perceived workplace justice. However, a greater knowledge of the impact of external elements is also required, given the availability of work-life balancing approaches. By connecting, interpersonal ties and coherence are strengthened, hence enhancing the quality of personal communication and the social aspect of well-being for the Guest (Ilies et al., 2017). Positive social relationships precede job satisfaction. Moreover, avoiding harassment and bullying and giving peer support, which we refer to as partnership, are associated with the quality of working life (Guest, 2017). In general, social wellbeing would be strengthened if novel HRM practices were implemented. In the conventional job stress models, such as the Demand-Control-Support model, control over one’s work is viewed as the most important job attribute (Salas-Vallina et al., 2020). In this view, HRM strategies such as empowerment, which encompasses autonomy and employee voice and so facilitates self-control over one’s work, are regarded as a fundamental aspect of employee well-being promotion. Both employee voice and autonomy have been associated with enhanced psychological wellbeing and social wellbeing in general (Häusser et al., 2010). Individuals who feel that they are members of the company are more likely to be engaged and committed to the business. Employees now possess the skills necessary to assume genuine organizational management responsibilities (Salas-Vallina et al., 2020). Core components of HRM strategies focused on well-being include opportunities for voice expression, such as participation and organizational surveys. According to the social exchange theory, workers would perform better in organizations where well-being-promoting HRM strategies are given top priority. The social exchange theory enables us to describe how resources are transferred in a reciprocal process, where one person pays back the positive (or negative) acts of another (Mitchell et al., 2012). Employees who believe cutting-edge HRM techniques enhance their well-being, according to this notion, respond with constructive and positive mindsets, which can be especially energizing and proactive (Salas-Vallina et al., 2020). Accordingly, the subsequent hypothesis could be proposed.

Psychological Safety and Organizational Performance

Various publications have slightly varying definitions of psychological safety (Erkutlu & Chafra, 2016; Kirk-Brown & Van Dijk, 2016; Koopmann et al., 2016). It relies on the definition’s scope, such as individual or team level. However, the majority of them stated that psychological safety is a person’s belief or feeling regarding the consequences of his or her actions. Psychological safety is a common belief among team members regarding interpersonal risk-taking, as well as the feeling of being able to exhibit and do something without fear of negative consequences to one’s self-image, position, or profession. In other words, workers do not fear a negative influence on their position in the company as a result of their activities in the organization, and they are willing to talk freely and voice their opinions without fear of being rejected, humiliated, or penalized by team members (Abror & Patrisia, 2020). Organizational performance is a multidimensional construct (Stam et al., 2014). This concept employs several measures that are separated into two categories including financial along with non-financial performance. Differing slightly, some researchers (Walumbwa et al., 2011) describe the performance as market performance as well as financial performance. Performance can be evaluated depending on the viewpoint of the customer, interrelations, multiple viewpoints, antecedent factors, and perceptual aspects. The three components of business/organizational performance include the value of the shareholder, equity of the customer, and profitability. This indicates that corporate performance can indeed be judged not just by financial indicators, but also through additional performance indicators. Psychological safety does have an impact on organizational performance. There have been two opposing viewpoints about the correlation between psychological safety and organizational performance. On the one hand, it has been suggested that psychological safety will have a direct significant impact on Organizational performance (Abror & Patrisia, 2020). On the contrary, some scholars (Carmeli & Gittell, 2009) contend that psychological safety doesn’t have a direct link with Organizational performance and that it is regulated by other variables, like self-efficacy and cognitive behavior. The link between psychological safety and organizational performance ought to be investigated in the future (Abror & Patrisia, 2020). Consequently, the following hypothesis can be proposed:

Psychological Wellbeing and Organizational Performance

Psychological wellbeing must be bolted to its relationship with positive work temperament to such a degree that it may be declared directly that psychological wellbeing is correlated with organizational performance, engagement, and other job-related attitudes. However, psychological wellbeing is also investigated independently. Positive experiences are associated with enhanced psychological wellbeing and physical wellbeing (Obrenovic et al., 2020). Those with greater psychological wellbeing levels are happier and more efficient in the workplace (Cartwright & Cooper, 2008). In recent years, businesses have placed a greater emphasis on supporting social policies, that function as an organization-based source of aid and a barrier against the resource-depleting effect of severe workloads (Obrenovic et al., 2020). The staff is provided with coping skills to enhance their resiliency in difficult conditions. When workers think their contributions are appreciated by their employer, they exert considerable effort to improve their work performance. In addition, per Westman’s (2001) crossover concept, emotional and favorable experiences pass from one colleague to the next, causing an upward spiral by impacting the unit, the division, and the company. Consequently, the following hypothesis can be proposed:

Physical Wellbeing and Organizational Performance

The link between social wellbeing and physical wellbeing on organizational performance has been well analyzed and established in the previous study. Ford et al. (2007), for instance, admitted explicitly that positive health-related habits, like exercising, a balanced diet, and sleep, are all highly associated with work performance (Nikbin et al., 2021). Similarly, it has been demonstrated that problem-free sleep does have a prominent impact on good mood in the morning and functional capacity and that it could contribute to recovery, thereby promoting organizational performance and work engagement (Lim & Dinges, 2010; Nikbin et al., 2021). In contrast, both sleep deprivation and poor sleep quality have been associated with weaker organizational performance (Dewald et al., 2010). Similarly, Andreassen et al. (2012) discovered in a research study on students that lower physical wellbeing, such as poor sleep quality, decreases their productivity. Consequently, the following hypothesis can be proposed:

Social Wellbeing and Organizational Performance

According to Hansen (1999) and Tsai (2001), the knowledge required for improved performance is acquired through social interactions and contact with others. In addition, social interactions might serve as information conveyors, so lowering the time, effort, and resources required to collect data for better organizational performance (Nikbin et al., 2021). According to Tsai (2001), businesses can raise their creativity and effectiveness by fostering social contact, which increases intellectual exchange and sharing inside the firm. Others have also emphasized the significance of social wellbeing in promoting knowledge sharing as the defining characteristic of social capital (Adler & Kwon, 2002). These characteristics are required to obtain superior organizational performance (Rodan & Galunic, 2004). For instance, a study done by Huang and Li (2009) indicated that social interaction between organizational units is correlated with innovation success. Moreover, Rodan and Galunic (2004) emphasized that social interaction among management of a business is essential and assists them in attaining their objectives. In addition, they asserted that social wellbeing across management is substantially associated with organizational performance (Van De Voorde et al., 2012). Consequently, the following hypothesis can be proposed.

Figure 1 of the study depicts the study’s theoretical framework.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Theoretical framework.

Convergent Validity

PLS-SEM is utilized for complex models (Hair et al., 2014). This study measures the apparent Convergent Validity using Rho A, CR, Cronbach’s alpha, and AVE. Cronbach’s alpha along with rho A and CR is used to determine internal consistency and reliability, respectively. Rho A evaluates the reliability of the instrument by measuring the weights, but not the loadings (Henseler et al., 2014). Rho_A and Cronbach’s alpha (Taber, 2018) must exceed 0.70 to be deemed credible (Van Nguyen & Habók, 2021).

Table 1 demonstrates that the rho A and Cronbach alpha values for each construct are more than 0.70. The CR calculated values for each construct are likewise higher than 0.7 (Chin, 1998), demonstrating the instrument’s internal validity. That result corresponds with Table 1’s findings. Using the parameters acquired from the utilization of AVE, the Average of Variance for every construct, the composite reliability is calculated. This construct’s convergent validity is persistent for values higher than 0.5 (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). As indicated in Table 1, the AVE for the hypothetical construct variables ranges from 0.564 to 0.886, indicating a significant degree of convergence.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Convergent Validity.

Constructs	Cronbach’s alpha	Rho_A	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted (AVE)
FP	0.933	0.934	0.952	0.832
ICRP	0.871	0.873	0.939	0.886
IHRM	0.897	0.901	0.921	0.661
IPAP	0.923	0.925	0.942	0.766
IRE	0.901	0.902	0.938	0.835
IRP	0.809	0.814	0.887	0.723
NFP	0.962	0.962	0.966	0.704
PHYW	0.749	0.794	0.836	0.564
PSYS	0.811	0.820	0.877	0.643
PSYW	0.869	0.869	0.911	0.719
SOCW	0.951	0.952	0.958	0.719
WFC	0.953	0.956	0.958	0.591

Note. FP = financial performance; ICRP = innovative compensation and reward practices; NFP = non-financial performance; IHRM = innovative HR department; IRE = innovative recruitment; IRP = innovative retraining practices; PHYW = physical wellbeing; IPAP = innovative performance appraisal practices; PSYP = psychological safety; SOCW = social wellbeing; PSYW = psychological wellbeing; WFC = work-family conflict.

Discriminant Validity

This indicates the level of distinction between the two constructs. Using the Fornell and Larcker criteria, discriminant validity is determined for this research. This method utilizes the square root of AVE (Average Variance Extracted) to assess latent constructs (Ab Hamid et al., 2017). Table 2 demonstrates that the constructs seem to be more efficient at interpreting variation than competing constructs since the square root of adjusted variance estimates (AVEs) is higher than for competing constructs. The higher AVEs are represented by bold and italic in Table 2. In this research, the discriminant validity was calculated via the bootstrapping approach with a 95% confidence interval. Based on the findings presented in Table 3, discriminant validity was obtained and the reason is that none of the confidence intervals for the correlations between paired constructs’ contained 1 (Ma & Bennett, 2021).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Fornell-Larcker Criterion.

Constructs	Innovative HRM practices	OP	PHYW	PSYS	PSYW	SOCW	WFC
IHP	0.757
OP	0.613	0.795
PHYW	0.425	0.511	0.751
PSYS	0.176	0.297	0.275	0.802
PSYW	0.610	0.522	0.570	0.159	0.848
SOCW	0.627	0.680	0.587	0.116	0.694	0.848
WFC	0.221	0.318	0.183	0.674	0.155	0.129	0.769

Note. OP = organizational performance; IHP = innovative HRM practices; PHYW = physical wellbeing; PSYW = psychological wellbeing; PSYS = psychological safety; WFC = work-family conflict; SOCW = social wellbeing.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 3.

Bootstrapping Confidence Intervals.

Parameters	Path coefficient	Lower limit	Upper limit
OP → IHP	0.613	0.532	0.684
PHYW → IHP	0.427	0.324	0.518
PHYW → OP	0.513	0.420	0.592
PSYS → IHP	0.174	0.068	0.278
PSYS → OP	0.297	0.178	0.408
PSYS → PHYW	0.273	0.168	0.376
PSYW → IHP	0.619	0.526	0.691
PSYW → OP	0.446	0.357	0.523
PSYW → PHYW	0.494	0.403	0.570
PSYW → PSYS	0.118	0.020	0.215
SOCW → IHP	0.628	0.543	0.697
SOCW → OP	0.681	0.602	0.740
SOCW → PHYW	0.587	0.504	0.659
SOCW → PSYS	0.115	0.003	0.223
SOCW → PSYW	0.607	0.525	0.674
WFC → IHP	0.214	0.112	0.317
WFC → OP	0.319	0.217	0.417
WFC → PHYW	0.184	0.082	0.285
WFC → PSYS	0.674	0.605	0.729
WFC → PSYW	0.143	0.051	0.236
WFC → SOCW	0.126	0.011	0.231

Note. OP = organizational performance; IHP = innovative HRM practices; PSYS = psychological safety; PSYW = psychological wellbeing; PHYW = physical wellbeing; WFC = work-family conflict; SOCW = social wellbeing.

Empirical Results

Smart PLS 3.2.8 was utilized to conduct a path analysis for the study framework evaluation. During this step, the inner model is computed. The internal model’s stated hypotheses are verified by determining a p-value and a t-value. The hypotheses are accepted if the t-value is more than 1.96 and also the p-value is less than .05. The R² represents the ratio of predictor constructs, which is used to measure the study framework’s predictive ability (C.-C. Chen et al., 2021; Khan, Chen, Lu, et al., 2021; Y. Xu et al., 2021). The considerable value of the R² value is approximately 0.67, moderate if it is approximately 0.33, and inadequate if it is approximately 0.19 (Chin, 1998). The empirical results are shown in Table 4 and Figure 2. Data for this study shows that work-family conflict has a significant effect on psychological safety (β = .674, t-value = 21.501) but not a significant impact on psychological wellbeing (β = .011, t-value = 0.289). IHRM has a significant effect on psychological wellbeing (β = .617, t-value = 14.405), physical wellbeing (β = .427, t-value = 8.659), and social wellbeing (β = .628, t-value = 15.969). Psychological safety (β = .198, t-value = 5.078) and social wellbeing (β = .587, t-value = 9.600) significantly impact organizational performance. However, psychological wellbeing (β = .012, t-value = 0.237) and physical wellbeing (β = .107, t-value = 1.829) did not impact organizational performance.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 4.

Empirical Results.

Hypotheses	Path coefficient	t-Values (β)	p-Values
H1a: WFC → PSYS	0.674	21.501	.000
H1b: WFC → PSYW	0.011	0.289	.772
H2: IHP → PSYW	0.617	14.405	.000
H3: IHP → PHYW	0.427	8.659	.000
H4: IHP → SOCW	0.628	15.969	.000
H5: PSYS → OP	0.198	5.078	.000
H6: PSYW → OP	0.012	0.237	.813
H7: PHYW → OP	0.107	1.829	.067
H8: SOCW → OP	0.587	9.600	.000

Note. OP = organizational performance; IHP = innovative HRM practices; PHYW = physical wellbeing; PSYS = psychological safety; SOCW = social wellbeing; PSYW = psychological wellbeing; WFC = work-family conflict.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Research results.

The data for Table 5 is generated using SMART PLS and shows the indirect effects of the study. The results show that work-family conflict has a significant indirect effect on organizational performance via psychological safety (β = .134, t-value = 4.660), while not a significant indirect effect via psychological wellbeing (β = .000, t-value = 0.064). IHRM has a significant indirect effect on organizational performance via social wellbeing (β = .369, t-value = 7.595), while no indirect impacts via psychological wellbeing (β = .008, t-value = 0.235), and via physical wellbeing (β = .046, t-value = 1.720).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 5.

Indirect Effects.

Indirect effects	Sample mean (M)	t-Statistics (|O/SD|)	p-Values
WFC → PSYS → OP	0.134	4.660	.000
WFC → PSYW → OP	0.000	0.064	.949
IHP → PSYW → OP	0.008	0.235	.814
IHP → PHYW → OP	0.046	1.720	.086
IHP → SOCW → OP	0.369	7.595	.000

Note. OP = organizational performance; PHYW = physical wellbeing; IHP = innovative HRM practices; PSYS = psychological safety; SOCW = social wellbeing; WFC = work-family conflict; PSYW = psychological wellbeing.