The importance of staff trusts and commitment in the productivity of Cypriot businesses

 Corresponding author: Taxiarchis Vouglanis Copyright © 2025 Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. This article is published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0. The importance of staff trusts and commitment in the productivity of Cypriot businesses Michael Michalakis and Taxiarchis Vouglanis * Department of Greek Philology, Democritus University of Thrace, Greece. Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(01), 128-143 Publication history: Received on 07 May 2025; revised on 13 July 2025; accepted on 15 July 2025 Article DOI: https://doi.org/10.30574/gjeta.2025.24.1.0220 Abstract Employee engagement is inextricably linked to productivity and innovation in organizations. According to the literature, engaged employees develop an emotional bond with the company they work for, increasing their level of collaboration, while at the same time being fully aligned with the vision and goals of the company. At the same time, this commitment is increased through investments in training and the implementation of a methodology and techniques that emphasize a fair and objective recruitment process, which increases trust and contributes to the establishment of a favorable working environment. The research revealed that these types of HR practices have a significant impact on increasing productivity and greater commitment. Furthermore, the study points out that engaged employees lead to better functioning of an organization and therefore to greater success, while lack of engagement results in a neutral or indifferent attitude of the employee, less willingness to cooperate and high rates of resignation from the work they offer. Through statistical analysis, it is understood that engagement acts as an intermediate dynamic variable between human efforts and overall performance, highlighting the need for organizations to develop strategies that strengthen employee engagement. Keywords: Commitment; Productivity, Innovation; Trust; Training; Rewards; Recruitment; Human Resources; Cypriot Businesses; Organizational Performance 1. Introduction Employee commitment and trust are considered essential factors for the smooth functioning and sustainability of organizations. In today's business world where competitiveness is ever-present and innovation optimizes internal processes, strengthening employee commitment is a fundamental goal. Organizations that direct resources to foster a culture of trust to ensure employee commitment can reap a number of benefits, such as higher productivity, more constructive collaboration and reduced turnover rates. The research explores the link between engagement and productivity, as well as the processes by which human resource practices and techniques, such as training, rewards/bonuses and recruitment processes, enhance engagement. In particular, the role of engagement as a factor variable that intervenes and positively mediates these relationships is studied, providing valuable results for the strategic arrangement of human resources in organizations. The study focuses on Cypriot companies, providing valuable findings regarding the local labor market. Furthermore, it explores and reveals how commitment affects organizational performance and is a key feature of their competitive position, shaping the basis for continuous improvement and progress. Through the literature review and empirical analysis, the importance of developing a positive work climate where employees feel an emotional connection and are Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(01), 128-143 129 aligned with organizational goals, while at the same time being able to gradually develop both professionally and personally. 2. Commitment as a mediator variable on the relationship between employee training and development and organizational innovation and productivity According to Bakker, Demerouti and Schaufeli (2003), employees who are committed are possessed by positive emotions, are enthusiastic and supportive towards changes, moreover they are cooperative and willing to work for a common goal that is identified with the perspective and goals of the organization which guarantee the increase in its productivity. Dirani (2009) states that the commitment of employees increases the productivity through which it will have the comparative advantage in relation to its competitors, a view that Harte, Schmidt and Hayes (2002) also agree with. Kahn (1992) states that employees who are possessed of commitment constitute a strong advantage for the company in terms of increasing growth and productivity. In support, Khalifeh and Som (2013) state that commitment is correlated with, among other things, the level of productivity. In addition, committed employees feel that they have an emotional bond with the organization and its goals, are more interested in their development and not in leaving the company, focused more on the result that they have the ability to achieve with their team, instead of what the organization can offer them, and for these reasons contribute more to productivity (Kahn, 1992). In conclusion, an employee with high levels of commitment is an investment capital for every company, it adds value to the value of the company, and it is necessary for the element of commitment to be a research question for every manager in every future research with the ultimate goal of investigating or improving it, and also to take it into account during the recruitment/selection process. Employee commitment will give the company the competitive advantage for further improving productivity. According to a study conducted by Phipps, Prieto and ND Inguri, (2013), it was found, among other things, that employee commitment leads to corporate productivity. They believe that employee commitment is a result of the company's commitment to them, and they also believe that employee commitment is an important asset for the future of the company, specifically commitment is enhanced by providing employees with opportunities to participate in work-related decision-making and access to relevant information. Furthermore, employee commitment to the company they work for causes behaviors that are positive and are associated with organizational productivity. In conclusion, they confirm that factors and practices that promote and encourage employee commitment should be embraced in an effort to enhance organizational productivity. Additionally, we emphasize the significance of digital technologies in the educational domain and employee training, which are very productive and successful, and how they facilitate and improve assessment, intervention, and educational procedures via mobile devices that bring educational activities everywhere [82-85], various ICTs applications that are the main supporters of education [86-92], and AI, STEM, GAMES and ROBOTICS that raise educational procedures to new performance levers [39-98]. Additionally, ICTs are being improved and combined with theories and models for cultivating emotional intelligence, mindfulness, and metacognition [99-115]. accelerates and improves more the educational practices and results, especially in employee training Aiming to explore the opposite relationship between employee engagement and corporate productivity through the study of the literature, we concluded that research has shown that employees with a lower level of engagement have a limited intention to support new changes in the company, are not sufficiently cooperative and willing to identify with the corporate vision and goals, are not emotionally attached to the company, and are more interested in what they will get from the company rather than what they will give (Dirani 2009; Voulgaris, 2023; 2024; Voulgaris and Dragas, 2022; Voulgaris, Draga, and Dragas, 2022). Based on the discussions on pages 43 to 52, employee engagement is also associated with productivity (Dirani 2009). The above discussion leads us to the hypothesis: Hypothesis 1: Commitment functions as a mediator variable on the relationship between employee training and development and organizational productivity. 3. Commitment as a mediator variable on the relationship employee rewards/benefits and organizational innovation and productivity The relationship between employee and employer has been described in the literature as a social exchange relationship. Social exchange theory suggests that employees enter into a connection with their employer in order to obtain maximum benefits (Blau, 1964). Social exchange begins with companies with their willingness to implement reciprocating actions in the form of benefits for employees (Gould-Williams, 2007). Through these views of what the company they are employed by owes them, employees create feelings of commitment, which contribute to its efficiency, Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(01), 128-143 130 since they have also considered the provision of organizational rewards (De Clercq and Rius, 2007). These feelings of commitment stimulate additive attitudes and reactive behaviors of employees, which create added value to the companies (Settoon et al., 1996). Furthermore, recent empirical research indicates that the provision of organizational rewards shows employees that the organization wishes to initiate a social exchange with them, thereby creating a substantive and psychological contract of influence between them and their employer (Malhotra, Badhwar, and Prowse, 2007; Miao et al., 2013; Newman and Sheikh, 2012; Newman, Thana Coody and Hui, 2011). In support, Blau (1964), Rousseau (1998), Haar and Spell (2004) report that the social exchange theory assumes that, when an individual is satisfied with the rewards provided by his company, the development of his positive attitudes will have an impact on the employer side with higher levels of commitment. The existing literature supports that the provision of rewards/benefits for the achievement of a specific corporate goal can increase employees' effort for commitment (Hollenbeck and Klein 1987; Farabee et al., 1999; Petrou and Procopio, 2016). According to Haar and Spell, (2004) when employees are satisfied with the rewards/benefits provided by the company they are employed by, they reciprocate by developing higher levels of commitment to the company, a fact which is also consistent with the social exchange theory. Empirical research in private sector companies generally supports that the provision of rewards leads the employee to reciprocate with enhanced levels of commitment, (Mottaz, 1988, LoCoco, 1990). In addition, there is considerable evidence from research which supports the view that rewards lead to higher levels of commitment in private and public law organizations (Angle and Perry, 1983; Malhotra, Bud haw rand Prowse, 2007; Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Meyerland Allen, 1991; Meyer and Smith, 2000; Miao et al., 2013; Newman and Sheikh, 2012). In conclusion, rewards/benefits are a key to many doors for the employer. They are the driving force through the recognition of the contribution of each employee, which leads to the cultivation of dedicated employees. The recognition of employees through rewards is a smart way of encouraging them to convince them that the qualitative and continuous effort they have made is appreciated and in this way creates the conditions for an upward trend in employee commitment(Kivas et al., 2017).The company that, through rewards, manages to have more dedicated employees achieves increased productivity, innovative action, employees with positive attitudes, collaboration, persistence in achieving corporate goals and at the same time its growth (Kivas et al., 2017; Mullie, 2018; Amabile et al., 1996; Turban and Greening, 1996). According to a study conducted by Malhotra, Badhwar and Prowse (2007) on 640 employees in 4 call centers in one of the largest commercial banks in the United Kingdom, it was found, among other things, that rewards/benefits have a positive effect on the creation of dedicated employees, that through rewards and the increased dedication that is created, a greater degree of achievement of corporate goals is achieved, due to the positive climate that is created and the commitment, employees do not want to leave the company, which increases their commitment even more, employees are satisfied, they believe that they have opportunities for advancement and autonomy, and there is a great deal of collaboration at all levels. On the other hand, it creates for the company the obligation to search for and invent those elements that increase employee commitment since they create such important results for its further development. In an attempt to explore the opposite relationship between employee engagement and rewards/benefits through the study of the literature, research has shown that with fewer rewards/benefits, employees are less engaged, resulting in corporate goals not being achieved satisfactorily, staff not being satisfied, employee turnover from the company being high, and collaboration being limited (Kivas et al., 2017; Mullie, 2018; Mathieu and Zajac 1990; Meyer and Allen, 1991; Meyer and Smith, 2000). Based on the discussions on pages 43 to 52, employee engagement is associated with both innovation and productivity. The above discussion leads us to the following hypothesis: Hypothesis 2: Commitment acts as a mediator variable on the relationship between employee rewards/benefits and organizational productivity. 4. Commitment as a mediator variable between the relationship between recruitment/selection processes and organizational innovation and productivity Following an impartial, impartial, and effective process for recruiting and selecting the most suitable personnel based on the needs of the organization is a key point for both the company's prospects and for the employees, while among other benefits, it also strengthens their sense of commitment to the company they are employed by (Meyer and Smith, 2000). Dessler (2005) states that human resource management is a process that, among other things, expects employees to be committed to organizational goals. The connection of employee activities with organizational strategy, as well as effective recruitment and selection of personnel contribute to ensuring that employees will remain and show greater commitment to the company (Ballantyne, 2009). It can be argued that human actions are influenced by what they see and hear, so employees are willing to maintain or even boost their commitment when they consider the recruitment/selection processes to be fair. This fact is confirmed by Barakah and Ge, (2017) who state that a fair and impartial management of this process will contribute to raising the feeling of employee commitment even higher, Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(01), 128-143 131 considering that it is a determining factor for the efficiency of the company (Mosaddegh, Ferlie, and Rosenberg, 2008). According to empirical knowledge, a properly designed organizational environment characterized by cooperative relationships through the organizational structure, stability, functionality, meritocracy, will attract enough employees and encourage them to the highest levels of commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991, Miaoetal., 2013). Furthermore, employees with greater commitment contribute to the company's low turnover rate due to the high level of commitment they possess (Meyer and Allen, 1997). In conclusion, it is clear that recruitment and selection of personnel are key factors that concern companies to keep their employees committed (Meyer and Smith, 2000; Rosetta., 1996). In addition, several academics agree that there is a positive relationship between recruitment and selection of personnel and employee commitment (Miaoetal., 2013; García-Cabrera and García-Soto, 2011; Genevičiūtė-Janonienė and Endriulaitienė, 2014; Srivastava and Dhar, 2016). According to a survey conducted by Barakah et al., (2018) on 111 employees, they found, among other things, how important the selection and recruitment process is for a company, both from the corporate side and from the employee side, in addition to how a properly oriented, meritocratic and fair selection and recruitment process affects the level of employee engagement, as well as how the company's adherence to the correct selection and recruitment procedures is directly related to the level of employee engagement. Wishing to explore the opposite relationship between employee engagement and recruitment/selection of personnel through the study of the literature, studies have shown that with less fair, meritocratic, and transparent recruitment and selection procedures, the conditions for a lower level of employee engagement towards the employer are created, with parallel effects such as hiring not the most suitable ones with all the obvious consequences, such as an increased rate of employee abandonment from the company, low levels of cooperation, communication between employees, and limitations in achieving corporate goals (Ballantyne, 2009; Mosaddegh, Ferlie, and Rosenberg, 2008; Meyer and Smith, 2000). Based on the discussions on pages 43 to 52, employee engagement is associated with both innovation and productivity. The above discussion leads us to the following hypothesis Hypothesis 3: Commitment functions as a mediator between recruitment/selection processes and organizational productivity. 5. Method The purpose of this research is to examine the impact of human resource practices (Rewards/Benefits, Training and Development, Recruitment/Selection Processes) on business productivity. 5.1. Research sample The Sampling Unit of this research is all enterprises operating in the territory of the Free Republic of Cyprus. At the level of enterprise category based on activity, all enterprises were selected for the needs of this research as they are given based on the table of the Cyprus Statistical Service. At the level of selection of the category of enterprises, this was done based on the number of employed personnel, which was 50+ (medium) and 250+ (large). In addition, the selected enterprises had an organized human resources management department/directorate, temporary employees did not participate in the research, while finally state and municipal enterprises did not participate in the research either. Finally, the scope of the research of this research study was limited to medium and large enterprises, which operate in all sectors of the economy, with legal personality in Cyprus. 46 companies responded to this survey, which constitutes 19.2% of the total of 240 companies that met the requirements - criteria of the survey. The detailed final results were that 102 companies refused to participate in the survey due to lack of time, 47 companies did not accept to take part in the research framework due to their company's policy of not participating in surveys, 23 companies did not want to take part in the survey due to general reluctance and finally 22 companies refused to participate because the researcher could not satisfy their requests, which were not consistent with the rules of ethics and morality. In conclusion, the researcher has finally received a positive response from 46 companies to conduct research under certain conditions that he agreed with them (Dillman, 2002; Cassel and Symon, 1994; Papanastasiou and Papanastasiou, 2014). Initially, a total of 1565 questionnaires were given and 1486 completed questionnaires were received, a response rate of approximately 95%. The sample size/unit of analysis (i.e. the 1486 completed questionnaires) is determined based on the analysis method to be used and the number of variables. In general, there is a wide range of opinions regarding the minimum required sample size. According to Gorsuch (1983) and Kline (1979), a minimum but satisfactory sample size in factor analysis is defined as 100 answered questionnaires, Guilford (1954) who insists on 200, and Cattell (1978) Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(01), 128-143 132 who claims that 250 is a satisfactory number for factor analysis, and we conclude with the approach of Comrey and Lee (1992) that for a satisfactory sample size in factor analysis the following are defined: 100 = poor, 200 = adequate, 300 = good, 500 = very good, and over 1000 = excellent. 5.2. Research tool Some of the main reasons for choosing the anonymous self-administered questionnaire procedure are oriented towards confirming to the respondents that their anonymity will be respected, the wider possibility of connecting more characteristics or attributes, and the results extracted from a wide population to be reliable. (Cohen et al., 2008; Filias 1996; Chalkia, 2003). The questionnaire took an average of 11 minutes to answer, and consists of seven sections. The 1st section refers to the cover letter of the first acquaintance with the volunteer respondent/participant in the survey, the 2nd section includes the demographic data of the employees, the 3rd - 7th sections examine the views of the employees on issues of human resource management and organizational performance of the organization, such as: human resource practices, workplace support, stress, trust, employee trends, and organizational performance. 5.2.1. More specifically, the questionnaire included: Section. The cover letter, which aimed to: 1. Inform who the researcher is, and which university he/she attends, 2. Explain the purpose of the research, 3. Explain the topic the research deals with, 4. Explain where the research will be used, 5. Inform that all answers will be confidential, 6. Inform about the time required to answer the questionnaire, 7. Inform what the package provided to them includes, 8. Inform them of the researcher's personal mobile phone number for immediate resolution of any questions, 9. Thank them for their support • Section. Questions related to the demographics of the participants: sex, age, marital status, level of education, full-time or part-time employment, years of service in the organization, monthly salary, level of responsibility, staff in your department, staff reporting to you, union membership. • Section. (PART B) Questions related to systems and procedures used in the organization to increase staff efficiency: Rewards and benefits, Work plan, Training, Recruitment and selection procedures, Employee relations, Communication, Performance appraisal and management. • Section (PART C) Questions related to support in the workplace: administrative support, peer support. • Section. Questions related to stress at work: Workload, relationships, goals, career. • Section. Questions related to trust: Fairness-fairness, deception, commitment, competence, integrity/dignity, kindness. • Section. Questions related to employee behavior/attitudes: commitment, employee dismissal/resignation, absences from work (excluding holidays). • Section. Questions related to organizational performance: Innovation, customer satisfaction/retention, productivity. As for the productivity part, this was created based on previous research. More specifically, productivity in the organization was measured using a combination and the necessary readjustment of the measurement scales of Škrinjar, Bosilj-Vukšić and Indihar-Štemberger (2008) by Harel and Tzafrir (1999), Gunasekaran, Patel and Tirtiroglu (2001), Johns (2003) and Gunasekaran, Patel, and McGaughey (2004). The questions that were selected and determined the measurement scale refer to the effort to achieve corporate goals, the productivity of the organization, and the conscious participation in this effort by the staff, elements that were used in several empirical studies such as Day and Reibstein (1997), Merchant (1998), and Belot, Boone and Van Ours, (2007). The questions used and adapted accordingly for the needs of this study by Škrinjar, Bosilj-Vukšić, and Indihar-Štemberger (2008) were F 3 A/A 1,2, and 5, by Harel and Tzafrir (1999) were F 3 A/A 2 and 3, by Gunasekaran, Patel, and Tirtiroglu (2001), and Gunasekaran, Patel and McGaughey (2004), were F 3 A/A 1,2,3 and 4 and by Johns (2003) was F 3 A/A 5. The human resource practice related to training and development of personnel was measured based on the measurement questions used by Kuvaas and Dysvik (2010) and Guthrie et al., (2009). The questions that were selected and determined the measurement scale refer to the variety of opportunities offered by the organization for training, the identification of training activities with the strategic goals of the organization, the commitment on the part of the organization for staff training and the allocation of resources for staff training, data that are also in agreement with the research of Noe et al., (1993), Wognum (1998) and Montesino (2002). The questions that were used and adapted accordingly for the needs of the present research by Kuvaas and Dysvik, (2010) were 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d, and by Guthrie et al., (2009) 3a and 3b. (see questionnaire - appendix A). Regarding the practice of employee rewards/benefits, it was measured using measurement questions from the empirical studies of Tsai, (2006) and Boon et al., (2011). The questions that were selected and determined the Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(01), 128-143 133 measurement scale refer to the extra effort of employees, the connection of efficiency with salary, the identification of common goals of employees and the organization, and the recognition that employees receive, characteristics that were used in several empirical studies such as Delaney and Huselid (1996), and Vandenberg, Richardson and Eastman, (1999). The questions that were used and adapted accordingly for the needs of the present study from Tsai, (2006) were 1a, 1b, 1c and 1d, and from Boon et al., (2011) 1c and 1d respectively. Regarding the practices of personnel recruitment/selection procedures, it was measured using measurement scales based on the empirical research of Ang, Bartram, McNeil, Leggat, and Stanton (2013) and Guthrie et al., (2009). The questions that were selected and determined the measurement scale refer to the feeling of trust that employees have for the procedures, the belief in the practices used by the organization to select the best, and the practical proof that selecting the best will give the organization a competitive advantage, elements that were used in several empirical studies such as Armstrong (2006) Lado and Wilson, (1994) and Pfeffer, (1994). The questions used and adapted accordingly for the needs of this study by Ang, Bartram, McNeil, Leggat, and Stanton (2013) were 4a, 4b, and 4c and by Guthrie et al., (2009) were 4a and 4b respectively. Employee engagement was measured based on the measurement scales used by Allen and Meyer (1990) and Eisenberger, Fasolo, and LaMastro, (1990). The questions that were selected and determined the measurement scale refer to the collegial solidarity, and the emotional commitment to the organization that is carried out with enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge, elements that were used in several empirical studies such as Leiter and Maslach (1997), Ogundele (2012) and Karim and Noor (2017). The questions that were used and adapted accordingly for the needs of the present study by Allen, and Meyer (1990) were E3. A/A/ 3, 5 and 6 and by Eisenberger, Fasolo, and LaMastro, (1990) the E3. A/A/1 and 2 respectively. After an extensive reliability analysis, it was deemed necessary to remove the question E.3.4. (E34). The factor analysis was repeated without this variable with satisfactory results. As for trust, it was measured based on the measurement questions developed by Cook and Wall, (1980) and Tzafrir and Dolan (2004). The questions that were selected and determined the measurement scale refer to the faith they have in the organization's management, identification with the organization's effectiveness, the expectation, assumption or belief that future actions expectations, assumptions, or beliefs regarding the probability that any future actions of the organization will be beneficial, favorable, or at least not detrimental to the interests of employees, elements that were used in several empirical studies such as Rotter (1967), Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, (1995) and Sultana and Johari (2017). The questions that were used and adapted accordingly for the needs of the present study from both Cook and Wall, (1980) and Tzafrir and Dolan (2004) were D/A 1,2,3 and 4. 6. Results and discussion The research sample consisted of 771 Men (51.8%) and 716 Women (48.2%), which were divided into 6 age groups. The group between 25-34 years held the lead at a rate of 33%. The percentages recorded in the remaining age groups concerned 35-44 years 25.3%, 45-54 years 24.8%, 55-64 years 9%, 18-24 years 6.9% and 64 years or older at a rate of 1%. Regarding marital status, most were recorded in the married group (64%). More specifically, 951 people responded as married, 377 single, 101 divorced, 39 separated, 18 widowed, while 1 person did not give any answer. The majority of the sample were high school graduates at 38%, while there were responses related to all levels of education such as college (23.6%), university (19.8%), holders of a master's degree (12.4%) and a doctoral degree (0.5%) and below high school (5.5%). Regarding the type of work, the vast majority of the sample was found to be full-time at 95.8% with experience in the same organization of less than 1 year (10.6%), 1-2 years (13.4%), 3-5 years (19.4%), 6-9 years (21%), 10-15 years (20.4%) and over 16 years (15.1%) and the amount of salary earnings of the sample ranged from 501-1500 euros (31.65%). The ranking of the employees who participated in the survey is 1100 employees (74%), 208 supervisors (14%) and 176 managers (11.9%), while 1 person did not give any answer with an average number of employees per department of approximately 16.5 people and approximately 5.1 people reporting to the entire sample. Finally, approximately 2/3 of the respondents were not members of a union, with the percentage standing at 69.3% compared to 30.7% who answered that they were members of a union. In this section we will examine the results for the mediation tests using the extracted factors from the factor analysis of the previous chapter. In summary, we want to first test the relationship between HRD and organizational performance and whether commitment acts as a mediating variable. To do this, we will examine the six possible combinations using HRD factors and organizational performance factors. All models for rewards, benefits, training and development, and recruitment/selection processes are given in Tables 1-3 respectively. In Models 1-4, the correlations for productivity are examined. First, a basic model is examined using only the control variables (Model 1), then we examine the relationship between the outcome variable and the predictor variable (Model 2), then we examine the relationship Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(01), 128-143 134 between the predictor variable and the mediating variable (Model 3), and finally we examine the relationship between the outcome variable and the predictor and mediating variables (Model 4). 6.1. Rewards/benefits Comparing Table 1, we observe that the relationship between rewards/benefits and productivity is significant (Model 2, p< .01) and the relationship between rewards/benefits and commitment is also significant (Model 3, p< .01). From Model 4 we observe that the coefficients of rewards/benefits and commitment are both significant and therefore we conclude that commitment acts as a partial mediating variable between the relationship between Rewards/benefits and productivity. This finding supports Hypothesis H5B that commitment acts as a mediating variable between rewards and benefits and firm performance. 6.2. Training and Development Comparing Table 2, we observe that the relationship between training and development and productivity is significant (Model 2, p< .01) and the relationship between training and development and commitment is also significant (Model 3, p< .01). From Model 4, we observe that the coefficients of training and development and commitment are both significant and therefore we conclude that commitment acts as a partial mediating variable between the relationship between training and development and productivity. This finding supports Hypothesis Y4B that commitment acts as a mediating variable between staff training and firm performance. 6.3. Recruitment and Selection Processes Comparing Table 3, we observe that the relationship between recruitment and selection processes and productivity is significant (Model 2, p< .01) and the relationship between recruitment and selection processes and commitment is also significant (Model 3, p< .01). From Model 4, we observe that the coefficients of recruitment and selection processes and commitment are both significant and therefore we conclude that commitment acts as a partial mediating variable between the relationship between recruitment and selection processes and productivity. This finding supports Hypothesis Y6B that commitment acts as a mediating variable between recruitment/selection processes and firm performance. Table 1 Linear mediation relationships for Rewards/Benefits Productivity Model 1 Productivity Model 2 Productivity Model 3 Commitment Model 4 Productivity Constant 5.332 5.310 0.142 5.258 0.072 0.069 0.070 0.065 Sex 0.074 0.122 -0.032 0.132 0.056 0.054 0.054 0.050 Age 0.147 0.153 0.038 0.139 0.059 0.057 0.058 0.053 Education -0.201 -0.191 -0.030 -0.186 0.061 0.058 0.059 0.054 Sercive 0.121 0.068 -0.192 0.135 0.061 0.058 0.059 0.055 Salary (Low-wage) -0.178 -0.151 -0.244 -0.069 0.067 0.064 0.065 0.060 Salary (High-wage) -0.122 -0.143 0.039 -0.147 0.083 0.079 0.080 0.074 Responsibility 0.125 0.054 0.403 -0.076 Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(01), 128-143 135 0.070 0.067 0.068 0.064 How many employees are there in your department? 0.010 -0.001 0.024 -0.010 0.026 0.025 0.026 0.024 Union -0.144 -0.049 -0.117 -0.003 0.060 0.058 0.059 0.055 Industry 0.028 0.025 -0.029 0.042 0.057 0.054 0.055 0.051 Size 0.065 0.094 0.032 0.084 0.028 0.027 0.027 0.025 Reward and Benefits 0.291 0.112 0.250 0.025 0.026 0.024 Commitment 0.336 0.025 Adjusted R2 0.023 0.108 0.107 0.211 ΔR2 0.075 0.029 0.031 F 4.017 133.309 19.222 165.261 Table 2 Linear mediation relationships for Training and Development Productivity Model 1 Productivity Model 2 Productivity Model 3 Commitment Model 4 Productivity Constant 5.332 5.362 0.188 5.294 0.072 0.071 0.068 0.067 Sex 0.074 0.057 -0.073 0.081 0.056 0.055 0.053 0.052 Age 0.147 0.140 0.030 0.131 0.059 0.058 0.056 0.055 Education -0.201 -0.211 -0.045 -0.201 0.061 0.060 0.058 0.056 Service 0.121 0.104 -0.194 0.170 0.061 0.060 0.058 0.057 Salary (Low-wage) -0.178 -0.169 -0.241 -0.085 0.067 0.066 0.064 0.062 Salary (High-wage) -0.122 -0.135 0.030 -0.136 0.083 0.081 0.079 0.077 Responsibility 0.125 0.084 0.379 -0.039 0.070 0.069 0.066 0.066 Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(01), 128-143 136 How many employees are there in your department? 0.010 0.005 0.022 -0.003 0.026 0.026 0.025 0.024 Union -0.144 -0.159 -0.174 -0.093 0.060 0.059 0.057 0.056 Industry 0.028 0.038 -0.018 0.050 0.057 0.056 0.054 0.053 Size 0.065 0.050 0.003 0.050 0.028 0.027 0.027 0.026 Trainingand Development 0.186 0.227 0.109 0.025 0.025 0.025 Commitment 0.340 0.026 Adjusted R2 0.023 0.059 0.147 0.160 ΔR2 0.034 0.038 0.032 F 4.017 53.096 85.252 113.539 Table 3 Linear mediation relationships for recruitment and selection processes Productivity Model 1 Productivity Model 2 Productivity Model 3 Commitment Model 4 Productivity Constant 5.332 5.335 0.152 5.279 0.072 0.069 0.070 0.065 Sex 0.074 0.071 -0.053 0.088 0.056 0.054 0.054 0.051 Age 0.147 0.118 0.021 0.110 0.059 0.057 0.057 0.054 Education -0.201 -0.205 -0.036 -0.199 0.061 0.058 0.059 0.055 Job 0.121 0.098 -0.183 0.161 0.061 0.059 0.059 0.055 Salary (Low-wage) -0.178 -0.104 -0.218 -0.030 0.067 0.065 0.065 0.061 Salary (High-wage) -0.122 -0.193 0.012 -0.188 0.083 0.080 0.080 0.075 Responsibility 0.125 0.125 0.430 -0.013 0.070 0.067 0.068 0.064 0.010 0.004 0.025 -0.006 Global Journal of Engineering and Technology Advances, 2025, 24(01), 128-143 143 [106] E Mitsea, A Drigas, C Skianis 2022 Metacognition in Autism Spectrum Disorder: Digital Technologies in Metacognitive Skills Training , Technium Social Sciences Journal, 153-173 [107] Chaidi, I. ., & Drigas, A. (2022). Social and Emotional Skills of children with ASD: Assessment with Emotional Comprehension Test (TEC) in a Greek context and the role of ICTs. , Technium Social Sciences Journal, 33(1), 146–163. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v33i1.6857 [108] Kontostavlou, E. Z., & Drigas, A. (2021). How Metacognition Supports Giftedness in Leadership: A Review of Contemporary Literature. , International Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC), 14(2), pp. 4–16. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijac.v14i2.23237 [109] Drigas A, Mitsea E, Skianis C, 2022 Intermittent Oxygen Fasting and Digital Technologies: from Antistress and Hormones Regulation to Wellbeing, Bliss and Higher Mental States , Technium BioChemMed journal 3 (2), 55-73 [110] Drigas A, Mitsea E 2021 Neuro-Linguistic Programming & VR via the 8 Pillars of Metacognition X 8 Layers of Consciousness X 8 Intelligences , Technium Social Sciences Journal 26(1), 159–176. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v26i1.5273 [111] Drigas A, Papoutsi C, Skianis C, Being an Emotionally Intelligent Leader through the Nine-Layer Model of Emotional Intelligence-The Supporting Role of New Technologies, Sustainability MDPI 15 (10), 1-18 [112] Drigas A, Mitsea E 2022 Conscious Breathing: a Powerful Tool for Physical & Neuropsychological Regulation. The role of Mobile Apps , Technium Social Sciences Journal 28, 135-158. https://doi.org/10.47577/tssj.v28i1.5922 [113] Drigas A, Karyotaki M, Skianis C, 2017 Success: A 9 layered-based model of giftedness , International Journal of Recent Contributions from Engineering, Science & IT 5(4) 4-18, https://doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v5i4.7725 [114] Drigas A, Mitsea E, Skianis C 2021. The Role of Clinical Hypnosis and VR in Special Education , International Journal of Recent Contributions from Engineering Science & IT (IJES) 9(4), 4-17. [115] Drigas A, Bakola L, 2021 The 8x8 Layer Model Consciousness-Intelligence-Knowledge Pyramid, and the Platonic Perspectives , International Journal of Recent Contributions from Engineering, Science & IT (iJES) 9(2) 57-72, https://doi.org/10.3991/ijes.v9i2.22497