Human Res MGMT Journal - 2023 - Pham - Common Good Human Resource Management Ethical Employee Behaviors and

Received: 8 April 2022 Revised: 15 December 2022 Accepted: 2 January 2023
DOI: 10.1111/1748-8583.12493
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Common good human resource management,

ethical employee behaviors, and organizational
citizenship behaviors toward the individual
Nhat Tan Pham1,2 | Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour3 |

Vijay Pereira4 | Muhammad Usman5 | Moazzam Ali6 |
Tan Vo-Thanh7
1
International University, Ho Chi Minh City,
Vietnam Abstract
2
Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh What happens to the behaviors of employees when their
City, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam
organizations' human resource management (HRM) systems
3
NEOMA Business School, Mont-Saint-
Aignan, France take into account any challenges to the common good?
NEOMA Business School, Reims, France
4
Despite common good HRM (CGHRM) having recently
5
NUST Business School, National University of been raised, the existing literature has not yet investigated
Sciences & Technology, Rawalpindi, Islamabad,
Pakistan the role played by CGHRM in relation to employee behav-
6
COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore, iors. Drawing on social exchange theory, we addressed this
Pakistan
issue by exploring CGHRM and its influences on employee
7
Department of Marketing, Excelia Business
School, La Rochelle, France
ethical behavior and organizational citizenship behaviors
toward the individual (OCBI). We conducted this study
Correspondence
in Vietnam, in two subsequent stages. Stage 1 involved
Nhat Tan Pham, International University, Linh
Trung Ward, Thu Duc City, Ho Chi Minh City a mixed-method approach to develop and validate four
700000, Vietnam. items suited to measure CGHRM. In Stage 2, we examined
Email: ptnhat@hcmiu.edu.vn
a mediation-moderation model showing the relationship
between CGHRM and employee behaviors, and investi-
gated the roles played by value commitment and spiritual
leadership. We also included a survey using time-lagged
data and different sources. The findings reveal that CGHRM
directly and positively influences ethical employee behav-
iors and OCBI, and indirectly and positively influences these
two types of behavior via value commitment. Interestingly,
the relationship between CGHRM and ethical employee
Abbreviations: AVE, average variance extracted; CFI, comparative fix index; CGHRM, common good human resource management; HRM, human resource
management; KMO, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin; OCB, organizational citizenship behaviors; OCBI, organizational citizenship behaviors toward the individual;
RMSEA, root mean square errors of approximation; SRMR, standardized root mean square residua; TLI, Tucker–Lewis index; VIF, variance inflation factor.
Hum Resour Manag J. 2023;33:977–1000. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/hrmj © 2023 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. 977
17488583, 2023, 4, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1748-8583.12493 by <Shibboleth>-member@80240413.manipal.edu, Wiley Online Library on [09/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
978 PHAM et al.
behaviors was found to be significantly stronger when

combined with high levels of spiritual leadership. Unexpect-
edly, however, spiritual leadership was not found to moder-
ate the CGHRM-OCBI relationship.
KEYWORDS
common good HRM, ethical employee behaviors, organizational
citizenship behaviors towards the individuals, spiritual leadership,
value commitment, Vietnam
Practitioner notes
What is currently known:
• Recent global crises have posed challenges for firms in relation to adjusting their business and management
models (e.g., common good HRM [CGHRM]) to deal with challenges related to the common good.
• CGHRM may be essential for organizations to facilitate positive employee behaviors.
• However, the existing literature shows a current lack of understanding of CGHRM.
• The question of how CGHRM drives employee behaviors at the workplace remains overlooked.
What our paper adds:

• This study develops and validates a CGHRM scale composed of four items.
• This study improves our understanding of why CGHRM is vital to boosting ethical employee behaviors
and organizational citizenship behaviors toward the individual (OCBI).
• This study explores the role played by spiritual leadership in the influence of CGHRM on ethical employee
behaviors and OCBI.
Implications for practice:

• Paying attention to CGHRM may encourage employee involvement in ethical activities and help them
avoid any unethical actions that may harm the organization.
• Organizations need to promote a better working environment in which employees may voluntarily
support each other.
• Organizations should combine CGHRM policies and spiritual leadership in order to encourage positive
behaviors.
1 | INTRODUCTION
Previous research into human resources management (HRM) has indicated the importance of building a sustainable
HRM system in order to encourage positive employee behaviors in the workplace (e.g., Newman et al., 2016; Shen
& Benson, 2016). The common conceptualization of sustainable HRM involves integrating the social, environmen-
tal, and economic goals of organizations (Bush, 2020). Recently, management scholars have come to focus on the
role played by two types of sustainable HRM in influencing employee behaviors: “socially” responsible HRM (e.g.,
Latan et al., 2022; Shen & Benson, 2016) and green HRM (e.g., Dumont et al., 2017). However, in light of several
recent complex and significant global challenges, it has become clear that a sustainable HRM strategy requires
a new approach—common good HRM (CGHRM)—that reverses the perspective of the management model from
inside-out (as is the case in traditional approaches) to outside-in (Aust et al., 2020). According to the United Nations'
Sustainable Development Goals Report 2022, recent global crises such as climate change, poverty, food security,
PHAM et al. 979
and unemployment in developing countries are posing challenges not just for governments but also for firms in
adjusting their business and management models to align them with the goal of addressing common good challenges.
Common good challenges have been considered by several scholars in the business field, resulting in collaborative
work that may provide an opportunity to develop knowledge, skills, virtues, and meaning, as well as producing goods
and services that satisfy society's needs and wants (Sison & Fontrodona, 2013). From this theoretical perspective,
CGHRM is considered an HRM policy aimed at promoting competencies, knowledge, skills, and attitudes in order to
solve the “grand challenges” and contribute to common good goals (Aust et al., 2020). CGHRM therefore emphasizes
the global and local contexts of organizations, recognizing the individual, collective, and reciprocal factors of organ-
izational activities, and orienting toward common good goals in terms of ecological, economic, social and human
aspects (Aust et al., 2020).
As in sustainable HRM studies, a better understanding of CGHRM's consequences—such as those it has for
employee behaviors—will provide a novel insight into its importance in organizations. However, unlike traditional
sustainable types of HRM, which address economic goals, the aim of CGHRM is to support both business leaders and
employees in their contributions to social and ecological progress worldwide (Aust et al., 2020). Effective CGHRM
often includes policies aimed at improving employee self-management skills and competencies, workplace democ-
racy, employment creation, and human rights. It can therefore impact employee behaviors—including ethical ones,
which are understood as complying with the appropriate standards among individuals in a specific work-related situ-
ation (Fraedrich, 1993)—as well as organizational citizenship behaviors toward the individual (OCBI), defined as those
that directly benefit specific individuals and indirectly contribute to the organization (Williams & Anderson, 1991).
Obviously, sustainable HRM studies emphasize practices aimed at achieving financial, ecological, and social goals that
have an impact both inside and outside an organization (Ehnert et al., 2016). Over the last decade, researchers have
paid attention to employee behaviors concerning HRM policies aimed at achieving corporate sustainability—e.g.,
green and socially responsible HRM policies (Aust et al., 2020). Green HRM is found to promote pro-environmental
employee behaviors (Dumont et al., 2017; Pham, Tučková, & Jabbour, 2019; Pinzone et al., 2016; Usman et al., 2022),
while socially responsible HRM may be important in enhancing employee helping behaviors (Newman et al., 2016;
Shen & Benson, 2016) and avoiding unethical pro-organizational ones (Luu, 2021a). However, companies should
focus on the common good approach in HRM to make contributions suited to address sustainability challenges and
achieve the sustainable development goals set by the United Nations, instead of simply pursuing corporate sustain-
ability ones (Dyllick & Muff, 2016). Thus, by investigating the connection between CGHRM and employee behaviors
through new aspects of sustainable HRM policies, such as business human rights (as a response to in-work poverty)
and employment creation (as a response to [youth] unemployment and job insecurity) (Aust et al., 2020), this study
aimed at providing an insight into sustainable HRM systems in responding to global challenges. Despite this, the
question of how CGHRM drives employee behaviors in the workplace remains overlooked. Thus, this study's findings
are valuable in contributing toward answering this research question and in helping to develop our understanding of
CGHRM.
To develop a model suited to present the effects of CGHRM on employee behaviors, we drew on social exchange
theory (Emerson, 1976), which takes into account specific feelings of obligation in the social exchange process. The
general social exchange process that occurs between employees and the organization—as well as between employees
and their superiors—involves employees receiving resources (e.g., support and recognition), and then reciprocating
this acknowledgment toward their organization and superiors (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005). Based on this theory,
we first explored the influences of CGHRM on employee behaviors, including ethical employee behaviors and OCBI.
Moreover, this study is valuable in terms of exploring the role played by value commitment. This concept—which has
been defined as “a belief in and acceptance of organizational goals and values and a willingness to exert considerable effort
on behalf of the organization” (Mayer & Schoorman, 1992, p. 673, p. 673)—is expected to be an outcome of CGHRM
and to act as a mediator in the connections between CGHRM and positive employee behaviors (including ethical
employee behaviors and OCBI). Second, spiritual leadership comprises “the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are
necessary to intrinsically motivate one's self and others so that they have a sense of spiritual survival through calling and
980 PHAM et al.
membership” (Fry, 2003, p. 711), and is considered to be a vital factor that can affect the efficiency of organizational
policies toward positive employee behaviors (Fry et al., 2005). We therefore explored the role played by spiritual lead-
ership in the relationship between CGHRM and employee behaviors. Based on the social exchange view and spiritual
leadership theory, we proposed that spiritual leadership may be important in moderating the effects of CGHRM on
ethical employee behaviors and OCBI.
Our study contributed to the existing knowledge in the following domains. First, based on the conceptualization
of Aust et al. (2020), its findings are essential in introducing a new measure—CGHRM—that contributes to the exist-
ing literature on sustainable HRM. Through this measure, we drew on social exchange theory to provide a compre-
hensive framework aimed at exploring the role played by CGHRM in employee behaviors, such as ethical employee
behaviors and OCBI. While recent studies have paid attention to other aspects of sustainable HRM, including socially
responsible and environmental HRM (e.g., Pham, Tučková, & Jabbour, 2019; Shen & Benson, 2016), CGHRM, to our
knowledge, has hitherto received little attention from scholars. In focusing on this area, this study answers a call
for research to explore how CGHRM relates to employee behaviors in the workplace. Second, while management
scholars have considered voluntary employee behaviors—especially in relation to leadership—they have primarily
investigated connections between leadership types—such as responsible, servant, and transactional leadership—and
unethical employee behaviors and OCB (e.g., Graham et al., 2015; Newman et al., 2017). However, the literature has
hitherto not sufficiently considered the question of how spiritual leadership may lead to changes in employee behav-
iors in the workplace, specifically the moderating role played by spiritual leadership in the relationships between
CGHRM and ethical employee behaviors and OCBI. In this way, our research provides a nuanced explanation of
the vital role played by spiritual leadership and adds to the body of knowledge on both leadership and employee
behaviors. Finally, we conducted our study in Vietnam. The country affirmed its adoption of a sustainable develop-
ment strategy (the Strategy for Socio-economic Development, covering the 2001–2010 period) (Nguyen, 2019) and
issued a resolution setting out 17 national sustainable development goals to be achieved by 2030, which are moti-
vating organizations to pay greater attention to sustainable development strategies—e.g., CGHRM policies. Thus, our
study's findings have practical implications for organizations and both leaders and employees in relation to boosting
the understanding of CGHRM and its effect on employee behaviors.
We structured the remainder of this paper as follows. Section 2 (theoretical background and hypotheses) aims to
define the main concepts and develop the hypotheses. Section 3 (methods) presents the CGHRM scale, the research
procedures, data collection and analysis, and measurement. Section 4 (research findings) describes the hypotheses'
testing, while both theoretical and practical discussions are illustrated in Section 5. Finally, Section 6 provides conclu-
sions, limitations, and directions for further studies.
2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
2.1 | Common good HRM
The notion of the common good is a consideration that is both more refined and more ethical than the broader
concept of concrete good (Sison & Fontrodona, 2013), and has been referred to as “an ensemble of conditions which
enhance the opportunity of flourishing for all members of a community” (Finnis, 1986, p. 165), suggesting that sharing
things can be beneficial for all members in a community (Albareda & Sison, 2020). Although the literature presents
differing viewpoints regarding the common good as a set of conditions—economic, social, moral, and spiritual—that
favor personal fulfillment, the concept consistently emphasizes a subtle interaction between personal and commu-
nity good (Frémeaux & Michelson, 2017). In an organization, the common good refers to those resources that require
employee cooperation, mutuality, and collective production (e.g., knowledge commons and common health services)
(Albareda & Sison, 2020). As resources are necessarily limited, stakeholders need to maintain coordination and coop-
eration, implying that every member of an organization should focus on similar objectives, cooperating to fulfill its
PHAM et al. 981
values (Sison & Fontrodona, 2013). Recently, modern firms have tended to implement the common good concept in
order to contribute to the interests of society as a whole, thereby helping all to achieve their personal good (Frémeaux
& Michelson, 2017). As a result, they take into consideration network-based activities in society, thus advancing
the importance of the connection between society, human capital, and individual interests, rather than any benefits
pertaining to a specific individual (Ballantine et al., 2020). Thus, a common good approach encourages firms to take
responsibility for addressing the major challenges that people are facing collectively and to consider their long-term
interest in sustaining a collective livelihood.
By extending this concept to the HRM perspective, Aust et al. (2020) indicated that CGHRM places “collec-
tive interests above—or more realistically equal to—individual (including organizational) wishes, needs, and desires” (p. 05).
Previous forms of sustainable HRM have focused on economic advantages by viewing any environmental and social
duties and objectives as unquestionable requirements in order to satisfy stakeholders and assist in achieving prof-
its and competitive advantages (Chams & García-Blandón, 2019). Conversely, CGHRM is a new HRM viewpoint
that emphasizes the outside-in business perspective, aiming to encourage all members of an organization to settle
their current differences and improve the conditions and status of their environment, local communities, and social
progress worldwide. CGHRM encompasses four principles: an outside-in perspective that contributes to addressing
major challenges; equal and fair employment relationships aimed at achieving trust and organizational success; the
provision of opportunities for participation in a democratic workplace to all stakeholders; and the maintenance of the
psychological contract required to protect human needs in employment (Aust et al., 2020).
2.2 | Common good HRM, ethical employee behaviors and OCBI
We predicted that improved CGHRM will affect ethical employee behaviors and OCBI. An employee who engages in
ethical behaviors relies on the organization as the arbiter of what is right and wrong (Fraedrich, 1993). This includes
“recognized” social principles involving fairness and justice as additional arbiters (Browning & Zabriskie, 1983).
However, the ethical behaviors of individuals differ across an organization; thus, those of employees require further
exploration if employees are to consider their organization as a legitimate arbiter of right and wrong within the
business environment (Lu & Lin, 2014). Ethical behaviors are important to ensure an organization's sustainable devel-
opment (Lussier et al., 2021). Scholars have recently indicated that the creation of an ethical workplace (Al Halbusi
et al., 2021), leaders' ethical behaviors and attitudes (Gamarra & Girotto, 2022), values and religion (Astrachan
et al., 2020), and the alleviation of emotional exhaustion (Lussier et al., 2021) can promote ethical employee behav-
iors in the workplace. Despite this, very few empirical studies have demonstrated the role played by common good
issues in moral employee behaviors. With regard to OCBI, this refers to the development of OCB and was originally
defined as a discretionary behavior not directly acknowledged by a firm's reward system (Skarlicki & Latham, 1996).
OCBI encompasses behaviors that benefit specific individuals (e.g., helping co-workers to achieve personal goals)
(Skarlicki & Latham, 1996; Yang et al., 2022). Thus, OCBI can be viewed as discretionary behaviors that are not parts
of formal job descriptions—such as altruism and other helping behaviors (e.g., courtesy and peacekeeping)—that
directly benefit specific individuals as well as indirectly benefit their organizations (Liu & Wang, 2013). To promote
employee OCBI, organizations need to frequently support employees and address any psychological issues in the
workplace (Eissa et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2020). However, boosting discretionary behaviors is challenging
because OCBI are noncompulsory and are not officially recognized by performance management systems. Further,
involvement in OCBI often requires energy and time, which may affect employees' ability to get work done and, as
the workplace is competitive, colleagues could be their future competitors (Yang et al., 2022).
As discussed previously, the common good ethos may motivate employees to take an interest in HR policies
to assist their organization in achieving its objectives (Aust et al., 2020), not simply in economic matters, but also in
sustainability challenges (e.g., social affairs and unemployment) (Dyllick & Muff, 2016). Indeed, CGHRM policies relate
to how to respond to in-work poverty and working conditions, lack of labor voice, unemployment and job insecurity,
982 PHAM et al.
especially with regard to local people (Aust et al., 2020). Specifically, improving working conditions refers to aspects
such as work activities, skills, training, well-being, health, safety, and work-life balance. This assures employees of
the freedom to express their own opinions and objectives and creates democracy in the workplace, thus creating a
positive working environment and invigorating employees to help them accomplish their tasks and goals (Valizade
et al., 2016). This also helps employees to feel respected and valued, thereby boosting their engagement by actively
participating in activities to support their colleagues and the organization (Rousseau & Parks McLean, 1993). Addi-
tionally, job insecurity may influence employee outcomes such as well-being, attitudes (e.g., value commitment) and
behaviors (e.g., ethical behaviors, OCB) (Shoss, 2017).
Employee outcomes are driven by sustainable HRM policies (Aust et al., 2020; Chams & García-Blandón, 2019).
This connection relies on different theoretical lenses. The literature has revealed that the relationship between
socially responsible HRM and employee behaviors can be referred to person-organization fit theory (e.g., Zhao
et al., 2021), social identity theory (e.g., Newman et al., 2016), social learning theory (e.g., Shen & Zhang, 2019),
and social exchange theory (e.g., Hu & Jiang, 2018; Jia et al., 2019; Shen & Benson, 2016). Also, scholars have
typically applied ability-motivation-opportunity theory (e.g., Pham, Tučková, & Jabbour, 2019; Pinzone et al., 2016);
supplies-values fit theory (e.g., Dumont et al., 2017; Moin et al., 2021), and social exchange theory (Moin et al., 2021;
Pham et al., 2020a) to explore the role played by environmental goals-oriented HRM policies in employee outcomes.
Despite the various theories applied in previous studies, social exchange theory has been often utilized to explore
the role played by sustainable HRM system in relation to employee outcomes. In our study, we applied this theory to
explore the connection between CGHRM and employee behaviors.
Social exchange theory emphasizes “an exchange of activity, tangible or intangible, and more or less rewarding
or costly, between at least two persons” (Homans, 1961, p. 13). Lawler (2001) described social exchange theory by
explaining the emotions elicited in individuals by the social exchange process that yields stronger or weaker ties
to relations, networks, or groups. The social exchange process may cause positive or negative feelings, which then
activate cognitive attributional efforts aimed at understanding what had led to these feelings and why; this may
lead to changes in how individuals evaluate their relations with specific others, such as their team and organization
(Ozcelik & Barsade, 2018). This is in line with Emerson (1976), who postulated that employees have relationships with
their organization and team based on the reciprocity rule, whereby the organization provides them with exchange
resources (e.g., supports them through CGHRM policies). Indeed, CGHRM policies are designed to focus on employ-
ees' concerns and benefits by remedying in-work poverty, improving working conditions, and providing a labor voice,
as well as reducing unemployment and alleviating job insecurity (Aust et al., 2020). This could elicit in employees
positive feelings and emotions toward the organization, which would bring them to reciprocate through positive
behaviors, thus contributing to the success of their organization. Thus, social exchange theory was appropriate to
be applied in our study. Under this theory, we developed a research framework suited to predict the influence of
CGHRM policies on employee behaviors.
Based on this theory, any exchange resources arising from an effective HRM policy may boost employee feel-
ings of obligation, which, in turn, may motivate positive workplace behaviors intended to reciprocate. Therefore,
we argued that CGHRM policies can be seen as a valuable resource to boost the ethical behaviors of employees by
encouraging them to collaborate to contribute to their communities and society at large—e.g., by creating a good
working environment and ensuring freedom in the workplace and job security (Aust et al., 2020). This enhances
the relationship between employees and their organization and establishes a social exchange between them. As a
result, employees come to believe that they need to reciprocate the actions shown by their organization by acting to
ease their negative impact on communities and society; for instance, by avoiding falsifying data or covering up their
mistakes.
Similarly, OCBI are discretionary behaviors that benefit specific individuals (Williams & Anderson, 1991). In an
overview of OCBs, Michel (2017) stated that perceptions of the working environment and factors aimed at enhancing
work-related attitudes are essential antecedents of these behaviors. From the common good perspective, we argued
that, by effectively developing a CGHRM policy, a company can stimulate inter-party cooperation and exchange in
PHAM et al. 983
order to contribute to the organization, society, and communities. In our study, two parties involved in the exchange
process are the employees and the organization. Pursuant to the social exchange view, if CGHRM causes employees
to feel that they are immersed in a good working environment and supported and treated fairly by the organization,
they are more likely to reciprocate by helping individuals to achieve their personal goals. We thus proposed the
following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 1a. CGHRM has a positive and direct effect on employees' ethical behaviors.
Hypothesis 1b. CGHRM has a positive and direct effect on employees' organizational citizenship behaviors toward
the individual.
2.3 | Value commitment as a mediator
Organizational commitment includes “commitment to stay”, which emphasizes the retention of an organization's
membership, and “value commitment”, which reflects employee support for organizational goals (Angle & Perry, 1981).
It has also been defined as “a belief in and acceptance of organizational goals and values and a willingness to exert consid-
erable effort on behalf of the organization” (Mayer & Schoorman, 1992, p. 673). Value commitment is an important
consequence of HR policies, as it may improve interpersonal effectiveness, teamwork, trust, and collaboration. Also,
high degrees of commitment may enhance positive employee attitudes and behaviors toward the organization, and
reduce any stressful reactions and alienation (Wittig-Berman & Lang, 1990).
With effective CGHRM, organizations devise HR policies aimed at addressing larger challenges (e.g., climate
change and youth unemployment), employment relationships, democracy in the workplace, and the psychological
contract (e.g., meaningful work). Based on social exchange theory, the exchange resources received by one party
from others boost feelings of obligation to reciprocate through adequate behaviors (Emerson, 1976). We argued
that a CGHRM policy can be viewed as an exchange resource between employees and their organization because
it requires cooperation, mutuality, and collective production from all employees (Albareda & Sison, 2020). This
promotes connections among them, which, in turn, increase employees' wishes to reciprocate. Therefore, employ-
ees become more willing to support their organization in the achievement of its goals and values. For example, if a
company applies CGHRM effectively, employees will accrue more benefits—such as work skills, well-being, health,
safety, and work-life balance—which increase their feelings of obligation to respond to their company by committing
to and supporting the organization's goals. Thus, CGHRM can be important in boosting value commitment.
In turn, once employees feel committed to their organization, they strive to pursue positive behaviors that can
help the organization achieve its goals—e.g., ethical behaviors and OCBI. Employees with high-value commitment are
likely to be involved in behaviors that contribute to the organization, regardless of whether or not they are required
to do so by the latter, which leads to promoting positive employee behaviors, such as avoiding unethical activi-
ties and being involved in OCBs (Mayer & Schoorman, 1992; Wittig-Berman & Lang, 1990). We argued that those
employees who work in an organization oriented toward common good goals can understand and accrue benefits
from the latter's common good-related values and missions. Accordingly, they will try to reciprocate by engaging
in behaviors that benefit their organization and society, including ethical ones. Similarly, the connection between
value commitment and OCBI fits well with the social exchange view (Meyer et al., 2002) because, when employees
receive organizational support, they will be motivated to work harder, feel more committed to their organization's
values and goals, and react to the benefits they receive, which will prompt more behaviors aimed at supporting others
individually. For example, they may willingly give their time to help any colleagues who have work-related problems.
Thus, we expected value commitment to act as a mediator in the relationships between CGHRM, ethical employee
behaviors, and OCBI.
Hypothesis 2a. CGHRM has a positive and indirect effect on employees' ethical behaviors via value commitment.
984 PHAM et al.
Hypothesis 2b. CGHRM has a positive and indirect effect on employees' organizational citizenship behaviors toward
the individual via value commitment.
2.4 | Spiritual leadership as a moderator
Spiritual leadership is defined as reflecting “the values, attitudes, and behaviors that one must adopt in intrinsically moti-
vating one's self and others so that both have a sense of spiritual survival through calling and membership”; in this regard,
“it relates to increasing levels of intrinsic motivation, commitment, productivity, and well-being” (Fry et al., 2005, p. 836).
Spiritual leadership includes three aspects: (1) vision, which emphasizes defining the destination and journey, encour-
aging hope/faith, and establishing a standard of excellence, etc.; (2) altruistic love, which includes integrity, forgive-
ness, honesty, and loyalty; and (3) hope/faith, which relates to endurance, perseverance, stretch goals, and the expec-
tation of victory (Fry, 2003). Pursuant to this theory, organizations characterized by high levels of spiritual leadership
primarily focus on creating a vision wherein their members experience a sense of calling and purpose and of making
a difference, as well as on building an organizational culture based on altruistic love, whereby members and leaders
have genuine care, concern, and appreciation for themselves and others, which in turn fosters meaningfulness in the
workplace (Yang et al., 2019) and influences employee behaviors (Fry, 2003). Over the past 2 decades, the topic of
spiritual leadership has evolved (Allen & Fry, 2022), especially in studies linked to employee behaviors. The exist-
ing literature reveals that spiritual leadership is considered an essential element in eliciting intrapreneurial behav-
iors in employees (Usman et al., 2021), ethical decisions (Anderson & Burchell, 2021), safety performance (Ali, Aziz,
et al., 2020), and job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Asutay et al., 2021) and reducing employee feelings
of work alienation (Ali, Usman, Soetan, et al., 2022), workplace ostracism (Ali, Usman, et al., 2020), and workplace
hazing (Ali, Usman, Shafique, et al., 2022).
Above, based on social exchange theory, we argued that effective CGHRM can boost employee involvement in
positive workplace behaviors, such as ethical ones and OCBI. However, we assumed that these relations can also
be influenced by spiritual leadership, which occurs when a leader acts in accordance with spiritual values such as
honesty, integrity, and humility, and presents an example of someone who can be trusted, relied upon, and admired
(Reave, 2005). Spiritual leadership is displayed through a leader's behaviors, whether in personal reflective practices
or the compassionate, ethical, and respectful treatment of others (Brown & Treviño, 2006). Spiritual leaders strive
to build working environments in which employees feel comfortable and happy to work, which promotes employ-
ees' trust and pride in their leaders and their organizations (Yang et al., 2019). Based on the social exchange view
(Emerson, 1976), social behaviors stem from an exchange process between an individual and others or the organiza-
tion through the reciprocity rule, wherein a spiritual leader provides employees with valuable resources (e.g., genuine
care, concern, and supports) that may elicit in their feelings of obligation, thus stimulating positive behaviors to
reciprocate those of their leaders and organizations.
Additionally, spiritual leaders' practices and values cause employees to feel understood and appreciated,
which further stimulates their commitment to organizational policies (Fry, 2003). Therefore, in organizations that
apply CGHRM policies, spiritual employees may be more willing to become involved in common good activities
because this perspective is linked with positive policies for employees, the organizations themselves, and the
community at large (e.g., policies aimed at contributing towards equal and fair employment relationships, build-
ing a democratic workplace, and caring for human needs in employment) (Aust et al., 2020). As such, it is vital
to encourage employees to engage in ethical behaviors in the workplace (e.g., preventing the theft of company
assets or the covering up of activities that violate company regulations), and become involved in OCBI (e.g.,
supporting their colleagues to deal with difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic). By contrast, in organizations
characterized by low spiritual leadership, employees are less likely to experience a sense of meaning in their
work or a culture reliant on altruistic love in the workplace (Fry et al., 2005). Therefore, employees will be less
concerned with the social policies considered by leaders and organizations—e.g., CGHRM. As a result, such issues
PHAM et al. 985
limit any social exchange behaviors motivated by CGHRM, and thereby provide less incentive for employees to
engage in ethical actions and OCBI. Thus, an organization endowed with high spiritual leadership may boost the
impact of CGHRM on ethical behaviors and OCBI; conversely, this impact may be weakened by lower spiritual
leadership.
Hypothesis 3a. Spiritual leadership moderates the direct impact of CGHRM on employees' ethical behaviors, so
that the impact is stronger when the level of spiritual leadership is high and weaker when the level of spiritual
leadership is low.
Hypothesis 3b. Spiritual leadership moderates the direct impact of CGHRM on employees' organizational citizen-
ship behavior toward the individual, so that the impact is stronger when the level of spiritual leadership is high
and weaker when the level of spiritual leadership is low.
The conceptual model and hypotheses are presented in Figure 1.
3 | METHODS
3.1 | Item generation and validity tests for CGHRM (Stage 1)
When we started to conduct this research, there were no surveys suited to measure CGHRM. We thus used
Hinkin's (1995) scale development process as a basis to develop such a measure. Although the use of question-
naires to collect data is common, any measurement that does not meet the standards of reliability and validity
may cause problems in the interpretation of the results, especially in empirical studies using a new measure like
FIGURE 1 Research framework.

986 PHAM et al.
CGHRM. Although there are different approaches to developing a scale, we found Hinkin's—which has been regu-
larly applied in studies on management and employee behaviors published in top-tier journals—to be appropriate.
For instance, scholars have developed measures of amoral management (Quade et al., 2022), management inno-
vation (Guzman & Espejo, 2019), voluntary workplace green behaviors (Kim et al., 2017), playful work design
(Scharp et al., 2021), and the challenges of gig work (Caza et al., 2021). By referring to the work on sustainable
HRM and CGHRM theory conducted by Aust et al. (2020), we developed an initial list of seven items. To create a
questionnaire to be administered in Vietnamese, we applied a back-translation approach. The original survey was
translated from English to Vietnamese by a linguistic expert fluent in both languages. Next, to ensure the reada-
bility of the questionnaire, the Vietnamese version was discussed by a focus group comprising five HRM profes-
sionals working in different industries. The authors fluent in Vietnamese and English then carefully reviewed it
and corrected any discrepancies and faults. Finally, an English-speaking expert fluent in Vietnamese translated it
back into English. We then emailed invitations to potential participants through our relationships. Five experts—
including three lecturers/professors in HRM working in Vietnamese and Australian universities and two super-
visors working at HR departments in multinational companies located in Ho Chi Minh City—were invited to take
part in in-depth interviews aimed at assessing our initial seven items. This resulted in two items being removed
from the list.
The questionnaire was administered in Vietnam for several reasons. First, the country's local and central
governments are interested in a sustainable development strategy. The country set its sustainable development
Strategy for Socio-economic Development for the 2001–2010 period, stating that “fast, effective and sustaina-
ble development and economic growth should occur in parallel with the implementation of social progress and equal-
ity and environmental protection” and that “socio economic development is closely tied to environmental protection
and improvement, ensuring harmony between the artificial and natural environment and preserving bio-diversity”
(Nguyen, 2019, p. 993). On 25 September 2020, on the basis of the 17 sustainable development goals adopted
by the United Nations in 2015, the Vietnamese government issued resolution No.136/NQ-CP on sustainable
development. This set out 17 sustainable development goals to be achieved by Vietnam by 2030. Additionally, in
1993, the Vietnamese government enacted laws aimed at protecting the environment and encouraged sustainable
and environment-friendly industrial production, and the “Strategy on green growth in the 2011–2020 period and
vision to 2050” was approved by the Prime Minister of Vietnam (Pham et al., 2019b, 2020a). Although challenging
for the country, those sustainable development goals are essential to force authorized agencies to pay attention
to and motivate firms to focus on sustainable development strategies—e.g., CGHRM. Second, we collected data
not only from domestic firms but also from foreign direct investment companies. Akin to domestic firms, the
foreign direct investment companies doing business in Vietnam—which are mainly from developed countries (e.g.,
South Korea, Japan, Germany, the US, and Singapore) and China—are also engaged in achieving the sustainable
development goals set by their headquarters. This raises a research question regarding the exploration of any
sustainable HRM policies, particularly CGHRM, applied in enterprises in developing countries like Vietnam. This
issue was raised by Ehnert and Harry (2012), who asked “should organizations implement Sustainable HRM for home
country employees only or also for the ‘cheaper’ workforce in developing countries?” (p. 233). This shows the impor-
tance of extending to developing countries the knowledge of integration between HRM policies and sustainable
development goals (Chams & García-Blandón, 2019). Finally, the importance of sustainable HRM policies has
been noted by companies operating in Vietnam. Scholars have already been investigating sustainable HRM issues
in the Vietnamese context. For example, previous studies have provided insights into how socially responsible
HRM influences employee outcomes (e.g., Luu, 2021b, 2021a) and how green HRM policies could improve green
behaviors and attitudes (e.g., Pham, Tučková, & Jabbour, 2019; Pham et al., 2022). However, the existing literature
reveals that CGHRM, as another dimension of sustainable HRM, especially in the Vietnamese context, has hitherto
remained underdeveloped. Thus, conducting an empirical study in Vietnam was necessary to contribute to HRM
theory.
PHAM et al. 987
To collect data from 205 respondents working in companies located in three provinces/cities in Vietnam—Dong
Nai, Ho Chi Minh City, and Binh Duong, we administered our survey questionnaire with the support of a market
research company, which we chose due to its rich experience in conducting business and management surveys
in Vietnam. Our sample included both non-managerial and managerial employees from various organizational
departments (e.g., HR, operation management, and marketing) who had been working for their current company
for over 2 years. These criteria ensured that our respondents would be able to provide crucial insights into the
common good policies enacted in the company. The participants were asked to rate our five CGHRM items using
a five-point Likert scale. First, we performed an exploratory factor analysis, eliminating one item that displayed
a weak factor loading. Once this item had been removed, the validity of our dataset was shown by the highly
satisfactory values yielded by Bartlett's test (χ2 = 238.706, p < 0.01) and KMO (0.760 > 0.5) and by the fact that a
single factor extracted accounted for 61.780% of the total variance explained. We also performed a confirmatory
factor analysis (Table 1) which indicated that the model with four items yielded better model fit and stronger factor
loadings (χ2 = 9.723, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.967, TLI = 0.902, RMSEA = 0.137, SRMR = 0.035) than the one with seven
(χ2 = 23.621, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.929, TLI = 0.859, RMSEA = 0.135, SRMR = 0.049). The Cronbach's Alpha value was
found to be 0.793.
Next, to further assess the convergent and discriminant validity of CGHRM, we analyzed the relationships
between CGHRM and organizational identification, organizational trust, and demographic variables (including organ-
izational tenure, age, and gender). We used six items adapted from Mael and Ashforth (1992) and seven adapted from
Robinson (1996) to measure organizational identification and organizational trust, respectively. Table 2 displays the
positive correlations found between CGHRM and organizational identification (r = 0.029, p < 0.01) and organizational
trust (r = 0.386, p < 0.01). The results were found to confirm convergent validity. By contrast, the CGHRM items
studied were found not to be significantly related with three demographic variables: organizational tenure (r = 0.089,
p > 0.05), age (r = 0.068, p > 0.05), and gender (r = 0.097, p > 0.05). This indicated the discriminant validity of CGHRM.
By performing further analysis to establish convergent validity, we found AVE values of 0.617 for CGHRM, 0.542
for organizational identification, and 0.612 for organizational trust, all of which exceeded the threshold of 0.50.
Moreover, the square root of the AVE of each construct, which was found to range from 0.736 to 0.785, exceeded all
TA B L E 1 Results of confirmatory factor analyses
Models χ2 CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

CGHRM(5-items) 23.621 0.929 0.859 0.135 0.049
CGHRM(4-items) 9.723 0.967 0.902 0.137 0.035
Note: N = 205.
TA B L E 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Mean CrA AVE Gender Age Tenure CGHRM OI

Gender 1.439 -
Age 29.566 0.038
Tenure 4.176 0.018 0.804**
CGHRM 3.659 0.793 0.617 0.097 0.068 0.089
OI 3.971 0.874 0.542 −0.017 0.061 0.068 0.291**
OT 3.835 0.859 0.612 −0.059 0.079 0.116 0.386** 0.305**
Note: N = 310.
Abbreviations: AVE, Average Variance Extracted; CrA, Cronbach’s Alpha; OI, Organizational identifications; OT,
Organizational trust.
*p < 0.01; **p < 0.01.
988 PHAM et al.
correlation values with any other constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Thus, our results were found to confirm both
convergent and discriminant validity.
3.2 | Research procedures for the main study (Stage 2)
We then conducted a survey involving participants working at 86 companies located in the same cities/provinces
of Stage 1 (Dong Nai, Ho Chi Minh City and Binh Duong). The data collection for this survey was also conducted
by the same market research company engaged for Stage 1. The Stage 2 participants were subordinates and super-
visors from various organizational departments (e.g., HRM, operation management, and marketing) who had been
working for their current company for over 2 years. These criteria were important to provide crucial insights into
common good issues within organizations and their subordinates' voluntary behaviors. The Stage 2 survey was
structured into two parts. First, a cover letter that clarified the purpose of our research and, second, the main
body of the questionnaire. Our survey included two questionnaires, one aimed at the supervisors and one at their
respective subordinates; specifically, the questionnaire was administered to sets consisting of a supervisor and
of one of her/his subordinates. The copies of the questionnaires were coded numerically to avoid information
mismanagement, then delivered to the respondents through research assistants who were also responsible for
collecting and returning them.
To reduce the likelihood of any common method bias, we administered our questionnaire in a way that would
yield time-lagged data (Podsakoff et al., 2012). At Time 1, we sent out 500 copies of the paired questionnaires,
asking our respondent subordinates and supervisors to rate their organizations in terms of spiritual leadership and
CGHRM, respectively. As a result, we received 395 valid completed responses. Three weeks later, at Time 2, we
invited subordinate respondents to assess their own value commitment, and supervisors to rate their subordinates'
ethical behaviors and OCBI. Ultimately, 310 pairs of valid responses were obtained and used for the final analysis.
Of our subordinate respondents, 52.9% were male and 47.1% were female and had an average age of 29.816 years
and an average tenure of 4.334 years with their present organization. Of our supervisor respondents, 49% were
male and 51% were female and had an average age of 40.803 years and an average tenure of 10.532 years (see
Table 3).
TA B L E 3 Profile of the respondents
Employee Supervisor
Frequency % Frequency %
Gender Male 164 52.903 152 49.032

Female 146 47.097 158 50.968
Age (years) Under 26 (E); under 35 (S) 51 16.452 55 17.742
26–30 (E); 36–40 (S) 124 40.000 103 33.226
31–35 (E); 41–45 (S) 96 30.968 99 31.935
Over 35 (E); over 45 (S) 39 12.581 53 17.097
Tenure (years) 2–4 (E); 2–6 (S) 188 60.645 19 6.129
5–7 (E); 7–11 (S) 102 32.903 181 58.387
Over 7 (E); over 11 (S) 20 6.452 110 35.484
Industry Manufacturing 155 50.000 155 50.000
Service 155 50.000 155 50.000
Note: N = 310.
Abbreviations: E, Employee; S, Supervisor.
PHAM et al. 989
3.3 | Measures and controlling for data bias
3.3.1 | CGHRM
At Time 1, our sample supervisors had been asked to rate CGHRM in their companies by using four items. This scale
included items pertaining to whether their respective companies (a) offered equal and fair employment relationships
for employees at all levels, (b) provided all employees with opportunities for participation and workplace democracy,
(c) were concerned with protecting employee security and safety and providing meaningful work for employees, and
(d) aimed to contribute to eradicating poverty by ensuring fair pay (α = 0.804, loadings >0.642).
3.3.2 | Value commitment
At Time 2, we asked our sample subordinates to rate their value commitment using six items adapted from Angle
and Perry (1981). These items included “I am willing to put in a great deal of effort beyond that normally expected
in order to help my company be successful”, and “I am proud to tell others that I am part of my company” (α = 0.892,
loadings >0.748).
3.3.3 | OCBI
At Time 2, our sample supervisors were asked to rate their respective subordinates' OCBI through eight items adapted
from Lee and Allen (2002), such as “Helps others who have been absent”, “Willingly gives her/his time to help others
who have work-related problems”, and “Assists others with their duties” (α = 0.906, loadings >0.741).
3.3.4 | Ethical behaviors
At Time 2, our sample supervisors were asked to rate their respective subordinates' ethical behaviors using a five-
item scale adapted from Ferrell and Skinner (1988). We made a slight restructuring of these items to better capture
the study's context. For instance, they expressed their opinion on the following aspects: “She/he avoids to compro-
mise on work efficiency to complete a project quickly” and “She/he does not hesitate in reporting full results even
when my bosses/clients do not like them” (α = 0.845, loadings >0.733).
3.3.5 | Spiritual leadership
At Time 1, our sample subordinates rated their respective supervisors' spiritual leadership according to nine items
adapted from Pawar (2014). These items included: “He/she carefully listens to his/her subordinates”, “He/she recog-
nizes his/her subordinates' contributions to workplace”, and “He/she deals with his/her subordinates in a fair manner”
(α = 0.863, loadings >0.610).
A full list of the items is presented in Appendix 2.
990 PHAM et al.
3.3.6 | Control variables
We controlled for gender, age, and organizational tenure. Previous studies (e.g., Babalola et al., 2018) found that
demographic variables are linked with positive employee behaviors. We first controlled for organizational tenure,
based on the years an individual had spent working at her/his present company. Longer tenures show that employ-
ees are more engaged with the company, which in turn boosts their positive behaviors (Kim et al., 2017). Next, we
controlled for employee gender and age, which can drive employee outcomes. Finally, different industries may exhibit
different priorities and engage in different strategies to support ethical employee behaviors. Thus, we also controlled
for industry sector.
Careful research design is crucial to mitigate any common method bias (Podsakoff et al., 2012). In order to deal
with this aspect, we first applied a time-lagged design that involved administering our questionnaire in two waves.
Moreover, collecting data from different sources is an appropriate solution to control for data bias. Here, we collected
data from supervisors and their direct subordinates, who frequently interacted with each other. This was critical
to guarantee respondent anonymity. Also, we selected participants with a rich work experience and considerable
expertise in their current companies. Second, Table 4 shows that the measurement model with four factors fits the
data well. Despite this good fit, the measurement of the five-factor model (χ2 = 564.138, p < 0.01, CFI = 0.975,
TLI = 0.972, RMSEA = 0.028, SRMR = 0.041) was found to demonstrate a better fit than those of the models
with four or one factor. Third, Harman's single-factor analysis is typically seen as the favored method for assessing
common method variance (Podsakoff et al., 2012). Based on an exploratory factor analysis, our results (KMO = 0.914,
χ 2 = 4677.987, sig. = 0.000) produced eigenvalues in excess of 1.0 for all factors, with the first factor explaining only
26.439% of the overall variance (less than 50%). Finally, we performed an independent t-test to compare the means
of items related to ethical behaviors between two groups (10% of the first and last responses). The results were found
to reveal insignificant differences between the two groups at a 95% confidence interval. Thus, our research findings
were found not to be based on biased data.
4 | RESEARCH FINDINGS
In this study, we tested for multicollinearity by analyzing VIFs before testing our hypotheses. We found reasonable
VIF values ranging from 1.026 to 2.879; thus falling below the threshold of 4 (O’brien, 2007). Also, the values of
skewness (ranging from −0.399 to −1.00) and kurtosis (ranging from 0.063 to 1.639) were found to indicate distri-
bution normality (Hair et al., 2010) (see Appendix 1). Table 5 presents these descriptive statistics. Next, through
a time-lagged data set, we employed structural equation modeling in Mplus 8.7 to simultaneously run the whole
understudy model. Table 6 reveals the positive influence of CGHRM on both ethical employee behavior (b = 0.515,
p < 0.01) and OCBI (b = 0.595, p < 0.01). Therefore, hypotheses H1a and H1b were found to be supported. As a result,
CGHRM was shown to be an important policy to encourage positive behaviors, enabling employees to become more
involved in ethical and voluntary activities aimed at helping others. Similarly, Table 6 shows that CGHRM was found
TA B L E 4 Results of confirmatory factor analyses
Models χ2 df Δχ 2 Δdf CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

Five-factor model 564.138 454 0.975 0.972 0.028 0.041
Four-factor model (CGHRM + VC) 916.144 458 352.006 4 0.895 0.886 0.057 0.084
Four-factor model (CGHRM + SL) 937.270 458 373.132 4 0.890 0.881 0.058 0.089
One factor model 2518.203 464 1954.065 10 0.530 0.497 0.120 0.124
Note: N = 310.
Abbreviations: CGHRM, Common good HRM; SL, Spiritual leadership; VC, Value commitment.
PHAM et al.
TA B L E 5 Descriptive statistics and correlations
Mean E.Gender E.Age E.Tenure S.Gender S.Age S.Tenure Industry CGHRM VC SL OCBI
E.Gender 1.4710
E.Age 29.816 0.049
E.Tenure 4.336 0.064 0.802**
S.Gender 1.509 0.357** −0.034 −0.025
S.Age 40.803 0.097 0.138* 0.072 0.152**
S.Tenure 10.532 0.036 0.136* 0.098 0.076 0.399**
Industry 1.500 −0.052 −0.041 0.004 0.026 −0.083 −0.013
CGHRM 3.622 0.005 0.100 0.102 −0.122* 0.089 0.045 0.032
VC 3.905 −0.001 0.078 0.107 0.051 0.082 0.028 0.090 0.367**
SL 3.562 0.032 0.102 0.133* 0.062 0.008 −0.023 0.009 0.322** 0.188**
OCBI 3.810 −0.057 0.092 0.121* 0.002 0.116* 0.075 0.040 0.508** 0.347** 0.317**
EB 3.688 0.052 0.027 0.089 −0.010 0.049 0.078 −0.086 0.457** 0.363** 0.282** 0.461**
Note: N = 310.
Abbreviations: CGHRM, Common good HRM; E, Employee; EB, Ethical behavior; OCBI, Organizational citizenship behavior towards the individuals; S, Supervisor; SL, Spiritual leadership;
VC, Value commitment.
*p < 0.01; **p < 0.01.
991
992 PHAM et al.
TA B L E 6 Hypotheses testing and results
Value commitment Employee ethical behavior OCBI
Variables B SE p B SE p B SE p
E.Gender −0.068 0.079 0.393 0.056 0.074 0.450 −0.130 0.071 0.065
E.Age −0.006 0.015 0.689 −0.027 0.014 0.053 −0.005 0.013 0.717
E.Tenure 0.036 0.034 0.291 0.061 0.032 0.058 0.029 0.031 0.335
S.Gender 0.148 0.081 0.067 0.017 0.075 0.824 0.101 0.072 0.161
S.Age 0.007 0.009 0.446 −0.005 0.008 0.520 0.008 0.008 0.323
S.Tenure −0.003 0.014 0.824 0.017 0.013 0.195 0.007 0.013 0.605
Industry 0.106 0.074 0.152 −0.175* 0.069 0.012 0.031 0.066 0.641
CGHRM 0.515** 0.084 0.000 0.515** 0.088 0.00 0.595** 0.089 0.000
Value commitment 0.228** 0.066 0.001 0.130* 0.062 0.037
Interaction 0.319** 0.084 0.000 −0.078 0.055 0.160
R 2
0.218** 0.051 0.000 0.379** 0.056 0.000 0.374** 0.054 0.000
Indirect effects
Indirect effect of CGHRM on employee ethical behavior via value commitment 0.118** 0.037 0.001
Indirect effect of CGHRM on OCBI via value commitment 0.067* 0.032 0.039
Note: N = 310.
Abbreviations: B, Unstandardized coefficient; CGHRM, Common good human resource management; E, Employee; OCBI,
Organizational citizenship behavior towards individuals; S, Supervisor; SE, standard error.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
F I G U R E 2 The moderating influence of spiritual leadership on the relationship between common good HRM
and ethical behavior.
to positively and indirectly influence ethical employee behaviors (b = 0.118, p < 0.01) and OCBI (b = 0.067, p < 0.05)
via employee value commitment. Thus, CGHRM polices may prompt more positive behaviors, including moral actions
and OCBI in the workplace. This supported both hypotheses H2a and H2b.
Finally, hypotheses H3a and H3b anticipated that spiritual leadership would moderate the connections between
CGHRM and both types of employee behaviors. As expected, our findings indicate that spiritual leaders may moder-
ate the impact of CGHRM on ethical behaviors (b = 0.319, p < 0.01). Figure 2 reveals that, at higher levels of spiritual
leadership, the slope of the line is also greater, and significantly better than the slope at a low level of spiritual
leadership. As a result, spiritual leadership was found to moderate the direct impact of CGHRM on ethical employee
behavior, thus supporting H3a. By contrast, spiritual leadership was not found to moderate the relationship between
CGHRM and OCBI (b = −0.075, p > 0.05). Thus, H3b was not supported.
PHAM et al. 993
5 | DISCUSSION
5.1 | Theoretical implications
Our study contributes to the existing literature in several ways. First, two emerging types of sustainable HRM
(socially responsible and green HRM) have already revealed their importance for employee behaviors and organiza-
tions' sustainable development strategies (Dumont et al., 2017; Shen & Benson, 2016). However, another approach
to sustainable HRM that is increasingly appealing to scholars is the common good perspective, which favors
collec tive strategies to resolve the sustainability challenges faced by humanity (Dyllick & Muff, 2016). In adopting
the CGHRM approach, an organization needs to put collective interests on the same level or above individual level
(including organizational) by encouraging employees to resolve any differences, improving the conditions and status
of their environment and local communities and promoting social progress worldwide (Aust et al., 2020). CGHRM is
distinct from other emerging types of sustainable HRM, which typically emphasize the adjustment of organizations'
aims to comply with external pressures for more social and ecological responsibility (Ehnert et al., 2016). Specifically,
the existing types of sustainable HRM, such as green and socially responsible policies, typically relate to corpo-
rate sustainability (Dumont et al., 2017; Shen & Benson, 2016), while CGHRM aims to focus on the achievement
of sustainable development goals—e.g., in-work poverty, democracy in the workplace, youth unemployment, and
job insecurity (Aust et al., 2020). By integrating the common good concept—which was developed decades ago
(Finnis, 1986)—into the HR context, Aust et al. (2020) conceptualized CGHRM and called for research aimed at exam-
ining its impacts on employee behaviors in the workplace. Despite this call, research on CGHRM has hitherto been
considerably limited due to a lack of validated measurements. Thus, our study's value to the HRM literature stems
from the development and validation of a measure suited to enable future studies to provide a deeper understanding
of CGHRM.
Second, our study contributes to the existing HRM literature by developing an initial framework of CGHRM
grounded in positive employee behaviors. Specifically, by extending social exchange theory, CGHRM policies are
shown to be critical to boosting employees' ethical actions and OCBI. Additionally, our study demonstrates that value
commitment can act as a mediator between CGHRM and employee behaviors. This means that, if an organization
pays attention to common good challenges, it may encourage its employees to commit to its values and goals. In turn,
this will not only boost employees' engagement in ethical behaviors but also in voluntary actions to help others at
work. Although the existing literature has revealed that sustainable HRM practices can stimulate positive individual
behaviors (e.g., Pham, Tučková, & Jabbour, 2019; Shen & Benson, 2016), by establishing a new research framework
suited to the investigation of both additive and mediation models, our study is a first attempt to respond to Aust
et al.’s (2020) call for research aimed at exploring the role of CGHRM in shaping employee behaviors. By doing so,
our study makes an important contribution to a richer understanding of sustainable HRM, which is purposefully
community-oriented and based on an “open-system” approach established by the interaction of various actors (e.g.,
societies, stakeholders, and environmental agents) (Chams & García-Blandón, 2019). It consists of three dimensions:
social sustainability (e.g., social justice, career opportunities), environmental sustainability (e.g., green training), and
economic sustainability (e.g., HR efficiency) (Tooranloo et al., 2017). An important policy for a CGHRM approach
can involve promoting the social sustainability aspect, which orients to sustainable development goals by improving
the welfare of current and future generations, creating a harmonious living environment, improving the quality of
life, and reducing social gaps and inequality (Tooranloo et al., 2017). By referring to social exchange theory to inves-
tigate the role played by CGHRM in relation to employee behavior, our findings are in line with those of previous
studies that revealed the importance of sustainable HRM policies in enhancing employee outcomes (e.g., Dumont
et al., 2017; Shen & Benson, 2016). Thus, our study's value lies in its provision of insights into sustainable HRM.
Finally, by specifying a multi-level model suited to examining the interactive influence of spiritual leadership, our
research improves our knowledge of CGHRM and its effects on employee outcomes. Our findings demonstrate the
importance of spiritual leadership by pointing out that, when employees work in an organization with more spiritual
994 PHAM et al.
leaders, CGHRM is more effective in stimulating their ethical behaviors in the workplace. Compared to other recent
publications on spiritual leadership and employee behaviors (e.g., Usman et al., 2021), few empirical studies have shed
light on the role played by spiritual leadership in relation to common good issues. Moreover, Leroy et al. (2018) stated
the importance of combining studies on leadership and HRM, especially concerning their roles in affecting employee
behaviors. Accordingly, a deeper understanding of how spiritual leaders influence the outcomes of CGHRM policies
can fill the existing research gaps and contribute to the extant theory on HRM. Unfortunately, our findings reveal that
spiritual leadership does not moderate the relationship between GHRM and OCBI. Spiritual leadership refers to the
behaviors, attitudes, and values adopted by leaders to intrinsically motivate both themselves and their colleagues to
boost a sense of spiritual well-being that emphasizes the meaning of life and the sense of being understood and
appreciated (Fry et al., 2005). This, in turn, boosts meaningfulness in the workplace (Yang et al., 2019) and influences
employee behaviors (Fry, 2003). Spiritual leaders establish a learning organization by using their employees' inner
motivation and employing the strategies and empowerment of individuals and teams to enhance their organization's
commitment and performance (Chen & Yang, 2012). Thus, spiritual leadership is an essential factor in improving an
organization's benefits by creating a positive working environment in which employees prioritize collective inter-
ests (Yang et al., 2019). At the same time, OCBI includes behaviors that benefit specific individuals (Skarlicki &
Latham, 1996). Therefore, although CGHRM policies may be important in yielding OCBI, those employees who work
under spiritual leaders and in organizations emphasizing common good goals are encouraged to become involved in
behaviors that benefit their communities and organizations, rather than individuals. Thus, we found no evidence to
support that the relationship between CGHRM and OCBI may be significantly changed by spiritual leaders.
5.2 | Managerial implications
Governments and enterprises are under growing pressure to find solutions suited to ease challenges to common
good issues (e.g., conditions for democracy in the workplace, climate change, and unemployment). Through this
study's findings, we highlight the internal benefits of applying CGHRM practices, including those pertaining to posi-
tive individual behaviors in the workplace. The evidence yielded by our study implies that those companies that
pay attention to CGHRM practices may stimulate their employees to become more involved in ethical activities, as
well as avoid involvement in unethical actions that may harm the organization. Another benefit is the promotion of
better working environments in which employees may voluntarily support each other. Thus, organizations should
recognize the importance of policies relating to common good issues, especially regarding HRM and strengthen their
application.
First, companies need to pay attention to designing HR systems linked to common good goals. In this regard,
firms should prioritize hiring candidates who exhibit attention to challenges for the common good. Recruitment and
selection boards could consider criteria focused on any social activities found in the candidates' profiles (e.g., active
involvement in CSR activities, charity activities in the local community, helping poor children/the homeless). More-
over, to contribute to local communities, there is a need to prioritize local candidates and minorities in recruitment
and selection policies.
Second, educating employees on how to morally treat the community as well as recognizing their social perfor-
mance in appraisals and promotions is critical to encourage them to engage more in activities like community and
company development. For example, any activities aimed at contributing to the community and the company (e.g.,
social activities conducted during the pandemic, blood donations, willingness to support colleagues) should be
mentioned in annual performance evaluations.
Third, the support of CGHRM policies requires a strong interaction between the personal and community good
(Frémeaux & Michelson, 2017). To do so, an organization should create a workplace climate oriented to common
good goals. In this case, the role of leadership is important. Leaders should recognize the importance of sharing
organizational goals, for the ease of the common good and the identification of the challenges facing employees.
PHAM et al. 995
Also, firms could create opportunities for employees to become involved in social activities aimed at helping both
internal and external communities.
Fourth, firms oriented toward the common good may struggle to choose the forms of community good through
the current processes of producing goods and providing services. In the presence of limited resource issues,
firms could intensify their internal community dynamics to meet employee demands to be socially beneficial and
self-fulfilling (Frémeaux & Michelson, 2017).
Finally, this study provides evidence demonstrating that spiritual leadership is important in advancing both types
of employee behavior under study through effective CGHRM. Thus, an implication for companies' top managers is
to combine CGHRM policies and spiritual leadership to encourage positive behaviors. Along with understanding
the benefits of CGHRM policies (for both the organization and the community) and building a successful CGHRM
system, leaders should pay attention to the values, attitudes, and behaviors that they need to adopt to intrinsically
motivate themselves and others (Fry et al., 2005). For example, leaders need to show recognition and altruistic love,
and carefully listen to their subordinates in the workplace. Also, managers may benefit from helping their employees
to discover their own purpose and identity concerning common good issues.
6 | LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER STUDIES
Our study needs to be considered in light of certain limitations. First, it is the first attempt to use a CGHRM meas-
urement scale. Therefore, this measure should be validated by further future studies. Moreover, the focus group we
held with five HRM professionals led us to exclude any aspects related to corruption, even though this is a feature
commonly studied in the theory of CGHRM (Aust et al., 2020). Thus, future studies could address this issue. Second,
our work represents a single step toward clarifying our knowledge of how CGHRM may encourage ethical employee
behaviors and OCBI. Nevertheless, our study was based on data drawn exclusively from Vietnam. We would there-
fore suggest that scholars test the generalizability of our models and research findings in different contexts (e.g.,
other industries and nations).
On the other hand, CGHRM policies emphasize equal and fair employment relationships in order to achieve
trust and organizational success and provide employees with opportunities for participation in a democratic work-
place (Aust et al., 2020). Thus, based on social exchange theory (Emerson, 1976)—which considers specific feelings
of obligation in the social exchange process— we would suggest future work be conducted to provide insights into
how effective CGHRM policies may be important to enhance the obligation, commitment, and engagement felt by
employees, which, in turn, boost their performance and loyalty. Additionally, CGHRM policies also include activi-
ties aimed at strengthening social benefits, especially by contributing to local communities (e.g., by protecting the
environment and hiring local people). In turn, this could enhance the positive perceptions of organizations held by
external communities. Thus, this poses the question of whether CGHRM can enhance organizational reputation. A
multi-level analysis (at the organizational and community levels) could thus be performed to answer this research
question.
Third, the combination of leadership and HRM is critical to boosting employee outcomes (Leroy et al., 2018). In
our study, we tested the role played by spiritual leadership as a moderating variable. However, the success of an HRM
policy may rely on how leaders, especially those in top management positions, implement it, as well as on how their
leadership styles manifest themselves within the organization. As a result, the interplay between HRM systems and
leadership behaviors is an essential aspect of organizational studies (Chuang et al., 2016). Thus, future studies could
investigate the changes affecting employee outcomes as a result of the application of CGHRM in the presence of
different leadership styles. For example, in relation to prosocial leadership—which is defined “as a positive, effective
influence, with constructive goals that serve the common good” (Lorenzi, 2004, p. 283, p. 283)—and following social
learning theory, which highlights how people learn by witnessing and imitating the actions, attitudes, and reactions
of others in their immediate surroundings (Bandura, 1986), we would argue that employee behaviors and attitudes
996 PHAM et al.
could be influenced by their leaders' activities through learning processes. Thus, future studies could focus on combi-
nations of prosocial leadership and CGHRM aimed at stimulating positive behaviors and attitudes in the workplace.
ACKNOWLE DG ME NT
This research is funded by Vietnam National University Ho Chi Minh City (VNU-HCM) under grant number:
B2022-28-03.
CO N FLI CT OF I NTE RE ST
The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.
DATA AVAI LABI LI TY STATE M E N T

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analyzed in this study.
O RC ID
Nhat Tan Pham https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9927-2257
Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6143-4924
Muhammad Usman https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7818-4546
Moazzam Ali https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3305-4438
Tan Vo-Thanh https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9964-3724
R EF ERE NCE S
Albareda, L., & Sison, A. J. G. (2020). Commons organizing: Embedding common good and institutions for collective
action. Insights from ethics and economics. Journal of Business Ethics, 166(4), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-020-04580-8
Al Halbusi, H., Ruiz-Palomino, P., Morales-Sánchez, R., & Abdel Fattah, F. A. M. (2021). Managerial ethical leadership, ethical
climate and employee ethical behavior: Does moral attentiveness matter? Ethics and Behavior, 31(8), 604–627. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2021.1937628
Ali, M., Aziz, S., Pham, T. N., Babalola, M. T., & Usman, M. (2020). A positive human health perspective on how spiritual leader-
ship weaves its influence on employee safety performance: The role of harmonious safety passion. Safety Science, 131,
104923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104923
Ali, M., Usman, M., Pham, N. T., Agyemang-Mintah, P., & Akhtar, N. (2020). Being ignored at work: Understanding how
and when spiritual leadership curbs workplace ostracism in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 91, 102696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102696
Ali, M., Usman, M., Shafique, I., Garavan, T., & Muavia, M. (2022). Fueling the spirit of care to surmount hazing: Foreground-
ing the role of spiritual leadership in inhibiting hazing in the hospitality context. International Journal of Contemporary
Hospitality Management, 34(10), 3910–3928. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-09-2021-1087
Ali, M., Usman, M., Soetan, G. T., Saeed, M., & Rofcanin, Y. (2022). Spiritual leadership and work alienation: Analysis of mecha-
nisms and constraints. Service Industries Journal, 42(11–12), 897–918. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642069.2022.2026333
Allen, S., & Fry, L. W. (2022). A framework for leader, spiritual, and moral development. Journal of Business Ethics. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05116-y
Anderson, S. E., & Burchell, J. M. (2021). The effects of spirituality and moral intensity on ethical business decisions: A
cross-sectional study. Journal of Business Ethics, 168(1), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04258-w
Angle, H. L., & Perry, J. L. (1981). An empirical assessment of organizational commitment and organizational effectiveness.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 26(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.2307/2392596
Astrachan, J. H., Binz Astrachan, C., Campopiano, G., & Baù, M. (2020). Values, spirituality and religion: Family business and
the roots of sustainable ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 163(4), 637–645. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
019-04392-5
Asutay, M., Buana, G. K., & Avdukic, A. (2021). The impact of islamic spirituality on job satisfaction and organisational commitment:
Exploring mediation and moderation impact. Journal of Business Ethics, 181(4), 913–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10
551-021-04940-y
Aust, I., Matthews, B., & Muller-Camen, M. (2020). Common good HRM: A paradigm shift in sustainable HRM? Human
Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100705. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2019.100705
PHAM et al. 997
Babalola, M. T., Stouten, J., Euwema, M. C., & Ovadje, F. (2018). The relation between ethical leadership and workplace
conflicts: The mediating role of employee resolution efficacy. Journal of Management, 44(5), 2037–2063. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206316638163
Ballantine, J., Kelly, M., & Larres, P. (2020). Banking for the common good: A lonerganian perspective. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 67, 102061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2018.09.003
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Prentice-Hall.
Brown, M. E., & Treviño, L. K. (2006). Ethical leadership: A review and future directions. The Leadership Quarterly, 17(6),
595–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.10.004
Browning, J., & Zabriskie, N. B. (1983). How ethical are industrial buyers? Industrial Marketing Management, 12(4), 219–224.
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0019-8501(83)80001-7
Bush, J. T. (2020). Win-Win-Lose? Sustainable HRM and the promotion of unsustainable employee outcomes. Human
Resource Management Review, 30(3), 100676. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.11.004
Caza, B. B., Reid, E. M., Ashford, S. J., & Granger, S. (2021). Working on my own: Measuring the challenges of gig work. Human
Relations, 75(11), 2122–2159. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211030098
Chams, N., & García-Blandón, J. (2019). On the importance of sustainable human resource management for the adoption
of sustainable development goals. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 141, 109–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2018.10.006
Chen, C. Y., & Yang, C. F. (2012). The impact of spiritual leadership on organizational citizenship behavior: A multi-sample
analysis. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(1), 107–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-0953-3
Chuang, C. H., Jackson, S. E., & Jiang, Y. (2016). Can knowledge-intensive teamwork be managed? Examining the roles of
HRM systems, leadership, and tacit knowledge. Journal of Management, 42(2), 524–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/0
149206313478189
Cropanzano, R., & Mitchell, M. S. (2005). Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management, 31(6),
874–900. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206305279602
Dumont, J., Shen, J., & Deng, X. (2017). Effects of green HRM practices on employee workplace green behavior: The role
of psychological green climate and employee green values. Human Resource Management, 56(4), 613–627. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hrm.21792
Dyllick, T., & Muff, K. (2016). Clarifying the meaning of sustainable business: Introducing a typology from business-as-usual
to true business sustainability. Organization and Environment, 29(2), 156–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/10860266
15575176
Ehnert, I., & Harry, W. (2012). Recent developments and future prospects on sustainable human resource management: Intro-
duction to the special issue. Management Revue, 23(3), 221–238. https://doi.org/10.5771/0935-9915-2012-3-221
Ehnert, I., Parsa, S., Roper, I., Wagner, M., & Muller-Camen, M. (2016). Reporting on sustainability and HRM: A comparative
study of sustainability reporting practices by the world's largest companies. International Journal of Human Resource
Management, 27(1), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1024157
Eissa, G., Wyland, R., Lester, S. W., & Gupta, R. (2019). Winning at all costs: An exploration of bottom-line mentality, machia-
vellianism, and organisational citizenship behaviour. Human Resource Management Journal, 29(3), 469–489. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1748-8583.12241
Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 2(1), 335–362. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.
so.02.080176.002003
Ferrell, O. C., & Skinner, S. J. (1988). Ethical behavior and bureaucratic structure in marketing research organizations. Journal
of Marketing Research, 25(1), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.2307/3172930
Finnis, J. (1986). Natural law and natural rights. Clarendon.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Fraedrich, J. P. (1993). The ethical behavior of retail managers. Journal of Business Ethics, 12(3), 207–218. https://doi.org/
10.1007/bf01686448
Frémeaux, S., & Michelson, G. (2017). The common good of the firm and humanistic management: Conscious capitalism
and economy of communion. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(4), 701–709. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-016-3118-6
Fry, L. W. (2003). Toward a theory of spiritual leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 14(6), 693–727. https://doi.org/10.101
6/j.leaqua.2003.09.001
Fry, L. W., Vitucci, S., & Cedillo, M. (2005). Spiritual leadership and army transformation: Theory, measurement, and establish-
ing a baseline. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 835–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.012
Gamarra, M. P., & Girotto, M. (2022). Ethical behavior in leadership: A bibliometric review of the last three decades. Ethics and
Behavior, 32(2), 124–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1863799
Graham, K. A., Ziegert, J. C., & Capitano, J. (2015). The effect of leadership style, framing, and promotion regulatory focus
on unethical pro-organizational behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 126(3), 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
013-1952-3
998 PHAM et al.
Guzman, F. A., & Espejo, A. (2019). Introducing changes at work: How voice behavior relates to management innovation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 40(1), 73–90. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2319
Hair, J. F., William, B. C., Barry, B. J., & Rolph, A. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Prentice Hall.
Hinkin, T. R. (1995). A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. Journal of Management, 21(5),
967–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. Harcourt, Brace and World.
Hu, X., & Jiang, Z. (2018). Employee-oriented HRM and voice behavior: A moderated mediation model of moral identity and trust
in management. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 29(5), 746–771. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958
5192.2016.1255986
Jia, X., Liao, S., Van der Heijden, B. I., & Guo, Z. (2019). The effect of socially responsible human resource management
(SRHRM) on frontline employees’ knowledge sharing. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management,
31(9), 3646–3663. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-09-2018-0769
Kim, A., Kim, Y., Han, K., Jackson, S. E., & Ployhart, R. E. (2017). Multilevel influences on voluntary workplace green behavior:
Individual differences, leader behavior, and coworker advocacy. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1335–1358. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0149206314547386
Latan, H., Chiappetta Jabbour, C. J., Lopes de Sousa Jabbour, A. B., Ali, M., & Pereira, V. (2022). Career satisfaction in the
public sector: Implications for a more sustainable and socially responsible human resource management. Human
Resource Management Journal, 32(4), 844–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12469
Lawler, E. J. (2001). An affect theory of social exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 107(2), 321–352. https://doi.org/
10.1086/324071
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131
Leroy, H., Segers, J., Van Dierendonck, D., & Den Hartog, D. (2018). Managing people in organizations: Integrating the study
of HRM and leadership. Human Resource Management Review, 28(3), 249–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2018.
02.002
Liu, X.-Y., & Wang, J. (2013). Abusive supervision and organizational citizenship behavior: Is supervisor–subordinate guanxi a
mediator? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(7), 1471–1489. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958519
2.2012.725082
Lorenzi, P. (2004). Managing for the common good: Prosocial leadership. Organizational Dynamics, 33(3), 282–291. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2004.06.005
Lu, C.-S., & Lin, C.-C. (2014). The effects of ethical leadership and ethical climate on employee ethical behavior in the interna-
tional port context. Journal of Business Ethics, 124(2), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1868-y
Lussier, B., Hartmann, N. N., & Bolander, W. (2021). Curbing the undesirable effects of emotional exhaustion on ethical behav-
iors and performance: A salesperson–manager dyadic approach. Journal of Business Ethics, 169(4), 747–766. https:/
/doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04271-z
Luu, T. T. (2021a). Reducing unethical pro-organizational behavior in the hospitality sector through socially responsible
human resource practices and responsible leadership. Journal of Sustainable Tourism. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669
582.2021.2000994
Luu, T. T. (2021b). Socially responsible human resource practices and hospitality employee outcomes. International Journal of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, 33(3), 757–789. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijchm-02-2020-0164
Mael, F., & Ashforth, B. E. (1992). Alumni and their alma mater: A partial test of the reformulated model of organizational
identification. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 13(2), 103–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130202
Mayer, R. C., & Schoorman, F. D. (1992). Predicting participation and production outcomes through a two-dimensional model
of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Journal, 35(3), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.5465/256492
Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to
the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1),
20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
Michel, J. W. (2017). Antecedents of organizational citizenship behaviors: Examining the incremental validity of self-inter-
est and prosocial motives. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 24(3), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1548051816683895
Moin, M. F., Omar, M. K., Wei, F., Rasheed, M. I., & Hameed, Z. (2021). Green HRM and psychological safety: How transfor-
mational leadership drives follower’s job satisfaction. Current Issues in Tourism, 24(16), 2269–2277. https://doi.org/10.
1080/13683500.2020.1829569
Newman, A., Miao, Q., Hofman, P. S., & Zhu, C. J. (2016). The impact of socially responsible human resource management on
employees' organizational citizenship behavior: The mediating role of organizational identification. International Journal
of Human Resource Management, 27(4), 440–455. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1042895
PHAM et al. 999
Newman, A., Schwarz, G., Cooper, B., & Sendjaya, S. (2017). How servant leadership influences organizational citizenship
behavior: The roles of LMX, empowerment, and proactive personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 145(1), 49–62. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551-015-2827-6
Nguyen, T. P. (2019). Searching for education for sustainable development in Vietnam. Environmental Education Research,
25(7), 991–1003. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2019.1569202
O’brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
Ozcelik, H., & Barsade, S. G. (2018). No employee an island: Workplace loneliness and job performance. Academy of Manage-
ment Journal, 61(6), 2343–2366. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.1066
Pawar, B. S. (2014). Leadership spiritual behaviors toward subordinates: An empirical examination of the effects of a lead-
er’s individual spirituality and organizational spirituality. Journal of Business Ethics, 122(3), 439–452. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10551-013-1772-5
Pham, N. T., Jabbour, C. J. C., Usman, M., Ali, M., & Phan, H. L. (2022). How does training boost employees' intention to imple-
ment environmental activities? An empirical study in Vietnam. International Journal of Manpower, 43(8), 1761–1782.
https://doi.org/10.1108/IJM-04-2021-0238
Pham, N. T., Thanh, T. V., Tučková, Z., & Thuy, V. T. N. (2020a). The role of green human resource management in driving
hotel’s environmental performance: Interaction and mediation analysis. International Journal of Hospitality Management,
88, 102392. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2019.102392
Pham, N. T., Tučková, Z., & Jabbour, C. J. C. (2019). Greening the hospitality industry: How do green human resource manage-
ment practices influence organizational citizenship behavior in hotels? A mixed-methods study. Tourism Management,
72, 386–399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2018.12.008
Pham, N. T., Tučková, Z., & Phan, Q. P. T. (2019). Greening human resource management and employee commitment toward
the environment: An interaction model. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 20(3), 446–465. https://doi.
org/10.3846/jbem.2019.9659
Pinzone, M., Guerci, M., Lettieri, E., & Redman, T. (2016). Progressing in the change journey towards sustainability in healthcare:
The role of ‘green’HRM. Journal of Cleaner Production, 122, 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.031
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recom-
mendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-
psych-120710-100452
Quade, M. J., Bonner, J. M., & Greenbaum, R. L. (2022). Management without morals: Construct development and initial
testing of amoral management. Human Relations, 75(2), 273–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720972784
Reave, L. (2005). Spiritual values and practices related to leadership effectiveness. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(5), 655–687.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.07.003
Robinson, S. L. (1996). Trust and breach of the psychological contract. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41(4), 574–599.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393868
Rousseau, D. M., & Parks McLean, J. M. (1993). The contracts of individuals and organizations. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 15, 1–43.
Scharp, Y. S., Bakker, A. B., Breevaart, K., Kruup, K., & Uusberg, A. (2021). Playful work design: Conceptualization, measure-
ment, and validity. Human Relations. https://doi.org/10.1177/00187267211070996
Shen, J., & Benson, J. (2016). When CSR is a social norm: How socially responsible human resource management affects
employee work behavior. Journal of Management, 42(6), 1723–1746. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314522300
Shen, J., & Zhang, H. (2019). Socially responsible human resource management and employee support for external CSR:
Roles of organizational CSR climate and perceived CSR directed toward employees. Journal of Business Ethics, 156(3),
875–888. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-017-3544-0
Shoss, M. K. (2017). Job insecurity: An integrative review and agenda for future research. Journal of Management, 43(6),
1911–1939. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206317691574
Sison, A. J. G., & Fontrodona, J. (2013). Participating in the common good of the firm. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(4),
611–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1684-4
Skarlicki, D. P., & Latham, G. P. (1996). Increasing citizenship behavior within a labor union: A test of organizational justice
theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(2), 161–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.2.161
Thompson, P. S., Bergeron, D. M., & Bolino, M. C. (2020). No obligation? How gender influences the relationship between
perceived organizational support and organizational citizenship behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(11), 1338–
1350. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000481
Tooranloo, H. S., Azadi, M. H., & Sayyahpoor, A. (2017). Analyzing factors affecting implementation success of sustainable
human resource management (SHRM) using a hybrid approach of FAHP and Type-2 fuzzy DEMATEL. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 162, 1252–1265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.109
1000 PHAM et al.
Usman, M., Ali, M., Ogbonnaya, C., & Babalola, M. T. (2021). Fueling the intrapreneurial spirit: A closer look at how spiritual
leadership motivates employee intrapreneurial behaviors. Tourism Management, 83, 104227. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tourman.2020.104227
Usman, M., Rofcanin, Y., Ali, M., Ogbonnaya, C., & Babalola, M. T. (2022). Toward a more sustainable environment: Under-
standing why and when green training promotes employees' eco-friendly behaviors outside of work. Human Resource
Management. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22148
Valizade, D., Ogbonnaya, C., Tregaskis, O., & Forde, C. (2016). A mutual gains perspective on workplace partnership: Employee
outcomes and the mediating role of the employment relations climate: A mutual gains perspective on workplace part-
nership. Human Resource Management Journal, 26(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12113
Williams, L. J., & Anderson, S. E. (1991). Job satisfaction and organizational commitment as predictors of organizational citizen-
ship and in-role behaviors. Journal of Management, 17(3), 601–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700305
Wittig-Berman, U., & Lang, D. (1990). Organizational commitment and its outcomes: Differing effects of value commitment
and continuance commitment on stress reactions, alienation and organization-serving behaviors. Work and Stress, 4(2),
167–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678379008256978
Yang, C., Chen, Y., & Gao, J. (2022). How and when can employees with status motivation attain their status in a team?
The roles of ingratiation, ocbi, and procedural justice climate. Group and Organization Management. https://doi.org/10.
1177/10596011221112232
Yang, F., Liu, J., Wang, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2019). Feeling energized: A multilevel model of spiritual leadership, leader integrity,
relational energy, and job performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 158(4), 983–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-
017-3713-1
Zhao, H., Zhou, Q., He, P., & Jiang, C. (2021). How and when does socially responsible HRM affect employees’ organizational
citizenship behaviors toward the environment? Journal of Business Ethics, 169(2), 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551-019-04285-7
SUP P ORTI NG I NFORM ATI O N

Additional supporting information can be found online in the Supporting Information section at the end of this article.
How to cite this article: Pham, N. T., Jabbour, C. J. C., Pereira, V., Usman, M., Ali, M., & Vo-Thanh, T. (2023).
Common good human resource management, ethical employee behaviors, and organizational citizenship
behaviors toward the individual. Human Resource Management Journal, 33(4), 977–1000. https://doi.
org/10.1111/1748-8583.12493

Human Res MGMT Journal - 2023 - Pham - Common Good Human Resource Management Ethical Employee Behaviors and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Human Res MGMT Journal - 2023 - Pham - Common Good Human Resource Management Ethical Employee Behaviors and

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Human Res MGMT Journal - 2023 - Pham - Common Good Human Resource Management Ethical Employee Behaviors and

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Received: 8 April 2022 Revised: 15 December 2022 Accepted: 2 January 2023

Common good human resource management,

Nhat Tan Pham1,2 | Charbel Jose Chiappetta Jabbour3 |

behaviors was found to be significantly stronger when

What our paper adds:

Implications for practice:

2 | THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES

2.1 | Common good HRM

2.2 | Common good HRM, ethical employee behaviors and OCBI

2.3 | Value commitment as a mediator

2.4 | Spiritual leadership as a moderator

The conceptual model and hypotheses are presented in Figure 1.

3.1 | Item generation and validity tests for CGHRM (Stage 1)

FIGURE 1 Research framework.

TA B L E 1 Results of confirmatory factor analyses

Models χ2 CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

TA B L E 2 Descriptive statistics and correlations

Mean CrA AVE Gender Age Tenure CGHRM OI

3.2 | Research procedures for the main study (Stage 2)

TA B L E 3 Profile of the respondents

Gender Male 164 52.903 152 49.032

3.3 | Measures and controlling for data bias

3.3.2 | Value commitment

3.3.4 | Ethical behaviors

3.3.5 | Spiritual leadership

3.3.6 | Control variables

TA B L E 4 Results of confirmatory factor analyses

Models χ2 df Δχ 2 Δdf CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR

TA B L E 5 Descriptive statistics and correlations

TA B L E 6 Hypotheses testing and results

Value commitment Employee ethical behavior OCBI

5.1 | Theoretical implications

5.2 | Managerial implications

6 | LIMITATIONS AND FURTHER STUDIES

DATA AVAI LABI LI TY STATE M E N T

SUP P ORTI NG I NFORM ATI O N

You might also like