The Multi-Dimensional Interaction Effect of Culture, Leadership Style, and Organizational Commitment on Employee Involvement within Engineering Enterprises: Empirical Study in Taiwan

Abstract

The prosperity of the engineering industry is the main driving force of the country’s economic development, and the smooth operation of engineering enterprises is the premise for ensuring the prosperity of the engineering industry. This study demonstrates the four dimensions of organization, leadership management, employee identification, and employee involvement, discusses the four components involved (Corporate Culture, Paternalistic Leadership, Organizational Commitment, Job Involvement) and studies their interrelationships and mutual influences. A comprehensive literature review not only makes the four components clearer but puts forward eight hypotheses. Prior to the comprehensive survey analysis, a pilot study was conducted for experienced practitioners in the industry and 311 valid questionnaires were collected. Using IBM SPSS and IBM SPSS AMOS software, the questionnaire data were analyzed by constructing a structure equation, and the results show that: (1) corporate culture is positively related to the paternalistic leadership style and organizational commitment; (2) The paternalistic leadership style is positively correlated with the organizational commitment; (3) The organizational commitment and job involvement are positively correlated; (4) Organizational commitment has an intermediary effect between corporate culture and job involvement; (5) There is no positive correlation between corporate culture and paternalistic leadership style, on the one hand, and job involvement, on the other; (6) The intermediary effect of paternalistic leadership is not significant between corporate culture and job involvement.

1. Introduction

The 2015 UN Summit saw 193 member states formally adopt 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), among which Goal 8 involves making employees more decent and driving economic growth. A country’s engineering industry plays a vital role in its economic and social development, and many engineering companies invest a great deal in technology, resources, and manpower. However, in terms of organizational management and employee awareness, enterprises often do not pay enough attention, which might affect employees’ lack of shared values, cohesion, and concentration. These might lead to the weakening of core competitiveness and may also have a further impact on limiting the development of the enterprise and making it even more vulnerable in the market.

In the long-term development of engineering organizations, the employees play a crucial role as their greatest asset [1]. To achieve the current level, many middle and senior leaders have accumulated extensive experience and research from the grassroots. After entering the company, people at any level must adopt the corporate culture. Especially in the engineering industry, senior executives usually adopt a common management model called the carrot-and-stick approach to lead their subordinates and guide them through the initiation practices of this model. This is an important factor in this industry that determines the success or failure of project operations [2]. In addition, senior managers need to pay attention to the employees’ involvement during the training process to maximize profitability [3]. Job involvement level is closely related to employee commitment to business operations and leadership style. First, emphasizing employees’ organizational commitment can encourage them to devote more to their job and give full play to their personal advantages, which will also improve the organization’s efficiency. Second, having an effective leadership style can help engineers create a great working environment, gather centripetal forces, and motivate colleagues to actively participate in tasks [4,5,6,7]. Based on an extensive review of the literature undertaken by this research team and years of experience in the management of engineering projects, the paternalistic leadership style of Chinese businessmen is quite similar to that of Taiwanese engineering managers [4], and after discussions with several senior executives in the engineering department, this phenomenon does exist. Hence, it is necessary to demonstrate the connection between corporate culture, job involvement, organizational commitment, and the paternalistic leadership style unique to the engineering industry. Exploring this intrinsic link in the engineering industry is of great necessity for the sustainable development and sustained economic growth of the engineering industry. However, there is not much research on this. Therefore, this study will explore the multi-dimensional interaction between the four through a literature analysis, practical investigation, and research result analysis. The hope is that the empirical research in Taiwan can provide an important reference for academic research and the sustainable development of engineering industry management in the region, and that other regions can also make appropriate adjustments to the engineering industry on this basis to meet the same goal.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Corporate Culture

Typically, corporate culture is defined as the collective influence of frequent subconscious norms that govern and guide behavior, beliefs, or actions of a company’s members [8]. Besides a belief system and value system that all members of the organization must adhere to, it is also a code of conduct that must be clear to all employees in the organization [9,10]. Flexibility in the corporate culture not only promotes employee trust but gives employees the opportunity to take risks [11], while ensuring that both individuals and organizations are taken into account [12]. As a behavior mechanism, corporate culture can guide and shape employees’ attitudes and behaviors [13]. Denison points out that corporate culture is a key factor in organizational effectiveness, dividing corporate culture into four dimensions: Engagement, Consistency, Adaptability, and Mission [14]. A research study by Denison with other scholars found that effective organizations cultivate employee empowerment and commitment to make a difference at all levels through decision-making empowerment, organizational teambuilding, and human resource development. [15,16]. Consistency is one way to strengthen organizational integration by promoting shared thinking and management structures related to the development of internal governance structures based on mutual consent [14,17]. An organization’s adaptability enables it to respond effectively to external changes and emergencies, but for organizations in the process of growth and expansion there can be organizational rigidity, organizational agility, stability, adaptive organizations will take effective measures to address these problems to meet the needs of their environment. [14,18,19]; The mission is how an organization defines its strategic direction and goals and how it measures progress toward its stated goals, a dimension that conveys the organization’s vision for the future and describes the organization’s intentions and strategies; it also develops and prioritizes the organization’s vision [16,20]. Hence, as suggested by the above statement, corporate culture is a multi-dimensional result of internal and external compatibility, rich ideas, expectations, and attitudes, which not only permeates all employee levels within the company but also changes the behavior patterns, strategies, and goals of the entire organization to meet the challenges of the market environment. Based on the findings of Denison and the above scholars, the dimensions of corporate culture and its functions are plotted in Figure 1.

Since engineering management activities in the construction sector require mobility and have a temporary aspect, as an integral part of corporate culture, high-level leaders in enterprise management and operation processes are adopted to create a corporate culture that is distinct from other industries. Aramali et al. found that corporate culture has become a primary factor influencing the EVMS (earned value management systems) environment in the use of EVMS for project management [21]. Villena et al. point to the effectiveness of the building information model (BIM) in the architecture, engineering, and construction sectors (AEC) as it promotes a culture of collaboration among senior managers to improve technical capabilities and effectiveness [22]. In addition, a survey of the New Zealand construction industry by Okakp et al. found that corporate culture affects customer expectations, leading to a positive attitude towards BIM by stakeholders in refurbishment projects; corporate culture indirectly influences the software used to different detail levels, thereby enabling customers to expect future benefits from refurbishment projects [23]. To explore the factors behind the implementation of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in small and medium-sized construction enterprises (SMCE), Wang et al. follow the logic of Ajzen’s theory of planned behavior (TPB) and incorporate it into the organizational learning culture (OLC), further revealing the mechanism by which SMCEs behave toward ICT [24].

2.2. Paternalistic Leadership

In regions characterized by a hierarchical culture and collectivism (e.g., China, Latin America, Africa, Middle East), paternalistic leadership is more accepted and prevalent, while is not common in Western countries, industrialized countries, and countries that value freedom and democracy, such as the United States [25,26]. This leadership style originated in ancient Confucianism in China; a culture that was people-oriented, and valued harmony and collective ideas formed a leadership style that includes benevolence, morals, and authoritarianism, which in turn greatly influenced the construction of the subordinates’ psychological cognition [27,28]. Beneficial leadership aims to enhance the well-being of employees and their families, which is in line with the leader’s values [29]; team members in this leadership style increase their desire to learn new things, and they can actively promote team performance by enhancing learning goals orientation [30,31]. Moral leadership represents a leadership style driven by and consistent with a set of underlying ethical values [32]; leaders who promote this style have more respect for the team’s staff, giving them learning tasks when necessary, and enough autonomy to perform new skills at the right time [33]. While the authoritarian leadership style can hinder subordinates’ demand behavior by lowering their status judgment [34], this is a leadership style in which team members invest little but dominate and exert individual control over all actions. This leadership model focuses on authority and obedience, and absolute obedience is prevalent in China because of the authoritarian leadership style rooted in the five Confucian ideas: benevolent kings and loyalists, loving fathers and filial sons, benevolent elders and submissive subordinates, and obedient brothers, honest husbands, and submissive wives [35]. In addition, under corresponding Western leadership control, benevolent and moral leadership has a positive influence on subordinate identification but no significant effect on subordinate response [36]; benevolent leadership and moral leadership can indirectly influence team performance through two intermediaries, learning goal orientation and interactive equity [31]. Moral and authoritarian leadership have a significant positive influence on subordinate compliance but their response to subordinates is negative, while benevolent and authoritarian leaders have a positive influence on subordinates’ gratitude and subordinate response [36]. Subordinates’ task performance is positively correlated with benevolent leadership and negatively correlated with authoritarian leadership [37,38]. Overall, there is no significant tripartite interaction between the three leadership styles [36]. Among them, benevolent leadership has the most significant impact on subordinates’ gratitude and reciprocation, and has an important impact on identification and imitation. Interestingly, moral leadership is more likely to induce subordinates to obey through selfless and exemplary behavior, but not authoritarian leadership, as we subconsciously believe, which indirectly suggests moral leadership is gradually replacing some outdated authoritarian leadership elements [36,39]. To sum up, this study plots the paternalistic leadership dimensions and their impact, as shown in Figure 2.

Combined with the above analysis, we found that the leadership style used by middle and senior leaders and project managers in management and training of junior employees is very similar to paternalistic leadership. There has been very little research on paternalistic leadership in the engineering industry; Zhang et al. found that paternalistic leadership plays an important role in promoting the safety participation of high-speed rail drivers [40]. Faced with the insufficient trust challenge in artificial intelligence (AI) application in engineering industry, Li et al. investigated engineering equipment AI diagnostic systems and found that authoritarian leadership was positively correlated with trust in AI applications [41]. Chew et al. also reveal that in an institutionalized gender environment, the clever combination of fairness and protective nuances of paternalistic leadership culture can make female engineers in industry perceive fair job exchanges and career matching [42]. On another level, another scholar points out that managers’ behavior that is too authoritarian may damage subordinates’ ability [43]. Xia et al. highlight that paternalistic leadership cultures sometimes increase the negative impact of risk perception on security motivation and behavior by putting employees under pressure to work through strict job requirements and/or strained relationships [44].

2.3. Organizational Commitment

Organizational commitment can be defined as the level of involvement and commitment an individual has to a particular organization, as evidenced by strong beliefs and acceptance of the organization’s goals and values. It also involves the effect an employee has on identity and engagement within the organization [45]. It refers to an employee’s commitment to the organization [46]. Organizational commitment can be divided into three broad dimensions: work experience, personal, and organizational factors [47]. Meyer and Allen discern three types of organizational commitment: Affective commitment (desire), Continuous commitment (need), and Normative commitment (the obligation to maintain employment in the organization) [48]. Affective commitment represents the employee’s recognition of the organization and its objectives with the desire to remain a member of the organization; continuous commitment specifically refers to the perceived economic value of the employee remaining in the organization compared to leaving the organization; normative commitment can be attributed to an employee’s obligation to remain in the organization as the result of ethical constraints [49]. A high organizational commitment level promotes employee loyalty to the company and has a significant positive relationship to employees’ job performance [50]. Employee engagement level is strongly related to organizational commitment level, and there is a significant positive correlation between affective commitment and normative commitment [51]. Employees’ organizational commitment is positively correlated with service quality provided to customers [52,53]; when employees are committed to developing a higher organization level, they tend to create customer satisfaction and positive word-of-mouth advocacy through better service quality [54]. Conflicts between job and family are unavoidable in any profession; however, employee affective commitment is positively correlated with work-family fulfillment, which is associated with a partner’s positive attitude towards an employee’s work plan and a high commitment level to the employee’s position in the company [55]. Organizational commitment serves as an impact factor in the willingness to leave [55]; affective organizational commitment has a significant negative correlation with employees’ willingness to leave [56], that is, the stronger the organization’s commitment, the lower the tendency of individuals to leave [57]. Employees with a positive emotional attachment to an organization are more satisfied with the job itself and other job external aspects, meaning that individuals who identify with an organization and its goals are more likely to exhibit committed behavior as a means of achieving their personal goals, and subsequently achieve a higher satisfaction level with their job and outcomes. To sum up, this study plots the dimensions of the organization’s commitment and its impact features as shown in Figure 3.

A unified organizational commitment enables the AEC project team to fully understand project team dynamics, and improve communication behavior, and decision quality in accordance with integrated project delivery technology (IPD) delivery content that is contractually followed [58]. The job fit, psychological significance, perceived organizational support, and salary satisfaction in the engineering industry field can explain the significant differences in organizational affective commitment [59]. Cao et al. established an adjustment variable theoretical model based on organizational affective commitment, and discussed the work-family conflict impact on job involvement and project success in the engineering industry [60]. In the engineering procurement field, Laura et al. present quantitative and semi-quantitative evaluation indicators for engineering companies’ organizations and projects to assist institutions in their social sustainability and objective assessment of public works procurement [61]. Sang et al. found organizational commitments can partially modify the job satisfaction impact and the positive impact of knowledge sharing among engineering project members [62]. Oyewob et al. state that organizational commitment also affects the work-life balance (WLB) impact on organizational performance [63]. Inocencia’s hierarchical regression analysis of data tests for 864 Spanish engineers also shows that organizational commitment to engineer career satisfaction is paramount [64].

2.4. Job Involvement

Job involvement is defined as the degree to which an employee immerses himself or herself in the job, invests time and energy, and sees the work as a central part of his or her overall life [65]; in short, it is the degree of job psychological acceptance [66]. An employee with high job involvement is very concerned about their job roles and agree it is important for them to exceed expectations to accomplish a given task [67]. Those who enjoy the input of a job are more motivated at work and may therefore be more likely to overcome obstacles [68]. Employees whose psychological needs are met are more likely to have an intrinsic desire to put more effort into their job [69]. Employees’ personal job involvement is influenced by personal traits and organizational environments, which are the interaction between organizational scenarios and personal traits [70]. Job involvement can be divided into two dimensions: the degree of individual participation in a particular job, and the individual’s enthusiastic participation in the job and willingness to take the initiative to improve the job compared to other jobs [71]. Li divides the job involvement psychological state into three aspects: meaningful, safe, and available; employees can be rewarded for their job roles, but often the most rewarding is to get feedback at their job roles end [72]. However, high job-level involvement is not always positive, when employees are under high stress, job stress can exacerbate the negative impact [73], As Frone found, high job involvement levels amplify the link between several job stressors and negative outcomes [74]. Social identity theory and identity-related stressors can explain this phenomenon, when individuals identify as part of a group they value, membership in the social group becomes self-referencing and incorporates the organization’s interests into their self-concept; those who strongly identify with their job feel self-integration with the group [75,76]. Employees see their supervisor as an organizational representative, and strong behavior shown by supervisors can cause highly engaged employees to feel particular threats and experience lower perceived work ability (PWA) level [77]. To sum up, this study plots the impact elements of job involvement and their logical relationships, as shown in Figure 4.

After the long-term first-line project engineering process, it has been found that employees’ job involvement is directly related to the completion period of the whole project and enterprise performance, which has caused many scholars to start studying employees’ job involvement in the engineering industry. As the scale of engineering projects expands and complicates, customer demands for delivery increase. Pheng et al. incorporate total quality management (TQM), already recognized in manufacturing and services, into the engineering industry while building a framework for implementing TQM in the engineering sector and consider job involvement as an important performance indicator for TQM [78]. Kim et al. use the engineering environment as a background to build a multispectral perception model and declare that increased job involvement for employees whose ability to operate is not outstanding can effectively improve the safety atmosphere of the engineering environment to avoid safety incidents [79]. Senior management job involvement as a management factor also has an impact on engineering workers’ safety performance [80]. By analyzing several construction industry experts, Nwaogu found that increasing employees’ job involvement can be seen as a viable strategy to improve employees’ mental health [81]. Thomas et al. found for long-time engineering industry managers were limited by tight and strict requirements of the engineering period; increasing workers’ job involvement is bound to be through redesigning workers’ jobs to rely on their personal initiative, thereby reducing demands on workers and increasing available resources [82].

2.5. Brief Summary

According to the above analysis, the rights and management attributes of middle and senior leaders are the main components of corporate culture in the engineering industry; these include favors imposition, establishing virtue, establish leadership model benefits. In response, employees in will produce a certain level of recognition and participation, and corporate culture determines whether employees will be fully committed to the job. Therefore, whether the unique corporate culture and paternalistic leadership style of each enterprise in the engineering industry will enhance organizational commitment and job involvement of employees becomes one of the key conditions for the success of a company’s operation. In the past, few studies have discussed cultural atmosphere, management leadership style, employee recognition of the organization, and employee input to the job, which has led to the analysis of this important subject by this research team. This study focuses on the analysis and literature, further studies above four aspects relevance.

3. Hypothesis Development

3.1. Study Hypothesis

3.1.1. Relationship between Corporate Culture and Paternalistic Leadership Style in the Engineering Industry

Cultural values can significantly influence leadership roles [83]. The democratization of leadership has a significant impact on corporate culture [84]. In social identity theory, leadership, as a social background factor, is essential to understanding the inner nature of an individual’s specific cultural identity [85]. The senior leaders’ actions play an important role in corporate culture creation [86]. Li et al. found that when a leader’s role is accompanied by a corporate culture that encourages and creates value, such as learning, development, and decision-making, his horns are successful [87]. Arun et al. state-corporate culture regulates the effectiveness of leaders in an organization’s performance [88]. Takeuchi found corporate culture plays an important and accidental role in influencing leadership effectiveness [89]. Therefore, this study presents the first hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

There is a positive relationship between Corporate Culture and Paternalistic Leadership.

3.1.2. Relationship between Corporate Culture and Organizational Commitment in the Engineering Industry

Employees’ commitment to the job is related to their perception of their own fit with the organization’s culture [90]; corporate culture has a positive impact on employee job satisfaction, which significantly affects organizational commitment [91]. Marchalina points out that employees’ commitment to organizational change is regulated by corporate culture [92]. Organizational culture also has a positive impact on human resources functions and organizational commitment [93]. Chapman builds a Lexical Organizational Cultural Scale (LOCS) that predicts employee commitment [94]. Hai et al. found each component of corporate culture has a significant impact on all employee commitment aspects; it is necessary to improve employee commitment to the organization and develop a good corporate culture in all aspects [95]. Therefore, this study presents the second hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

There is a positive relationship between Corporate Culture and Organizational Commitment.

3.1.3. Relationship between Corporate Culture and Job Involvement in the Engineering Industry

The implementation of democratic leadership with the support of a favorable corporate culture can make employees perform better, and thus corporate culture has a significant impact on employee involvement [84]. Joseph and Kibera point out that the better the corporate culture, the greater the ability to improve individual and organizational performance [96]. Mulugeta et al. point out that organizational culture, as a long-standing habit, is a driving force for improving job quality for employees and company managers [97]. A well-functioning corporate culture can motivate employees to offer more through collaborative and ethical job practices [98]. Zhou et al. suggested that organizational rational culture not only strengthens an organization’s development culture but strengthens job involvement [99]. Therefore, this study presents a third hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

There is a positive relationship between Corporate Culture and Job Involvement.

3.1.4. Relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Organizational Commitment in the Engineering Industry

The consistency and inconsistency between morality and authoritarianism have a significant effect on subordinate perception and final identity perception [38]. Ünler suggests that a paternalistic leadership culture is positively correlated with organizational attitudes, particularly emotional commitment and job satisfaction within the organization [100]. Cheng and Wang’s research on team leadership shows that benevolent leadership can improve team identity [101], and Chen believes benevolent leadership can strengthen organizational cohesion [102]. Kim et al. state that ethical leadership and benevolent leadership have a significant direct impact on employees’ organizational identity through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) [103]. In addition, there is a positive and significant relationship between moral leadership and the two parts of the organization’s commitment (affective commitment and normative commitment) [104,105,106]. Therefore, this study presents the fourth hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

There is a positive relationship between Paternalistic Leadership style and Organizational Commitment.

3.1.5. Relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Job Involvement in the Engineering Industry

Leadership style is a behavior pattern through which a leader tries to influence others [106]. Democratic leadership has a significant impact on employee performance [84], while Zhang et al. found that authoritarian leadership has a positive impact on employees’ creative behavior [107]. Huang et al. argue that authoritarianism and moralism are positively correlated with job performance through team identity, while benevolent leadership is positively correlated with team performance through emotional exhaustion [108]. Benevolent and moral leadership are positively correlated with many subordinates’ jobs [109], and benevolent and authoritarian leaders have a positive impact on organizational performance by increasing their subordinates’ psychological capital [110]. The paternalistic leadership style makes a unique contribution to subordinates’ work commitment, influencing subordinates more by increasing their job control [111]. Therefore, this study presents the fifth hypothesis:

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

There is a positive relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Job Involvement.

3.1.6. Relationship between Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement in the Engineering Industry

The job involvement relationship model proposed by Uddin et al. shows a direct link between job involvement and organizational commitment [112]. Yook found that job involvement is a strong positive predictor of organizational commitment [113]. Park and Tran point out that there is a significant correlation between organizational commitment and job involvement, which directly and significantly affects organizational commitment [114]. Bang et al. propose a job involvement structure based on empirical research, establishing a relationship between job involvement, on the one hand, and job satisfaction and organizational commitment, on the other; they consider job satisfaction with organizational commitment as the result of job involvement [115]. Therefore, this study presents the sixth hypothesis:

Hypothesis 6 (H6).

There is a positive relationship between Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement.

3.1.7. Relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Organizational Commitment in Corporate Culture and Job Involvement in the Engineering Industry

Diana et al. suggest that organizational culture plays a certain intermediary role in the process of democratic leadership, affecting employee performance. Implementing democratic leadership with the support of a favorable corporate culture can lead to better performance of employees [86]. Maamari and Saheb point out that a good leadership style coupled with corporate culture can improve employee performance [116]. Zhang et al. believe organizations agree to act as intermediaries in the process of generating innovative behavior between business executives and employees [28]. In addition, when leaders provide a safe environment for employees in the workplace, Nazir points out that employees feel safe and take risks to help improve employee and organizational performance [117]. Li et al. believe there is a curved relationship between benevolent leadership and team performance, which is regulated by team commitment [118]. Behery and Paton point out a positive relationship between organizational culture and job satisfaction that drives employee input [90]. In addition, Dubey believes organizational culture plays an important role in generating commitment and improving job performance [118]. Sopiah et al. agree that organizational commitment and job satisfaction play an important role in regulating corporate culture and employee performance [119]. To sum up, this study presents two hypotheses, 7 and 8:

Hypothesis 7 (H7).

Paternalistic leadership plays an intermediary role between Corporate Culture and Job Involvement.

Hypothesis 8 (H8).

Organizational Commitment plays an intermediary role between Corporate Culture and Job Involvement.

Combined with the above analysis, this study plots the mutual hypothetical relationship between the various facets, as shown in Figure 5.

4. Personal Attributes and Variable Operational Definition

This study listed personal attributes as control variables, along with four demographic variables, including gender, age, marriage, education status; in addition, there were four occupational statistical variables: job status, current seniority, salary history, and the number of companies affiliated with the company, for a total of eight categories. In terms of personal attributes, male workers outnumbered female workers by 40.83%, in line with the ratio of men to women in the engineering industry, meeting the needs of gender matching in the engineering industry. In terms of age, because the work performed by personnel requires sufficient energy and physical strength, the engineering industry’s human structure is dominated by young and middle-aged people. The survey data of this study are mainly from local engineering enterprises in Taiwan. In terms of educational attainment, most of the respondents are concentrated above the level of higher education, accounting for 65% of the total sample. In terms of posts, most of them are active, accounting for 99.4% (309 persons). In terms of the number of service years, the current seniority structure of the engineering industry in this study is very average. In terms of enterprise size, firms of 30 to 100 people accounted for 11.29%, those of 100 to 250 people accounted for 13.17%, and those of 250 to 500 people accounted for 27.27%, Firms of more than 500 people accounted for 48.28%.

The study sent out 400 questionnaires, of which 321 were returned, with a recovery rate of 80.25%; the majority of respondents were front-line employees of engineering enterprises in Taiwan, and a small number were senior leaders of enterprises. This study sent questionnaires to different leadership levels in the engineering industry, then distributed them to their subordinate employees while leaders completed the questionnaire. Information on different leadership levels is shown in

Table 1. Information on leaders in each section.

Order	Department	Position	Specialization	Years of Experience
1	President’s Office	Senior President	Management of planning, manufacturing, and construction	33
2	Production Department	Senior Vice President	Management planning and manufacturing	30
3	Production Department	Senior Project Manager	Planning and manufacturing management	29
4	Production Department	Senior Associate	Planning, manufacturing, and management	28
5	Production Department	Senior Associate	Planning and manufacturing management	24
6	Research Department	Vice President	Design and planning, technical innovation, research, and improvement	20
7	Research Department	Associate	Technical innovation, research, and improvement	14
8	Engineering Department	Senior Vice President	Management of planning, manufacturing, and construction	31
9	Design Department	Senior Associate	Design and planning	30
10	Design Department	Senior Associate	Design and planning	24
11	Design Department	Senior Manager	Design and planning	27
12	Design Department	Vice President	Management of design and planning, manufacturing, and construction	21
13	Design Department	Vice President	Management of design and planning, and manufacturing	20
14	Design Department	Manager	Design and planning	19

. After manual examination, a total of 10 missed or invalid questionnaires were excluded, leaving 311 effective questionnaires, which accounted for 96.88% of the total recovered questionnaires. In terms of the Corporate Culture Scale, this study cites the Organizational Culture Scale compiled by Quinn [120], which is based on the organizational theory model of competitive approach. Based on an organization’s membership characteristics, organizational leadership characteristics, management style, organizational cohesion, strategic orientation, and the success of the standard of organizational behavior, the scale is modified for the purposes of practicality and objectivity. A total of 15 questions are measured using the two cultural scales of the bureaucratic type and the creative type. The paternalistic leadership scale is taken from the leadership test scale for authoritarian, benevolent, and moral leadership behaviors developed by researchers such as Zheng [121]. This is modified to conform to reality and objectivity, and a total of 10 questions are developed to measure this variable. In terms of job involvement, the study uses Kanungo’s job involvement scale [122], which is modified to conform to practicality and objectivity (total of 8 questions). In addition, this study uses Mowday et al.’s Organizational Commitment Scale as a measuring tool [123], which focuses on the degree to which members of an organization identify with and engage in attitudes and behaviors. The scale has been modified to conform to the requirements of practicality and objectivity, and 9 problems have been developed to measure this variable.

The measures covered in this study were rated on a six-point scale, based on the degree of consent given by the subjects; the rating scale was from 1 to 6 points, from strongly disagree, disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, agree, and strongly agree. After confidence analysis, the overall internal consistency α values of corporate culture, paternalistic leadership, organizational commitment, and job input were 0.898, 0.776, 0.934, and 0.941, respectively. Therefore, the confidence of the scale is good.

This study collected data about both exogenous and endogenous constructs from a single source through questionnaires; thus, there is a possibility that common method bias (CMB) might have occurred and disturbed the data. During the data collection, researchers must assure respondents that their information is in safe hands and will not be divulged to any third-party [124]. The researchers elucidated that CMB is considered a serious issue normally associated with self-survey reports, and it can increase an association that exists among measured variables [125]. Harman’s single-factor method is used to compute CMB, and the outcomes of this study demonstrate that a single-factor explains 40.244% of the total variance. Thus, there is no issue with CMB in the data. A value of total variance higher than 50% would indicate that a CMB issue exists, while a value of CMB less than 50% indicates that there is no CMB issue. Hence, in this study, there is no CMB issue in the data.

5. Results Analysis

5.1. Correction of the Original Measurement Model

Measured by IBM SPSS Amos 25, the original model is understood by the relevant values: x2/df = 2.403; GFI = 0.408; SRMR = 0.136; CFI = 0.477; IFI = 0.489; RMSEA = 0.167, so appropriate adjustments are still required to meet the requirements of the overall model fit standard.

This study adjusts the pattern by MI values, so the various facets are filtered for issues involved. Among them, questions 5, 6, and 7 after the screening of corporate culture are innovative, and questions 12, 13, and 14 are of the bureaucratic type. These are as follows: (CC5) I think the company will pay attention to job performance; (CC6) I think companies often encourage employees to think creatively; (CC7) I think companies often give employees encouragement or rewards based on performance; (CC12) I think the company’s management is strict and clear; (CC13) I think the company’s business management procedures are quite clear; (CC14) I think the company will pay attention to work efficiency.

The paternalistic leadership questions were: (PL6) When I make a mistake, I think the supervisor will give me a chance to change; (PL7) I think the company director will be compassionate to my personal needs to meet my requirements; (PL8) I do not think company executives will exploit relationships and deal behind closed doors for personal gain; (PL9) I think the company director is decent and will not fake public benefits; (PL10) I think the company director treated us fairly.

The variable choices for job involvement were: (JI1) I feel like work is at the center of my life; (JI2) My personal life goals will be guided by my work; (JI3) For me, work is a part of my life; (JI4) I have a certain connection with my work; (Q6) For me, putting effort into my present work is important; (JI7) Things that I care about or need sometimes happen in my work; (JI8) I often involve myself in my work.

Organizational commitment questions were the following: (OC1) I will introduce the company to my friends; (OC2) I feel proud to be a member of the company; (OC3) I am very glad to have this job; (OC4) If the company needs it, I will put more effort into the work; (OC) I will care about the future of the company; (OC7) I have benefited a lot from this job.

5.2. Result Analysis of the Correction Model

In terms of discriminant validity, the results were as follows: between corporate culture and paternalistic leadership: Φ = 0.65, S.E. = 0.04, T-value = 16.67; between corporate culture and organizational commitment: Φ = 0.76, S.E. = 0.03, T-value = 25.33; between corporate culture and job involvement: Φ = 0.60, S.E. = 0.04, T-value = 14.31; between paternalistic leadership and organizational commitment: Φ = 0.62, S.E. = 0.04, T-value = 15.90; between paternalistic leadership and job involvement: Φ = 0.48, S.E. = 0.05, T-value = 10.03; between organizational commitment and job involvement: Φ = 0.81, S.E. = 0.02, T-value = 35.10. Therefore, the trust interval between each facet is ± 1.96, the standard error does not contain 1, showing that the level between each member is significant.

In terms of convergent validity, the results were as follows: with regard to corporate culture; CC5: λ = 0.75; T = 14.99; CC6: λ = 0.68; T = 13.06; CC7: λ = 0.69; T = 13.27; CC12: λ = 0.67; T = 12.78; CC13: λ = 0.70; T = 13.65; CC14: λ = 0.76; T = 15.18; with regard to paternalistic leadership; PL6: λ = 0.68; T = 13.25; PL7: λ = 0.65; T = 12.49; PL8: λ = 0.82; T = 17.36; PL9: λ = 0.90; T = 20.01; PL10: λ = 0.87; T = 19.01; with regard to organizational commitment; OC1: λ = 0.71; T = 14.41; OC2: λ = 0.89; T = 20.08; OC3: λ = 0.90; T = 20.68; OC4: λ = 0.87; T = 19.29; OC6: λ = 0.76; T = 15.65; OC7: λ = 0.83; T = 17.89; with regard to job involvement; JI1: λ = 0.83; T = 17.83; JI1: λ = 0.84; T = 18.25; JI1: λ = 0.81; T = 17.46; JI1: λ = 0.87; T = 19.22; JI1: λ = 0.86; T = 19.19; JI1: λ = 0.81; T = 17.35; JI1: λ = 0.80; T = 16.95. The above results show that most of the λ values between the variables are greater than 0.7; only a small number are close to 0.7; and the T values are greater than 1.96, so each facet has a significant level.

The resulting measurement model, adjusted for calculation and analysis, is shown in Figure 6. The results show that the overall pattern verification results can be seen to have reached a significant level (x2/df = 2.990), while the model’s GFI = 0.829, while RMSR = 0.065, CFI = 0.914 and IFI = 0.915, RMSEA = 0.08 are all in line with the requirements, so the overall pattern is moderately and very good.

5.3. Participation in the Analysis of the Investigators’ Various Components

The higher the average, the higher the recognition of the subject by respondents. The innovation and bureaucratic type in the corporate culture are determined by single sample T, Innovative type T-value = 74.062, DF = 310, Average = 4.58, Standard deviation = 1.090, Standard error of the average = 0.062; Bureaucratic type T-value = 73.302, DF = 310, Average = 4.23, Standard deviation = 1.017, Standard error of the average = 0.058; the results show that there is no significant difference between the bureaucratic type and the innovative type of corporate culture. The summary of the average and standard deviations of each facet is detailed in

Table 2. Summary table of average and standard deviations for each facet studied.

Facet	Title	Average	Standard Deviation
Corporate culture	CC5	4.86	1.097
	CC6	4.58	1.090
	CC7	4.07	1.282
	CC12	4.50	1.124
	CC13	4.23	1.017
	CC14	4.67	1.064
Paternalistic Leadership	PL6	4.50	0.987
	PL7	3.85	1.116
	PL8	4.50	1.267
	PL9	4.59	1.193
	PL10	4.30	1.180
Job Involvement	JI1	4.41	1.089
	JI2	4.30	1.085
	JI3	4.59	1.009
	JI4	4.51	1.044
	JI6	4.63	1.091
	JI7	4.40	1.048
	JI8	4.74	1.015
Organizational Commitment	OC1	4.35	1.078
	OC2	4.49	1.083
	OC3	4.72	1.029
	OC4	4.82	1.009
	OC6	4.90	1.014
	OC7	4.79	0.983

Note: The innovative culture is 5, 6, 7; the science culture is 12, 13, 14; benevolent leadership is 21, 22; moral leadership is 23, 24, 25.

.

5.4. Reliability Analysis and Related Analysis

With regard to Cronbach’s α of each facet, the Corporate Culture confidence value change from the original measurement model to the correction model is 0.900–0.849, Paternalistic Leadership is 0.775–0.889, Job Involvement is 0.947–0.940, Organizational Commitment is 0.939–0.924. It is learned that the original and measurement mode of each facet of the reliability value is greater than 0.7, showing that the research standard is met, so the reliability of each facet has stability.

This study uses Pearson correlation coefficients to test the relevance of variables in this study architecture. The correlation between corporate culture and paternalistic leadership, organizational commitment, and job involvement reached a significant level (p < 0.01) in the correlation between the independent variable, mediator, and dependent variable, and the correlation values ranged from 0.586 to 0.752. Similarly, in the relationship between paternalistic leadership, on the one hand, and organizational commitment and job involvement, on the other, the correlation between the independent variable, mediator, and dependent variable reached a significant level (p < 0.01), with correlation values ranging from 0.505 to 0.626. The relevant coefficient value of the relationship of organizational commitment to job involvement is 0.790, which is a significant level (p < 0.01). From the above analysis results, the relationship between the various facets showed significant positive correlation.

5.5. Structural Equation Analysis

The various hypotheses in this research architecture were tested through the path analysis of the structural equation. First of all, Figure 7 illustrates the relationship between the variables with the relevant verification coefficients of the structural pattern, while verifying the reliability of the experimental data by verifying the standardized coefficients and non-standardized coefficients, respectively. Using the bootstrap intermediary effect to test the mediation guesses of hypothesis 7 and hypothesis 8, and the coefficient is set above 0.95 to ensure strict conclusions.

Corporate culture affects the paternalistic leadership style (standardization coefficient: 0.646; non-standardization coefficient: 0.609, p < 0.01). Therefore, when the corporate culture of an engineering industry enterprise becomes more distinct, the paternalistic leadership style of its various levels of supervisors will appear. Combined with the above conclusions, hypothesis 1 is valid.

Corporate culture affects organizational commitment (standardization factor: 0.607; non-standardization factor: 0.655, p < 0.01). For engineering industry enterprises, the more distinct the corporate culture, the better are the effects of organizational commitment; therefore, comprehensive research experimental data show that the research hypothesis 2 is valid.

There is no significant positive correlation between corporate culture and job involvement (standardization coefficient: −0.083; non-standardization coefficient: −0.106, p = 284 > 0.01); therefore, the comprehensive experimental data show that hypothesis 3 is not valid.

The paternalistic leadership style has a positive relationship to the organizational commitment of its subordinates (standardization coefficient: 0.226; non-standardization coefficient: 0.258, p < 0.01). When the leader takes the lead in the paternalistic leadership style of benevolence and moral behavior, the organizational commitment awareness of the subordinates under his leadership is also relatively improved. Therefore, hypothesis 4 is valid.

The paternalistic leadership style has no positive effect on job involvement (standardization coefficient = −0.038; non-standardization coefficient = −0.051, p = 0.0516 > 0.01), that is, the data show that the paternalistic leadership style is not directly related to job involvement, and therefore has no direct positive effect on job involvement. Therefore, the comprehensive experimental data show that hypothesis 5 is not valid.

There is a significant positive relationship between employee organizational commitment and employee job involvement (standardization factor = 0.897; non-standardization factor = 1.06, p < 0.01). When the organization members buy into the company’s identity and sense of belonging, this has a relative impact on the employee’s own attitude and behavior patterns; that is, it affects the employee’s performance in the workplace and work behavior. Based on a synthesis of the above conclusions, this study hypothesis six is valid.

After the test of the standard and non-standard bootstrap intermediary effect of 95% confidence interval, the non-standardized results are as follows: on the path CC→PL→JI, in Bias-corrected 95%CI, its Lower = −0.158 and Upper = 0.075; in Percentile 95%CI, its Lower = −0.161 and Upper = 0.074; on the path CC→OC→JI, in Bias-corrected 95%CI, its Lower = 0.481 and Upper = 1.019; in Percentile 95%CI, its Lower = 0.460 and Upper = 0.979. Standardized results: on the path CC→PL→JI, in Bias-corrected 95%CI, its Lower = −0.156 and Upper = 0.077; in Percentile 95%CI, its Lower = −0.160 and Upper = 0.077; on the path CC→OC→JI, in Bias-corrected 95%CI, its Lower = 0.475 and Upper = 1.022; in Percentile 95%CI, its Lower = 0.458 and Upper = 0.980.

The results show that the test of organizational culture influencing job involvement through paternalistic leadership is not valid (the interval included in the upper and lower limits is 0, indicating that the intermediary effect is not significant), and the test of corporate culture influencing job involvement through organizational commitment is established (the upper and lower limits contain no 0). Therefore, the comprehensive experimental data of this study show that hypothesis 7 is not valid while hypothesis 8 is valid.

6. Implications and Conclusions

6.1. Research Results

The 8th of the 17 SDGs goals was making employees’ jobs more decent and driving economic growth. This study is based on findings from Taiwan’s engineering industry. At the same time, it collected 311 valid questionnaires. This research demonstrates the four dimensions of organization, leadership management, employee identification, and employee involvement; it discusses the four components involved (Cooperate Culture, Paternalistic Leadership, Organizational Commitment, Job Involvement) and studies their interrelationships and mutual influences. A comprehensive literature review not only makes the four components clearer, but also puts forward eight hypotheses. The study results are as follows: 1. There is a positive relationship between Corporate Culture and Paternalistic Leadership; 2. There is a positive relationship between Corporate Culture and Organizational Commitment; 3. There is no positive relationship between Corporate Culture and Job Involvement; 4. There is a positive relationship between Paternalistic Leadership Style and Organizational Commitment; 5. There is no positive relationship between Paternalistic Leadership and Job Involvement; 6. There is a positive relationship between Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement; 7. Paternalistic leadership does not play an intermediary role between Corporate Culture and Job Involvement; 8. Organizational Commitment plays an intermediary role between Corporate Culture and Job Involvement.

6.2. The Practical Value of the Research Results

The study conclusions show that the corporate culture of enterprises in the engineering industry has a positive and high management influence on the paternalistic leadership style; this intangible cultural atmosphere can play an important role in the relations between supervisors and employees. This is similar to the conclusions of Lehman’s research [108]. Organizing commitments play an important role in the relationship between corporate culture and employee attitudes toward their jobs since corporate values can be embodied by organizational commitments, which in turn enhance employees’ sense of identity, thus affecting their behavior and performance at work. Having a paternalistic leadership would directly affect employees, allowing them to feel that they have an impact on the organization, and trusting that the organization is closely related to their lives; this makes them feel responsible for their work, and more loyal and likely to recognize the company. As a result, engineering industry leaders in other regions can refer to the paternalistic leadership model to address employees’ negative work attitudes and low loyalty. Organizational commitment also affects the employee’s job involvement behaviors, since the employee’s commitment to the organization increases the degree of recognition, which in turn increases employee commitment to the job. Interestingly, the authoritarian leadership style of paternalistic leadership is not obvious in the management of engineering enterprises, which is not consistent with the predictions we made before the study, and the results of the Farch [40] and Zhang [41] studies in non-engineering enterprises. This is perhaps because the questionnaire used is aimed at grass-roots colleagues in the first line, and the research scope is only in the engineering industry, while authoritarian leadership usually comes from the company’s top decision-makers on the feelings of senior executives, so the general peer feeling is less obvious. Therefore, for senior leaders who want to adopt but do not understand paternalistic leadership, the proportion of authoritarian factors should be appropriately reduced. The relationship between paternalistic leadership and organizational commitment shows that the benevolence of superior leadership and moral leadership style has a positive influence on subordinates’ attitudes; when the relationship between the leader and subordinate is improved, it will directly affect the psychological level of subordinates, and then affect the employee’s attitude towards organizational commitment. The impact of corporate organizational culture and paternalistic leadership style on job involvement is not directly affected, and may affect job involvement in the form of intermediate variables.

Through the analysis of questionnaire information, the innovative culture and the bureaucratic culture in the engineering industry exist in parallel. The company not only pays attention to employee innovation, thinking, and performance, but attaches importance to organization-level division of labor, job standardization, job fixation, and job efficiency. The average of authoritarian, benevolent, and moral leadership in the form of comprehensive supervisor paternalistic leadership shows that most employees in engineering industry agree that the authoritarian leadership style adopted by their supervisors is a more inappropriate leadership model, but the pattern of benevolent and moral leadership is prevalent in the industry, indicating that leaders will show higher personal integrity or discipline to win the admiration and imitation of the employees. In addition, leaders take a holistic and long-term approach to their subordinates’ personal lives or jobs in good faith, making it easier for leaders to work. The average of comprehensive job involvement shows that the job involvement behavior attitude of organization members in the engineering industry is the result of whether their needs are met; the higher the satisfaction level of an individual’s desired needs, the higher the job involvement behavior, and the more job positivity is expressed. Individuals with fewer needs will become less involved in their jobs, and their jobs will become more negative, which can affect their job environment perceptions. The commitments average of an organization in the engineering industry shows that its members generally support the decisions made by the company, members identify with the organization’s goals and share its core values, show emotional support, are willing to actively contribute to the organization, and stay in the organization to serve and contribute. These research results can provide an important reference point for academic research, while engineering industry management in this and other regions can also make appropriate adjustments on this basis to meet the sustainability of the industry.

6.3. Future Research Recommendations

(1)

The survey data of this study are mainly from local engineering enterprises in Taiwan. Future studies should focus on multinational engineering enterprises in Taiwan or Chinese companies overseas with engineering industry backgrounds to confirm whether there are similar conclusions.

(2)

This research focuses on the engineering industry, in the future, the feminine or triad leadership model will be compared to paternalistic leadership to test the similarities or differences.