This research aims to study the relationships between Organizational Climate and Task Performance through Organizational Recognition in the context of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Da Nang, Vietnam. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) is used to examine the direct and indirect (mediated) relationships among the independent variables, the mediator, and the dependent variable. The population of this study is individual employees in SMEs; 402 respondents were obtained through a convenience and volunteer sampling method. The empirical results demonstrated an excellent model fit. The path analysis revealed that all four dimensions of Organizational Climate had significant positive direct effects on Organizational Recognition (p < 0.001), and that Organizational Recognition was significantly associated with Task Performance. Bootstrap analysis with 5000 resamples and bias-corrected 95 % confidence intervals indicated that all four indirect effects through Organizational Recognition were statistically significant. Standard of Work was fully mediated by Organizational Recognition, whereas Organizational Structure, Responsibility, and Commitment were partially mediated, retaining significant direct associations with Task Performance. These results suggest that, in the SME context of Da Nang, Organizational Recognition is an important mechanism through which a supportive climate is associated with employee performance. The study provides insights for SME management seeking to strengthen recognition practices as part of a more humane and socially sustainable work environment.

1.       Arokiasamy L, Fujikawa T, Piaralal SK, Arumugam T. Role of HRM practices in organization performance. International Journal of Sociotechnology and Knowledge Development (IJSKD). 2023; 16(1): 1–32. doi: 10.4018/ijskd.334555

2.       Rubio-Andrés M, Linuesa-Langreo J, Gutiérrez-Broncano S, Sastre-Castillo MÁ. From talent management to competitive performance: the need to foster innovation in SMEs. Sustainable Technology and Entrepreneurship. 2025; 5(1): 100126. doi: 10.1016/j.stae.2025.100126

3.       Vydrová J. The paradigm shift from work–life balance to work–life fit. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior. 2026: 1–68. doi: 10.1108/ijotb-06-2025-0177

4.       Pandey A, Maheshwari M, Malik N. A systematic literature review on employee well-being: mapping multi-level antecedents, moderators, mediators and future research agenda. Acta Psychologica. 2025; 258: 105080. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105080

5.       Sun Y, Hong J, Ye J. The effects of employees’ perceived intrinsic motivation on knowledge sharing and creative self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology. 2022; 12: 762994. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.762994

6.       Zhang W, Zeng X, Liang H, et al. Understanding how organizational culture affects innovation performance: A management context perspective. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8): 6644. doi: 10.3390/su15086644

7.       Choi S, Jeong K, Park SR. ESG activity recognition enhances organizational commitment and service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior among insurance call center staff. Heliyon. 2024; 10(11): e31999. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31999

8.       Deb A. Vietnam’s international financial center: Benefits and opportunities for investors. Vietnam Briefing; 2025. https://www.vietnam-briefing.com/news/vietnams-international-financial-center-registration-benefits-and-opportunities-for-investors.html/ (accessed on 10 March 2026).

9.       Havea PH, Mohanty M. Professional development and sustainable development goals. In: Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer; 2019: 1–12. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-69902-8_53-1

10.    Ispiryan A, Pakeltiene R, Ispiryan O, Giedraitis A. Fostering organizational sustainability through employee collaboration: an integrative approach to environmental, social, and economic dimensions. Encyclopedia. 2024; 4(4): 1806–1826. doi: 10.3390/encyclopedia4040119

11.    Pritchard RD, Karasick BW. The effects of organizational climate on managerial job performance and job satisfaction. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance. 1973; 9(1): 126–146. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(73)90042-1

12.    Patterson MG, West MA, Shackleton VJ, et al. Validating the organizational climate measure: Links to managerial practices, productivity and innovation. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 2005; 26(4): 379–408. doi: 10.1002/job.312

13.    Berberoglu A. Impact of organizational climate on organizational commitment and perceived organizational performance: Empirical evidence from public hospitals. BMC Health Services Research. 2018; 18(1): 399. doi: 10.1186/s12913-018-3149-z

14.    Van Rossenberg YG, Cross D, Swart J. An HRM perspective on workplace commitment: reconnecting in concept, measurement and methodology. Human Resource Management Review. 2022; 32(4): 100891. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2021.100891

15.    Binyamin G. Perceptions matter: Do divergent views of management and colleagues on social climate drive employee engagement through organizational identification and growth satisfaction? SAGE Open. 2024; 14(1): 21582440241232762. doi: 10.1177/21582440241232762

16.    Ishak NA, Naqshbandi MM, Islam MZ, Sumardi WAH. The role of organisational commitment and leader-member exchange in knowledge application during the COVID-19 pandemic. VINE Journal of Information and Knowledge Management Systems. 2022; 53(2): 248–270. doi: 10.1108/vjikms-04-2022-0106

17.    Elamin AM, Aldabbas H, Ahmed AZE, Abdullah AN. Employee engagement and innovative work behavior: the mediating role of knowledge-sharing behavior in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) service context. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(9): 232. doi: 10.3390/admsci14090232

18.    Kazemi A, Corlin TE. What has employee loyalty to do with “love” to clients? Testing approaches to work as mediators. Employee Relations: The International Journal. 2022; 44(7): 149–161. doi: 10.1108/er-05-2021-0212

19.    Lo Y, Lu C, Chang Y, Wu S. Examining the influence of organizational commitment on service quality through the lens of job involvement as a mediator and emotional labor and organizational climate as moderators. Heliyon. 2024; 10(2): e24130. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e24130

20.    Zhou J, Yang J, Faye B. Examining the impact of total rewards on proactivity among Chinese knowledge employees: the moderating role of vertical and horizontal collectivist orientations. Frontiers in Psychology. 2025; 16: 1487464. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1487464

21.    Tran LTT, Hien HTV, Baker J. When supportive workplaces positively help work performance. Baltic Journal of Management. 2020; 16(2): 208–227. doi: 10.1108/bjm-06-2020-0220

22.    Bamel UK, Rangnekar S, Stokes P, Rastogi R. Organizational climate and managerial effectiveness: An Indian perspective. International Journal of Organizational Analysis. 2013; 21(2): 198–218. doi: 10.1108/ijoa-09-2011-0514

23.    Blomberg S, Rosander M, Einarsen SV. Role ambiguity as an antecedent to workplace bullying: hostile work climate and supportive leadership as intermediate factors. Scandinavian Journal of Management. 2024; 40(2): 101328. doi: 10.1016/j.scaman.2024.101328

24.    Stanikzai ME, Mittal E. Strategic alignment of organizational structure based on decisions for sustainable organizational performance: a bibliometric-systematic literature review. Cogent Business & Management. 2025; 12(1): 2560650. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2025.2560650

25.    Nunkoo DK, Sungkur RK. Team conflict dynamics & conflict management: Derivation of a model for software organisations to enhance team performance and software quality. Global Transitions Proceedings. 2021; 2(2): 545–552. doi: 10.1016/j.gltp.2021.08.007

26.    Vuong TDN, Nguyen LT. The key strategies for measuring employee performance in companies: A systematic review. Sustainability. 2022; 14(21): 14017. doi: 10.3390/su142114017

27.    Van Der Voordt TJ, Jensen PA. Measurement and benchmarking of workplace performance. Journal of Corporate Real Estate. 2018; 20(3): 177–195. doi: 10.1108/jcre-10-2017-0032

28.    Zutavern S, Seifried J. Exploring well-being at work—an interview study on how IT professionals perceive their workplace. Frontiers in Psychology. 2021; 12: 688219. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.688219

29.    Park J, Shin J, Gau L, Kim J. Authentic leadership and subjective career success: The mediating roles of psychological safety and mindfulness in a sustainable work environment. Sustainability. 2025; 17(7): 2861. doi: 10.3390/su17072861

30.    Mowbray PK, Gu J, Chen Z, Tse HHM, Wilkinson A. How do tangible and intangible rewards encourage employee voice? The perspective of dual proactive motivational pathways. The InTernaTIonal Journal of Human Resource Management. 2024; 35(15): 2569–2601. doi: 10.1080/09585192.2024.2353660

31.    Ndiango S, Gabriel D, Changalima IA. Give me my flowers before I die! Linking employee recognition, job satisfaction and employee retention in logistics companies: a multigroup analysis. Social Sciences & Humanities Open. 2024; 10: 101053. doi: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2024.101053

32.    Sørlie HO, Hetland J, Bakker AB, et al. Daily autonomy and job performance: does person-organization fit act as a key resource? Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2022; 133: 103691. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2022.103691

33.    Ghani B, Hyder SI, Yoo S, Han H. Does employee engagement promote innovation? The facilitators of innovative workplace behavior via mediation and moderation. Heliyon. 2023; 9(11): e21817. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21817

34.    Hubbart JA. Understanding and mitigating leadership fear-based behaviors on employee and organizational success. Administrative Sciences. 2024; 14(9): 225. doi: 10.3390/admsci14090225

35.    Zirnig C, Ruiner C, Jungtäubl M. When outsiders are in and insiders are out: Unveiling the role of executant tacit knowledge in fostering dynamic capabilities in Germany. Journal of the Knowledge Economy. 2025; 17(2): 6017–6049. doi: 10.1007/s13132-025-02773-y

36.    Chuang S. Indispensable skills for human employees in the age of robots and AI. European Journal of Training and Development. 2022; 48(1/2): 179–195. doi: 10.1108/ejtd-06-2022-0062

37.    Zhou Q, Li Q, Gong S. How job autonomy promotes employee’s sustainable development? A moderated mediation model. Sustainability. 2019; 11(22): 6445. doi: 10.3390/su11226445

38.    Vandierendonck A. A comparison of methods to combine speed and accuracy measures of performance: A rejoinder on the binning procedure. Behavior Research Methods. 2016; 49(2): 653–673. doi: 10.3758/s13428-016-0721-5

39.    Jo H, Shin D. The impact of recognition, fairness, and leadership on employee outcomes: A large-scale multi-group analysis. PLoS ONE. 2025; 20(1): e0312951. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0312951

40.    Kemp E, Porter M III, Corey C, et al. Relationships, mental well-being and performance outcomes in B2B work environments. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 2025; 40(5): 1176–1190. doi: 10.1108/jbim-09-2023-0494

41.    Restrepo-Morales JA, Giraldo-Betancur EA, López-Cadavid DA, et al. Enhanced organizational performance: Integrating dimensions for sustainable growth. Sustainability. 2023; 15(21): 15186. doi: 10.3390/su152115186

42.    Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management. 2005; 31(6): 874–900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602

43.    Alomran AM, Ahmed TSA, Kassem AM. Impact of organizational trust on organizational commitment: The moderating effect of national identity. Cogent Social Sciences. 2024; 10(1): 2309712. doi: 10.1080/23311886.2024.2309712

44.    Yang J, Zheng G, Peng MY, et al. From silence to spark: How transformational leadership empowers employee innovation and voice in SMEs. Acta Psychologica. 2025; 261: 105761. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105761

45.    Walker K. Employee feedback: How to provide feedback and recognition regularly. Strategic HR Review. 2024; 23(2): 46–50. doi: 10.1108/shr-12-2023-0069

46.    Arno P. SME business agility framework: A comprehensive review of capabilities, dimensions, and enablers. IEEE Access. 2025; 13: 91161–91181. doi: 10.1109/access.2025.3572526

47.    Vroom VH. Work and Motivation. New York: Wiley; 1964.

48.    Danang Statistics Office. Statistical Yearbook of Da Nang 2023. Statistical Publishing House; 2023. https://thongke.danang.gov.vn/chi-tiet-tin-tuc?dinh-danh=372810&mo-ta=nien-giam-thong-ke-da-nang-2023 (accessed on 2 March 2026).

49.    Krejcie RV, Morgan DW. Determining sample size for research activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1970; 30(3): 607–610. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308

50.    Saunders M, Lewis P, Thornhill A. Research methods for business students. Pearson; 2019.

51.    Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill; 1978.

52.    George D, Mallery P. SPSS for windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. Allyn & Bacon; 2003.

53.    Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. Cengage Learning; 2019.

54.    Byrne BM. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. Routledge; 2016.

55.    Hu LT, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 1999; 6(1): 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118

56.    Schumacker RE, Lomax RG. A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling. Routledge; 2016.

57.    Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88(5): 879–903. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

58.    Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. Guilford Press; 2016.

59.    Schneider B, Ehrhart MG, Macey WH. Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of Psychology. 2013; 64: 361–388. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143809

60.    Bagozzi RP, Phillips LW. Representing and testing organizational theories: A holistic construal. Administrative Science Quarterly. 1982; 27(3): 459–489. doi: 10.2307/2392322

61.    Nguyen TV, Bryant SE, Rose J, et al. Cultural values, market institutions, and entrepreneurship potential: A comparative study of the United States, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship. 2008; 13(1): 21–37. doi: 10.1142/S1084946709001120

62.    Li SL, Huo Y, Long LR. Chinese traditionality matters: effects of differentiated empowering leadership on followers’ trust in leaders and in-role performance. Journal of Business Ethics. 2015; 130(2): 339–358. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2900-1

63.    Ahmed I, Nawaz MM. Antecedents and outcomes of perceived organizational support: A literature survey approach. Journal of Management Development. 2015; 7(2): 86–92. doi: 10.1108/JMD-09-2013-0115

64.    Rendi CDH, Poluru NV, Pappachan R. The impact of performance management systems on employee work attitudes: Empirical evidence. Cogent Business & Management. 2025; 12(1): 2538717. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2025.2538717