Examining the Influence of Perceived Organizational Support on
Career Success: An Analysis of the Mediating Role of Work
Engagement
AHMAD NASSER ABUZAID
Department of Business Administration,
Mutah University,
Karak,
JORDAN
Abstract: - This quantitative and descriptive study examines the relationship between perceived organizational
support (POS), work engagement, and career success among healthcare employees in Jordan. That data has
collected from a sample of 459 respondents using an online questionnaire. The author tested the hypothesized
relationships using structural equation modeling analysis via Amos 26 software. The study results have
demonstrated that POS positively impacts work engagement and both subjective and objective career success.
Moreover, work engagement mediates the relationship between POS and subjective and objective career
success. These findings highlight the importance of fostering a supportive organizational culture that enhances
employees’ engagement and career success. The study contributes to the body of knowledge on POS, work
engagement, and career success in the Arab world and provides implications for HR practices in the healthcare
sector.
Key-Words: - Perceived organizational support, Work engagement; Subjective career success, Objective career
success, Health care sector, Jordan
Received: May 15, 2023. Revised: August 5, 2023. Accepted: August 27, 2023. Published: September 8, 2023.
1 Introduction
Career success is a multifaceted and complex
phenomenon that has long been the subject of
research and debate in organizational and
psychological sciences. It refers to how individuals
achieve their career-related goals, satisfy their needs
and expectations, and experience a sense of
fulfillment and well-being in their work lives, [1],
[2]. The literature linked career success to various
personal, social, and organizational factors, such as
personality traits, cognitive abilities, social support,
mentoring, training, job autonomy, and job
satisfaction, [3], [4], [5], [6]. However, one crucial
factor that has received increasing interest in recent
years is perceived organizational support (POS).
Organizational support perception describes the
employees’ impressions regarding how much the
organization respects their assistance and pays
attention to their well-being, [7]. Prior research has
shown that POS positively influences desired work-
related consequences, like satisfaction regarding the
job, commitment to the organization, turnover
intention, and performance, [8], [9]. Moreover,
recent studies have suggested that POS may also be
an essential indicator of career success in terms of
objective and subjective measures, [2], [10].
However, how POS impacts career success has
yet to be fully understood. One possible explanation
is engagement in work. The concept of work
engagement describes the favorable, fulfilling, and
persistent state of mind represented by vitality,
devotion, and absorption in one’s work, [11]. Work
engagement is positively related to work-related
outcomes, such as satisfaction regarding the job,
commitment to the organization, and performance,
[12]. Moreover, some studies have suggested that
engagement in work may mediate the linkage
between POS and career success, [13], [14].
Despite the increasing interest in the association
between POS, engagement in work, and career
success, there are still some gaps and
inconsistencies in the literature. For example, some
studies have focused on the direct connection
between POS and career success and have yet to
consider the role of work engagement as a mediator,
[13]. Other studies have inspected the mediating
role of engagement in work but with different
measures and operationalization of POS and career
success, [2]. Moreover, scholars conducted most of
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1871
Volume 20, 2023
their studies in Western, individualistic cultures,
making the findings’ generalizability to other
cultural and organizational contexts difficult.
Therefore, the present study aims to test the
influence of perceived organizational support on
career subjective and objective success in the Arab
cultural context, with a specific focus on the
mediating role of work engagement. This study also
tries to address the following research questions:
1. Does perceived organizational support
positively influence career subjective and
objective success in the Arab context?
2. Does perceived organizational support
positively affect work engagement in the Arab
context?
3. Does work engagement positively affect career
subjective and objective success in the Arab
context?
4. Does engagement in work mediate the linkage
between perceived organizational support and
career subjective and objective success in the
Arab context?
In conclusion, this paper investigates the
intricate relationship between perceived
organizational support, career success, and work
engagement by delving into the underlying
mechanisms that drive this relationship. The second
section will provide a comprehensive literature
review of the constructs above and their associated
constructs, highlighting previous research. In the
third section, the research design and methods,
including the sample and data collection procedures,
will be presented. Section four will showcase the
study’s findings which will be discussed in section
five. Lastly, section six will offer conclusions and
implications for future research. This study strives
to provide a holistic understanding of this
significant phenomenon by adopting a cross-cultural
perspective.
2 Literature Review and Hypotheses
Development
2.1 Perceived Organizational Support
In 1986, [7], put forward the theory of perceived
organizational support, which posits that staffs
create a general expectation about the organization’s
valuation concerning their contributions and
welfare. Accordingly, perceived organizational
support describes how individuals perceive that the
organization appreciates their efforts, contributions,
and well-being.
This perception serves as an indication of the
organization’s dedication to its subordinates and
also serves as a determinant of subordinates’
commitment toward their organization. Therefore,
the activities directed toward subordinates’ well-
being and the level of care shown towards them in
the workplace are considered by subordinates to be
evidence of the organization’s concern for them,
[15].
According to, [16], organizational support is
sustained and constant patterns of policies, practices,
and tools available to help employees perform their
work-related tasks and achieve objectives.
Ultimately, these policies and practices are
fundamental to shaping a culture that provides
employees with the support they need and
opportunities for the learning and development they
desire to remain committed to organizational goals.
Based on, [8], perceived organizational support
also means how much employees think the
organization realizes their contribution and rewards
their efforts, has a fair behavior policy with them,
and looks into their welfare and personal stakes. On
the other hand, [7], considers it a framework or set
of policies, procedures, and standards that represent
an employee-oriented organization and positive
reinforcement for their contributions.
The literature extensively researched the term
perceived organizational support in different settings
and demonstrated its vital role in motivating and
satisfying employees and increasing organizations'
performance, [15].
Organization members need sufficient support
and help to grow their skills and talents, enhance
their motivation, and fully comply with the
organizational rules, policies, and practices related
to direction and control, [17]. The concept of
organizational support is designed to serve this
purpose and is rooted in the social exchange theory.
This theory posits that persons who contribute to an
organization’s goals anticipate receiving mutual
support and assistance in return, [18].
In essence, organizational support is
fundamental to employee development and
motivation, significantly contributing to achieving
organizational objectives. Through essential tools
and assistance, organizations can foster a supportive
environment that enhances employee performance
and effectively supports the attainment of
organizational goals, [19].
2.2 Work Engagement
The notion of engagement in work has garnered
substantial attention within the domain of positive
organizational behavior.
[20] , define work engagement as the intentional
attachment to organizational tasks, goals, or
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1872
Volume 20, 2023
activities that drive by positive thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors, and this involves a voluntary
investment of effort and energy to achieve work-
related tasks and a positive mindset that enhances
effectiveness and well-being.
[21] , conceptualizes work engagement as a
motivation-oriented construct emphasizing the
bright sides of the connection between the person
and the job. This construct characterizes passion,
commitment, dedication, energy, and a sense of fun.
[22], define work engagement as a construct
representing a helpful way of thought related to
adherence, dedication, enthusiasm, and energy.
Similarly, [23], describe work engagement as a
work-related state characterized by dynamism, faith,
and involvement.
In general, work engagement reflects a positive
work-related state that shows the extent of the
psychological bond between an individual and their
job and the employee’s strong affection for it. As a
result, engaged employees feel energized, dedicated,
and absorbed in their work, [24].
Previous studies have suggested that work
engagement comprises three dimensions: vitality,
dedication, and absorption, [25], [26]. Vitality, or
vigor, refers to a person’s capability to perform
when faced with a problem, including the strength
of perseverance, the development of alternative
solutions, the expectation of success, and the
persistent pursuit of purpose, [27]. Dedication
describes persistence in the face of adversity and the
willingness to perform suitable work beyond the
tasks specified in the job description. It also
involves emotional attachment to work, through
which employees view their work as meaningful
and essential. Finally, positive feelings of potency
and self-efficacy stem from the evaluations made in
the work environment, which expand the resources
available to the employee and enhance critical and
creative thinking processes, [28]. Absorption
expresses the cognitive aspect of engagement, as
employees experience their work as passionate and
rewarding and find it difficult to separate
themselves from work. It also reflects an active and
intentional focus on one’s tasks, goals, or activities,
which is characterized by voluntarily attracting the
individual’s attention, the presence of positive
thoughts about the individual’s work, and the
purpose of improving individual effectiveness in
following tasks, goals, or activities, [20].
As such, vitality, dedication, and absorption can
regard as work engagement’s physical and
emotional components, [29]. Individuals who
experience mental and physical vitality report
increased enthusiasm, energy, activity, and
perseverance toward achieving their work goals. On
the other hand, they may feel as though time passes
quickly and struggle to separate themselves from
their work, [25], [30].
Work engagement had measured through
various approaches and dimensions; however, the
“Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES)” is
widely used in work-related studies, as confirmed
by several studies, [31], [32], [23].
2.3 Career Success
The concept of career success has garnered
significant research attention owing to its crucial
significance at both individual and organizational
levels. First, it represents a highly valued objective
in an individual’s life due to its potential to yield
positive outcomes, including enhanced well-being
and functional and social status, [33]. It impacts
shaping the individual’s attitudes and behavior
toward career and developmental activities within
the organization. Moreover, an individual’s success
in their role is intricately linked to organizational
performance, as evidenced by studies such as that
of, [34].
Various scholars have defined the notion of
career success. For instance, [1], defined it as the
attainment of positive accomplishments and
outcomes that are work-related and accrue as a
result of experiences gained throughout an
individual’s working life. On the other hand, [3],
described it as realizing desired outcomes related to
an individual’s job. They achieve this throughout
their employment tenure due to the experiences they
accumulate. [35], defined career success as
accomplishing an individual’s goals and aspirations
through work. [33], in turn, conceptualized it as the
attainment of career advancement and personal
development by an employee. [36], offer a
definition that includes objective and subjective
positive outcomes and desirable psychological
achievements associated with one’s job.
Furthermore, career success involves achieving
personal advancement within the organizational
context. Similarly, [37], state that career success is a
series of workplace accomplishments attained
through accumulated experience and skills
developed over time.
Within the existing body of literature, two
prominent dimensions of career success had
identified as objective and subjective. Objective
career success refers to tangible markers of
achievement that are publicly visible, such as
promotions, bonuses, and job status, [1], [6], [14],
[38]. In contrast, self-perceived career success
characterizes by an individual’s assessment of their
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1873
Volume 20, 2023
professional accomplishments, shaped by criteria of
personal significance, including job satisfaction and
positive relationships with colleagues, [38].
Objective career success had viewed through a
multi-dimensional lens, including various sub-
dimensions, [1]. These sub-dimensions explain how
an individual progresses and excels in their career
and it includes, [39]:
Firstly, objective career success is determined
by the total number of job advancements and
promotions achieved by organization members over
their career pathways. Promotion is achieved when
the employee moves from a low to a higher work
level, and it usually includes extra financial and
non-financial incentives such as employee bonuses
and expanded responsibilities, [1], [6], [14], [38].
The second sub-dimension of objective job
career success is a salary increase. It includes
various financial facets, from bonus payments to
salary increases awarded based on task performance,
[14].
Independent of his career status per se,
functional status represents the third major sub-
dimension of objective career success as the specific
occupational rank or job level that an individual has
attained. This sub-domain represents the level of
authority and power that the employees have, which
is usually higher than their prior organizational
position, [1], [6], [38].
[38], [40], have proposed that subjective career
success comprises “authenticity, growth and
development, meaningful work, quality of work,
recognition, and satisfaction.” Being authentic is
defined as growing in one’s working life with one’s
personal needs and what pleases oneself, whereas
growth concerns the possession of new knowledge
and skills, [38]. Moreover, adhering to a position of
emotional or social worth makes the work important
and has meaning, [40]. The quality of work means
performing a high-quality level of output, be it a
product or a service, [1]. Receiving recognition is
the formal or informal confirmation by others of a
person’s work, [6]. On the other hand, satisfaction is
a psychological state reflecting an individual’s
esteem of their career life (e.g., happiness, financial
well-being), [1]. These dimensions describe the
subjective, self-reported aspects of career success
and are widely perceived by themselves as such but
not by others nor necessarily appreciated in terms of
objective criterion measures of career success (e.g.,
salary; job level), [38].
2.4 Hypotheses Development
Perceived organizational support is a concept that
has received a substantial concentration in the
literature as an indicator of employee outputs,
particularly in the domain of career success. For
example, [4], [14], [41], [42], [43], have all reported
a positive association between perceived
organizational support and career subjective and
objective success.
Based on these studies, it is plausible to
hypothesize that the perception of organizational
support positively influences both subjective and
objective career success. Specifically, individuals
with an increased perception of organizational
support are more potential to go through success in
their careers. This hypothesis is grounded in the
notion that perceived organizational support serves
as a resource that helps personnel navigate career-
related challenges and opportunities more
effectively, thereby facilitating their career
advancement. Thus the first sub-hypotheses are:
H1-1: Perceived organizational support significantly
and positively impacts subjective career success.
H1-2: Perceived organizational support significantly
and positively impacts objective career success.
The literature has extensive research on the factors
contributing to employee work engagement. One
key finding from previous studies is the importance
of perceived organizational support in fostering
work engagement.
The studies conducted by [15], [18], [19], [44],
[45], provide robust empirical evidence for the
positive relationship between perceived
organizational support and work engagement.
Furthermore, these studies demonstrate that
organizations prioritizing creating a supportive work
environment can foster increased employee
engagement. In other words, when employees sense
that their organization invests in their well-being
and success, they are likelier to feel engaged in their
work. Therefore, the second hypothesis is:
H2: Perceived organizational support significantly
and positively impacts work engagement.
The linkage between work engagement and
career subjective and objective success had studied
extensively. For example, [46], performed a study in
the hospitality sector and revealed that engagement
in work is positively related to success in the career.
The study suggests that more engaged employees
are more likely to be motivated and perform well,
leading to higher career success. Also, [17], found
that employees who are more engaged in their work
experience have higher levels of career success.
Similarly, [47], found that work engagement
positively relates to job performance and career
success.
Furthermore, [48], conducted a study in the
healthcare sector and found that work engagement
positively impacts career success. The study
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1874
Volume 20, 2023
suggests that when employees are more engaged in
their work, they are more likely to provide better
patient care, leading to higher career success.
In addition, [49], found that work engagement
positively predicts job satisfaction and career
success. The study suggests that employees more
engaged in their work are more satisfied with their
jobs and experience higher career success.
Based on the findings of these studies, it can be
supposed that when employees are more engaged in
their work, they are more likely to perform well, be
motivated, serve the customer better, and experience
increased levels of job satisfaction, which all lead to
higher levels of career success. Therefore, the third
sub hypotheses are:
H3-1: Work engagement significantly and positively
impacts subjective career success.
H3-2: Work engagement significantly and positively
impacts objective career success.
Perceived organizational support had considered
a critical factor in promoting career success, both
subjectively and objectively. Therefore, it is
reasonable to assume that employees who feel
supported by their organization are likelier to have
tremendous career success. Similarly, research has
found that work engagement is positively associated
with career success because employees who are
more engaged in their work tend to perform better,
are more motivated, and provide better customer
service, leading to higher job satisfaction and career
success. Therefore, it is plausible that work
engagement mediates the relationship between
perceived organizational support and subjective and
objective career success. Consequently, the fourth
sub hypotheses are:
H4-1: Work engagement significantly and positively
mediates the relationship between perceived
organizational support and subjective career
success.
H4-2: Work engagement significantly and positively
mediates the relationship between perceived
organizational support and objective career success.
3 Research Methodology
To thoroughly investigate the impact of perceived
organizational support on the career success of
healthcare sector employees in Jordan, mediated by
work engagement, a deductive approach was
employed with a descriptive and quantitative
research design. A conceptual model was
formulated to depict the complex interplay between
perceived organizational support, work engagement,
and subjective and objective career success, as
illustrated in Figure 1.
Fig. 1: Conceptual Model
A questionnaire strategy was utilized and distributed
to 459 employees within Jordan’s healthcare sector
to collect data for the study. Respondents were
assured anonymity during survey completion to
minimize potential distortions that may arise from
handwritten questionnaires, as suggested by
previous studies, [50]. Additionally, the common
method variance was tested using the Harman
single-factor test in the same room after data
collection, as recommended by the literature, [51].
Results indicated that only one factor accounted for
more than 50% of the variance, indicating that the
common method variance was not a significant
issue in this study.
Also, to address the issue of nonresponse bias, a
follow-up survey was conducted with individuals
who initially declined to participate, as mentioned in
previous studies, [52]. Table 1 provides a summary
of the sample characteristics. These measures were
taken to ensure the validity and reliability of the
data collected for this study.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1875
Volume 20, 2023
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study
sample
Variable
N
%
Male
Female
254
205
55.0
45.0
Less than 25 years
53
11.5
25- to less than 30 years
57
12.4
30- to less than 35 years
72
15.7
35- to less than 40 years
78
17.0
41 years and older
199
43.4
Diploma degree or less
25
5.4
Bachelor’s degree
205
44.7
Master’s degree
124
27.0
Doctorate degree
105
22.9
Less than 1 year
35
7.6
From 1 to less than 5 year
138
30.0
From 5 to less than 10 years
163
35.6
More than 10 years
123
26.8
TOTAL
459
100
3.1 Measures
Three self-report questionnaires had used to assess
the study variables. In addition, demographic
variables on respondents’ gender, age, education,
and work tenure had included in the questionnaire.
Perceived Organizational Support Scale (POS)
The POS, developed by, [7], was used to measure
individuals’ perceptions of organizational support.
The scale consists of 8 items, each rated on “a 7-
point Likert scale, with responses ranging from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).”
Work Engagement Scale (WES)
The WES, developed by, [53], was used to measure
individuals’ levels of work engagement. The scale
consists of 9 items rated on “a 7-point Likert scale,
with responses ranging from 0 (never) to 6
(always).”
Career Success Scale (CSS)
The CSS, developed by, [5], was used to measure
individuals’ perceived career success. The scale
consists of 5 items that measure subjective career
success, “each rated on a 5-point Likert scale, with
responses ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree)”. Regarding the objective career
success scale, seven items adopted from the
previous literature, [1], [6], [14], [38], each rated on
“a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).”
4 Data Analysis
Before applying structural equation modeling
(SEM), this study conducted an exploratory analysis
to examine the factor validity and reliability of the
latent variables. First, descriptive statistics and
correlations had used to explore the data
characteristics of the variables. To this end, SPSS
28.0 had employed as a statistical program. Next,
the structural relationship between study variables
had investigated through SEM, which enables the
simultaneous examination of direct, indirect, and
total effects.
While this method allows the examination of the
direct and indirect effects of the mediating model, it
does not permit a literature review, [54]. As such, a
confirmatory measurement model of latent variables
was first applied in the SEM process to determine
the goodness of fit indices, namely χ², TLI, CFI, and
RMSEA.
While χ² traditionally served as a means of
judging the goodness of fit of structural equations, it
is too strict in rejecting the null hypothesis and
highly sensitive to sample size issues. Thus, this
study utilized relative goodness-of-fit indices such
as TLI and CFI and the absolute goodness-of-fit
index RMSEA to assess the match between the fit
index and the research model, [55].
Since no ideal goodness-of-fit index and
different indices possess desirable characteristics,
this study examined various fitness indices. Next, a
structural model was applied to review the
theoretical model and determine its adequacy. To
this end, the same goodness-of-fit indices had
employed to assess the hypothesis and compare
competing models. A change in the lower degree of
freedom had used to test whether the difference in
the value was significant. After selecting the optimal
model, factor loadings of observed variables
constituting path coefficients and latent variables
were determined, and the relationship between
latent variables had explored. The statistical
program used for the structural equation analysis
was AMOS 26.
4.1 Descriptive Statistics and Correlation
Analysis
Before applying the structural equation, this study
conducted the descriptive statistical analysis and
correlation analysis to identify the data
characteristics of the variables, as shown in Table 2.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1876
Volume 20, 2023
The descriptive statistics analysis revealed that the
mean value of the independent variable, perception
of organizational support, was 3.94, and that of
work engagement was 3.88. In addition, the mean
values of subjective and objective career success
were 3.68 and 3.43, respectively.
Pearson’s correlation analysis had performed to
examine the relationship between the variables.
Moreover, the issue of multicollinearity had
examined. The correlation coefficient had found to
be less than 0.60. As demonstrated in Table 2, the
correlation analysis showed a significant positive
correlation, with all correlation coefficients
indicating values less than 0.60.
4.2 Measurement Model Verification
This study conducted a confirmatory factor analysis
to verify the measurement model, as presented in
Table 3. The goodness-of-fit indices of the model
were as follows: Chi-square (χ²) = 140.513, Degrees
of freedom (df) = 58, p= 0.00, TLI = 0.934, CFI =
0.950, RMSEA = 0.079.
The analysis results revealed that all of the
latent variables, namely perceived organizational
support (POS), work engagement (WE), subjective
career success (SCS), and objective career success
(OCS), had loading factors of over 0.70, with
composite reliability ranging from 0.85 to 0.92.
Furthermore, all of them exhibited values greater
than 0.70. Therefore, we can conclude that all latent
variables in this study have convergent validity. In
the case of convergent validity, factor loadings of at
least 0.95 or less had considered good, while factors
greater than or equal to 0.70 are desirable, with a
satisfactory level of 0.70 for AVE or higher, [56],
[57].
This study also verified the discriminant validity
of the four latent variables by comparing the AVE
of the latent variable and the correlation coefficient
between the latent variables. Thus, the discriminant
validity is supported, as shown in Table 2, based on,
[47], [57], who states that “discriminant validity is
confirmed when the value of the square root of the
AVE for each latent variable exceeds its correlations
with other variables in the same row.”
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis
Variable
Mean
SD
POS
WE
SCS
OCS
Perceived Organization
Support (POS)
3.94
.804
(.883)
Work Engagement (WE)
3.88
.752
.459**
(.848)
Subjective Career Success
(SCS)
3.68
.791
.556**
.448**
(.877)
Objective Career Success
(OCS)
3.43
.853
.552**
.274**
.511**
(.806)
*** p<.001
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1877
Volume 20, 2023
Table 3. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Measures
Items
Loadings
Cronbach’s
α
AVE
CR
Organizational
1. “My organization really cares about my well-being.”
0.73
0.91
0.78
0.90
Perceived
Support
2. “My organization values my contribution to its well-
being.”
0.76
3. “My organization would go out of its way to help me if
0.71
I needed it.”
4. “My organization pays great attention to my goals
and values.’’
0.82
5. “My organization is truly interested in my opinions.”
0.88
6. “My organization is committed to offering the resources
0.77
essential to make me successful in performing my tasks.”
7. “My organization applies fair treatment.”
0.75
8. “My organization pays attention to my best interests.”
0.79
Work
9. “I am enthusiastic about my work.”
0.80
0.88
0.72
0.87
Engagement
10. “I feel strong and vigorous at work.”
0.82
11. “I am immersed in my work.”
0.81
12. “I am proud of the work I do.”
0.85
13. “I can continue working for very long periods of time.”
0.87
14. “My job inspires me.”
0.83
15. “Time flies when I am working.”
0.88
16. “I find the work that I do full of meaning and purpose.”
0.79
17. “I am completely absorbed in my work.”
0.81
Subjective
18. “I have accomplished most of my predetermined career-
0.85
0.93
0.77
0.92
Career Success
related goals.”
19. “So far, my career achievements are great.”
0.78
20. “Overall, my reached career success level satisfies me.”
0.79
21. “My career achievements make me so proud.”
0.77
22. “Compared to others, I am a successful one.”
0.80
Objective
23. “Increases in my income level have reflected my career
0.84
0.86
0.65
0.85
Career Success
success level.”
24. “My career success has been embodied in my job title.”
0.88
25. “I have received one or more promotions in my career.”
0.82
26. “I have job security.”
0.79
27. “I have received special recognition or awards for my
0.77
work.”
28. “My career has progressed at a pace that I consider to
0.75
be successful.”
29. “I have achieved a good balance between work and
0.83
personal life.”
Goodness-of-Fit
Chi-square (χ²)= 140.513, Degrees of freedom (df)= 58, p= 0.00, TLI= 0.934, CFI= 0.950, RMSEA= 0.079
4.3 Final Model Selection and Hypothesis
Verification
This investigation examines the structural
relationship between perceived organizational
support, work engagement, and career success. To
achieve this goal, a research model had developed to
encompass the proposed hypotheses. However,
additional exploration is necessary to determine
whether work engagement entirely or partially
mediates the relationship between organizational
support perception and success in the career.
The first model (Model 1) postulates that work
engagement (parameter) completely mediates career
success (dependent variable) (i.e., perceived
organizational support → work engagement →,
subjective career success/objective career success).
In other words, it is a fully mediated model that
assumes that the perception of the organizational
support variable explains career success solely
through the work engagement variable. Model 2,
conversely, is a partial mediation model that
includes the direct relationship between perceived
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1878
Volume 20, 2023
organizational support and career success and the
mediation of work engagement.
Therefore, possible competing models were
compared and analyzed. Comparative analysis is
beneficial in determining the optimal model in the
structural relationship among variables. Thus, this
study established the final model by comparing the
two models.
Furthermore, the goodness of fit between Model
1 and Model 2 was compared and presented in
Table 4. The results of the comparison had
discussed.
The present study employed various goodness-
of-fit indices to evaluate the model’s validity. While
significant probability values indicate a good model,
it is imperative to exercise caution when assessing
the goodness of fit in models with small sample
sizes or a large number of measurement variables.
In such cases, it is advisable to consider other
indices in conjunction with the goodness-of-fit
index. Generally, a CFI, TLI, and GFI of 0.90 and
an RMSEA of 0.10 or lower are deemed acceptable,
[58], [59].
Based on the findings, the second type of model
had selected as the final model. As such, work
engagement partially mediated the relationship
between perceived organizational support,
subjective career success, and objective career
success.
Table 4. Comparisons of Goodness-of-Fit Indices
for Competing Models
Model
χ²
Df
χ² /df
TLI
CFI
RMSEA
1
243.115
67
3.628
.851
.883
.173
2
154.771
65
2.381
.944
.951
.093
4.4 Hypotheses Testing
The present study’s findings had summarized in
Table 5 through path analysis. The results indicate
that perceived organizational support has a
significant and positive effect on subjective career
success (β = 0.504, P = 0.000) and objective career
success (β = 0.483, P = 0.001), thereby supporting
H1-1 and H1-2. Additionally, the analysis shows
that perceived organizational support has a
significant and positive effect on work engagement
(β = 0.551, P = 0.000), which supports H2.
Further analysis reveals that work engagement
significantly and positively affects subjective career
success (β = 0.488, P = 0.002) and objective career
success (β = 0.398, P = 0.001), thereby supporting
H3-1 and H3-2. The study also employed
bootstrapping in the AMOS program to calculate the
significance of the indirect effects. This method had
widely used to verify the significance of mediating
results, even when the normality assumption of the
Z distribution may not hold. Moreover,
bootstrapping is a more appropriate inferential
method since it infers population parameters based
on sample data instead of making assumptions about
the population distribution, [58].
The present study found that the indirect effect
of perceived organizational support on subjective
career success and objective career success through
work engagement was statistically significant
(subjective career success: β = 0.228, P = 0.001,
objective career success: β = 0.139, P = 0.003),
thereby supporting the mediating effects of work
engagement. Therefore, we can conclude that work
engagement partially mediates the relationship
between perceived organizational support and
subjective and objective career success. As a result,
hypotheses 4-1 and 4-2 had partially accepted.
Table 5. Summary of hypotheses testing
Direct effect Indirect effect
Hypotheses
Predictions
Β
P value
Β
P value
Results
“H1-1”
POS → SCS
0.504
0.000
“Accepted”
“H1-2”
POS → OCS
0.483
0.001
“Accepted”
“H2”
POS → WE
0.551
0.000
“Accepted”
“H3-1”
WE → SCS
0.488
0.002
“Accepted”
“H3-2”
WE → OCS
0.398
0.001
“Accepted”
“H4-1”
POS → WE → SCS
0.228
0.001
“Accepted”
“H4-2”
POS → WE → OCS
0.139
0.003
“Accepted”
“Notes: N = 459, POS: Perceived organizational support; WE: Work Engagement; SCS: Subjective career success; OCS:
Objective career success”
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1879
Volume 20, 2023
5 Discussion
The present study hypothesized that perceived
organizational support (POS) would positively
impact both objective and subjective career success
via work engagement. The results showed that POS
is significantly and positively related to subjective
and objective career success. This finding was in
line with several prior studies, [4], [14], [41], [42],
[43].
Previous studies have shown that POS is
positively associated with job satisfaction,
commitment and motivation of employees, [14],
[41]. Additionally, perceived organizational support
influences the way employees perceive their career
paths, [8].
Moreover, research has already shown that POS
is positively related to objective career success
through organizational citizenship behavior (OCB),
which then could possibly result in better
performance evaluations, promotions, and other
signs of career advancement, [8], [42], [43].
In addition, studies in this area have discovered
that perceived organizational support (POS)
significantly and positively contributes to work
engagement. This result was compatible with
previous research carried out by [15], [18], [19],
[44], [45]. Other studies have found that work
engagement is positively associated with job
satisfaction, organizational commitment, and
performance, [15], [18], [19], [60]. Also, the POS
variable appeared in other research positively
correlated with job resources such as autonomy,
[44], support, and feedback, [45]. These resources
are predictors of work engagement, [12].
Employees who feel they have the materials to do
their job well and who get supervisor feedback/best-
practice coaching through their organization are
more likely to be engaged in their work, [61].
Other results showed that work engagement
significantly predicts subjective and objective career
success positively. This is in agreement with
previous research by, [17], [46], [48], [49], [62].
As previous studies have indicated, work
engagement is positively related to job performance,
[48], [60], [62], and subjective outcomes such as
job satisfaction and organizational commitment,
[17], [27], [49]. Also, work engagement predicts
objective career success (e.g., salary, job level),
[60].
Lastly, the results of this study revealed that the
association between POS and dimensions of
career success, objective and subjective, was
partially mediated by work engagement.
This is well in line with the "social exchange theory
(SET), [63]” and the "Job Demands-Resources (JD-
R) model, [61].” According to the social exchange
theory (SET), employees perceiving organizational
support are expected to reciprocate through higher
effort and dedication in their work, which translates
into higher job satisfaction and job fulfillment
believed to increase the psychological
meaningfulness of work, hence leading to work
engagement. In contrast, the Job Demands-
Resources (JD-R) model, [61], suggested that job
resources such as autonomy, feedback, and social
support can positively impact work engagement,
which can result in increased job and personal
satisfaction and fulfillment and contribute to
subjective as well as objective career success.
Hence, work engagement is an essential element that
helps in connecting organization support and career
success.
6 Conclusion
The existing research contributes valuable
information on the complex relationships between
perceived organizational support, work engagement,
and career success of healthcare employees in
Jordan. This study found that concerning any
category of career success (subjective or objective),
employees who perceived higher concentrations of
organizational support will be more likely to engage
and achieve, i.e., being actively involved in their
work or careers. Results of this study also showed
that work engagement mediates the relationship
between perceived organizational support and career
success. The current work significantly contributes
to the limited understanding of the interrelationships
between perceived organizational support, work
engagement, and career success by examining all
these relationships in a unique socio-cultural
context: that of the Arab world. Thus, it contributes
significantly to organizational psychology and
human resource management. Besides that, the
findings of this study have important practical
implications, especially concerning HR practices
within the health sector in Jordan and the Arab
world.
6.1 Practical Implication
The results of the present study offer useful
implications for creating career success in the modern
workplace. The study shows that organizations
seeking to facilitate their employees' career success
would benefit more if they demonstrated high levels
of perceived organizational support (POS) toward
their employees. Therefore, the study has suggested
that organizations should try to give genuine
organizational support to employees by providing high
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1880
Volume 20, 2023
process training and job security and minimal
uncertainty, autonomy at work, decision authority /
responsibility, and enough resources / career growth
opportunities, respectively.
Additionally, the importance of work
engagement is underscored in the present study as it
relates to career success. Consequently, the study
suggests that managers and organizations should
work towards fostering an engaged workforce by
adopting a supportive leadership style that is
conducive to employee engagement, creating a
positive working environment, supporting employee
autonomy, providing challenging roles for
employees, rewarding and recognizing employee
contribution and effort; offering purposeful work in
the target organization with a clear direction;
building solid relationships between the employees
and their managers as well as among each other and
promoting work-life balance.
Finally, the study underscores the importance of
considering the interaction between POS and work
engagement in promoting career success.
Organizations must create conditions that
simultaneously promote both POS and work
engagement to achieve the greatest gains in
employee career success.
In conclusion, the findings of this study have
significant implications for organizational practice
and policy. Organizations can create a work
environment that fosters employee career success
and well-being by prioritizing the provision of POS
and promoting work engagement. This study offers
an innovative perspective on the factors that drive
employee career success. Hopefully, these findings
will encourage organizations to adopt proactive
strategies to enhance employee support,
development, and engagement.
6.2 Limitations and Future Research
This study has several limitations that need to be
acknowledged. First, the study’s cross-sectional
design means we cannot draw causal inferences
about the relationships among the variables. Thus,
the findings only show associations between
variables, and future research should use
experimental designs to establish causality. Second,
the data collected were self-reported by the
participants, which could lead to common method
bias. Therefore, future studies should use multiple
data sources or objective measures to overcome this
limitation. Third, the study only focused on
healthcare employees in Jordan, and the findings
may not generalize to other contexts or cultures.
Thus, future studies should explore the relationships
among the variables in different settings and
cultures to enhance the generalizability of the
findings.
References:
[1] Judge, T.A., Cable, D.M., Boudreau, J.W., &
Bretz, R.D. (1995). An empirical investigation
of the predictors of executive career success,
CAHRS Working Paper Series. School of
Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell
University, 48(3), pp.485-519.
[2] Ng, T. W., & Feldman, D. C. (2015). Ethical
leadership: Meta-analytic evidence of
criterion-related and incremental validity.
Journal of Business Ethics, 129(1), pp.1-19.
[3] Arthur, M.B., Khapova, S.N., & Wilderom,
C.P.M. (2005). Career success in a
Boundaryless career world. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26(2), pp.177-202.
[4] Chen, Y. (2010). Career success of knowledge
workers: the effects of perceived
organizational support and person-job
fit. IBusiness, 2(04), pp.389.
[5] Greenhaus, J. H., Parasuraman, S., &
Wormley, W. M. (1990). Effects of race on
organizational experiences, job performance
evaluations, and career outcomes. Academy of
management Journal, 33(1), pp.64-86.
[6] Ng, T. W., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., &
Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective
and subjective career success: A meta-
analysis. Personnel psychology, 58(2),
pp.367-408.
[7] Eisenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison,
S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived
organizational support. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71(3), pp.500-507.
[8] Eisenberger, R., Armeli, S., Rexwinkel, B.,
Lynch, P. D., & Rhoades, L. (2001).
Reciprocation of perceived organizational
support. Journal of applied psychology, 86(1),
42.
[9] Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002).
Perceived organizational support: a review of
the literature. Journal of applied
psychology, 87(4), 698.
[10] Zhang, Y., Liu, G., Zhang, L., Xu, S., &
Cheung, M. W. L. (2021). Psychological
ownership: A meta-analysis and comparison
of multiple forms of attachment in the
workplace. Journal of Management, 47(3),
pp.745-770.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1881
Volume 20, 2023
[11] Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-
Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The
measurement of engagement and burnout: A
two sample confirmatory factor analytic
approach. Journal of Happiness studies, 3,
pp.71-92.
[12] Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The
job demands-resources model: State of the
art. Journal of managerial psychology, 22(3),
pp.309-328.
[13] Li, M., & Sum, R. K. W. (2017). A meta-
synthesis of elite athletes’ experiences in dual
career development. Asia Pacific Journal of
Sport and Social Science, 6(2), pp.99-117.
[14] Abu Said, A.-M., Mohd Rasdi, R., Abu
Samah, B., Silong, A.D., & Sulaiman, S.
(2015). A career success model for academics
at Malaysian research universities. European
Journal of Training and Development, 39(9),
pp.815-835.
[15] Bonaiuto, F., Fantinelli, S., Milani, A.,
Cortini, M., Vitiello, M. C., & Bonaiuto, M.
(2022). Perceived organizational support and
work engagement: The role of psychosocial
variables. Journal of Workplace Learning,
34(5), pp.418-436.
[16] Yavas, U., & Babakus, E. (2010).
Relationships between organizational support,
customer orientation, and work outcomes: A
study of frontline bank
employees. International Journal of Bank
Marketing.
[17] Boštjančič, E., & Petrovčič, A. (2019).
Exploring the relationship between job
satisfaction, work engagement, and career
satisfaction: The study from public
university. Human systems
management, 38(4), pp.411-422.
[18] Al-Hamdan, Z., & Bani Issa, H. (2022). The
role of organizational support and self-
efficacy on work engagement among
registered nurses in Jordan: A descriptive
study. Journal of Nursing
Management, 30(7), pp.2154-2164.
[19] Imran, M. Y., Elahi, N. S., Abid, G., Ashfaq,
F., & Ilyas, S. (2020). Impact of perceived
organizational support on work engagement:
Mediating mechanism of thriving and
flourishing. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity, 6(3),
pp.82.
[20] Kuok, A. C., & Taormina, R. J. (2017). Work
engagement: Evolution of the concept and a
new inventory. Psychological Thought, 10(2).
[21] Imperatori, B. (2017). Engagement and
disengagement at work: Drivers and
organizational practices to sustain employee
passion and performance. Springer.
[22] Özer, Ö., Uğurluoğlu, Ö., & Saygili, M.
(2017). Effect of organizational justice on
work engagement in healthcare sector of
Turkey. Journal of Health
Management, 19(1), pp.73-83.
[23] Heyns, M. M., & Boikanyo, D. H. (2019). The
effect of work engagement on total quality
management practices in a petrochemical
organisation. South African Journal of
Economic and Management Sciences, 22(1),
pp.1-13.
[24] Xanthopoulou, D., & Bakker, A. B. (2021).
Antecedents and consequences of work
engagement: A multilevel nomological net.
In A research agenda for employee
engagement in a changing world of work, pp.
37-51. Edward Elgar Publishing.
[25] Abid, G., Sajjad, I., Elahi, N. S., Farooqi, S.,
& Nisar, A. (2018). The influence of prosocial
motivation and civility on work engagement:
The mediating role of thriving at
work. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1),
1493712.
[26] Ortiz-Gómez, M., Ariza-Montes, A., &
Molina-Sánchez, H. (2020). Human values
and work engagement: the mediating role of
authenticity among workers in a spanish
religious organization. Frontiers in
Psychology, 11, 76.
[27] Leiter, M. P., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Work
engagement: introduction. Work engagement:
A handbook of essential theory and
research, 1(9).
[28] Shuck, B., & Reio Jr, T. G. (2014). Employee
engagement and well-being: A moderation
model and implications for practice. Journal
of Leadership & Organizational
Studies, 21(1), 43-58.
[29] Metin, U. B., Taris, T. W., Peeters, M. C.,
Korpinen, M., Smrke, U., Razum, J. &
Gaioshko, D. (2019). Validation of the
procrastination at work scale. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment.
[30] Ding, H., & Yu, E. (2022). How and when
does follower’s strengths-based leadership
contribute to follower work engagement? The
roles of strengths use and core self-
evaluation. German Journal of Human
Resource Management, 36(2), pp.180-196.
[31] Kataria, A., Rastogi, R., & Garg, P. (2013).
Organizational effectiveness as a function of
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1882
Volume 20, 2023
employee engagement. South Asian Journal of
Management, 20(4), pp.56.
[32] Hayati, D., Charkhabi, M., & Naami, A.
(2014). The relationship between
transformational leadership and work
engagement in governmental hospitals nurses:
a survey study. Springerplus, 3(1), pp.1-7.
[33] Spurk,
D.,
&
Abele,
A.E.
(2014).
Synchronous and time-lagged effects between
occupational self-efficacy and objective and
subjective career success: Findings from a
four-wave and 9-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 84(2),
pp.119-132.
[34] Pan, J., & Zhou, W. (2015). How do
employees construe their career success: An
improved measure of subjective career
success. International Journal of Selection
and Assessment, 23(1), pp.45-58.
[35] Bolatete, Y., Calio, J., Neri, J., Pamisa, R.,
Salon, S., Quan, L., & Martin, N. (2012).
Career choice job success and job satisfaction
among lichen nurses in the clinical setting.
Advancing Nursing Research, 4(1), pp.186-
202.
[36] Najm, A. A. R., Al-Bayati, K. A. A., & Al-
Najjar, H. M. B. (2017). The relationship
between entrepreneurial leadership and self-
job success: An applied study on employees
in telecommunications companies in
Sulaymaniyah Governorate in Kurdistan
Region of Iraq. Egyptian Journal of
Commerce, 41(1), pp.479-503.
[37] Taha, F. A., & El-Sayed, A. S. (2018). The
impact of administrative discipline on job
success: An applied study on the Directorate
of Social Affairs in Dakahlia Governorate.
Scientific Journal for Financial and
Administrative Research and Studies, 2(1),
pp.177-200.
[38] Al-Khososi, A. M. H. (2022). Contribution of
some psychological variables to the
professional success of Al-Azhar teachers in
light of some demographic variables.
Egyptian Journal of Psychological Studies,
32(115), pp.59-132.
[39] Metelski, A. (2019). Modern Perceptions of
Career Success. e-mentor, 3(80), pp.45-50.
[40] Shockley, K.M., Ureksoy, H., Rodopman,
O.B., Poteat, L.F. & Dullaghan, T.R. (2016)
Development of a New Scale to Measure
Subjective Career Success: A Mixed-Methods
Study. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
37(1), pp.128-153.
[41] Chauhan, J., Mishra, G., & Bhakri, S. (2022).
Career success of women: Role of family
responsibilities, mentoring, and perceived
organizational support. Vision, 26(1), pp.105-
117.
[42] Seema, A., & Sujatha, S. (2017). Perceived
organisational support on career success: an
employee perspective-an empirical study from
an Indian context. Middle East Journal of
Management, 4(1), pp.22-38.
[43] Wickramaratne, W. P. R. (2021). Role of
career-oriented perceived organizational
support in determining subjective career
success of supervisory level managers in
manufacturing firms. EMAJ: Emerging
Markets Journal, 11(1), pp.21-28.
[44] Muzenze, I. A., Mayende, T. S., Wampande,
A. J., Kasango, J., & Emojong, O. R. (2021).
Mechanism between perceived organizational
support and work engagement: Explanatory
role of self-efficacy. Journal of Economic and
Administrative Sciences, 37(4), pp.471-495.
[45] Stefanidis, A. & Strogilos, V. (2021).
Perceived organizational support and work
engagement of employees with children with
disabilities. Personnel Review, 50(1), pp.186-
206.
[46] Elmas-Atay, S. (2017). Work values fit and
subjective career success: The moderating
role of work engagement. International
Review of Management and Marketing, 7(3),
pp.113-120.
[47] Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981).
Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement
error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1),
pp.39-50.
[48] Oubibi, M., Fute, A., Xiao, W., Sun, B., &
Zhou, Y. (2022). Perceived organizational
support and career satisfaction among Chinese
teachers: the mediation effects of job crafting
and work engagement during COVID-
19. Sustainability, 14(2), 623.
[49] Wu, C., Fu, M., Cheng, S., Lin, Y., Yan,
J., Wu, J., Zhang, X., Cao, B., Du, J., & Lang,
H. (2022). Career identity and career success
among Chinese male nurses: The mediating
role of work engagement. Journal of Nursing
Management, 30(7), pp.3350-3359.
[50] Richman, W. L., Kiesler, S., Weisband, S., &
Drasgow, F. (1999). A meta-analytic study of
social desirability dis- tortion in computer-
administered questionnaires, traditional
questionnaires, and interviews. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 84(5), pp.754.
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1883
Volume 20, 2023
[51] Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986).
Self-reports in organizational research:
Problems and prospects. Journal of
management, 12(4), pp.531-544.
[52] Armstrong, J. S., & Overton, T. S. (1977).
Estimating non- response bias in mail surveys.
Journal of marketing research, pp.396-402.
[53] Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Salanova,
M. (2006). The measurement of work
engagement with a short questionnaire: A
cross-national study. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 66(4), pp.701-
716.
[54] Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mean and covariance
structure analysis of hierarchical data.
Department of Statistics, UCLA.
[55] Hong, Se-Hee (2000). The criteria for
selecting appropriate fit in- dices in structural
equation modeling and their rationales.
Korean Journal of Psychology: General,
19(1), pp.161-177.
[56] Moon, S. B. (2009). Understanding and
applying the structural equation modeling.
Seoul, Korea: Hak-Ji Press.
[57] Yu, J. P. (2012). Concept and understanding
in the structural equation modeling. Seoul,
Korea: Han-Na-Rae Press.
[58] Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of
structural equation modeling. New York: The
Guilford Press.
[59] Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993).
Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sage
Focus Editions, 154, pp.136-136.
[60] Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job
demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-
sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior: The International Journal of
Industrial, Occupational and Organizational
Psychology and Behavior, 25(3), pp.293-315.
[61] Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job
demands–resources theory: Taking stock and
looking forward. Journal of occupational
health psychology, 22(3), 273.
[62] Chen, Q., Yang, S., Deng, J., Lu, L., & He, J.
(2021). Relationships among leaders’ and
followers’ work engagement and followers’
subjective career success: A multilevel
approach. Frontiers in Psychology, 12,
634350.
[63] Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and power in
social life. New York: Wiley.
Contribution of Individual Authors to the
Creation of a Scientific Article (Ghostwriting
Policy)
The author undertook the present research alone at
all stages, starting from problem formulation and
concluding with the final findings and solutions.
Sources of Funding for Research Presented in a
Scientific Article or Scientific Article Itself
No funding was received for conducting this study.
Conflict of Interest
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
(Attribution 4.0 International, CC BY 4.0)
This article is published under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.en
_US
WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on BUSINESS and ECONOMICS
DOI: 10.37394/23207.2023.20.164
Ahmad Nasser Abuzaid
E-ISSN: 2224-2899
1884
Volume 20, 2023