Socioemotional Governance and Workplace Well-Being in Border Microenterprises: The Role of Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion

Socioemotional Governance and Workplace Well-Being in Border Microenterprises: The Role of Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Socioemotional Governance and Workplace Well-Being in Border Microenterprises: The Role of Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion Richard Augusto Garavito Criollo, Gino Franklin Garavito Criollo, and 4 more This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-8910068/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study examines how workplace well-being is shaped in low-formalization microenterprises, where coordination and recognition arise primarily from interpersonal relationships rather than formal hierarchies. Integrating Social Exchange Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the Input–Mediator–Output–Input (IMOI) framework, we propose a socioemotional governance model in which Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion act as inputs that activate Informal Communication, Recognition/Motivation, and Workplace Relationships, ultimately explaining workplace well-being through Job Satisfaction. Using a cross-sectional explanatory–predictive design, data from 450 employees in commercial microenterprises in Aguas Verdes (Peru–Ecuador border) were analyzed with PLS-SEM (SmartPLS version 4.0.9.6). The proposed model explains over half of the variance in Job Satisfaction (R² = 0.513). Informal Leadership strongly predicted Group Cohesion (β = 0.768), and Recognition/Motivation emerged as the strongest predictor of Job Satisfaction (β = 0.550). Theoretically, we introduce the efficiency–fragility paradox, whereby informal networks may substitute hierarchical functions and enhance well-being, while simultaneously increasing vulnerability when socioemotional dynamics become concentrated among a limited set of actors. Practically, we recommend mapping relational nodes, distributing leadership roles, and institutionalizing low-cost micro-routines of recognition to strengthen sustainable workplace well-being in low-formalization contexts. Management Psychology Socioemotional Governance Informal Leadership Group Cohesion Informal Communication Job Satisfaction Border microenterprises Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 1. Introduction In emerging economies characterized by high levels of informality and flexible labor structures, interpersonal relationships frequently substitute for formal hierarchical mechanisms, giving rise to alternative forms of organizational coordination. Within microenterprises located in border regions, group cohesion and affective ties become strategic resources that sustain collective functioning when formal rules are weak or absent (Horak & Suseno, 2023; Sendawula et al., 2023). Examining how these dynamics shape Recognition/Motivation, Workplace Relationships, and workplace well-being, captured through Job Satisfaction, is essential for understanding organizational sustainability in low-formalization contexts such as Aguas Verdes, situated along the Peru–Ecuador border. At the international level, similar patterns are observed across microenterprises in other emerging economies, where institutional fragility intensifies reliance on networks of trust and reciprocity as primary coordination mechanisms and sources of socioemotional well-being. These configurations position the Aguas Verdes case within broader global debates on precarious work, social capital, and organizational resilience under conditions of informality (Blau, 2017; Ryan & Deci, 2020). Nevertheless, an empirical gap persists regarding the interplay between informal leadership, group cohesion, and informal communication in shaping the socioemotional climate of border microenterprises. In this study, the socioemotional climate is operationalized through Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation, while Informal Communication functions as the enabling socioemotional mechanism through which symbolic recognition is enacted, rather than recognition itself, thereby contributing to Job Satisfaction as the affective outcome of workplace well-being. In these contexts—where socioemotional ties substitute formal hierarchies—workplace well-being emerges from personal networks that may enhance cooperation while simultaneously fostering relational dependence and organizational vulnerability (Leino, 2022; Nyfoudi et al., 2022). From a theoretical standpoint, prior literature has addressed informal networks, motivation, and the socioemotional climate in a fragmented manner, lacking a systematic integration of Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Input–Mediator–Output–Input (IMOI) framework. In particular, limited attention has been devoted to explaining how socioemotional inputs—namely Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion— translate into Job Satisfaction as the affective outcome through mediating processes such as Informal Communication, Recognition/Motivation, and Workplace Relationships (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015). In response to this gap, the primary objective of this study is to examine the socioemotional mechanisms that explain Job Satisfaction in commercial microenterprises in the district of Aguas Verdes, using a structural model estimated with PLS-SEM. This study contributes to the literature on organizational behavior in emerging economies by proposing an integrative framework that explains how informal networks sustain workplace well-being as an affective organizational outcome in the absence of consolidated formal structures. Specifically, it introduces the concept of socioemotional governance and advances the efficiency–fragility paradox, whereby informal networks may generate well-being by substituting hierarchical functions while simultaneously increasing organizational vulnerability when coordination and recognition become concentrated in a limited set of central ties. Furthermore, the study provides explanatory–predictive empirical evidence through the use of PLS-SEM and out-of-sample validation via PLSpredict, thereby strengthening the methodological robustness of the proposed model. Rather than specifying informal networks as a separate latent variable, they are represented through cohesion-based relational clusters (Group Cohesion) and their enabling socioemotional mechanism (Informal Communication), which together capture the everyday coordination and socioemotional exchanges characteristic of low-formalization organizational contexts. Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research question: How do Informal Leadership, Group Cohesion, and Informal Communication interact with the socioemotional climate—operationalized through Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation—to explain Job Satisfaction in low-formalization organizational contexts? 2. Theoretical Background 2.1. Theoretical Foundations for Organizational Dynamics Contemporary organizational dynamics integrate both formal and informal processes, in which employees simultaneously operate within structured hierarchies and interpersonal networks grounded in affinities and affective ties (Georgiadou & Syed, 2021; Horak et al., 2020; Horak & Suseno, 2023). In low-formalization contexts characterized by high interpersonal proximity—such as border microenterprises—these networks become central mechanisms for cooperation, cohesion, and organizational climate (Mayanja et al., 2025; Sendawula et al., 2023). The proposed model integrates three complementary theoretical frameworks: Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Input–Mediator–Output–Input (IMOI) framework (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Ilgen et al., 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2020). From the SET perspective, Workplace Relationships are grounded in reciprocity and relational justice (Blau, 2017; Chen & Sriphon, 2022). SDT explains Job Satisfaction through the fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs, which are strengthened through recognition and trust (Aljumah, 2023; Manolache & Epuran, 2023; Maunz & Glaser, 2024). The IMOI framework conceptualizes organizations as dynamic systems in which social inputs—such as leadership and cohesion—activate socioemotional mediators that ultimately generate affective outcomes, including Job Satisfaction (Leino, 2022; Paredes-Saavedra et al., 2024; Steegh et al., 2025). In this study, these theoretical perspectives are integrated to explain how Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion mobilize communication, recognition, and workplace relational processes that ultimately culminate in workplace well-being. 2.2. Socioemotional Processes and the Functioning of Informal Networks Informal networks emerge from shared affinities and frequent interpersonal interactions, particularly in organizational settings characterized by low levels of formalization (Durrah, 2023; Jin et al., 2025; Zagenczyk & Powell, 2023). In such contexts, they operate as spontaneous mechanisms of coordination and socioemotional support that shape cooperation and the organizational climate (Brennecke et al., 2025; Zhu et al., 2024). These networks perform central functions related to emotional exchange, rapid information coordination, and the construction of collective identity, thereby strengthening psychological safety and a sense of belonging (Begemann et al., 2024; Cai, 2023; Gelfand et al., 2024). However, their nature is inherently ambivalent: while they foster cooperation, they may also generate relational closure, favoritism, and resistance to organizational change (Matsson, 2024; Nyfoudi et al., 2022; Vveinhardt & Bendaraviciene, 2022). From the IMOI perspective, informal networks can be interpreted as social inputs that activate socioemotional processes—such as group cohesion, informal communication, and recognition/motivation—which ultimately lead to Job Satisfaction (Amorim-Ribeiro et al., 2022; Ilgen et al., 2005). In the present study, these processes are operationalized as Group Cohesion, Informal Communication, and Recognition/Motivation. 2.3. Informal Leadership Informal Leadership is defined as influence exercised in the absence of formal hierarchical authority, grounded in credibility, competence, and reciprocal relationships (He et al., 2022; Leino, 2022; Liu et al., 2025; Liu & Zhang, 2025). Empirically, it functions as a catalyst for Group Cohesion by connecting organizational members through fluid communication networks (Flemington et al., 2023; Yoon et al., 2021), while simultaneously holding the potential to reproduce informal power asymmetries (Brennecke et al., 2025; Jin et al., 2025; Pillemer & Rothbard, 2018). Within the IMOI framework, Informal Leadership represents the primary socioemotional input, mobilizing Group Cohesion and Informal Communication as key mechanisms that structure the organizational climate and ultimately shape Job Satisfaction (Ilgen et al., 2005; Steegh et al., 2025). 2.4. Informal Communication Informal Communication encompasses spontaneous exchanges occurring outside official channels that reduce uncertainty and facilitate day-to-day coordination (Begemann et al., 2024; Denner et al., 2025; Watanabe et al., 2024). Beyond its informational function, it operates as a symbolic resource that strengthens trust, relational justice, and interpersonal recognition (Lütjens & Felfe, 2025; Meinecke & Handke, 2023; Urrila et al., 2025). Importantly, Informal Communication is not treated as recognition per se. Rather, it provides the relational infrastructure that enables recognition signals—such as appreciation, validation, and informal feedback—to be expressed and interpreted in everyday work interactions. Thus, Recognition/Motivation is modeled as an outcome of Informal Communication processes. Moreover, informal communication consolidates workplace relationships and social capital through mutual support and emotional validation (Horak & Suseno, 2023; Song et al., 2025; Urrila et al., 2025). In low-formalization contexts, Informal Communication effectively substitutes formal feedback and recognition mechanisms. 2.5. Group Cohesion Group Cohesion refers to the force that binds members together through affective ties and commitment to shared goals (Muñoz et al., 2023; Reiter-Palmon et al., 2021). It integrates both social and instrumental components (Carron et al., 1985; Eys & Beauchamp, 2025; Lieb et al., 2024) and functions as a socioemotional resource that promotes cooperation and relational stability (Holubčík et al., 2025; Oh, 2023). From the SET perspective, cohesion emerges from fair and reciprocal interactions, while within SDT it fulfills the fundamental need for relatedness (Ahmad et al., 2023; Van den Broeck et al., 2016). In border microenterprises, its affective dimension becomes particularly salient as a mechanism of everyday coordination and regulation. Importantly, in this study Group Cohesion is treated as a collective-level relational resource reflecting unity, shared identity, and group belonging, whereas Workplace Relationships refers to the functional quality of everyday interpersonal exchanges—such as trust, clarity, and instrumental support—that constitute the socioemotional climate. 2.6. Organizational Climate, Recognition, and Job Satisfaction The socioemotional climate, as a dimension of organizational climate, reflects shared perceptions regarding norms and relational patterns that structure employees’ work experiences (Janiukštis et al., 2024; Yiming et al., 2024). In this study, the socioemotional climate is operationalized through Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation, which constitute its core relational components and are directly associated with workplace well-being, reflected in Job Satisfaction as a central affective outcome (Bulińska-Stangrecka & Bagieńska, 2021; Thibault Landry & Whillans, 2018). Consistent with the IMOI framework, Informal Communication is conceptualized as the enabling socioemotional mechanism through which everyday recognition is enacted in low-formalization contexts, rather than as a dimension of the socioemotional climate itself. Drawing on SET and SDT, Workplace Relationships reflect the structural quality of exchanges grounded in reciprocity and fairness (Cropanzano et al., 2017), whereas Recognition/Motivation fulfills fundamental needs for appreciation and belonging (Ryan & Deci, 2020). In low-formalization environments, recognition is primarily constructed through daily interactions and Informal Communication (Horak & Suseno, 2023). 2.7. Job Satisfaction as an Affective Outcome Workplace well-being is conceptualized as an affective organizational outcome and is operationalized in this study through Job Satisfaction. Job Satisfaction reflects the emotional evaluation of one’s work experience (Jarrar et al., 2025; Mohamed et al., 2024). From this perspective, workplace well-being is not understood as an exclusively structural condition, but rather as a relational state emerging from socioemotional processes through which Informal Leadership, Group Cohesion, Informal Communication, Recognition, and Workplace Relationships are articulated within low-formalization organizational contexts. 2.8. Integrative Synthesis and Theoretical Contribution The proposed model integrates Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Input–Mediator–Output–Input (IMOI) framework to offer a middle-range theoretical explanation of microenterprises in emerging economies characterized by low-formalization and everyday coordination grounded in interpersonal relationships. In this study, socioemotional governance is defined as the organizational pattern through which functions traditionally associated with formal hierarchy—such as coordination, relational regulation, and recognition—are performed by informal networks of trust, reciprocity, and interpersonal leadership in low-formalization contexts. Within this framework, Informal Leadership plays a structuring role by organizing, legitimizing, and regulating work dynamics in the absence of strong institutional mechanisms, while Group Cohesion transforms interpersonal proximity into effective cooperation and reduces relational uncertainty, although it may also foster group closure and exclusionary dynamics. Rather than specifying Informal Networks as a separate latent construct, the present model represents them through cohesion-based relational clusters (Group Cohesion) and their associated socioemotional mechanisms—particularly Informal Communication—which together capture the everyday functioning of informal relational structures in low-formalization contexts. Consistent with the IMOI framework and the explanatory–predictive objective of the study, a parsimonious specification of the structural model was prioritized, focusing on two primary mediating chains—via Group Cohesion and via Informal Communication—while avoiding the inclusion of potentially redundant direct paths (e.g., Cohesion → Communication or Leadership → Recognition/Motivation) in order to preserve theoretical interpretability and maximize the model’s predictive performance. The model aligns with the efficiency–fragility paradox, whereby the concentration of socioemotional functions within a limited set of central ties generates high relational efficiency—manifested in enhanced cooperation, everyday recognition, and Job Satisfaction—while simultaneously producing organizational vulnerability. In this study, organizational fragility is conceptualized as the susceptibility of organizational functioning and workplace well-being arising from the relational concentration of coordination and recognition in a reduced number of central actors. This fragility is advanced as a conceptual construct—not empirically operationalized in the current model—that opens a future research agenda oriented toward its measurement through social network analysis. Finally, Informal Communication is reconceptualized as the relational infrastructure through which symbolic recognition is enacted in day-to-day interactions: a micro-socioemotional mechanism that bridges the reciprocity principles articulated by Social Exchange Theory with the fulfillment of basic psychological needs described by Self-Determination Theory, functioning as an infrastructure of validation, belonging, and motivation in the absence of formal feedback and reward systems. Taken together, the model explains how microenterprises operating in low-formalization contexts generate workplace well-being through a relational architecture that simultaneously sustains organizational functioning while implying an inherent structural fragility. Table 1 summarizes the dominant approaches in the literature and their principal limitations in low-formalization contexts, along with the theoretical contribution of the present study. Table 1 Dominant Approaches in Prior Literature and the Theoretical Contribution of This Study Theoretical Domain Dominant Approach in Prior Literature Limitations in Low-Formalization Contexts Theoretical Contribution of This Study Informal Leadership Conceptualized as a complement to formal authority and a facilitator of coordination Assumes the presence of formal hierarchies and institutionalized roles Reconceptualizes Informal Leadership as a substitutive governance mechanism that organizes and regulates work in the absence of formal structures, with recognition processes unfolding indirectly through socioemotional mediators Group Cohesion Socioemotional resource that enhances cooperation and performance Treated as uniformly positive, overlooking relational risks Introduces the efficiency–fragility paradox, showing that cohesion may generate well-being while simultaneously fostering relational dependence Informal Communication Alternative channel for information exchange and coordination Emphasis on informational rather than socioemotional functions Reinterprets Informal Communication as the relational infrastructure through which everyday symbolic recognition is enacted, underpinning motivation Workplace Well-being / Job Satisfaction Individual outcome shaped by formal HR practices Limited applicability in low-formalization microenterprises Positions Job Satisfaction as a relational outcome emerging from a socioemotional architecture Organizational models Analytical separation between formal and informal structures Fragmented treatment of networks, leadership, and climate Integrates SET, SDT, and IMOI into a middle-range socioemotional governance framework Note. The literature synthesis is grounded in Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Input–Mediator–Output–Input (IMOI) framework (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015; Shmueli et al., 2019). The “Theoretical Contribution of This Study” column reflects the authors’ original conceptual advances. Hypothesis Development H1 . Informal Leadership positively influences Group Cohesion. H2 . Informal Leadership positively influences Informal Communication. H3 . Group Cohesion positively influences Workplace Relationships. H4 . Informal Communication positively influences Recognition/Motivation. H5 . Workplace Relationships positively influence Job Satisfaction. H6 . Recognition/Motivation positively influences Job Satisfaction. Figure 1 presents the study’s conceptual model, grounded in the integration of Social Exchange Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the IMOI framework. Informal Leadership functions as the exogenous variable directly influencing both Group Cohesion and Informal Communication. In turn, Group Cohesion strengthens Workplace Relationships, while Informal Communication enhances Recognition/Motivation. Job Satisfaction represents the final outcome of the model and is directly explained by Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation. Within this framework, workplace well-being is conceptualized as an affective state derived from the socioemotional mediators of the socioemotional climate. Mini-glossary Socioemotional governance : an organizational pattern in which informal networks perform coordination, relational regulation, and everyday recognition functions in low-formalization contexts. Socioemotional climate : the relational dimension of organizational climate, operationalized in this study through Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation. Workplace Well-being : a broad affective outcome reflected in this study through Job Satisfaction as its empirical indicator. Informal Communication : spontaneous day-to-day exchanges that function as the relational infrastructure through which symbolic recognition (e.g., feedback, validation, appreciation) is enacted in low-formalization contexts. 3. Methodology 3.1. Study Design An applied quantitative approach was adopted, employing a non-experimental, cross-sectional design with an explanatory–predictive scope aimed at analyzing socioemotional mechanisms in commercial microenterprises in Aguas Verdes (Khan et al., 2021; Park et al., 2020; Rahi, 2017). Given the complexity of the proposed model—including latent constructs, multiple mediations, and both explanatory and predictive objectives—Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed as the analytical technique, as it is particularly suitable for interdependent models with moderate sample sizes (Hair et al., 2021). All analyses were conducted using SmartPLS version 4.0.9.6, with 5,000 bootstrap resamples and a 95% confidence level. 3.2. Population and Sample The study included 450 employees from commercial microenterprises identified from the INEI business directory (2025) in Aguas Verdes (response rate = 92.4%) and approached using non-probability convenience and snowball sampling techniques. Participants were required to have at least three months of tenure and to provide informed consent. The sample size (n = 450) exceeded the minimum criteria commonly recommended for PLS-SEM (e.g., the ten-times rule based on the maximum number of structural paths) and was further supported by an a priori statistical power analysis assuming α = 0.05 and a medium effect size (f² = 0.15), ensuring statistical power above 0.95 for detecting meaningful structural relationships (Hair et al., 2019, 2021). The sample exhibited gender balance, a mean age of 39 years (SD = 8.4), and a predominance of secondary education, consistent with the typical profile of border microenterprises engaged in retail trade and service activities (BCRP, 2025; INEI, 2025; SUNAT, 2024). Although statistical generalization was not pursued, the findings provide analytically transferable evidence to comparable microenterprise contexts in emerging economies characterized by low levels of formalization (Blau, 2017; Horak & Suseno, 2023; Ryan & Deci, 2020). 3.3. Data Collection Instrument A structured questionnaire comprising 22 items was administered to measure Informal Leadership, Group Cohesion, Informal Communication, Recognition/Motivation, Workplace Relationships, and workplace well-being (operationalized as Job Satisfaction), using a five-point Likert-type scale (Likert, 1932). In this study, informal networks are understood as cohesion-based clusters within broader informal networks. The items were adapted from previously employed scales in the literature and from classical organizational climate frameworks (e. g., Litwin & Stringer, 1968), ensuring semantic equivalence and cultural relevance for the border context through translation, back-translation, and semantic validation procedures. Within Informal Communication, the feedback-related item captures informal feedback exchanges as communicative signals through which recognition may be conveyed, rather than recognition itself. Although some items may appear semantically close across Group Cohesion and Workplace Relationships (e.g., coworker support), they were retained to capture two conceptually distinct relational layers: Group Cohesion reflects collective belonging, unity, and shared identity, whereas Workplace Relationships captures the functional quality of day-to-day exchanges (e.g., trust, clarity, and instrumental support) within the socioemotional climate. As operational support, technical guidelines for questionnaire design were consulted (QuestionPro, 2023; Great Place to Work Institute, 2023) solely for wording clarity, item structure, and instrument organization, without these sources constituting theoretical or psychometric validation. Content validity was assessed by three subject-matter experts (CVI > 0.90; Polit & Beck, 2021). A pilot test (n = 50) enabled item refinement. Reliability indicators were satisfactory (Cronbach’s α and ρA > 0.80; Hazzi & Maldaon, 2015), and confirmatory analysis demonstrated factor loadings exceeding 0.70, with composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) meeting recommended thresholds (Henseler et al., 2015). 3.4. Procedure and Ethical Considerations Data were collected between April and September 2025 through face-to-face surveys. All participants provided informed consent, and anonymity and confidentiality were strictly ensured. Participation was voluntary, and respondents retained the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequences. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the guidelines of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). The study involved an anonymous, minimal-risk survey with voluntary participation and informed consent. Therefore, according to the applicable institutional procedures for this study context, formal ethics committee review was not required. 3.5. Data Analysis The model was estimated using PLS-SEM, assessing internal consistency reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, collinearity, explanatory power (R²), effect sizes (f²), descriptive model fit (SRMR, d_ULS), and predictive relevance (Q²) (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015; Shmueli et al., 2019). Outer VIF values ranged from 1.34 to 2.86 (Table S2), indicating the absence of problematic indicator collinearity (Kock, 2015). Predictive performance was evaluated using PLSpredict with 10-fold cross-validation, comparing the PLS-SEM model against a linear benchmark model. The PLS-SEM model showed generally lower or comparable prediction errors relative to the linear model benchmark (RMSE and MAE), supporting its out-of-sample predictive performance (Shmueli et al., 2019). In addition, an alternative model excluding the path from Workplace Relationships to Job Satisfaction was tested, resulting in a reduction in predictive relevance (ΔQ² = − 0.052), thereby supporting the robustness of the proposed structural specification (Hair et al., 2021). The procedure was executed with 10 repetitions, early stopping criteria, and a fixed random seed, ensuring stability and reproducibility of predictive results (Shmueli et al., 2019). 4. Results The results of the PLS-SEM analysis are presented through the assessment of the measurement model, global model fit, the structural model, and predictive performance. All analyses were conducted using SmartPLS version 4.0.9.6 with 5,000 bootstrap resamples at a 95% confidence level. 4.1. Measurement Model Assessment All constructs demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability and convergent validity (Cronbach’s α, ρA, and CR > 0.70; AVE > 0.50), confirming metric consistency across the six dimensions (Hair et al., 2019) (Table 2 ). Discriminant validity (HTMT < 0.85) and the absence of multicollinearity (VIF < 3.3) are reported in the supplementary material (Tables S1 and S2). Table 2 Internal Consistency Reliability and Convergent Validity Construct Cronbach’s α ρA CR AVE Group Cohesion 0.848 0.887 0.895 0.681 Informal Communication 0.729 0.759 0.827 0.545 Informal Leadership 0.871 0.914 0.919 0.791 Recognition/Motivation 0.818 0.818 0.880 0.648 Workplace Relationships 0.874 0.879 0.923 0.799 Job Satisfaction 0.811 0.817 0.876 0.641 Note. All constructs meet the criteria for internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α, ρA, CR > 0.70) and convergent validity (AVE > 0.50). 4.2. Global Model Fit Global model fit was assessed using the SRMR and d_ULS indices for descriptive purposes, in line with the explanatory–predictive orientation of the PLS-SEM approach (Henseler et al., 2015; Shmueli et al., 2019). Importantly, global fit measures in PLS-SEM are not considered decisive model evaluation criteria when the primary objective is explanation and prediction rather than exact model reproduction, particularly in complex models with multiple mediations and latent constructs. Accordingly, the main evaluation of the model focused on its explanatory and predictive performance, particularly through R² values, effect sizes (f²), and out-of-sample predictive relevance using Q²predict and PLSpredict. Table 3 Global Model Fit Indices Criterion Saturated Model Estimated Model SRMR 0.114 0.196 d_ULS 3.273 9.766 Note . SRMR = Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; d_ULS = unstandardized squared discrepancy. Global fit indices are reported for descriptive purposes. Consistent with the predictive orientation of PLS-SEM, model assessment prioritized explanatory power and out-of-sample predictive relevance. The elevated SRMR of the estimated model is interpreted as a methodological limitation associated with model complexity and chained mediations and is discussed in Section 5.4 . The elevated SRMR of the estimated model reflects its structural complexity, including multiple latent constructs and chained mediations. However, such deviations may also indicate partial model misspecification, constraints in the measurement model, or unobserved heterogeneity commonly observed in field data from low-formalization contexts. Prior PLS-SEM research shows that global fit indices tend to worsen as model complexity increases in explanatory–predictive models, where prediction is prioritized over absolute fit (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015; Shmueli et al., 2019). Accordingly, the model was specified to capture socioemotional process chains rather than to optimize global fit. 4.3. Structural Model Results All hypothesized relationships were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and consistent with their theoretical directions (Table 4 ). Informal Leadership exhibited a strong effect on Group Cohesion (β = 0.768) and a moderate effect on Informal Communication (β = 0.347). Group Cohesion significantly influenced Workplace Relationships (β = 0.726), while Informal Communication strengthened Recognition/Motivation (β = 0.379), indicating that everyday interpersonal exchanges function as channels through which employees receive signals of appreciation, competence, and belonging that foster motivational outcomes consistent with Self-Determination Theory. Finally, Recognition/Motivation (β = 0.550) and Workplace Relationships (β = 0.223) positively predicted Job Satisfaction. The structural model explained 52.7% of the variance in Workplace Relationships (R² = 0.527) and 51.3% of the variance in Job Satisfaction (R² = 0.513), with medium to large effect sizes for the key relationships (Tables 5 and 6 ) and positive predictive relevance for all endogenous constructs (Q² > 0). Notably, although the relationship between Workplace Relationships and Job Satisfaction was statistically significant, its effect size was small (f² = 0.059), suggesting an incremental contribution relative to the central role of Recognition/Motivation as the primary predictor. Table 4 Structural Path Coefficients (β, t-values, p-values) Relationship β t-value p-value Informal Leadership → Group Cohesion 0.768 53.022 < 0.001 Informal Leadership → Informal Communication 0.347 7.202 < 0.001 Group Cohesion → Workplace Relationships 0.726 32.052 < 0.001 Informal Communication → Recognition/Motivation 0.379 7.827 < 0.001 Recognition/Motivation → Job Satisfaction 0.550 14.619 < 0.001 Workplace Relationships → Job Satisfaction 0.223 5.511 < 0.001 Note. β = standardized coefficient; t = t-value; p = level of statistical significance (all relationships were significant at p < 0.001). Table 5 Coefficients of Determination (R²) Endogenous Variable R² Adjusted R² Group Cohesion 0.589 0.588 Informal Communication 0.120 0.118 Recognition/Motivation 0.143 0.141 Workplace Relationships 0.527 0.526 Job Satisfaction 0.513 0.511 Note. R² values around 0.25/0.50/0.75 are often described as weak/moderate/substantial depending on the research context. Table 6 Effect Sizes (f²) Relationship f² Interpretation Informal Leadership → Group Cohesion 1.434 Large Informal Leadership → Informal Communication 0.137 Medium Group Cohesion → Workplace Relationships 1.116 Large Informal Communication → Recognition/Motivation 0.167 Medium Recognition/Motivation → Job Satisfaction 0.357 Large Workplace Relationships → Job Satisfaction 0.059 Small Note. f² = effect size; 0.02 = small, 0.15 = medium, 0.35 = large (Cohen, 1988). As illustrated in Fig. 2 , Informal Leadership functions as the central predictor, exerting significant indirect effects on Job Satisfaction through two primary mediating chains that structure the socioemotional climate: Informal Leadership → Group Cohesion → Workplace Relationships → Job Satisfaction, and Informal Leadership → Informal Communication → Recognition/Motivation → Job Satisfaction (Table S3). 4.4. Predictive Performance and Model Comparison The PLSpredict procedure confirmed positive predictive relevance for all constructs (Q²predict > 0), with stronger predictive capacity for Group Cohesion and Workplace Relationships and moderate levels for Informal Communication and Job Satisfaction (Table 7 ). Comparison with a linear benchmark model indicated generally lower or comparable prediction errors (RMSE and MAE) for the PLS-SEM model, supporting its out-of-sample predictive performance (Shmueli et al., 2019) (Table 8 ). Additionally, removing the path from Workplace Relationships to Job Satisfaction substantially reduced predictive relevance (ΔQ² = − 0.052), thereby validating the specification of the baseline model (Table 9 ). Table 7 Predictive Performance (PLSpredict – Baseline Model) Construct Q²predict RMSE MAE Group Cohesion 0.586 0.646 0.471 Informal Communication 0.111 0.949 0.740 Recognition/Motivation 0.143 0.930 0.753 Workplace Relationships 0.464 0.735 0.585 Job Satisfaction 0.111 0.948 0.785 Note . Q²predict = predictive relevance (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974); RMSE = root mean squared error; MAE = mean absolute error. Construct-level values represent the mean across indicators. Job Satisfaction represents the affective indicator of workplace well-being in the model. Table 8 Predictive Performance of the Model (PLSpredict – Summary) Endogenous Construct Q²predict (Range) RMSE (PLS vs. LM) MAE (PLS vs. LM) Interpretation Group Cohesion 0.153–0.749 PLS ≤ LM (majority of indicators) PLS ≤ LM (majority of indicators) Moderate to high predictive performance Informal Communication 0.027–0.206 PLS ≈ LM PLS ≈ LM Moderate predictive performance Workplace Relationships 0.280–0.425 PLS ≤ LM PLS ≤ LM Good predictive performance Job Satisfaction 0.009–0.134 PLS ≤ LM PLS ≤ LM Low to moderate predictive performance Note. Q²predict values greater than zero indicate out-of-sample predictive relevance. Predictive performance was assessed by comparing the PLS-SEM model with a linear benchmark model (LM) and a naïve model, following Shmueli et al. (2019). Ranges refer to indicator-level Q²predict values, whereas Table 7 reports construct-level mean values. Job Satisfaction is used as the empirical indicator of workplace well-being. Table 9 Comparison Between the Baseline Model and the Alternative Model Construct Q²predict – Baseline Q²predict – Alternative ΔQ² Interpretation Job Satisfaction 0.111 0.059 –0.052 Substantial reduction in predictive relevance Note. Q²predict = predictive relevance; ΔQ² = difference between models. Detailed cross-validation results are provided in the supplementary material (Table S4). 4.5. Synthesis of Findings Overall, the results confirm the theoretical and empirical coherence of the socioemotional model. Informal Leadership fosters Group Cohesion and Informal Communication, which in turn strengthen Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation, thereby shaping the socioemotional climate (operationalized through Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation) that ultimately explains Job Satisfaction. 5. Discussion The structural model results indicate that, within microenterprises characterized by low levels of formalization, workplace well-being, captured through Job Satisfaction (R² = 0.513), is primarily shaped through interpersonal relationships rather than formal hierarchical structures. The model’s high explanatory power underscores the central role of socioemotional mediators in such organizational contexts. The direct and indirect effects allow organizational functioning to be interpreted as a system of socioemotional governance, in which Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion operate as key inputs that activate socioemotional mechanisms—namely Informal Communication, Recognition/Motivation, and Workplace Relationships—that substitute for functions traditionally performed by formal organizational structures. These results indicate substantial explanatory power for Job Satisfaction, supporting the relevance of socioemotional governance mechanisms in low-formalization contexts. Informal Leadership emerges as the core organizing force within this relational architecture, while mediating processes account Job Satisfaction as the primary affective outcome. At the same time, the concentration of socioemotional functions within a limited set of central ties may introduce risks of organizational fragility by implying potential organizational vulnerability arising from relational dependence in contexts marked by weak formal regulation. 5.1. Interpretation of Findings and Theoretical Coherence The findings are interpreted through three central contributions: socioemotional governance as a substitutive mechanism for formal hierarchy, the efficiency–fragility paradox of informal networks, and Informal Communication as symbolic recognition. Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion emerge as the primary socioemotional inputs within the relational system, activating communication and recognition processes that strengthen Workplace Relationships and explain a substantial proportion of variance in Job Satisfaction. This pattern confirms that, in low-formalization contexts, informal ties perform structuring functions within organizational functioning (Horak & Suseno, 2023; Leino, 2022; Sendawula et al., 2023). Although the model specifies directional relationships consistent with the IMOI framework, these should be interpreted as theory-consistent structural associations rather than strict causal inferences, given the cross-sectional nature of the study design. Within this framework, the results support the existence of an efficiency–fragility paradox in organizations grounded in informal networks, as the pattern of strong and centralized structural paths—particularly Informal Leadership → Group Cohesion, Group Cohesion → Workplace Relationships, and Recognition/Motivation → Job Satisfaction—reveals a functional concentration of coordination and recognition processes within a limited set of socioemotional ties. While these concentrated relational mechanisms enhance cooperation and workplace well-being, they simultaneously suggest a relational pattern consistent with potential organizational vulnerability when stability depends on a reduced number of central socioemotional actors. Group Cohesion operates as a key integrative mechanism linking individual and collective dynamics, promoting cooperation and emotional stability, while also potentially reinforcing relational closure, consistent with its inherently ambivalent nature (Gelfand et al., 2024; Martinović & Verkuyten, 2024). Although the present model focused on the socioemotional mechanisms that explain workplace well-being as reflected in Job Satisfaction without directly measuring dysfunctional outcomes of informal networks, prior literature suggests that high levels of cohesion and relational centralization may also facilitate group closure, exclusionary processes, and resistance to organizational change. From the perspective of Social Exchange Theory (SET), the legitimacy of Informal Leadership is grounded in reciprocity, relational justice, and trust (Blau, 2017; Cropanzano et al., 2017), enabling everyday coordination in the absence of formal hierarchies. Consistent with the IMOI framework, these inputs activate key socioemotional mediators, as evidenced by the relationship between Informal Leadership and Informal Communication (Begemann et al., 2024; Horak & Suseno, 2023; Ilgen et al., 2005). Moreover, the association between Informal Communication and Recognition/Motivation supports Self-Determination Theory (SDT), by demonstrating that everyday interpersonal exchanges enable employees to receive symbolic signals of competence, appreciation, and social belonging, thereby strengthening intrinsic motivation in the absence of formal recognition systems (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Through these micro-level interactions, Informal Communication functions as the relational infrastructure that transforms social exchange into motivational resources. Group Cohesion directly enhances the quality of Workplace Relationships, fostering stability and commitment, while simultaneously possessing the potential to intensify relational dependence when recognition becomes concentrated among a limited number of central actors (Gelfand et al., 2024; Nyfoudi et al., 2022; Vveinhardt & Bendaraviciene, 2022). Complementarily, Recognition/Motivation consolidate as the central predictors of Job Satisfaction (Black et al., 2024; Mohamed et al., 2024). Recognition/Motivation emerged as the most influential predictor of Job Satisfaction (β = 0.550), supporting the core propositions of Self-Determination Theory by demonstrating that everyday interpersonal appreciation fulfills fundamental psychological needs related to competence, belonging, and social relatedness. In low-formalization contexts—where formal reward systems are limited or absent—these symbolic recognition practices assume a pivotal role in regulating Job Satisfaction as the affective outcome, reinforcing intrinsic motivation and socioemotional stability among employees. Taken together, the findings reinforce the theoretical relevance of the concept of organizational fragility rooted in informal networks, indicating that coordination, recognition, and Job Satisfaction tend to become concentrated within central socioemotional ties. This configuration aligns with the efficiency–fragility paradox, whereby the same networks that generate cooperation and Job Satisfaction may also increase vulnerability when organizational stability depends on a limited set of key actors (Brennecke et al., 2025; Carbonell & Rodríguez Escudero, 2019; Jin et al., 2025). When such ties weaken—due to conflict, absence, or turnover—the relational architecture sustaining the organization’s socioemotional climate becomes unstable, thereby constraining organizational sustainability. 5.2. Comparison With Prior Studies and Empirical Contributions In contrast to studies on Informal Leadership in highly formalized organizations—where it typically functions as a complement to hierarchical authority (He et al., 2022; Yoon et al., 2021)—the present findings indicate that in low-formalization microenterprises, Informal Leadership assumes a structural role in coordination and relational regulation. While this pattern aligns with prior evidence reported by Brennecke et al. (2025) and Leino (2022), the study extends empirical knowledge by examining a previously underexplored border context, where institutional absence intensifies organizational dependence on informal networks. Regarding Informal Communication, previous research has primarily emphasized its operational and informational functions (Meinecke & Handke, 2023; Watanabe et al., 2024); however, the present results demonstrate that in structurally informal environments, Informal Communication operates predominantly as a socioemotional mechanism of symbolic recognition. This finding extends the work of Song et al. (2025) and Sutiyoso & Faedlulloh (2024), by positioning communication as a central driver of workplace well-being, empirically expressed through Job Satisfaction, in the absence of formal human resource management systems. With respect to Group Cohesion, the study confirms its ambivalent nature—simultaneously facilitating cooperation and belonging while also fostering relational rigidity and exclusion—consistent with prior research (Nyfoudi et al.,2022; Vveinhardt & Bendaraviciene, 2022). The empirical contribution lies in demonstrating that this ambivalence becomes intensified in border microenterprises, where interpersonal proximity and weak institutional regulation amplify both the benefits and risks associated with cohesive informal networks. 5.3. Theoretical and Practical Implications 5.3.1. Theoretical Implications The findings enable the integration of Social Exchange Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the IMOI framework into a socioemotional governance model, demonstrating how informal inputs activate relational mediators that explain Job Satisfaction as the affective outcome, in low-formalization contexts. This integration extends research on organizational resilience by positioning well-being as an outcome of relational architectures rather than formal structural arrangements (Duchek, 2020; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011). The reconceptualization of Informal Communication as symbolic recognition bridges the relational reciprocity emphasized by SET with the fulfillment of basic psychological needs proposed by SDT, offering a more precise explanation of motivation in the absence of institutionalized recognition systems. This perspective aligns with emerging evidence highlighting the role of everyday interpersonal interactions in shaping workplace well-being within structurally informal environments (Ryan & Deci, 2020; Song et al., 2025; Thibault Landry & Whillans, 2018). Furthermore, the efficiency–fragility paradox contributes to organizational resilience debates by revealing that informal networks facilitating coordination and well-being may simultaneously increase vulnerability when socioemotional power becomes relationally concentrated, consistent with prior research on relational centralization and organizational fragility (Brennecke et al., 2025; Duchek, 2020; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Ritter et al., 2023). 5.3.2. Practical Implications The practical implications emerge directly from the empirical findings and underscore the importance of consciously managing informal networks in low-formalization contexts (Horak & Suseno, 2023; Sendawula et al., 2023). Specifically, organizations are encouraged to identify key socioemotional nodes, distribute leadership roles to reduce relational dependence, and promote everyday micro-routines of recognition that substitute for absent formal practices and sustain Job Satisfaction. 5.3.3. Organizational Fragility as an Emerging Conceptual Construct Organizational fragility rooted in informal networks is conceptualized as a condition arising from the relational concentration of leadership, recognition, and coordination functions. This configuration suggests a relational pattern consistent with potential organizational fragility, in which organizational stability depends primarily on central socioemotional ties rather than on consolidated formal structures. The findings reveal a concentration of coordination and recognition processes among a limited number of key relational actors, a pattern theoretically associated with organizational vulnerability in low-formalization contexts, increasing the organizational system’s sensitivity to conflict, absence, or turnover. This pattern is consistent with prior research on relational centralization and organizational fragility dynamics in informal organizational settings (Brennecke et al., 2025; Duchek, 2020; Jin et al., 2025). Although organizational fragility was not empirically operationalized within the present structural model, its conceptual development is directly motivated by the observed concentration of explanatory power along a limited number of socioemotional paths within the structural model. This formulation opens a future research agenda aimed at constructing indicators of relational dependence, exposure to the loss of central actors, and the intensity of socioemotional tensions. Consistent with the explanatory–predictive orientation of PLS-SEM, global model fit indices were interpreted descriptively, with primary emphasis placed on explanatory power and out-of-sample predictive relevance as the core model evaluation criteria. 5.4. Limitations and Future Research The present study is subject to limitations inherent to its research design and empirical context. First, the cross-sectional approach and reliance on self-reported measures restrict causal inference and may introduce perceptual bias, despite procedural remedies implemented to ensure anonymity and mitigate common method effects. In addition, the use of non-probability sampling concentrated within a single border district limits statistical generalizability; accordingly, the findings should be interpreted as analytically transferable evidence to organizational contexts characterized by similar low-formalization conditions. Although discriminant validity met recommended thresholds (HTMT < 0.85), partial conceptual proximity between Group Cohesion and Workplace Relationships may exist because both reflect relational content in small-group contexts; however, the constructs were theoretically distinguished as collective identity and shared belonging (Group Cohesion) versus functional relational quality (Workplace Relationships), and future studies should further refine item wording to strengthen construct separation. With respect to global model fit, the SRMR and d_ULS values reflect the methodological tension between absolute fit criteria and the explanatory–predictive orientation of the PLS-SEM approach. While the SRMR of the saturated model falls within ranges reported for complex models, the SRMR of the estimated model exceeds conventional cutoff values (Henseler et al., 2015; Shmueli et al., 2019), likely due to the structural complexity of the model involving multiple latent constructs and chained mediations. Nevertheless, elevated fit indices may also signal partial model misspecification or measurement constraints inherent to socioemotional constructs in field-based research. Consistent with the study’s objectives, model evaluation prioritized explanatory and predictive indicators—R² values, effect sizes (f²), predictive relevance (Q²), and out-of-sample validation through PLSpredict—which demonstrated substantial model performance. Importantly, when a more parsimonious alternative model was tested by removing one mediating path, global fit marginally improved while predictive relevance for Job Satisfaction substantially decreased (ΔQ² = − 0.052). This trade-off supports the retention of the theoretically grounded mediated structure, reinforcing the prioritization of explanatory and predictive performance over absolute fit optimization. Moreover, the present study focused on socioemotional modeling using PLS-SEM without incorporating explicit relational structure metrics. Although organizational fragility was not directly operationalized within the current model, the observed structural patterns underscore the need for future research integrating PLS-SEM with social network analysis (SNA) to empirically assess relational centralization and its implications for organizational sustainability. Future studies may further examine the robustness of the proposed framework through more parsimonious model specifications, complementary approaches based on covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), or hybrid modeling strategies, thereby testing global fit behavior across alternative analytical configurations. In addition, expanding the empirical scope through probabilistic sampling, multicenter designs across border regions and emerging economies, as well as longitudinal and multi-source data collection, would strengthen causal inference and contextual validity. Finally, the integration of PLS-SEM with social network analysis (SNA) represents a promising methodological pathway for empirically mapping informal structures of leadership, recognition, and cohesion. Such approaches would enable the operationalization of organizational fragility proposed in this study and facilitate the development of models with enhanced explanatory and predictive precision. 5.5. Integrative Synthesis The findings demonstrate that organizations are not sustained solely through formal hierarchies but through networks of trust and reciprocity that structure everyday organizational functioning. Within the microenterprises of Aguas Verdes, Informal Leadership, Group Cohesion, and Informal Communication operate as foundational pillars of the socioemotional climate and of workplace well-being, empirically expressed through Job Satisfaction (R² = 0.513) (Horak & Suseno, 2023; Sendawula et al., 2023). Within this relational framework, socioemotional ties, everyday communication, and symbolic recognition practices emerge as strategic resources that sustain coordination and motivation in low-formalization contexts. At the same time, the concentration of these socioemotional functions highlights the dual nature of informal networks—enhancing organizational functioning while implying potential organizational vulnerability when stability depends on a limited set of central socioemotional ties—thereby reinforcing workplace well-being as a relational outcome of socioemotional architectures rather than formal organizational arrangements. 5.6. Implications for Microenterprise Owners and Managers The findings indicate that in low-formalization contexts, Job Satisfaction depends less on formal policies and more on the conscious management of the socioemotional network, which fulfills functions of coordination, recognition, and relational regulation. Based on these insights, three low-cost, high-impact actions are proposed: Mapping key socioemotional nodes. Identifying actors who concentrate coordination, integration, and recognition functions enables organizations to anticipate relational bottlenecks and reduce dependence on central ties. Distributing leadership and fostering relational redundancy. Rotating operational responsibilities and developing secondary leaders can mitigate fragility associated with informal centralization. Establishing everyday recognition micro-routines. Simple practices—such as explicit appreciation, brief feedback, and public acknowledgment—substitute for absent formal mechanisms and sustain motivation without additional financial costs. 6. Conclusion The study demonstrates that in microenterprises characterized by low levels of formalization, workplace well-being, as reflected in Job Satisfaction, is sustained primarily through socioemotional processes rather than formal hierarchical structures. Within the commercial microenterprises of Aguas Verdes, Informal Leadership functions as the central organizing force of the relational system, fostering Group Cohesion and Informal Communication, which in turn shape higher-quality Workplace Relationships and everyday recognition practices that explain Job Satisfaction as the core affective outcome. These findings confirm that informal networks play a structuring—rather than merely complementary—role in constructing the socioemotional climate. From a theoretical perspective, integrating Social Exchange Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the IMOI framework within a socioemotional governance model elucidates how informal inputs are channeled through affective mediators that culminate in workplace well-being as a relational outcome. Furthermore, the study advances the concept of organizational fragility rooted in informal networks, capturing the vulnerability arising from the concentration of leadership and recognition within a limited set of central socioemotional ties. From a practical standpoint, the findings suggest that managing workplace well-being in microenterprises depends less on formal policies and more on the conscious stewardship of existing socioemotional networks. Strengthening the role of informal leaders, mapping key relational nodes, distributing responsibilities, and fostering everyday non-monetary recognition micro-routines emerge as low-cost, high-impact strategies to reduce relational dependence and sustain high levels of workplace well-being. Complementing these informal dynamics with basic formal coordination mechanisms appears to be a promising pathway for enhancing workplace well-being, as captured through Job Satisfaction, in border regions and low-formalization organizational contexts. Taken together, the study advances an understanding of organizational sustainability in emerging economies through a socioemotional governance framework grounded in informal networks—positioning sustainability not merely as a structural challenge, but fundamentally as a relational phenomenon. Declarations We confirm that this study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the corresponding institutional ethics committee. All participants provided informed consent prior to their participation. The research was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for studies involving human subjects, ensuring confidentiality, voluntary participation, and data protection throughout the research process. References Ahmad, R., Nawaz, M. R., Ishaq, M. I., Khan, M. M., & Ashraf, H. A. (2023). Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions. Frontiers in Psychology , 13 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015921 Aljumah, A. (2023). The impact of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction: The mediating role of transactional leadership. Cogent Business & Management , 10 (3). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2270813 Amorim-Ribeiro, E. M. B., Neiva, E. R., Macambira, M. O., & Martins, L. F. (2022). Well-being at work in processes of organizational change: The role of informal social networks. RAM. Revista de Administração Mackenzie , 23 (1). https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eramg220125 Banco central de reservas del Perú. (2025). Caracterización del Departamento de Tumbes . https://www.bcrp.gob.pe/docs/Sucursales/Piura/tumbes-caracterizacion.pdf Begemann, V., Handke, L., & Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2024). Enabling and constraining factors of remote informal communication: a socio-technical systems perspective. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 29 (5). https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmae008 Black, P. W., Cecchini, M. S., & Newman, A. H. (2024). When being recognized makes employees feel less appreciated: Evidence regarding when and why peer-to-peer recognition could backfire. Accounting, Organizations and Society , 113 , 101565. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2024.101565 Blau, P. M. (2017). Exchange and Power in Social Life . Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643 Brennecke, J., Coutinho, J. A., Gilding, M., Lusher, D., & Schaffer, G. (2025). Invisible Iterations: How Formal and Informal Organization Shape Knowledge Networks for Coordination. Journal of Management Studies , 62 (2), 706–747. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13076 Bulińska-Stangrecka, H., & Bagieńska, A. (2021). The Role of Employee Relations in Shaping Job Satisfaction as an Element Promoting Positive Mental Health at Work in the Era of COVID-19. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health , 18 (4), 1903. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041903 Cai, Y. L. (2023). Strengthening perceptions of virtual team cohesiveness and effectiveness in new normal: A hyperpersonal communication theory perspective. Asian Business & Management , 22 (4), 1649–1682. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-023-00225-6 Carbonell, P., & Rodríguez Escudero, A. I. (2019). The Dark Side of Team Social Cohesion in NPD Team Boundary Spanning. Journal of Product Innovation Management , 36 (2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12473 Carron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., & Brawley, L. R. (1985). The Development of an Instrument to Assess Cohesion in Sport Teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. Journal of Sport Psychology , 7 (3), 244–266. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.7.3.244 Chen, J. K. C., & Sriphon, T. (2022). Authentic Leadership, Trust, and Social Exchange Relationships under the Influence of Leader Behavior. Sustainability , 14 (10), 5883. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14105883 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences . Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Cropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., & Hall, A. V. (2017). Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies. Academy of Management Annals , 11 (1), 479–516. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099 Denner, N., Koch, T., Viererbl, B., & Ernst, A. (2025). Feeling connected and informed through informal communication: a quantitative survey on the perceived functions of informal communication in organizations. Journal of Communication Management , 29 (1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-06-2024-0085 Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization. Business Research , 13 (1), 215–246. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7 Durrah, O. (2023). Do we need friendship in the workplace? The effect on innovative behavior and mediating role of psychological safety. Current Psychology , 42 (32), 28597–28610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03949-4 Eys, M., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2025). (Re)conceptualizing cohesion: A theoretical realignment and roadmap for future research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise , 81 , 102970. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102970 Flemington, A., Loughead, T. M., & Desrosiers, M. (2023). Assessing athlete leadership and cohesion using a social network analysis approach. Frontiers in Psychology , 14 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1050385 Geisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. Biometrika , 61 (1), 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.1.101 Gelfand, M. J., Gavrilets, S., & Nunn, N. (2024). Norm Dynamics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Social Norm Emergence, Persistence, and Change. Annual Review of Psychology , 75 (1), 341–378. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-013319 Georgiadou, A., & Syed, J. (2021). The interaction between gender and informal social networks: An East Asian perspective. Human Resource Management Journal , 31 (4), 995–1009. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12347 Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., & Ray, S. (2021). Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R . Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7 Hair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review , 31 (1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203 Hazzi, O., & Maldaon, I. (2015). A Pilot Study: Vital Methodological Issues. Verslas: Teorija Ir Praktika , 16 (1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2015.437 He, V. F., von Krogh, G., & Sirén, C. (2022). Expertise Diversity, Informal Leadership Hierarchy, and Team Knowledge Creation: A study of pharmaceutical research collaborations. Organization Studies , 43 (6), 907–930. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211026114 Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science , 43 (1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8 Holubčík, M., Soviar, J., Rechtorík, M., & Höhrová, P. (2025). Sustainable Development of Teamwork at the Organizational Level—Case Study of Slovakia. Sustainability , 17 (5), 2031. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17052031 Horak, S., Afiouni, F., Bian, Y., Ledeneva, A., Muratbekova-Touron, M., & Fey, C. F. (2020). Informal Networks: Dark Sides, Bright Sides, and Unexplored Dimensions. Management and Organization Review , 16 (3), 511–542. https://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2020.28 Horak, S., & Suseno, Y. (2023). Informal Networks, Informal Institutions, and Social Exclusion in the Workplace: Insights from Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations in Korea. Journal of Business Ethics , 186 (3), 633–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05244-5 Ilgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., & Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. Annual Review of Psychology , 56 (1), 517–543. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250 Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. (2025). Estructura Empresarial 2024 . https://www.inei.gob.pe/ Great Place to Work Institute. (2023). Trust Index™ Employee Survey . https://www.greatplacetowork.com Janiukštis, A., Kovaitė, K., Butvilas, T., & Šūmakaris, P. (2024). Impact of Organisational Climate on Employee Well-Being and Healthy Relationships at Work: A Case of Social Service Centres. Administrative Sciences , 14 (10), 237. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14100237 Jarrar, Y., Ammar, L., Nweke, G., Horoub, I., & Aderibigbe, A. (2025). Organizational communication satisfaction as a moderator between the big five personality traits and job satisfaction among employees in Nigeria. Frontiers in Psychology , 15 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1339305 Jin, X., Yang, D., Sun, W., & Xu, L. (2025). Building a Resilient Organization Through Informal Networks: Examining the Role of Individual, Structural, and Attitudinal Factors in Advice-Seeking Tie Formation. Systems , 13 (4), 245. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13040245 Khan, N. U., Wu, W., Saufi, R. B. A., Sabri, N. A. A., & Shah, A. A. (2021). Antecedents of Sustainable Performance in Manufacturing Organizations: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Sustainability , 13 (2), 897. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020897 Kock, N. (2015). Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM. International Journal of E-Collaboration , 11 (4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101 Leino, T. (2022). Informal Leadership: An Integrative View and Future Research. VAKKI Publications , 14 (1). https://doi.org/10.70484/vakki.149330 Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., & Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Human Resource Management Review , 21 (3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001 Lieb, M., Erim, Y., & Morawa, E. (2024). Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring team cohesion: the Erlangen Team Cohesion at Work Scale (ETC). BMC Psychology , 12 (1), 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01583-2 Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. Archives of Psychology , 140 , 1–55. https://legacy.voteview.com/pdf/Likert_1932.pdf Likert, R. (1961). New Patterns of Management . McGraw-Hill. Likert, R. (1976). El perfil organizacional . Editorial Trillas. Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and Organizational Climate . Harvard University Press. Litwin, G. H., & Stringer, R. A. (1984). Clima organizacional: la influencia del entorno en la motivación . Editorial Trillas. Liu, S., Summers, J. K., Guo, N., Li, X., & Wang, H. (2025). Political skill and informal leader emergence: The role of relationships, competence and outcome interdependence. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 98 (1). https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12560 Liu, T., & Zhang, G. (2025). Employee Leadership Emergence and His/Her Own Innovative Behavior: Role-Based Emotional Experience as Mediator. Behavioral Sciences , 15 (4), 443. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040443 Lütjens, D., & Felfe, J. (2025). Casual yet Crucial: How informal nonwork-related communication shapes transformational leadership in hybrid work environments. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology , 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2025.2560496 Manolache, M., & Epuran, G. (2023). The Mediating Impact of Goal–Role Clarity on the Relationship between Feedback–Seeking Behavior and Goal Orientations with Job Satisfaction Intrinsic Cognitions and Person–Organization Fit. Sustainability , 15 (17), 12776. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151712776 Martinović, B., & Verkuyten, M. (2024). Collective psychological ownership as a new angle for understanding group dynamics. European Review of Social Psychology , 35 (1), 123–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2231762 Matsson, A. (2024). How to Organize Silence at work: An Organizational Politics Perspective on Pragmatic Mistreatment at work. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal , 36 (4), 455–483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-023-09454-5 Maunz, L. A., & Glaser, J. (2024). Longitudinal dynamics of psychological need satisfaction, meaning in work, and burnout. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 150 , 103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.103971 Mayanja, S. S., Mutebi, H., & Isingoma, J. W. (2025). Entrepreneurial networking and sustainability of women-owned micro-enterprise performance: the mediating role of self-organization and entrepreneurial learning behaviors. IIMBG Journal of Sustainable Business and Innovation , 3 (1), 61–86. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSBI-08-2024-0039 Meinecke, A. L., & Handke, L. (2023). The meeting after the meeting: A conceptualization and process model. Organizational Psychology Review , 13 (4), 379–399. https://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221097409 Mohamed, M. A., Mohamud, F. A. S., Mohamud, I. H., & Farah, M. A. (2024). The influence of workplace relationships and job satisfaction of private universities in Mogadishu: employee performance as a mediator variable. Frontiers in Education , 9 . https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1485356 Muñoz, A. R., Vega-Díaz, M., & González-García, H. (2023). Team Cohesion Profiles: Influence on the Development of Mental Skills and Stress Management. Journal of Sports Science and Medicine , 637–644. https://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2023.637 Nyfoudi, M., Theodorakopoulos, N., Psychogios, A., & Dysvik, A. (2022). Tell it like it is in SME teams: Adverse working conditions, citizenship behaviour and the role of team information sharing in a turbulent economy. Economic and Industrial Democracy , 43 (2), 516–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X20925544 Oh, Y. (2023). Communication and Team Cohesion Moderate the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Athletic Performance. Sage Open , 13 (3). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231195196 Paredes-Saavedra, M., Vallejos, M., Huancahuire-Vega, S., Morales-García, W., & Geraldo-Campos, L. (2024). Work Team Effectiveness: Importance of Organizational Culture, Work Climate, Leadership, Creative Synergy, and Emotional Intelligence in University Employees. Administrative Sciences , 14 (11), 280. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14110280 Park, Y. S., Konge, L., & Artino, A. R. (2020). The Positivism Paradigm of Research. Academic Medicine , 95 (5), 690–694. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093 Pillemer, J., & Rothbard, N. P. (2018). Friends Without Benefits: Understanding the Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship. Academy of Management Review , 43 (4), 635–660. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0309 Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice (11th, Ed.). Wolters Kluwer. QuestionPro. (2023). Employee Engagement & Organizational Climate Survey Templates . QuestionPro, Inc. https://www.questionpro.com Rahi, S. (2017). Research Design and Methods: A Systematic Review of Research Paradigms, Sampling Issues and Instruments Development. International Journal of Economics & Management Sciences , 06 (02). https://doi.org/10.4172/2162-6359.1000403 Reiter-Palmon, R., Kennel, V., & Allen, J. A. (2021). Teams in Small Organizations: Conceptual, Methodological, and Practical Considerations. Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.530291 Ritter, M., Pritz, J., Morscheck, L., Baumann, E., & Boos, M. (2023). In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty. Frontiers in Psychology , 14 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1038262 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 61 , 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860 Sendawula, K., Kisubi, M. K., Najjinda, S., Nantale, H., & Kabbera, S. (2023). The efficacy of entrepreneurial networking and innovation in fostering the performance of small businesses in Uganda. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 12 (1), 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00358-0 Shmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., & Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. European Journal of Marketing , 53 (11), 2322–2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189 Song, T., Sun, L., Wang, J., & Li, C. (2025). Team internal social capital and entrepreneurial learning: a dual-path exploration in new venture teams. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications , 12 (1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04252-2 Steegh, R., Van De Voorde, K., & Paauwe, J. (2025). Understanding how agile teams reach effectiveness: A systematic literature review to take stock and look forward. Human Resource Management Review , 35 (1), 101056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101056 Stone, M. (1974). Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology , 36 (2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x Superintendencia Nacional de Aduanas y de Administración Tributaria. (2024). Características de la micro y pequeña empresa en el Perú . https://www.sunat.gob.pe/orientacion/mypes/caracteristicas-microPequenaEmpresa.html Sutiyoso, B. U., & Faedlulloh, D. (2024). Navigating social capital development through organisational citizenship behaviour in local government bureaucracy. Cogent Social Sciences , 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2386708 Thibault Landry, A., & Whillans, A. (2018). The Power of Workplace Rewards: Using Self-Determination Theory to Understand Why Reward Satisfaction Matters for Workers Around the World. Compensation & Benefits Review , 50 (3), 123–148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886368719840515 Urrila, L., Siiriäinen, A., Mäkelä, L., & Kangas, H. (2025). Sense of belonging in hybrid work settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 157 , 104096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2025.104096 Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A Review of Self-Determination Theory’s Basic Psychological Needs at Work. Journal of Management , 42 (5), 1195–1229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058 Vveinhardt, J., & Bendaraviciene, R. (2022). How Do Nepotism and Favouritism Affect Organisational Climate? Frontiers in Psychology , 12 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710140 Watanabe, K., Umemura, H., Mori, I., Amemiya, S., & Yamamoto, Y. (2024). Transforming informal communication in the urgent shift to teleworking: a case study in Japan. Frontiers in Communication , 9 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1361426 Yiming, L., Yan, L., & Jinsheng, Z. (2024). Effects of organizational climate on employee job satisfaction and psychological well-being: the role of technological influence in Chinese higher education. BMC Psychology , 12 (1), 536. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01992-3 Yoon, W., Jeong, J., & Park, K. W. (2021). Informal Network Structure and Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: An Empirical Study of a Korean Paint Manufacturing Company. Administrative Sciences , 11 (2), 52. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020052 Zagenczyk, T. J., & Powell, E. E. (2023). Social networks and citizenship behavior: The mediating effect of organizational identification. Human Resource Management , 62 (4), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22144 Zhu, E., Li, W., Zhao, C., & Wang, J. (2024). Promoting the Sustainable Development of Enterprises: Unraveling the Dual Impact of Informal Communication on Employee Affect and Problem-Solving Capabilities. Sustainability , 16 (13), 5710. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135710 Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Supplementary Files SupplementaryMaterial.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-8910068","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":593371063,"identity":"752fd595-1e04-4788-b05a-20dcfac93f2c","order_by":0,"name":"Richard Augusto Garavito Criollo","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2371-2014","institution":"Universidad Nacional de Tumbes","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Richard","middleName":"Augusto Garavito","lastName":"Criollo","suffix":""},{"id":593371064,"identity":"fd6d6f5f-88cf-409e-934a-cab129f05445","order_by":1,"name":"Gino Franklin Garavito Criollo","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2231-4997","institution":"Universidad Nacional de Tumbes","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gino","middleName":"Franklin Garavito","lastName":"Criollo","suffix":""},{"id":593371065,"identity":"848be909-e726-476b-8165-12f7df48902d","order_by":2,"name":"Sarita Cecilia Namuche Araujo","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5558-6219","institution":"Universidad Nacional de Tumbes","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Sarita","middleName":"Cecilia Namuche","lastName":"Araujo","suffix":""},{"id":593371066,"identity":"77be0eb2-4f76-416a-a6a3-4a9b78fa04a0","order_by":3,"name":"Augusto Oswaldo Benavides Medina","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3017-7945","institution":"Universidad Nacional de Tumbes","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Augusto","middleName":"Oswaldo Benavides","lastName":"Medina","suffix":""},{"id":593371067,"identity":"116301ab-53b5-4be5-bcfc-a6dd00e9fa61","order_by":4,"name":"Carlos Alberto Lamadrid Vela","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4011-3301","institution":"Universidad Nacional de Tumbes","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Carlos","middleName":"Alberto Lamadrid","lastName":"Vela","suffix":""},{"id":593371068,"identity":"8227d260-5831-4b6e-9021-dca7c07ad98b","order_by":5,"name":"Mariana Elizabeth Bustamante Chong","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5815-3267","institution":"Universidad Estatal del Sur de Manabi","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mariana","middleName":"Elizabeth Bustamante","lastName":"Chong","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2026-02-18 13:56:50","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":true,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":true,"humanSubjectConsent":true,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8910068/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8910068/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":103222339,"identity":"e2a103d3-91e6-48eb-a18b-231324e3d032","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-23 10:32:08","extension":"jpeg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":232532,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eConceptual Model of Socioemotional Governance and Workplace Well-Being\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage1.jpeg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8910068/v1/c2e8e186c2a51335e26a3701.jpeg"},{"id":103505612,"identity":"d74402f2-0740-477e-96eb-b0fbff75b6e4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-26 13:32:11","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":91354,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eEstimated Structural Model\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"floatimage2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8910068/v1/2115e7c4fd6f6fe52edfa9d1.png"},{"id":103222340,"identity":"71a918e3-173d-47c5-ad05-68bc2fccbf72","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-23 10:32:08","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":57398,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"SupplementaryMaterial.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-8910068/v1/a1ad4480a8538859919dfc0d.docx"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSocioemotional Governance and Workplace Well-Being in Border Microenterprises: The Role of Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"1. Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn emerging economies characterized by high levels of informality and flexible labor structures, interpersonal relationships frequently substitute for formal hierarchical mechanisms, giving rise to alternative forms of organizational coordination. Within microenterprises located in border regions, group cohesion and affective ties become strategic resources that sustain collective functioning when formal rules are weak or absent (Horak \u0026amp; Suseno, 2023; Sendawula et al., 2023). Examining how these dynamics shape Recognition/Motivation, Workplace Relationships, and workplace well-being, captured through Job Satisfaction, is essential for understanding organizational sustainability in low-formalization contexts such as Aguas Verdes, situated along the Peru\u0026ndash;Ecuador border.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the international level, similar patterns are observed across microenterprises in other emerging economies, where institutional fragility intensifies reliance on networks of trust and reciprocity as primary coordination mechanisms and sources of socioemotional well-being. These configurations position the Aguas Verdes case within broader global debates on precarious work, social capital, and organizational resilience under conditions of informality (Blau, 2017; Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eNevertheless, an empirical gap persists regarding the interplay between informal leadership, group cohesion, and informal communication in shaping the socioemotional climate of border microenterprises. In this study, the socioemotional climate is operationalized through Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation, while Informal Communication functions as the enabling socioemotional mechanism through which symbolic recognition is enacted, rather than recognition itself, thereby contributing to Job Satisfaction as the affective outcome of workplace well-being. In these contexts\u0026mdash;where socioemotional ties substitute formal hierarchies\u0026mdash;workplace well-being emerges from personal networks that may enhance cooperation while simultaneously fostering relational dependence and organizational vulnerability (Leino, 2022; Nyfoudi et al., 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a theoretical standpoint, prior literature has addressed informal networks, motivation, and the socioemotional climate in a fragmented manner, lacking a systematic integration of Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Input\u0026ndash;Mediator\u0026ndash;Output\u0026ndash;Input (IMOI) framework. In particular, limited attention has been devoted to explaining how socioemotional inputs\u0026mdash;namely Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion\u0026mdash; translate into Job Satisfaction as the affective outcome through mediating processes such as Informal Communication, Recognition/Motivation, and Workplace Relationships (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn response to this gap, the primary objective of this study is to examine the socioemotional mechanisms that explain Job Satisfaction in commercial microenterprises in the district of Aguas Verdes, using a structural model estimated with PLS-SEM.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThis study contributes to the literature on organizational behavior in emerging economies by proposing an integrative framework that explains how informal networks sustain workplace well-being as an affective organizational outcome in the absence of consolidated formal structures. Specifically, it introduces the concept of socioemotional governance and advances the efficiency\u0026ndash;fragility paradox, whereby informal networks may generate well-being by substituting hierarchical functions while simultaneously increasing organizational vulnerability when coordination and recognition become concentrated in a limited set of central ties. Furthermore, the study provides explanatory\u0026ndash;predictive empirical evidence through the use of PLS-SEM and out-of-sample validation via PLSpredict, thereby strengthening the methodological robustness of the proposed model.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRather than specifying informal networks as a separate latent variable, they are represented through cohesion-based relational clusters (Group Cohesion) and their enabling socioemotional mechanism (Informal Communication), which together capture the everyday coordination and socioemotional exchanges characteristic of low-formalization organizational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research question: How do Informal Leadership, Group Cohesion, and Informal Communication interact with the socioemotional climate\u0026mdash;operationalized through Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation\u0026mdash;to explain Job Satisfaction in low-formalization organizational contexts?\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"2. Theoretical Background","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.1. Theoretical Foundations for Organizational Dynamics\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eContemporary organizational dynamics integrate both formal and informal processes, in which employees simultaneously operate within structured hierarchies and interpersonal networks grounded in affinities and affective ties (Georgiadou \u0026amp; Syed, 2021; Horak et al., 2020; Horak \u0026amp; Suseno, 2023). In low-formalization contexts characterized by high interpersonal proximity\u0026mdash;such as border microenterprises\u0026mdash;these networks become central mechanisms for cooperation, cohesion, and organizational climate (Mayanja et al., 2025; Sendawula et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proposed model integrates three complementary theoretical frameworks: Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Input\u0026ndash;Mediator\u0026ndash;Output\u0026ndash;Input (IMOI) framework (Cropanzano et al., 2017; Ilgen et al., 2005; Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, 2020). From the SET perspective, Workplace Relationships are grounded in reciprocity and relational justice (Blau, 2017; Chen \u0026amp; Sriphon, 2022). SDT explains Job Satisfaction through the fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs, which are strengthened through recognition and trust (Aljumah, 2023; Manolache \u0026amp; Epuran, 2023; Maunz \u0026amp; Glaser, 2024). The IMOI framework conceptualizes organizations as dynamic systems in which social inputs\u0026mdash;such as leadership and cohesion\u0026mdash;activate socioemotional mediators that ultimately generate affective outcomes, including Job Satisfaction (Leino, 2022; Paredes-Saavedra et al., 2024; Steegh et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, these theoretical perspectives are integrated to explain how Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion mobilize communication, recognition, and workplace relational processes that ultimately culminate in workplace well-being.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.2. Socioemotional Processes and the Functioning of Informal Networks\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal networks emerge from shared affinities and frequent interpersonal interactions, particularly in organizational settings characterized by low levels of formalization (Durrah, 2023; Jin et al., 2025; Zagenczyk \u0026amp; Powell, 2023). In such contexts, they operate as spontaneous mechanisms of coordination and socioemotional support that shape cooperation and the organizational climate (Brennecke et al., 2025; Zhu et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese networks perform central functions related to emotional exchange, rapid information coordination, and the construction of collective identity, thereby strengthening psychological safety and a sense of belonging (Begemann et al., 2024; Cai, 2023; Gelfand et al., 2024). However, their nature is inherently ambivalent: while they foster cooperation, they may also generate relational closure, favoritism, and resistance to organizational change (Matsson, 2024; Nyfoudi et al., 2022; Vveinhardt \u0026amp; Bendaraviciene, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the IMOI perspective, informal networks can be interpreted as social inputs that activate socioemotional processes\u0026mdash;such as group cohesion, informal communication, and recognition/motivation\u0026mdash;which ultimately lead to Job Satisfaction (Amorim-Ribeiro et al., 2022; Ilgen et al., 2005). In the present study, these processes are operationalized as Group Cohesion, Informal Communication, and Recognition/Motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.3. Informal Leadership\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Leadership is defined as influence exercised in the absence of formal hierarchical authority, grounded in credibility, competence, and reciprocal relationships (He et al., 2022; Leino, 2022; Liu et al., 2025; Liu \u0026amp; Zhang, 2025). Empirically, it functions as a catalyst for Group Cohesion by connecting organizational members through fluid communication networks (Flemington et al., 2023; Yoon et al., 2021), while simultaneously holding the potential to reproduce informal power asymmetries (Brennecke et al., 2025; Jin et al., 2025; Pillemer \u0026amp; Rothbard, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin the IMOI framework, Informal Leadership represents the primary socioemotional input, mobilizing Group Cohesion and Informal Communication as key mechanisms that structure the organizational climate and ultimately shape Job Satisfaction (Ilgen et al., 2005; Steegh et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.4. Informal Communication\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Communication encompasses spontaneous exchanges occurring outside official channels that reduce uncertainty and facilitate day-to-day coordination (Begemann et al., 2024; Denner et al., 2025; Watanabe et al., 2024). Beyond its informational function, it operates as a symbolic resource that strengthens trust, relational justice, and interpersonal recognition (L\u0026uuml;tjens \u0026amp; Felfe, 2025; Meinecke \u0026amp; Handke, 2023; Urrila et al., 2025). Importantly, Informal Communication is not treated as recognition per se. Rather, it provides the relational infrastructure that enables recognition signals\u0026mdash;such as appreciation, validation, and informal feedback\u0026mdash;to be expressed and interpreted in everyday work interactions. Thus, Recognition/Motivation is modeled as an outcome of Informal Communication processes.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, informal communication consolidates workplace relationships and social capital through mutual support and emotional validation (Horak \u0026amp; Suseno, 2023; Song et al., 2025; Urrila et al., 2025). In low-formalization contexts, Informal Communication effectively substitutes formal feedback and recognition mechanisms.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.5. Group Cohesion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Cohesion refers to the force that binds members together through affective ties and commitment to shared goals (Mu\u0026ntilde;oz et al., 2023; Reiter-Palmon et al., 2021). It integrates both social and instrumental components (Carron et al., 1985; Eys \u0026amp; Beauchamp, 2025; Lieb et al., 2024) and functions as a socioemotional resource that promotes cooperation and relational stability (Holubč\u0026iacute;k et al., 2025; Oh, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the SET perspective, cohesion emerges from fair and reciprocal interactions, while within SDT it fulfills the fundamental need for relatedness (Ahmad et al., 2023; Van den Broeck et al., 2016). In border microenterprises, its affective dimension becomes particularly salient as a mechanism of everyday coordination and regulation. Importantly, in this study Group Cohesion is treated as a collective-level relational resource reflecting unity, shared identity, and group belonging, whereas Workplace Relationships refers to the functional quality of everyday interpersonal exchanges\u0026mdash;such as trust, clarity, and instrumental support\u0026mdash;that constitute the socioemotional climate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.6. Organizational Climate, Recognition, and Job Satisfaction\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe socioemotional climate, as a dimension of organizational climate, reflects shared perceptions regarding norms and relational patterns that structure employees\u0026rsquo; work experiences (Janiukštis et al., 2024; Yiming et al., 2024). In this study, the socioemotional climate is operationalized through Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation, which constitute its core relational components and are directly associated with workplace well-being, reflected in Job Satisfaction as a central affective outcome (Bulińska-Stangrecka \u0026amp; Bagieńska, 2021; Thibault Landry \u0026amp; Whillans, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsistent with the IMOI framework, Informal Communication is conceptualized as the enabling socioemotional mechanism through which everyday recognition is enacted in low-formalization contexts, rather than as a dimension of the socioemotional climate itself.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eDrawing on SET and SDT, Workplace Relationships reflect the structural quality of exchanges grounded in reciprocity and fairness (Cropanzano et al., 2017), whereas Recognition/Motivation fulfills fundamental needs for appreciation and belonging (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, 2020). In low-formalization environments, recognition is primarily constructed through daily interactions and Informal Communication (Horak \u0026amp; Suseno, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.7. Job Satisfaction as an Affective Outcome\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkplace well-being is conceptualized as an affective organizational outcome and is operationalized in this study through Job Satisfaction. Job Satisfaction reflects the emotional evaluation of one\u0026rsquo;s work experience (Jarrar et al., 2025; Mohamed et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom this perspective, workplace well-being is not understood as an exclusively structural condition, but rather as a relational state emerging from socioemotional processes through which Informal Leadership, Group Cohesion, Informal Communication, Recognition, and Workplace Relationships are articulated within low-formalization organizational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e2.8. Integrative Synthesis and Theoretical Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe proposed model integrates Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Input\u0026ndash;Mediator\u0026ndash;Output\u0026ndash;Input (IMOI) framework to offer a middle-range theoretical explanation of microenterprises in emerging economies characterized by low-formalization and everyday coordination grounded in interpersonal relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn this study, socioemotional governance is defined as the organizational pattern through which functions traditionally associated with formal hierarchy\u0026mdash;such as coordination, relational regulation, and recognition\u0026mdash;are performed by informal networks of trust, reciprocity, and interpersonal leadership in low-formalization contexts. Within this framework, Informal Leadership plays a structuring role by organizing, legitimizing, and regulating work dynamics in the absence of strong institutional mechanisms, while Group Cohesion transforms interpersonal proximity into effective cooperation and reduces relational uncertainty, although it may also foster group closure and exclusionary dynamics.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRather than specifying Informal Networks as a separate latent construct, the present model represents them through cohesion-based relational clusters (Group Cohesion) and their associated socioemotional mechanisms\u0026mdash;particularly Informal Communication\u0026mdash;which together capture the everyday functioning of informal relational structures in low-formalization contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsistent with the IMOI framework and the explanatory\u0026ndash;predictive objective of the study, a parsimonious specification of the structural model was prioritized, focusing on two primary mediating chains\u0026mdash;via Group Cohesion and via Informal Communication\u0026mdash;while avoiding the inclusion of potentially redundant direct paths (e.g., Cohesion \u0026rarr; Communication or Leadership \u0026rarr; Recognition/Motivation) in order to preserve theoretical interpretability and maximize the model\u0026rsquo;s predictive performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe model aligns with the efficiency\u0026ndash;fragility paradox, whereby the concentration of socioemotional functions within a limited set of central ties generates high relational efficiency\u0026mdash;manifested in enhanced cooperation, everyday recognition, and Job Satisfaction\u0026mdash;while simultaneously producing organizational vulnerability. In this study, organizational fragility is conceptualized as the susceptibility of organizational functioning and workplace well-being arising from the relational concentration of coordination and recognition in a reduced number of central actors. This fragility is advanced as a conceptual construct\u0026mdash;not empirically operationalized in the current model\u0026mdash;that opens a future research agenda oriented toward its measurement through social network analysis.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, Informal Communication is reconceptualized as the relational infrastructure through which symbolic recognition is enacted in day-to-day interactions: a micro-socioemotional mechanism that bridges the reciprocity principles articulated by Social Exchange Theory with the fulfillment of basic psychological needs described by Self-Determination Theory, functioning as an infrastructure of validation, belonging, and motivation in the absence of formal feedback and reward systems. Taken together, the model explains how microenterprises operating in low-formalization contexts generate workplace well-being through a relational architecture that simultaneously sustains organizational functioning while implying an inherent structural fragility.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e summarizes the dominant approaches in the literature and their principal limitations in low-formalization contexts, along with the theoretical contribution of the present study.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDominant Approaches in Prior Literature and the Theoretical Contribution of This Study\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical Domain\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eDominant Approach in Prior Literature\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimitations in Low-Formalization Contexts\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretical Contribution of This Study\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Leadership\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConceptualized as a complement to formal authority and a facilitator of coordination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAssumes the presence of formal hierarchies and institutionalized roles\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReconceptualizes Informal Leadership as a substitutive governance mechanism that organizes and regulates work in the absence of formal structures, with recognition processes unfolding indirectly through socioemotional mediators\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Cohesion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSocioemotional resource that enhances cooperation and performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eTreated as uniformly positive, overlooking relational risks\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntroduces the efficiency\u0026ndash;fragility paradox, showing that cohesion may generate well-being while simultaneously fostering relational dependence\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlternative channel for information exchange and coordination\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEmphasis on informational rather than socioemotional functions\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eReinterprets Informal Communication as the relational infrastructure through which everyday symbolic recognition is enacted, underpinning motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkplace Well-being / Job Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndividual outcome shaped by formal HR practices\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLimited applicability in low-formalization microenterprises\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePositions Job Satisfaction as a relational outcome emerging from a socioemotional architecture\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganizational models\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAnalytical separation between formal and informal structures\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFragmented treatment of networks, leadership, and climate\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIntegrates SET, SDT, and IMOI into a middle-range socioemotional governance framework\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote.\u003c/b\u003e The literature synthesis is grounded in Social Exchange Theory (SET), Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and the Input\u0026ndash;Mediator\u0026ndash;Output\u0026ndash;Input (IMOI) framework (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015; Shmueli et al., 2019). The \u0026ldquo;Theoretical Contribution of This Study\u0026rdquo; column reflects the authors\u0026rsquo; original conceptual advances.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eHypothesis Development\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH1\u003c/b\u003e. Informal Leadership positively influences Group Cohesion.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH2\u003c/b\u003e. Informal Leadership positively influences Informal Communication.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH3\u003c/b\u003e. Group Cohesion positively influences Workplace Relationships.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH4\u003c/b\u003e. Informal Communication positively influences Recognition/Motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH5\u003c/b\u003e. Workplace Relationships positively influence Job Satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eH6\u003c/b\u003e. Recognition/Motivation positively influences Job Satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure \u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e presents the study\u0026rsquo;s conceptual model, grounded in the integration of Social Exchange Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the IMOI framework. Informal Leadership functions as the exogenous variable directly influencing both Group Cohesion and Informal Communication. In turn, Group Cohesion strengthens Workplace Relationships, while Informal Communication enhances Recognition/Motivation. Job Satisfaction represents the final outcome of the model and is directly explained by Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this framework, workplace well-being is conceptualized as an affective state derived from the socioemotional mediators of the socioemotional climate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMini-glossary\u003c/b\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cul\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSocioemotional governance\u003c/b\u003e: an organizational pattern in which informal networks perform coordination, relational regulation, and everyday recognition functions in low-formalization contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eSocioemotional climate\u003c/b\u003e: the relational dimension of organizational climate, operationalized in this study through Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eWorkplace Well-being\u003c/b\u003e: a broad affective outcome reflected in this study through Job Satisfaction as its empirical indicator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eInformal Communication\u003c/b\u003e: spontaneous day-to-day exchanges that function as the relational infrastructure through which symbolic recognition (e.g., feedback, validation, appreciation) is enacted in low-formalization contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/ul\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"3. Methodology","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.1. Study Design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAn applied quantitative approach was adopted, employing a non-experimental, cross-sectional design with an explanatory\u0026ndash;predictive scope aimed at analyzing socioemotional mechanisms in commercial microenterprises in Aguas Verdes (Khan et al., 2021; Park et al., 2020; Rahi, 2017).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGiven the complexity of the proposed model\u0026mdash;including latent constructs, multiple mediations, and both explanatory and predictive objectives\u0026mdash;Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was employed as the analytical technique, as it is particularly suitable for interdependent models with moderate sample sizes (Hair et al., 2021). All analyses were conducted using SmartPLS version 4.0.9.6, with 5,000 bootstrap resamples and a 95% confidence level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.2. Population and Sample\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study included 450 employees from commercial microenterprises identified from the INEI business directory (2025) in Aguas Verdes (response rate\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;92.4%) and approached using non-probability convenience and snowball sampling techniques. Participants were required to have at least three months of tenure and to provide informed consent.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample size (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;450) exceeded the minimum criteria commonly recommended for PLS-SEM (e.g., the ten-times rule based on the maximum number of structural paths) and was further supported by an a priori statistical power analysis assuming α\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.05 and a medium effect size (f\u0026sup2; = 0.15), ensuring statistical power above 0.95 for detecting meaningful structural relationships (Hair et al., 2019, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe sample exhibited gender balance, a mean age of 39 years (SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;8.4), and a predominance of secondary education, consistent with the typical profile of border microenterprises engaged in retail trade and service activities (BCRP, 2025; INEI, 2025; SUNAT, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough statistical generalization was not pursued, the findings provide analytically transferable evidence to comparable microenterprise contexts in emerging economies characterized by low levels of formalization (Blau, 2017; Horak \u0026amp; Suseno, 2023; Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.3. Data Collection Instrument\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA structured questionnaire comprising 22 items was administered to measure Informal Leadership, Group Cohesion, Informal Communication, Recognition/Motivation, Workplace Relationships, and workplace well-being (operationalized as Job Satisfaction), using a five-point Likert-type scale (Likert, 1932). In this study, informal networks are understood as cohesion-based clusters within broader informal networks. The items were adapted from previously employed scales in the literature and from classical organizational climate frameworks (e. g., Litwin \u0026amp; Stringer, 1968), ensuring semantic equivalence and cultural relevance for the border context through translation, back-translation, and semantic validation procedures. Within Informal Communication, the feedback-related item captures informal feedback exchanges as communicative signals through which recognition may be conveyed, rather than recognition itself. Although some items may appear semantically close across Group Cohesion and Workplace Relationships (e.g., coworker support), they were retained to capture two conceptually distinct relational layers: Group Cohesion reflects collective belonging, unity, and shared identity, whereas Workplace Relationships captures the functional quality of day-to-day exchanges (e.g., trust, clarity, and instrumental support) within the socioemotional climate. As operational support, technical guidelines for questionnaire design were consulted (QuestionPro, 2023; Great Place to Work Institute, 2023) solely for wording clarity, item structure, and instrument organization, without these sources constituting theoretical or psychometric validation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eContent validity was assessed by three subject-matter experts (CVI\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.90; Polit \u0026amp; Beck, 2021). A pilot test (n\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;50) enabled item refinement. Reliability indicators were satisfactory (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α and ρA\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.80; Hazzi \u0026amp; Maldaon, 2015), and confirmatory analysis demonstrated factor loadings exceeding 0.70, with composite reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) meeting recommended thresholds (Henseler et al., 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.4. Procedure and Ethical Considerations\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eData were collected between April and September 2025 through face-to-face surveys. All participants provided informed consent, and anonymity and confidentiality were strictly ensured. Participation was voluntary, and respondents retained the right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequences.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and the guidelines of the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). The study involved an anonymous, minimal-risk survey with voluntary participation and informed consent. Therefore, according to the applicable institutional procedures for this study context, formal ethics committee review was not required.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e3.5. Data Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe model was estimated using PLS-SEM, assessing internal consistency reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, collinearity, explanatory power (R\u0026sup2;), effect sizes (f\u0026sup2;), descriptive model fit (SRMR, d_ULS), and predictive relevance (Q\u0026sup2;) (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015; Shmueli et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eOuter VIF values ranged from 1.34 to 2.86 (Table S2), indicating the absence of problematic indicator collinearity (Kock, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003ePredictive performance was evaluated using PLSpredict with 10-fold cross-validation, comparing the PLS-SEM model against a linear benchmark model. The PLS-SEM model showed generally lower or comparable prediction errors relative to the linear model benchmark (RMSE and MAE), supporting its out-of-sample predictive performance (Shmueli et al., 2019). In addition, an alternative model excluding the path from Workplace Relationships to Job Satisfaction was tested, resulting in a reduction in predictive relevance (ΔQ\u0026sup2; = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.052), thereby supporting the robustness of the proposed structural specification (Hair et al., 2021).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe procedure was executed with 10 repetitions, early stopping criteria, and a fixed random seed, ensuring stability and reproducibility of predictive results (Shmueli et al., 2019).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"4. Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe results of the PLS-SEM analysis are presented through the assessment of the measurement model, global model fit, the structural model, and predictive performance. All analyses were conducted using SmartPLS version 4.0.9.6 with 5,000 bootstrap resamples at a 95% confidence level.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.1. Measurement Model Assessment\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll constructs demonstrated adequate internal consistency reliability and convergent validity (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α, ρA, and CR\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.70; AVE\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.50), confirming metric consistency across the six dimensions (Hair et al., 2019) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e). Discriminant validity (HTMT\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.85) and the absence of multicollinearity (VIF\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;3.3) are reported in the supplementary material (Tables S1 and S2).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternal Consistency Reliability and Convergent Validity\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCronbach\u0026rsquo;s α\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eρA\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAVE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Cohesion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.848\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.887\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.895\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.681\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.729\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.759\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.827\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.545\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Leadership\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.871\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.914\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.919\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.791\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition/Motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.818\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.818\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.880\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.648\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkplace Relationships\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.874\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.879\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.923\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.799\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.811\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.817\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.876\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.641\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote.\u003c/b\u003e \u003cem\u003eAll constructs meet the criteria for internal consistency reliability (Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α, ρA, CR\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.70) and convergent validity (AVE\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.50).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.2. Global Model Fit\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eGlobal model fit was assessed using the SRMR and d_ULS indices for descriptive purposes, in line with the explanatory\u0026ndash;predictive orientation of the PLS-SEM approach (Henseler et al., 2015; Shmueli et al., 2019). Importantly, global fit measures in PLS-SEM are not considered decisive model evaluation criteria when the primary objective is explanation and prediction rather than exact model reproduction, particularly in complex models with multiple mediations and latent constructs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAccordingly, the main evaluation of the model focused on its explanatory and predictive performance, particularly through R\u0026sup2; values, effect sizes (f\u0026sup2;), and out-of-sample predictive relevance using Q\u0026sup2;predict and PLSpredict.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGlobal Model Fit Indices\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCriterion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSaturated Model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEstimated Model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.114\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.196\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ed_ULS\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e3.273\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.766\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eSRMR\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; d_ULS\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;unstandardized squared discrepancy. Global fit indices are reported for descriptive purposes. Consistent with the predictive orientation of PLS-SEM, model assessment prioritized explanatory power and out-of-sample predictive relevance. The elevated SRMR of the estimated model is interpreted as a methodological limitation associated with model complexity and chained mediations and is discussed in\u003c/em\u003e Section \u003cspan refid=\"Sec30\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5.4\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe elevated SRMR of the estimated model reflects its structural complexity, including multiple latent constructs and chained mediations. However, such deviations may also indicate partial model misspecification, constraints in the measurement model, or unobserved heterogeneity commonly observed in field data from low-formalization contexts. Prior PLS-SEM research shows that global fit indices tend to worsen as model complexity increases in explanatory\u0026ndash;predictive models, where prediction is prioritized over absolute fit (Hair et al., 2021; Henseler et al., 2015; Shmueli et al., 2019). Accordingly, the model was specified to capture socioemotional process chains rather than to optimize global fit.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.3. Structural Model Results\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll hypothesized relationships were statistically significant (p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001) and consistent with their theoretical directions (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e). Informal Leadership exhibited a strong effect on Group Cohesion (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.768) and a moderate effect on Informal Communication (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.347). Group Cohesion significantly influenced Workplace Relationships (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.726), while Informal Communication strengthened Recognition/Motivation (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.379), indicating that everyday interpersonal exchanges function as channels through which employees receive signals of appreciation, competence, and belonging that foster motivational outcomes consistent with Self-Determination Theory. Finally, Recognition/Motivation (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.550) and Workplace Relationships (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.223) positively predicted Job Satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe structural model explained 52.7% of the variance in Workplace Relationships (R\u0026sup2; = 0.527) and 51.3% of the variance in Job Satisfaction (R\u0026sup2; = 0.513), with medium to large effect sizes for the key relationships (Tables\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab5\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e5\u003c/span\u003e and \u003cspan refid=\"Tab6\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e6\u003c/span\u003e) and positive predictive relevance for all endogenous constructs (Q\u0026sup2; \u0026gt; 0). Notably, although the relationship between Workplace Relationships and Job Satisfaction was statistically significant, its effect size was small (f\u0026sup2; = 0.059), suggesting an incremental contribution relative to the central role of Recognition/Motivation as the primary predictor.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eStructural Path Coefficients (β, t-values, p-values)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eβ\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003et-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ep-value\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Leadership \u0026rarr; Group Cohesion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.768\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e53.022\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Leadership \u0026rarr; Informal Communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.347\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.202\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Cohesion \u0026rarr; Workplace Relationships\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.726\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e32.052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Communication \u0026rarr; Recognition/Motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.379\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e7.827\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition/Motivation \u0026rarr; Job Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.550\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.619\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkplace Relationships \u0026rarr; Job Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.223\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e5.511\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote. β\u003c/b\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cb\u003e=\u003c/b\u003e\u0026thinsp;\u003cem\u003estandardized coefficient; t\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;t-value; p\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;level of statistical significance (all relationships were significant at p\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.001).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab5\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 5\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoefficients of Determination (R\u0026sup2;)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndogenous Variable\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eR\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdjusted R\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Cohesion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.589\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.588\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.120\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.118\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition/Motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.143\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.141\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkplace Relationships\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.527\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.526\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.513\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.511\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote.\u003c/b\u003e \u003cem\u003eR\u0026sup2; values around 0.25/0.50/0.75 are often described as weak/moderate/substantial depending on the research context.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab6\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 6\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEffect Sizes (f\u0026sup2;)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"3\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRelationship\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ef\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Leadership \u0026rarr; Group Cohesion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.434\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLarge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Leadership \u0026rarr; Informal Communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.137\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedium\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Cohesion \u0026rarr; Workplace Relationships\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.116\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLarge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Communication \u0026rarr; Recognition/Motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.167\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMedium\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition/Motivation \u0026rarr; Job Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.357\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLarge\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkplace Relationships \u0026rarr; Job Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSmall\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"3\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote.\u003c/b\u003e \u003cem\u003ef\u0026sup2; = effect size; 0.02\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;small, 0.15\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;medium, 0.35\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;large (Cohen, 1988).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAs illustrated in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e, Informal Leadership functions as the central predictor, exerting significant indirect effects on Job Satisfaction through two primary mediating chains that structure the socioemotional climate: Informal Leadership \u0026rarr; Group Cohesion \u0026rarr; Workplace Relationships \u0026rarr; Job Satisfaction, and Informal Leadership \u0026rarr; Informal Communication \u0026rarr; Recognition/Motivation \u0026rarr; Job Satisfaction (Table S3).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec21\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.4. Predictive Performance and Model Comparison\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe PLSpredict procedure confirmed positive predictive relevance for all constructs (Q\u0026sup2;predict\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0), with stronger predictive capacity for Group Cohesion and Workplace Relationships and moderate levels for Informal Communication and Job Satisfaction (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison with a linear benchmark model indicated generally lower or comparable prediction errors (RMSE and MAE) for the PLS-SEM model, supporting its out-of-sample predictive performance (Shmueli et al., 2019) (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab8\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e8\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAdditionally, removing the path from Workplace Relationships to Job Satisfaction substantially reduced predictive relevance (ΔQ\u0026sup2; = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.052), thereby validating the specification of the baseline model (Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab9\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e9\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab7\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 7\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePredictive Performance (PLSpredict \u0026ndash; Baseline Model)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ\u0026sup2;predict\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRMSE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMAE\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Cohesion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.586\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.646\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.471\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.111\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.949\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.740\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition/Motivation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.143\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.930\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.753\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkplace Relationships\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.464\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.735\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.585\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.111\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.948\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.785\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote\u003c/b\u003e. \u003cem\u003eQ\u0026sup2;predict\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;predictive relevance (Geisser, 1974; Stone, 1974); RMSE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;root mean squared error; MAE\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;mean absolute error. Construct-level values represent the mean across indicators. Job Satisfaction represents the affective indicator of workplace well-being in the model.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab8\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 8\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePredictive Performance of the Model (PLSpredict \u0026ndash; Summary)\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEndogenous Construct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ\u0026sup2;predict (Range)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eRMSE (PLS vs. LM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMAE (PLS vs. LM)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Cohesion\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.153\u0026ndash;0.749\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePLS\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;LM (majority of indicators)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePLS\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;LM (majority of indicators)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate to high predictive performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Communication\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.027\u0026ndash;0.206\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePLS\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;LM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePLS\u0026thinsp;\u0026asymp;\u0026thinsp;LM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eModerate predictive performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eWorkplace Relationships\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.280\u0026ndash;0.425\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePLS\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;LM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePLS\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;LM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eGood predictive performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.009\u0026ndash;0.134\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePLS\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;LM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePLS\u0026thinsp;\u0026le;\u0026thinsp;LM\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLow to moderate predictive performance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote.\u003c/b\u003e \u003cem\u003eQ\u0026sup2;predict values greater than zero indicate out-of-sample predictive relevance. Predictive performance was assessed by comparing the PLS-SEM model with a linear benchmark model (LM) and a na\u0026iuml;ve model, following\u003c/em\u003e Shmueli et al. (2019). \u003cem\u003eRanges refer to indicator-level Q\u0026sup2;predict values, whereas\u003c/em\u003e Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab7\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e7\u003c/span\u003e \u003cem\u003ereports construct-level mean values. Job Satisfaction is used as the empirical indicator of workplace well-being.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab9\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 9\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eComparison Between the Baseline Model and the Alternative Model\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"5\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eConstruct\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ\u0026sup2;predict \u0026ndash; Baseline\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eQ\u0026sup2;predict \u0026ndash; Alternative\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eΔQ\u0026sup2;\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInterpretation\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eJob Satisfaction\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.111\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.059\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026ndash;0.052\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSubstantial reduction in predictive relevance\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"5\"\u003e\u003cb\u003eNote.\u003c/b\u003e \u003cem\u003eQ\u0026sup2;predict\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;predictive relevance; ΔQ\u0026sup2; = difference between models. Detailed cross-validation results are provided in the supplementary material (Table S4).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec22\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e4.5. Synthesis of Findings\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOverall, the results confirm the theoretical and empirical coherence of the socioemotional model. Informal Leadership fosters Group Cohesion and Informal Communication, which in turn strengthen Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation, thereby shaping the socioemotional climate (operationalized through Workplace Relationships and Recognition/Motivation) that ultimately explains Job Satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"5. Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe structural model results indicate that, within microenterprises characterized by low levels of formalization, workplace well-being, captured through Job Satisfaction (R\u0026sup2; = 0.513), is primarily shaped through interpersonal relationships rather than formal hierarchical structures. The model\u0026rsquo;s high explanatory power underscores the central role of socioemotional mediators in such organizational contexts. The direct and indirect effects allow organizational functioning to be interpreted as a system of socioemotional governance, in which Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion operate as key inputs that activate socioemotional mechanisms\u0026mdash;namely Informal Communication, Recognition/Motivation, and Workplace Relationships\u0026mdash;that substitute for functions traditionally performed by formal organizational structures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThese results indicate substantial explanatory power for Job Satisfaction, supporting the relevance of socioemotional governance mechanisms in low-formalization contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Leadership emerges as the core organizing force within this relational architecture, while mediating processes account Job Satisfaction as the primary affective outcome. At the same time, the concentration of socioemotional functions within a limited set of central ties may introduce risks of organizational fragility by implying potential organizational vulnerability arising from relational dependence in contexts marked by weak formal regulation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.1. Interpretation of Findings and Theoretical Coherence\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings are interpreted through three central contributions: socioemotional governance as a substitutive mechanism for formal hierarchy, the efficiency\u0026ndash;fragility paradox of informal networks, and Informal Communication as symbolic recognition.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eInformal Leadership and Group Cohesion emerge as the primary socioemotional inputs within the relational system, activating communication and recognition processes that strengthen Workplace Relationships and explain a substantial proportion of variance in Job Satisfaction. This pattern confirms that, in low-formalization contexts, informal ties perform structuring functions within organizational functioning (Horak \u0026amp; Suseno, 2023; Leino, 2022; Sendawula et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the model specifies directional relationships consistent with the IMOI framework, these should be interpreted as theory-consistent structural associations rather than strict causal inferences, given the cross-sectional nature of the study design.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this framework, the results support the existence of an efficiency\u0026ndash;fragility paradox in organizations grounded in informal networks, as the pattern of strong and centralized structural paths\u0026mdash;particularly Informal Leadership \u0026rarr; Group Cohesion, Group Cohesion \u0026rarr; Workplace Relationships, and Recognition/Motivation \u0026rarr; Job Satisfaction\u0026mdash;reveals a functional concentration of coordination and recognition processes within a limited set of socioemotional ties. While these concentrated relational mechanisms enhance cooperation and workplace well-being, they simultaneously suggest a relational pattern consistent with potential organizational vulnerability when stability depends on a reduced number of central socioemotional actors.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Cohesion operates as a key integrative mechanism linking individual and collective dynamics, promoting cooperation and emotional stability, while also potentially reinforcing relational closure, consistent with its inherently ambivalent nature (Gelfand et al., 2024; Martinović \u0026amp; Verkuyten, 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough the present model focused on the socioemotional mechanisms that explain workplace well-being as reflected in Job Satisfaction without directly measuring dysfunctional outcomes of informal networks, prior literature suggests that high levels of cohesion and relational centralization may also facilitate group closure, exclusionary processes, and resistance to organizational change.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom the perspective of Social Exchange Theory (SET), the legitimacy of Informal Leadership is grounded in reciprocity, relational justice, and trust (Blau, 2017; Cropanzano et al., 2017), enabling everyday coordination in the absence of formal hierarchies. Consistent with the IMOI framework, these inputs activate key socioemotional mediators, as evidenced by the relationship between Informal Leadership and Informal Communication (Begemann et al., 2024; Horak \u0026amp; Suseno, 2023; Ilgen et al., 2005).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the association between Informal Communication and Recognition/Motivation supports Self-Determination Theory (SDT), by demonstrating that everyday interpersonal exchanges enable employees to receive symbolic signals of competence, appreciation, and social belonging, thereby strengthening intrinsic motivation in the absence of formal recognition systems (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, 2020). Through these micro-level interactions, Informal Communication functions as the relational infrastructure that transforms social exchange into motivational resources.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eGroup Cohesion directly enhances the quality of Workplace Relationships, fostering stability and commitment, while simultaneously possessing the potential to intensify relational dependence when recognition becomes concentrated among a limited number of central actors (Gelfand et al., 2024; Nyfoudi et al., 2022; Vveinhardt \u0026amp; Bendaraviciene, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eComplementarily, Recognition/Motivation consolidate as the central predictors of Job Satisfaction (Black et al., 2024; Mohamed et al., 2024).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRecognition/Motivation emerged as the most influential predictor of Job Satisfaction (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.550), supporting the core propositions of Self-Determination Theory by demonstrating that everyday interpersonal appreciation fulfills fundamental psychological needs related to competence, belonging, and social relatedness. In low-formalization contexts\u0026mdash;where formal reward systems are limited or absent\u0026mdash;these symbolic recognition practices assume a pivotal role in regulating Job Satisfaction as the affective outcome, reinforcing intrinsic motivation and socioemotional stability among employees.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the findings reinforce the theoretical relevance of the concept of organizational fragility rooted in informal networks, indicating that coordination, recognition, and Job Satisfaction tend to become concentrated within central socioemotional ties. This configuration aligns with the efficiency\u0026ndash;fragility paradox, whereby the same networks that generate cooperation and Job Satisfaction may also increase vulnerability when organizational stability depends on a limited set of key actors (Brennecke et al., 2025; Carbonell \u0026amp; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez Escudero, 2019; Jin et al., 2025). When such ties weaken\u0026mdash;due to conflict, absence, or turnover\u0026mdash;the relational architecture sustaining the organization\u0026rsquo;s socioemotional climate becomes unstable, thereby constraining organizational sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.2. Comparison With Prior Studies and Empirical Contributions\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn contrast to studies on Informal Leadership in highly formalized organizations\u0026mdash;where it typically functions as a complement to hierarchical authority (He et al., 2022; Yoon et al., 2021)\u0026mdash;the present findings indicate that in low-formalization microenterprises, Informal Leadership assumes a structural role in coordination and relational regulation. While this pattern aligns with prior evidence reported by Brennecke et al. (2025) and Leino (2022), the study extends empirical knowledge by examining a previously underexplored border context, where institutional absence intensifies organizational dependence on informal networks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eRegarding Informal Communication, previous research has primarily emphasized its operational and informational functions (Meinecke \u0026amp; Handke, 2023; Watanabe et al., 2024); however, the present results demonstrate that in structurally informal environments, Informal Communication operates predominantly as a socioemotional mechanism of symbolic recognition. This finding extends the work of Song et al. (2025) and Sutiyoso \u0026amp; Faedlulloh (2024), by positioning communication as a central driver of workplace well-being, empirically expressed through Job Satisfaction, in the absence of formal human resource management systems.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith respect to Group Cohesion, the study confirms its ambivalent nature\u0026mdash;simultaneously facilitating cooperation and belonging while also fostering relational rigidity and exclusion\u0026mdash;consistent with prior research (Nyfoudi et al.,2022; Vveinhardt \u0026amp; Bendaraviciene, 2022). The empirical contribution lies in demonstrating that this ambivalence becomes intensified in border microenterprises, where interpersonal proximity and weak institutional regulation amplify both the benefits and risks associated with cohesive informal networks.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3. Theoretical and Practical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec27\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3.1. Theoretical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings enable the integration of Social Exchange Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the IMOI framework into a socioemotional governance model, demonstrating how informal inputs activate relational mediators that explain Job Satisfaction as the affective outcome, in low-formalization contexts. This integration extends research on organizational resilience by positioning well-being as an outcome of relational architectures rather than formal structural arrangements (Duchek, 2020; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe reconceptualization of Informal Communication as symbolic recognition bridges the relational reciprocity emphasized by SET with the fulfillment of basic psychological needs proposed by SDT, offering a more precise explanation of motivation in the absence of institutionalized recognition systems. This perspective aligns with emerging evidence highlighting the role of everyday interpersonal interactions in shaping workplace well-being within structurally informal environments (Ryan \u0026amp; Deci, 2020; Song et al., 2025; Thibault Landry \u0026amp; Whillans, 2018).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFurthermore, the efficiency\u0026ndash;fragility paradox contributes to organizational resilience debates by revealing that informal networks facilitating coordination and well-being may simultaneously increase vulnerability when socioemotional power becomes relationally concentrated, consistent with prior research on relational centralization and organizational fragility (Brennecke et al., 2025; Duchek, 2020; Lengnick-Hall et al., 2011; Ritter et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec28\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3.2. Practical Implications\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe practical implications emerge directly from the empirical findings and underscore the importance of consciously managing informal networks in low-formalization contexts (Horak \u0026amp; Suseno, 2023; Sendawula et al., 2023). Specifically, organizations are encouraged to identify key socioemotional nodes, distribute leadership roles to reduce relational dependence, and promote everyday micro-routines of recognition that substitute for absent formal practices and sustain Job Satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec29\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.3.3. Organizational Fragility as an Emerging Conceptual Construct\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eOrganizational fragility rooted in informal networks is conceptualized as a condition arising from the relational concentration of leadership, recognition, and coordination functions. This configuration suggests a relational pattern consistent with potential organizational fragility, in which organizational stability depends primarily on central socioemotional ties rather than on consolidated formal structures.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings reveal a concentration of coordination and recognition processes among a limited number of key relational actors, a pattern theoretically associated with organizational vulnerability in low-formalization contexts, increasing the organizational system\u0026rsquo;s sensitivity to conflict, absence, or turnover. This pattern is consistent with prior research on relational centralization and organizational fragility dynamics in informal organizational settings (Brennecke et al., 2025; Duchek, 2020; Jin et al., 2025).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAlthough organizational fragility was not empirically operationalized within the present structural model, its conceptual development is directly motivated by the observed concentration of explanatory power along a limited number of socioemotional paths within the structural model. This formulation opens a future research agenda aimed at constructing indicators of relational dependence, exposure to the loss of central actors, and the intensity of socioemotional tensions.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eConsistent with the explanatory\u0026ndash;predictive orientation of PLS-SEM, global model fit indices were interpreted descriptively, with primary emphasis placed on explanatory power and out-of-sample predictive relevance as the core model evaluation criteria.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec30\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.4. Limitations and Future Research\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe present study is subject to limitations inherent to its research design and empirical context. First, the cross-sectional approach and reliance on self-reported measures restrict causal inference and may introduce perceptual bias, despite procedural remedies implemented to ensure anonymity and mitigate common method effects. In addition, the use of non-probability sampling concentrated within a single border district limits statistical generalizability; accordingly, the findings should be interpreted as analytically transferable evidence to organizational contexts characterized by similar low-formalization conditions. Although discriminant validity met recommended thresholds (HTMT\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.85), partial conceptual proximity between Group Cohesion and Workplace Relationships may exist because both reflect relational content in small-group contexts; however, the constructs were theoretically distinguished as collective identity and shared belonging (Group Cohesion) versus functional relational quality (Workplace Relationships), and future studies should further refine item wording to strengthen construct separation.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWith respect to global model fit, the SRMR and d_ULS values reflect the methodological tension between absolute fit criteria and the explanatory\u0026ndash;predictive orientation of the PLS-SEM approach. While the SRMR of the saturated model falls within ranges reported for complex models, the SRMR of the estimated model exceeds conventional cutoff values (Henseler et al., 2015; Shmueli et al., 2019), likely due to the structural complexity of the model involving multiple latent constructs and chained mediations. Nevertheless, elevated fit indices may also signal partial model misspecification or measurement constraints inherent to socioemotional constructs in field-based research. Consistent with the study\u0026rsquo;s objectives, model evaluation prioritized explanatory and predictive indicators\u0026mdash;R\u0026sup2; values, effect sizes (f\u0026sup2;), predictive relevance (Q\u0026sup2;), and out-of-sample validation through PLSpredict\u0026mdash;which demonstrated substantial model performance.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eImportantly, when a more parsimonious alternative model was tested by removing one mediating path, global fit marginally improved while predictive relevance for Job Satisfaction substantially decreased (ΔQ\u0026sup2; = \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;0.052). This trade-off supports the retention of the theoretically grounded mediated structure, reinforcing the prioritization of explanatory and predictive performance over absolute fit optimization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoreover, the present study focused on socioemotional modeling using PLS-SEM without incorporating explicit relational structure metrics. Although organizational fragility was not directly operationalized within the current model, the observed structural patterns underscore the need for future research integrating PLS-SEM with social network analysis (SNA) to empirically assess relational centralization and its implications for organizational sustainability.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFuture studies may further examine the robustness of the proposed framework through more parsimonious model specifications, complementary approaches based on covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), or hybrid modeling strategies, thereby testing global fit behavior across alternative analytical configurations.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn addition, expanding the empirical scope through probabilistic sampling, multicenter designs across border regions and emerging economies, as well as longitudinal and multi-source data collection, would strengthen causal inference and contextual validity.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFinally, the integration of PLS-SEM with social network analysis (SNA) represents a promising methodological pathway for empirically mapping informal structures of leadership, recognition, and cohesion. Such approaches would enable the operationalization of organizational fragility proposed in this study and facilitate the development of models with enhanced explanatory and predictive precision.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec31\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.5. Integrative Synthesis\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings demonstrate that organizations are not sustained solely through formal hierarchies but through networks of trust and reciprocity that structure everyday organizational functioning. Within the microenterprises of Aguas Verdes, Informal Leadership, Group Cohesion, and Informal Communication operate as foundational pillars of the socioemotional climate and of workplace well-being, empirically expressed through Job Satisfaction (R\u0026sup2; = 0.513) (Horak \u0026amp; Suseno, 2023; Sendawula et al., 2023).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWithin this relational framework, socioemotional ties, everyday communication, and symbolic recognition practices emerge as strategic resources that sustain coordination and motivation in low-formalization contexts. At the same time, the concentration of these socioemotional functions highlights the dual nature of informal networks\u0026mdash;enhancing organizational functioning while implying potential organizational vulnerability when stability depends on a limited set of central socioemotional ties\u0026mdash;thereby reinforcing workplace well-being as a relational outcome of socioemotional architectures rather than formal organizational arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec32\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003e5.6. Implications for Microenterprise Owners and Managers\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe findings indicate that in low-formalization contexts, Job Satisfaction depends less on formal policies and more on the conscious management of the socioemotional network, which fulfills functions of coordination, recognition, and relational regulation. Based on these insights, three low-cost, high-impact actions are proposed:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003col\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eMapping key socioemotional nodes.\u003c/b\u003e Identifying actors who concentrate coordination, integration, and recognition functions enables organizations to anticipate relational bottlenecks and reduce dependence on central ties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eDistributing leadership and fostering relational redundancy.\u003c/b\u003e Rotating operational responsibilities and developing secondary leaders can mitigate fragility associated with informal centralization.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003cspan\u003e \u003cli\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cb\u003eEstablishing everyday recognition micro-routines.\u003c/b\u003e Simple practices\u0026mdash;such as explicit appreciation, brief feedback, and public acknowledgment\u0026mdash;substitute for absent formal mechanisms and sustain motivation without additional financial costs.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/li\u003e \u003c/span\u003e \u003c/ol\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"6. Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThe study demonstrates that in microenterprises characterized by low levels of formalization, workplace well-being, as reflected in Job Satisfaction, is sustained primarily through socioemotional processes rather than formal hierarchical structures. Within the commercial microenterprises of Aguas Verdes, Informal Leadership functions as the central organizing force of the relational system, fostering Group Cohesion and Informal Communication, which in turn shape higher-quality Workplace Relationships and everyday recognition practices that explain Job Satisfaction as the core affective outcome. These findings confirm that informal networks play a structuring\u0026mdash;rather than merely complementary\u0026mdash;role in constructing the socioemotional climate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a theoretical perspective, integrating Social Exchange Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the IMOI framework within a socioemotional governance model elucidates how informal inputs are channeled through affective mediators that culminate in workplace well-being as a relational outcome. Furthermore, the study advances the concept of organizational fragility rooted in informal networks, capturing the vulnerability arising from the concentration of leadership and recognition within a limited set of central socioemotional ties.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFrom a practical standpoint, the findings suggest that managing workplace well-being in microenterprises depends less on formal policies and more on the conscious stewardship of existing socioemotional networks. Strengthening the role of informal leaders, mapping key relational nodes, distributing responsibilities, and fostering everyday non-monetary recognition micro-routines emerge as low-cost, high-impact strategies to reduce relational dependence and sustain high levels of workplace well-being. Complementing these informal dynamics with basic formal coordination mechanisms appears to be a promising pathway for enhancing workplace well-being, as captured through Job Satisfaction, in border regions and low-formalization organizational contexts.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTaken together, the study advances an understanding of organizational sustainability in emerging economies through a socioemotional governance framework grounded in informal networks\u0026mdash;positioning sustainability not merely as a structural challenge, but fundamentally as a relational phenomenon.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003eWe confirm that this study involving human participants was reviewed and approved by the corresponding institutional ethics committee. All participants provided informed consent prior to their participation. The research was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for studies involving human subjects, ensuring confidentiality, voluntary participation, and data protection throughout the research process.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003cp\u003eAhmad, R., Nawaz, M. R., Ishaq, M. I., Khan, M. M., \u0026amp; Ashraf, H. A. (2023). Social exchange theory: Systematic review and future directions. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015921\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015921\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAljumah, A. (2023). The impact of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation on job satisfaction: The mediating role of transactional leadership. \u003cem\u003eCogent Business \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2023.2270813\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/23311975.2023.2270813\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAmorim-Ribeiro, E. M. B., Neiva, E. R., Macambira, M. O., \u0026amp; Martins, L. F. (2022). Well-being at work in processes of organizational change: The role of informal social networks. \u003cem\u003eRAM. Revista de Administra\u0026ccedil;\u0026atilde;o Mackenzie\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e23\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eramg220125\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1590/1678-6971/eramg220125\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBanco central de reservas del Per\u0026uacute;. (2025). \u003cem\u003eCaracterizaci\u0026oacute;n del Departamento de Tumbes\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.bcrp.gob.pe/docs/Sucursales/Piura/tumbes-caracterizacion.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.bcrp.gob.pe/docs/Sucursales/Piura/tumbes-caracterizacion.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBegemann, V., Handke, L., \u0026amp; Lehmann-Willenbrock, N. (2024). Enabling and constraining factors of remote informal communication: a socio-technical systems perspective. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Computer-Mediated Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(5). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmae008\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/jcmc/zmae008\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBlack, P. W., Cecchini, M. S., \u0026amp; Newman, A. H. (2024). When being recognized makes employees feel less appreciated: Evidence regarding when and why peer-to-peer recognition could backfire. \u003cem\u003eAccounting, Organizations and Society\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e113\u003c/em\u003e, 101565. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.aos.2024.101565\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.aos.2024.101565\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBlau, P. M. (2017). \u003cem\u003eExchange and Power in Social Life\u003c/em\u003e. Routledge. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4324/9780203792643\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4324/9780203792643\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBrennecke, J., Coutinho, J. A., Gilding, M., Lusher, D., \u0026amp; Schaffer, G. (2025). Invisible Iterations: How Formal and Informal Organization Shape Knowledge Networks for Coordination. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(2), 706\u0026ndash;747. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/joms.13076\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/joms.13076\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBulińska-Stangrecka, H., \u0026amp; Bagieńska, A. (2021). The Role of Employee Relations in Shaping Job Satisfaction as an Element Promoting Positive Mental Health at Work in the Era of COVID-19. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e18\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1903. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18041903\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/ijerph18041903\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCai, Y. L. (2023). Strengthening perceptions of virtual team cohesiveness and effectiveness in new normal: A hyperpersonal communication theory perspective. \u003cem\u003eAsian Business \u0026amp; Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e22\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1649\u0026ndash;1682. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41291-023-00225-6\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/s41291-023-00225-6\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCarbonell, P., \u0026amp; Rodr\u0026iacute;guez Escudero, A. I. (2019). The Dark Side of Team Social Cohesion in NPD Team Boundary Spanning. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Product Innovation Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 149\u0026ndash;171. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12473\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/jpim.12473\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCarron, A. V., Widmeyer, W. N., \u0026amp; Brawley, L. R. (1985). The Development of an Instrument to Assess Cohesion in Sport Teams: The Group Environment Questionnaire. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Sport Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 244\u0026ndash;266. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1123/jsp.7.3.244\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1123/jsp.7.3.244\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eChen, J. K. C., \u0026amp; Sriphon, T. (2022). Authentic Leadership, Trust, and Social Exchange Relationships under the Influence of Leader Behavior. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(10), 5883. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su14105883\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su14105883\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCohen, J. (1988). \u003cem\u003eStatistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eCropanzano, R., Anthony, E. L., Daniels, S. R., \u0026amp; Hall, A. V. (2017). Social Exchange Theory: A Critical Review with Theoretical Remedies. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Annals\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(1), 479\u0026ndash;516. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2015.0099\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/annals.2015.0099\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDenner, N., Koch, T., Viererbl, B., \u0026amp; Ernst, A. (2025). Feeling connected and informed through informal communication: a quantitative survey on the perceived functions of informal communication in organizations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Communication Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e29\u003c/em\u003e(1), 71\u0026ndash;93. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-06-2024-0085\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/JCOM-06-2024-0085\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDuchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization. \u003cem\u003eBusiness Research\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(1), 215\u0026ndash;246. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDurrah, O. (2023). Do we need friendship in the workplace? The effect on innovative behavior and mediating role of psychological safety. \u003cem\u003eCurrent Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(32), 28597\u0026ndash;28610. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03949-4\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s12144-022-03949-4\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEys, M., \u0026amp; Beauchamp, M. R. (2025). (Re)conceptualizing cohesion: A theoretical realignment and roadmap for future research. \u003cem\u003ePsychology of Sport and Exercise\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e81\u003c/em\u003e, 102970. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102970\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.psychsport.2025.102970\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFlemington, A., Loughead, T. M., \u0026amp; Desrosiers, M. (2023). Assessing athlete leadership and cohesion using a social network analysis approach. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1050385\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1050385\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGeisser, S. (1974). A predictive approach to the random effect model. \u003cem\u003eBiometrika\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e(1), 101\u0026ndash;107. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/61.1.101\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1093/biomet/61.1.101\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGelfand, M. J., Gavrilets, S., \u0026amp; Nunn, N. (2024). Norm Dynamics: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Social Norm Emergence, Persistence, and Change. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e75\u003c/em\u003e(1), 341\u0026ndash;378. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-013319\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev-psych-033020-013319\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGeorgiadou, A., \u0026amp; Syed, J. (2021). The interaction between gender and informal social networks: An East Asian perspective. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(4), 995\u0026ndash;1009. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12347\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/1748-8583.12347\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., \u0026amp; Ray, S. (2021). \u003cem\u003ePartial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using R\u003c/em\u003e. Springer International Publishing. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHair, J. F., Risher, J. J., Sarstedt, M., \u0026amp; Ringle, C. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Business Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e31\u003c/em\u003e(1), 2\u0026ndash;24. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHazzi, O., \u0026amp; Maldaon, I. (2015). A Pilot Study: Vital Methodological Issues. \u003cem\u003eVerslas: Teorija Ir Praktika\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(1), 53\u0026ndash;62. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3846/btp.2015.437\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3846/btp.2015.437\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHe, V. F., von Krogh, G., \u0026amp; Sir\u0026eacute;n, C. (2022). Expertise Diversity, Informal Leadership Hierarchy, and Team Knowledge Creation: A study of pharmaceutical research collaborations. \u003cem\u003eOrganization Studies\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(6), 907\u0026ndash;930. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/01708406211026114\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/01708406211026114\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHenseler, J., Ringle, C. M., \u0026amp; Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Academy of Marketing Science\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(1), 115\u0026ndash;135. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHolubč\u0026iacute;k, M., Soviar, J., Rechtor\u0026iacute;k, M., \u0026amp; H\u0026ouml;hrov\u0026aacute;, P. (2025). Sustainable Development of Teamwork at the Organizational Level\u0026mdash;Case Study of Slovakia. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e17\u003c/em\u003e(5), 2031. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su17052031\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su17052031\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHorak, S., Afiouni, F., Bian, Y., Ledeneva, A., Muratbekova-Touron, M., \u0026amp; Fey, C. F. (2020). Informal Networks: Dark Sides, Bright Sides, and Unexplored Dimensions. \u003cem\u003eManagement and Organization Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(3), 511\u0026ndash;542. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1017/mor.2020.28\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1017/mor.2020.28\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eHorak, S., \u0026amp; Suseno, Y. (2023). Informal Networks, Informal Institutions, and Social Exclusion in the Workplace: Insights from Subsidiaries of Multinational Corporations in Korea. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Business Ethics\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e186\u003c/em\u003e(3), 633\u0026ndash;655. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05244-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10551-022-05244-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIlgen, D. R., Hollenbeck, J. R., Johnson, M., \u0026amp; Jundt, D. (2005). Teams in Organizations: From Input-Process-Output Models to IMOI Models. \u003cem\u003eAnnual Review of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e56\u003c/em\u003e(1), 517\u0026ndash;543. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070250\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstituto Nacional de Estad\u0026iacute;stica e Inform\u0026aacute;tica. (2025). \u003cem\u003eEstructura Empresarial 2024\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.inei.gob.pe/\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.inei.gob.pe/\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eGreat Place to Work Institute. (2023). \u003cem\u003eTrust Index\u0026trade; Employee Survey\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.greatplacetowork.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.greatplacetowork.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJaniukštis, A., Kovaitė, K., Butvilas, T., \u0026amp; Šūmakaris, P. (2024). Impact of Organisational Climate on Employee Well-Being and Healthy Relationships at Work: A Case of Social Service Centres. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(10), 237. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14100237\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/admsci14100237\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJarrar, Y., Ammar, L., Nweke, G., Horoub, I., \u0026amp; Aderibigbe, A. (2025). Organizational communication satisfaction as a moderator between the big five personality traits and job satisfaction among employees in Nigeria. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1339305\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1339305\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eJin, X., Yang, D., Sun, W., \u0026amp; Xu, L. (2025). Building a Resilient Organization Through Informal Networks: Examining the Role of Individual, Structural, and Attitudinal Factors in Advice-Seeking Tie Formation. \u003cem\u003eSystems\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 245. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/systems13040245\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/systems13040245\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKhan, N. U., Wu, W., Saufi, R. B. A., Sabri, N. A. A., \u0026amp; Shah, A. A. (2021). Antecedents of Sustainable Performance in Manufacturing Organizations: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(2), 897. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su13020897\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su13020897\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eKock, N. (2015). Common Method Bias in PLS-SEM. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of E-Collaboration\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1\u0026ndash;10. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4018/ijec.2015100101\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLeino, T. (2022). Informal Leadership: An Integrative View and Future Research. \u003cem\u003eVAKKI Publications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.70484/vakki.149330\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.70484/vakki.149330\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., \u0026amp; Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e21\u003c/em\u003e(3), 243\u0026ndash;255. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLieb, M., Erim, Y., \u0026amp; Morawa, E. (2024). Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring team cohesion: the Erlangen Team Cohesion at Work Scale (ETC). \u003cem\u003eBMC Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 91. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01583-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40359-024-01583-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLikert, R. (1932). A Technique for the Measurement of Attitudes. \u003cem\u003eArchives of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e140\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;55. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://legacy.voteview.com/pdf/Likert_1932.pdf\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://legacy.voteview.com/pdf/Likert_1932.pdf\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLikert, R. (1961). \u003cem\u003eNew Patterns of Management\u003c/em\u003e. McGraw-Hill.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLikert, R. (1976). \u003cem\u003eEl perfil organizacional\u003c/em\u003e. Editorial Trillas.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLitwin, G. H., \u0026amp; Stringer, R. A. (1968). \u003cem\u003eMotivation and Organizational Climate\u003c/em\u003e. Harvard University Press.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLitwin, G. H., \u0026amp; Stringer, R. A. (1984). \u003cem\u003eClima organizacional: la influencia del entorno en la motivaci\u0026oacute;n\u003c/em\u003e. Editorial Trillas.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiu, S., Summers, J. K., Guo, N., Li, X., \u0026amp; Wang, H. (2025). Political skill and informal leader emergence: The role of relationships, competence and outcome interdependence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e98\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12560\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/joop.12560\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eLiu, T., \u0026amp; Zhang, G. (2025). Employee Leadership Emergence and His/Her Own Innovative Behavior: Role-Based Emotional Experience as Mediator. \u003cem\u003eBehavioral Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(4), 443. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/bs15040443\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/bs15040443\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eL\u0026uuml;tjens, D., \u0026amp; Felfe, J. (2025). Casual yet Crucial: How informal nonwork-related communication shapes transformational leadership in hybrid work environments. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;15. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2025.2560496\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/1359432X.2025.2560496\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eManolache, M., \u0026amp; Epuran, G. (2023). The Mediating Impact of Goal\u0026ndash;Role Clarity on the Relationship between Feedback\u0026ndash;Seeking Behavior and Goal Orientations with Job Satisfaction Intrinsic Cognitions and Person\u0026ndash;Organization Fit. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e15\u003c/em\u003e(17), 12776. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su151712776\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su151712776\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMartinović, B., \u0026amp; Verkuyten, M. (2024). Collective psychological ownership as a new angle for understanding group dynamics. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Review of Social Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 123\u0026ndash;161. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2023.2231762\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/10463283.2023.2231762\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMatsson, A. (2024). How to Organize Silence at work: An Organizational Politics Perspective on Pragmatic Mistreatment at work. \u003cem\u003eEmployee Responsibilities and Rights Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 455\u0026ndash;483. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-023-09454-5\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1007/s10672-023-09454-5\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMaunz, L. A., \u0026amp; Glaser, J. (2024). Longitudinal dynamics of psychological need satisfaction, meaning in work, and burnout. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e150\u003c/em\u003e, 103971. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2024.103971\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jvb.2024.103971\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMayanja, S. S., Mutebi, H., \u0026amp; Isingoma, J. W. (2025). Entrepreneurial networking and sustainability of women-owned micro-enterprise performance: the mediating role of self-organization and entrepreneurial learning behaviors. \u003cem\u003eIIMBG Journal of Sustainable Business and Innovation\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 61\u0026ndash;86. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/IJSBI-08-2024-0039\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/IJSBI-08-2024-0039\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMeinecke, A. L., \u0026amp; Handke, L. (2023). The meeting after the meeting: A conceptualization and process model. \u003cem\u003eOrganizational Psychology Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(4), 379\u0026ndash;399. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/20413866221097409\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/20413866221097409\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMohamed, M. A., Mohamud, F. A. S., Mohamud, I. H., \u0026amp; Farah, M. A. (2024). The influence of workplace relationships and job satisfaction of private universities in Mogadishu: employee performance as a mediator variable. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1485356\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/feduc.2024.1485356\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eMu\u0026ntilde;oz, A. R., Vega-D\u0026iacute;az, M., \u0026amp; Gonz\u0026aacute;lez-Garc\u0026iacute;a, H. (2023). Team Cohesion Profiles: Influence on the Development of Mental Skills and Stress Management. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Sports Science and Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, 637\u0026ndash;644. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.52082/jssm.2023.637\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.52082/jssm.2023.637\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eNyfoudi, M., Theodorakopoulos, N., Psychogios, A., \u0026amp; Dysvik, A. (2022). Tell it like it is in SME teams: Adverse working conditions, citizenship behaviour and the role of team information sharing in a turbulent economy. \u003cem\u003eEconomic and Industrial Democracy\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(2), 516\u0026ndash;535. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0143831X20925544\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0143831X20925544\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eOh, Y. (2023). Communication and Team Cohesion Moderate the Relationship Between Transformational Leadership and Athletic Performance. \u003cem\u003eSage Open\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e13\u003c/em\u003e(3). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231195196\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/21582440231195196\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eParedes-Saavedra, M., Vallejos, M., Huancahuire-Vega, S., Morales-Garc\u0026iacute;a, W., \u0026amp; Geraldo-Campos, L. (2024). Work Team Effectiveness: Importance of Organizational Culture, Work Climate, Leadership, Creative Synergy, and Emotional Intelligence in University Employees. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e(11), 280. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14110280\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/admsci14110280\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePark, Y. S., Konge, L., \u0026amp; Artino, A. R. (2020). The Positivism Paradigm of Research. \u003cem\u003eAcademic Medicine\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e95\u003c/em\u003e(5), 690\u0026ndash;694. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1097/ACM.0000000000003093\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePillemer, J., \u0026amp; Rothbard, N. P. (2018). Friends Without Benefits: Understanding the Dark Sides of Workplace Friendship. \u003cem\u003eAcademy of Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e43\u003c/em\u003e(4), 635\u0026ndash;660. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2016.0309\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.5465/amr.2016.0309\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003ePolit, D. F., \u0026amp; Beck, C. T. (2021). \u003cem\u003eNursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice\u003c/em\u003e (11th, Ed.). Wolters Kluwer.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eQuestionPro. (2023). \u003cem\u003eEmployee Engagement \u0026amp; Organizational Climate Survey Templates\u003c/em\u003e. QuestionPro, Inc. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.questionpro.com\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.questionpro.com\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRahi, S. (2017). Research Design and Methods: A Systematic Review of Research Paradigms, Sampling Issues and Instruments Development. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Economics \u0026amp; Management Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e06\u003c/em\u003e(02). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.4172/2162-6359.1000403\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.4172/2162-6359.1000403\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eReiter-Palmon, R., Kennel, V., \u0026amp; Allen, J. A. (2021). Teams in Small Organizations: Conceptual, Methodological, and Practical Considerations. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.530291\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2021.530291\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRitter, M., Pritz, J., Morscheck, L., Baumann, E., \u0026amp; Boos, M. (2023). In no uncertain terms: Group cohesion did not affect exploration and group decision making under low uncertainty. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e14\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1038262\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1038262\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRyan, R. M., \u0026amp; Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Educational Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e61\u003c/em\u003e, 101860. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSendawula, K., Kisubi, M. K., Najjinda, S., Nantale, H., \u0026amp; Kabbera, S. (2023). The efficacy of entrepreneurial networking and innovation in fostering the performance of small businesses in Uganda. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 88. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s13731-023-00358-0\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s13731-023-00358-0\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eShmueli, G., Sarstedt, M., Hair, J. F., Cheah, J.-H., Ting, H., Vaithilingam, S., \u0026amp; Ringle, C. M. (2019). Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. \u003cem\u003eEuropean Journal of Marketing\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e53\u003c/em\u003e(11), 2322\u0026ndash;2347. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSong, T., Sun, L., Wang, J., \u0026amp; Li, C. (2025). Team internal social capital and entrepreneurial learning: a dual-path exploration in new venture teams. \u003cem\u003eHumanities and Social Sciences Communications\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 33. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-04252-2\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1057/s41599-024-04252-2\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSteegh, R., Van De Voorde, K., \u0026amp; Paauwe, J. (2025). Understanding how agile teams reach effectiveness: A systematic literature review to take stock and look forward. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e35\u003c/em\u003e(1), 101056. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101056\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.hrmr.2024.101056\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eStone, M. (1974). Cross-Validatory Choice and Assessment of Statistical Predictions. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Methodology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e36\u003c/em\u003e(2), 111\u0026ndash;133. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1111/j.2517-6161.1974.tb00994.x\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSuperintendencia Nacional de Aduanas y de Administraci\u0026oacute;n Tributaria. (2024). \u003cem\u003eCaracter\u0026iacute;sticas de la micro y peque\u0026ntilde;a empresa en el Per\u0026uacute;\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://www.sunat.gob.pe/orientacion/mypes/caracteristicas-microPequenaEmpresa.html\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"https://www.sunat.gob.pe/orientacion/mypes/caracteristicas-microPequenaEmpresa.html\" targettype=\"URL\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSutiyoso, B. U., \u0026amp; Faedlulloh, D. (2024). Navigating social capital development through organisational citizenship behaviour in local government bureaucracy. \u003cem\u003eCogent Social Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e10\u003c/em\u003e(1). \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1080/23311886.2024.2386708\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1080/23311886.2024.2386708\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThibault Landry, A., \u0026amp; Whillans, A. (2018). The Power of Workplace Rewards: Using Self-Determination Theory to Understand Why Reward Satisfaction Matters for Workers Around the World. \u003cem\u003eCompensation \u0026amp; Benefits Review\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e(3), 123\u0026ndash;148. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0886368719840515\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0886368719840515\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eUrrila, L., Siiri\u0026auml;inen, A., M\u0026auml;kel\u0026auml;, L., \u0026amp; Kangas, H. (2025). Sense of belonging in hybrid work settings. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Vocational Behavior\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e157\u003c/em\u003e, 104096. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2025.104096\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1016/j.jvb.2025.104096\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVan den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C.-H., \u0026amp; Rosen, C. C. (2016). A Review of Self-Determination Theory\u0026rsquo;s Basic Psychological Needs at Work. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e42\u003c/em\u003e(5), 1195\u0026ndash;1229. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316632058\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1177/0149206316632058\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eVveinhardt, J., \u0026amp; Bendaraviciene, R. (2022). How Do Nepotism and Favouritism Affect Organisational Climate? \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710140\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710140\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eWatanabe, K., Umemura, H., Mori, I., Amemiya, S., \u0026amp; Yamamoto, Y. (2024). Transforming informal communication in the urgent shift to teleworking: a case study in Japan. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Communication\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e9\u003c/em\u003e. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1361426\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3389/fcomm.2024.1361426\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYiming, L., Yan, L., \u0026amp; Jinsheng, Z. (2024). Effects of organizational climate on employee job satisfaction and psychological well-being: the role of technological influence in Chinese higher education. \u003cem\u003eBMC Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e12\u003c/em\u003e(1), 536. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-01992-3\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1186/s40359-024-01992-3\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eYoon, W., Jeong, J., \u0026amp; Park, K. W. (2021). Informal Network Structure and Knowledge Sharing in Organizations: An Empirical Study of a Korean Paint Manufacturing Company. \u003cem\u003eAdministrative Sciences\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e11\u003c/em\u003e(2), 52. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/admsci11020052\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/admsci11020052\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eZagenczyk, T. J., \u0026amp; Powell, E. E. (2023). Social networks and citizenship behavior: The mediating effect of organizational identification. \u003cem\u003eHuman Resource Management\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(4), 461\u0026ndash;475. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.22144\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.1002/hrm.22144\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eZhu, E., Li, W., Zhao, C., \u0026amp; Wang, J. (2024). Promoting the Sustainable Development of Enterprises: Unraveling the Dual Impact of Informal Communication on Employee Affect and Problem-Solving Capabilities. \u003cem\u003eSustainability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e16\u003c/em\u003e(13), 5710. \u003cspan class=\"ExternalRef\"\u003e\u003cspan class=\"RefSource\"\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3390/su16135710\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan address=\"10.3390/su16135710\" targettype=\"DOI\" class=\"RefTarget\"\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Socioemotional Governance, Informal Leadership, Group Cohesion, Informal Communication, Job Satisfaction, Border microenterprises","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8910068/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-8910068/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study examines how workplace well-being is shaped in low-formalization microenterprises, where coordination and recognition arise primarily from interpersonal relationships rather than formal hierarchies. Integrating Social Exchange Theory, Self-Determination Theory, and the Input\u0026ndash;Mediator\u0026ndash;Output\u0026ndash;Input (IMOI) framework, we propose a socioemotional governance model in which Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion act as inputs that activate Informal Communication, Recognition/Motivation, and Workplace Relationships, ultimately explaining workplace well-being through Job Satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eUsing a cross-sectional explanatory\u0026ndash;predictive design, data from 450 employees in commercial microenterprises in Aguas Verdes (Peru\u0026ndash;Ecuador border) were analyzed with PLS-SEM (SmartPLS version 4.0.9.6). The proposed model explains over half of the variance in Job Satisfaction (R\u0026sup2; = 0.513). Informal Leadership strongly predicted Group Cohesion (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.768), and Recognition/Motivation emerged as the strongest predictor of Job Satisfaction (β\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;0.550).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTheoretically, we introduce the efficiency\u0026ndash;fragility paradox, whereby informal networks may substitute hierarchical functions and enhance well-being, while simultaneously increasing vulnerability when socioemotional dynamics become concentrated among a limited set of actors. Practically, we recommend mapping relational nodes, distributing leadership roles, and institutionalizing low-cost micro-routines of recognition to strengthen sustainable workplace well-being in low-formalization contexts.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Socioemotional Governance and Workplace Well-Being in Border Microenterprises: The Role of Informal Leadership and Group Cohesion","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2026-02-23 10:32:03","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-8910068/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"6b623deb-9346-433c-b7d4-31fa08ca959e","owner":[],"postedDate":"February 23rd, 2026","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":63142333,"name":"Management"},{"id":63142334,"name":"Psychology"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-23T10:32:03+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2026-02-23 10:32:03","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-8910068","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-8910068","identity":"rs-8910068","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}