# Organizational Culture: The Key to Improving Service Management in Industry 4.0
## 4 Results
### Data Analysis
#### 4.2.1 Evaluation of Measurement Models
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Construct** & **Items** & **Incentives** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Organizational** \\ **Commitment** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Organizational** \\ **Culture** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Leadership** \\ **Management** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Leadership**} & B02. & 0.623 & 0.505 & 0.660 & 0.877 & 0.538 \\ \cline{2-7}  & B04. & 0.597 & 0.535 & 0.682 & 0.869 & 0.538 \\ \cline{2-7}  & B05. & 0.535 & 0.479 & 0.647 & 0.833 & 0.472 \\ \cline{2-7}  & B07. & 0.620 & 0.555 & 0.633 & 0.866 & 0.553 \\ \cline{2-7}  & B08. & 0.525 & 0.496 & 0.618 & 0.845 & 0.510 \\ \cline{2-7}  & B09. & 0.497 & 0.413 & 0.542 & 0.819 & 0.469 \\ \cline{2-7}  & B15. & 0.577 & 0.497 & 0.579 & 0.748 & 0.538 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Organizational Culture**} & C01. & 0.661 & 0.615 & 0.823 & 0.694 & 0.660 \\ \cline{2-7}  & C02. & 0.686 & 0.611 & 0.865 & 0.724 & 0.656 \\ \cline{2-7}  & C03. & 0.573 & 0.544 & 0.828 & 0.618 & 0.609 \\ \cline{2-7}  & C04. & 0.679 & 0.635 & 0.790 & 0.669 & 0.653 \\ \cline{2-7}  & C05. & 0.466 & 0.495 & 0.682 & 0.381 & 0.467 \\ \cline{2-7}  & C06. & 0.438 & 0.427 & 0.683 & 0.376 & 0.437 \\ \cline{2-7}  & C07. & 0.632 & 0.615 & 0.796 & 0.567 & 0.651 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Incentives**} & D01. & 0.858 & 0.666 & 0.691 & 0.612 & 0.722 \\ \cline{2-7}  & D02. & 0.842 & 0.641 & 0.740 & 0.624 & 0.703 \\ \cline{2-7}  & D04. & 0.787 & 0.523 & 0.571 & 0.551 & 0.630 \\ \cline{2-7}  & D05. & 0.856 & 0.617 & 0.590 & 0.554 & 0.633 \\ \cline{2-7}  & D06. & 0.850 & 0.663 & 0.654 & 0.568 & 0.612 \\ \cline{2-7}  & D08. & 0.828 & 0.662 & 0.653 & 0.570 & 0.662 \\ \cline{2-7}  & D09. & 0.817 & 0.656 & 0.566 & 0.469 & 0.593 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Organizational Commitment**} & G01. & 0.490 & 0.611 & 0.441 & 0.331 & 0.524 \\ \cline{2-7}  & G05. & 0.701 & 0.881 & 0.678 & 0.560 & 0.696 \\ \cline{2-7}  & G07. & 0.688 & 0.897 & 0.672 & 0.522 & 0.720 \\ \cline{2-7}  & G08. & 0.533 & 0.793 & 0.501 & 0.425 & 0.565 \\ \cline{2-7}  & G09. & 0.667 & 0.880 & 0.634 & 0.561 & 0.732 \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{**Service Management**} & F01. & 0.705 & 0.651 & 0.632 & 0.512 & 0.875 \\ \cline{2-7}  & F02. & 0.481 & 0.541 & 0.556 & 0.407 & 0.738 \\ \cline{2-7}  & F05. & 0.686 & 0.677 & 0.655 & 0.574 & 0.873 \\ \cline{2-7}  & F06. & 0.651 & 0.694 & 0.632 & 0.511 & 0.853 \\ \cline{2-7}  & F07. & 0.643 & 0.697 & 0.590 & 0.462 & 0.689 \\ \cline{2-7}  & F08. & 0.593 & 0.574 & 0.601 & 0.500 & 0.777 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Cross loading of each factor. Although cross-loadings have been widely used to assess discriminant validity in PLS-SEM, [PERSON], [PERSON], and [PERSON] [110] suggested that the HTMT should be used to further assess the discriminant validity between the constructs to enhance sensitivity. As shown in Table 4, the HTMT value for each variable is below 0.9, representing a fair level of discriminant validity across the constructs [111]. The Cornell-Larcker criterion was higher than the recommended value of 0.6, indicating high internal consistency of all measured variables [108].