| Literature DB >> 34321935 |
Fu Liang1, Linlin Cao1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Environmental uncertainty has become the normal surviving and development environment for organizations. Resilience is the key to manage the crisis and abrupt crush, and the relationship between employee resilience and organizational resilience still needs to be explored in Chinese context. The study is to uncover the black box between employee resilience and organizational resilience.Entities:
Keywords: emotion-focused coping; employee resilience; managerial resilience; organizational resilience; problem-focused coping
Year: 2021 PMID: 34321935 PMCID: PMC8309659 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S318632
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Figure 1Theoretical Model.
Basic Information
| Managers | Employees | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Statistical Variables | N | Rate | Statistical Variables | N | Rate | ||
| Sex | Female | 18 | 29.5% | Sex | Female | 122 | 37.1% |
| Male | 43 | 70.5% | Male | 207 | 62.9% | ||
| Posi | H-Manager | 31 | 50.8% | Age | Lower than 25 years | 19 | 5.8% |
| M-Manager | 24 | 39.3% | 25–35 years | 109 | 33.1% | ||
| F-Manager | 6 | 9.8% | 35–45 years | 72 | 21.9% | ||
| Age | 25–35 years | 21 | 34.4% | 45–60 years | 129 | 39.2% | |
| 35–45 years | 33 | 64.1% | Edu | Master’s or higher degree | 32 | 9.7% | |
| 45–60 years | 7 | 11.5% | Bachelor’s degree | 161 | 48.9% | ||
| Edu | Master’s or higher degree | 14 | 23.0% | Community college | 85 | 25.8% | |
| Bachelor’s degree | 40 | 65.6% | Below high school degree | 51 | 15.5% | ||
| Community college | 14 | 11.5% | |||||
Means, Standard Deviations and Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables
| Var | M | SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 Employee Resilience(ER) | 3.499 | 0.691 | ||||
| 2 Managerial Resilience(MR) | 3.598 | 0.932 | −0.261** | |||
| 3 Problem-Focused(PF) | 3.657 | 0.738 | 0.437** | −0.150* | ||
| 4 Emotion-Focused(EF) | 2.573 | 0.699 | −0.310** | 0.481** | −0.261** | |
| 5 Organizational Resilience(OR) | 3.645 | 0.611 | 0.518** | −0.296** | 0.699** | −0.330** |
Notes: Control variables were not included; *p < 0.05, **p <0.01 (two-tailed test).
Analysis of Factors
| Var | Item | Factor Loading | CR | AVE | Square Root of AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employee Resilience(ER) | 6 | 0.573~0.839 | 0.865 | 0.521 | 0.722 |
| Managerial Resilience(MR) | 4 | 0.820~0.943 | 0.929 | 0.765 | 0.875 |
| Problem-Focused(PF) | 4 | 0.775~0.867 | 0.892 | 0.673 | 0.820 |
| Emotion-Focused(EF) | 11 | 0.636~0.763 | 0.917 | 0.503 | 0.709 |
| Organizational Resilience(OR) | 10 | 0.644~0.821 | 0.928 | 0.565 | 0.752 |
Results of CFA
| Model | χ2 | DF | χ2/ df | CFI | TLI | RMSEA | SRMR |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Five-factor model:ER, EnR, PF, EF, OR | 878.275 | 395 | 2.223 | 0.906 | 0.897 | 0.061 | 0.061 |
| Four-factor model:ER, EnR, PF + EF, OR | 1492.275 | 399 | 3.740 | 0.788 | 0.769 | 0.091 | 0.111 |
| Three-factor model:ER + EnR, PF + EF, OR | 2599.639 | 402 | 6.467 | 0.574 | 0.539 | 0.129 | 0.130 |
| Two-factor model:ER + EnR + PF + EF, OR | 2969.661 | 404 | 7.351 | 0.502 | 0.464 | 0.139 | 0.130 |
| One-factor model:ER + EnR + PF + EF + OR | 3097.376 | 405 | 7.648 | 0.478 | 0.439 | 0.142 | 0.137 |
The Testing Results of the Mediating Role of Problem-Focused and Emotion-Focused Coping
| DV | MV | Type | EST | SE | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCI | HCI | |||||
| OR | PF | Indirect | 0.255 | 0.057 | 0.154 | 0.376 |
| Direct | 0.153 | 0.066 | 0.013 | 0.276 | ||
| Total | 0.408 | 0.07 | 0.263 | 0.539 | ||
| EF | Indirect | 0.054 | 0.023 | 0.019 | 0.106 | |
| Direct | 0.564 | 0.062 | 0.423 | 0.669 | ||
| Total | 0.618 | 0.058 | 0.491 | 0.710 | ||
The Moderating Role of Managerial Resilience
| DV | MV | Level | EST | SE | 95% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LCI | HCI | |||||
| EF | MR | High | −0.297 | 0.089 | −0.472 | −0.121 |
| Low | −0.088 | 0.084 | −0.253 | 0.077 | ||
| DIF | −0.209 | 0.100 | −0.404 | −0.013 | ||
Figure 2Moderating effect of managerial resilience.