| Literature DB >> 35027852 |
Imran Saeed1, Jawad Khan2, Muhammad Zada3, Rezwan Ullah4, Alejandro Vega-Muñoz5, Nicolás Contreras-Barraza6.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Spiritual inherited employees quickly shift to new changes that occur very quickly in our daily lives in different ways. We are inspired by the dynamic changes in our daily lives due to the Covid 19 situation, an urgent need to specify the shift from the traditional approach to the agile approach during a pandemic. This study aimed to figure out the effect of workplace spirituality on workforce agility; further, this study underpinning spillover theory to examine the role of job involvement as a mediator.Entities:
Keywords: job involvement; spillover theory; workforce agility; workforce performance; workplace spirituality
Year: 2022 PMID: 35027852 PMCID: PMC8752071 DOI: 10.2147/PRBM.S344651
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Psychol Res Behav Manag ISSN: 1179-1578
Figure 1Proposed study model.
Distribution of Questionnaires
| Organization(s) | Targeted Employees | No.of Respondents Received | Response Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| 60 | 44 | 73% | |
| 60 | 48 | 80% | |
| 60 | 47 | 78% | |
| 60 | 42 | 70% | |
| 60 | 36 | 60% | |
| 60 | 19 | 31% | |
| 360 | 236 | 65% of Total |
Figure 2Graphical presentation of the target population.
Data Attrition
| Time Lags | Questionnaire Section | Questionnaires Distributed | Questionnaires Returned | Questionnaires Lost | Attrition Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic Variables and WPS | 122 | 74 | 44 | 36.06 | |
| JI | 124 | 85 | 39 | 31.45 | |
| WFA and WFP | 114 | 67 | 47 | 41.22 |
Figure 3Graphical presentation of questionnaires attrition.
Demographic Details
| Gender | Age (n) | Service (n) | Education |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male (209) | 25–29 (27) | 1–5 (47) | FA/FSC (11) |
| Female (27) | 30–34 (114) | 6–10 (146) | Bachelors (42) |
| 35–39 (28) | 11–15 (32) | Master (85) | |
| 40 and Above (37) | 16 and above (11) | MS/PHIL andPhD (98) |
Figure 4Graphical representation of demographic variables.
Survivor and Removed Items After Each Latent Variable
| Variables | Removed Items | Current Items | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| WPS4 | 0.34 | WPS1 | 0.63 | |
| WPS9 | 0.32 | WPS2 | 0.52 | |
| WPS10 | 0.43 | WPS3 | 0.59 | |
| WPS5 | 0.74 | |||
| WPS6 | 0.98 | |||
| WPS7 | 0.52 | |||
| WPS8 | 0.79 | |||
| WPS11 | 0.70 | |||
| WPS12 | 0.87 | |||
| WPS13 | 0.53 | |||
| WPA8 | 0.41 | WFA1 | 0.77 | |
| WPA12 | 0.44 | WFA2 | 0.92 | |
| WPA15 | 0.33 | WFA3 | 0.75 | |
| WPA20 | 0.37 | WFA4 | 0.67 | |
| WPA22 | 0.28 | WFA5 | 0.83 | |
| WPS23 | 0.44 | WFA6 | 0.96 | |
| WFA7 | 0.93 | |||
| WFA9 | 0.79 | |||
| WFA10 | 0.96 | |||
| WFA11 | 0.91 | |||
| WFA13 | 0.88 | |||
| WFA14 | 0.91 | |||
| WFA16 | 0.88 | |||
| WFA17 | 0.91 | |||
| WFA18 | 0.88 | |||
| WFA19 | 0.98 | |||
| WFA21 | 0.98 | |||
| WFA24 | 0.82 | |||
| WFA25 | 0.71 | |||
| WFA26 | 0.66 | |||
| JI2 | 0.34 | JI1 | 0.81 | |
| J111 | 0.33 | JI3 | 0.71 | |
| J112 | 0.44 | JI4 | 0.60 | |
| J114 | 0.39 | JI5 | 0.55 | |
| J115 | 0.37 | JI6 | 0.68 | |
| JI7 | 0.89 | |||
| JI8 | 0.50 | |||
| JI9 | 0.55 | |||
| JI10 | 0.67 | |||
| JI13 | 0.51 | |||
| JI16 | 0.88 | |||
| WFP1 | 0.49 | WFP3 | 0.63 | |
| WFP2 | 0.39 | WFP4 | 0.52 | |
| WFP5 | 0.37 | WFP6 | 0.59 | |
| WFP11 | 0.41 | WFP7 | 0.74 | |
| WFP12 | 0.27 | WFP8 | 0.98 | |
| WFP16 | 0.33 | WFP9 | 0.52 | |
| WFP17 | 0.29 | WFP10 | 0.79 | |
| WFP13 | 0.70 | |||
| WFP14 | 0.87 | |||
| WFP15 | 0.53 | |||
The Results of the Goodness of Fit Indices
| Fit Indices | Variables | Cut Off Scores | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WPS | WFA | JI | WFP | ||
| 2.4 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.9 | CMIN/DF < 3 Kline | |
| 0.05 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 0.04 | RMR<0.08 Hu and Bentler | |
| 0.94 | 0.96 | 0.95 | 0.96 | GFI≥0.95 Shevlin and Miles | |
| 0.90 | 0.89 | 0.92 | 0.91 | AGFI≥0.90 Shevlin and Miles | |
| 0.91 | 0.91 | 0.94 | 0.96 | CFI ≥ 0.90 Hu and Bentler | |
| 0.07 | 0.06 | 0.05 | 0.06 | RMSEA<0.08 Hu and Bentler | |
Fit Indices for C.F.A. of a Research Model
| Study Model 1 | Fit Indices | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMIN/DF | GFI | CFI | RMR | AFGI | RMSEA | |
| 2.3 | 0.93 | 0.94 | 0.04 | 0.92 | 0.05 | |
Figure 5Model fitness model.
Mean, Std. Deviation, Reliability and Correlation Matrix (n = 236)
| Variables | Mean | S.D | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.3 | 0.49 | – | ||||||||
| 2.7 | 0.56 | −0.007 | – | |||||||
| 2.4 | 0.83 | −0.006 | −0.006 | – | ||||||
| 2.0 | 0.69 | −0.213** | 0.046 | 0.047 | – | |||||
| 3.5 | 0.66 | −0.007 | 0.014 | 0.127 | 0.076 | |||||
| 3.6 | 0.42 | −0.091 | 0.036 | 0.187** | 0.056 | 0.691** | ||||
| 3.5 | 0.69 | −0.080 | 0.074 | 0.151* | 0.134* | 0.708** | 0.661** | |||
| 3.5 | 0.70 | −0.092 | 0.086 | 0.123 | 0.123 | 0.622** | 0.557** | 0.863** |
Notes: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Abbreviations: WPS, workplace spirituality; WPA, workplace agility; JI, job involvement; WFP, workforce performance.
Convergent Validity Analysis
| Variables | AVE | CR | Convergent Validity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0.59 | 0.93 | Established | |
| 0.51 | 0.91 | Established | |
| 0.55 | 0.96 | Established | |
| 0.56 | 0.93 | Established |
Discriminant Validity Analysis
| Path’s | Factor Correlation | Correlation Squared | AVE 1 ^AVE2 | Discriminant Validity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.69 | 0.47 | 0.59^0.51 | Established | |
| 0.70 | 0.49 | 0.59^0.55 | Established | |
| 0.66 | 0.43 | 0.55^0.51 | Established | |
| 0.55 | 0.31 | 0.51^0.56 | Established |
Direct and Indirect Effects
| Hypothesis Model 1. | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | Total Effects | The Ratio of Indirect Effect to the Total Effect | Bootstrap Results | Decision | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BootLLCI | BootULCI | ||||||
| 0.50*** | – | – | – | – | – | Supported | |
| 0.73*** | – | – | – | – | – | Supported | |
| 0.41*** | – | – | – | – | – | Supported | |
| 0.40*** | 0.10*** | 0.50*** | 40% | 0.0393 | 0.1654 | Partial Mediation | |
Note: ***Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
Workforce Agility and Workforce Performance
| Hypothesis Model II. | β | t-Value | F (Model Fitness) | Decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.91*** | 10.26 | 105.27 | Supported |
Note: ***Correlation is significant at the 0.001 level (2-tailed).
Figure 6Study model results.
Figure 7Students reaction to online education.
Figure 8Students response to online education.