| Literature DB >> 35627722 |
Ming-Zhu Yuan1, Hsiang-Fei Chen2, Cheng-Chia Yang1, Tong-Hsien Chow3, Chin-Hsien Hsu2.
Abstract
Many medical issues have gradually emerged under the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has not only changed the medical culture but also tested medical staffs' response abilities, emotional pressure, sense of identity, and belonging to the organization. The relationships among medical staffs' emotional labor, leisure coping strategies, workplace spirituality, and organizational commitment during the COVID-19 pandemic are explored in this study. With medical staffs as the research subjects, a questionnaire survey was conducted using convenience sampling; a total of 360 questionnaires were distributed and 330 were returned, for a recovery rate of 91%. There were 300 valid questionnaires after 30 invalid questionnaires were excluded, for an effective recovery rate of 90%. SPSS and AMOS software were used for statistical analysis. According to the research results: (1) emotional labor had a significant effect on workplace spirituality, (2) workplace spirituality had a significant impact on organizational commitment, (3) emotional labor had a negative and significant impact on organizational commitment, (4) emotional labor had a significant impact on leisure coping strategies, and (5) the mediating effect of workplace spirituality between emotional labor and organizational commitment was not significant. Finally, relevant practical suggestions are provided based on the results of this study.Entities:
Keywords: emotional labor; leisure coping strategies; organizational commitment; workplace spirituality
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35627722 PMCID: PMC9140636 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19106186
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Conceptual framework.
Sample characteristics.
| Background Variables | Standard of Classification | Sample Size | Percentage (%) | Accumulative Percentage (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 45 | 15 | 15 |
| Female | 255 | 85 | 100 | |
| Age | 30 years old or below | 61 | 20.3 | 20.3 |
| 31–40 years old | 106 | 35.3 | 55.7 | |
| 41–50 years old | 87 | 29.0 | 84.7 | |
| 51 years old and above | 46 | 15.3 | 100.0 | |
| Marital status | Married | 182 | 60.7 | 60.7 |
| Unmarried | 118 | 39.3 | 100.0 | |
| Educational level | High/vocational school (and below) | 12 | 4.0 | 4.0 |
| University (including junior college) | 221 | 73.7 | 77.7 | |
| Graduate school (and above) | 67 | 22.3 | 100.0 | |
| Place of residence | Northern area | 30 | 10.0 | 10.0 |
| Central area | 222 | 74.0 | 84.0 | |
| Southern area | 35 | 11.7 | 95.7 | |
| Eastern area | 13 | 4.3 | 100.0 | |
| Job title | Executive | 56 | 18.7 | 18.7 |
| Non-executive | 244 | 81.3 | 100.0 | |
| Years of service | Less than 2 years | 3 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 2–4 years (exclusive) | 41 | 13.7 | 14.7 | |
| 4–6 years (exclusive) | 87 | 29.0 | 43.7 | |
| 6–8 years (exclusive) | 32 | 10.7 | 54.3 | |
| 8–10 years (exclusive) | 15 | 5.0 | 59.3 | |
| 10 years or more | 122 | 40.7 | 100.0 | |
| Do you often work overtime on “weekdays”? | Yes | 84 | 28.0 | 28.0 |
| Sometimes | 99 | 33.0 | 61.0 | |
| No | 117 | 39.0 | 100.0 | |
| Do you often work overtime on “holidays” (Saturdays, Sundays, or national holidays)? | Yes | 73 | 24.3 | 24.3 |
| Sometimes | 94 | 31.3 | 55.7 | |
| No | 133 | 44.3 | 100.0 |
Summary of the convergent validity and dimension reliability emotional labor.
| Dimension | Index | Standardized Factor Loading | Cronbach’s a | C.R. | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surface performance | B2 | 0.81 | 0.71 | 0.81 | 0.68 |
| B3 | 0.85 | ||||
| Deep performance | B6 | 0.77 | 0.80 | 0.81 | 0.68 |
| B7 | 0.88 | ||||
| Emotional expression requirements | B13 | 0.84 | 0.76 | 0.79 | 0.65 |
| B14 | 0.78 | ||||
| Emotional diversity | B16 | 0.87 | 0.88 | 0.86 | 0.68 |
| B17 | 0.79 | ||||
| B18 | 0.82 |
Source: The analysis and organization of the convergent validity test of the Emotional Service Scale based on the data collected by this study.
Summary of the convergent validity and dimension reliability leisure coping strategies.
| Dimension | Index | Standardized Factor Loading | Cronbach’s a | C.R. | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leisure companionship | C3 | 0.75 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.69 |
| C4 | 0.90 | ||||
| C5 | 0.84 | ||||
| C6 | 0.83 | ||||
| Leisure palliative coping | C8 | 0.60 | 0.79 | 0.80 | 0.59 |
| C9 | 0.78 | ||||
| C10 | 0.90 | ||||
| Leisure mood enhancement | C12 | 0.85 | 0.92 | 0.93 | 0.77 |
| C13 | 0.91 | ||||
| C14 | 0.89 | ||||
| C16 | 0.86 |
Source: The analysis and organization of the convergent validity test of the Leisure Adjustment Strategy Scale based on the data collected by this study.
Summary of the convergent validity and dimension reliability workplace spirituality.
| Dimension | Index | Standardized Factor Loading | Cronbach’s a | C.R. | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A sense of work significance | D3 | 0.83 | 0.89 | 0.89 | 0.74 |
| D4 | 0.85 | ||||
| D5 | 0.90 | ||||
| A sense of community | D8 | 0.90 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.79 |
| D9 | 0.88 | ||||
| A sense of organizational commitment | D11 | 0.86 | 0.88 | 0.88 | 0.66 |
| D12 | 0.82 | ||||
| D13 | 0.85 | ||||
| D14 | 0.72 |
Summary of the convergent validity and dimension reliability organizational commitment.
| Dimension | Index | Standardized Factor Loading | Cronbach’s a | C.R. | AVE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effort commitment | F1 | 0.77 | 0.79 | 0.79 | 0.65 |
| F2 | 0.85 | ||||
| Retention commitment | F6 | 0.87 | 0.89 | 0.88 | 0.80 |
| F8 | 0.92 | ||||
| Value commitment | F9 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.90 | 0.81 |
| F10 | 0.89 |
Source: The analysis and organization of the convergent validity test of the Organizational Commitment Scale based on the data collected by this study.
Bootstrap correlation coefficient 95% confidence interval of Emotional Labor.
| Bias-Corrected | Percentile Method | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
| Surface performance | ↔ | Deep performance | 0.81 | 0.70 | 0.90 | 0.70 | 0.91 |
| Surface performance | ↔ | Emotional expression requirements | 0.67 | 0.57 | 0.77 | 0.57 | 0.77 |
| Surface performance | ↔ | Emotional diversity | 0.47 | 0.33 | 0.61 | 0.31 | 0.59 |
| Deep performance | ↔ | Emotional expression requirements | 0.78 | 0.67 | 0.87 | 0.67 | 0.87 |
| Deep performance | ↔ | Emotional diversity | 0.60 | 0.47 | 0.72 | 0.46 | 0.72 |
| Emotional expression requirements | ↔ | Emotional diversity | 0.63 | 0.51 | 0.75 | 0.50 | 0.75 |
Bootstrap correlation coefficient 95% confidence interval of Leisure Coping Strategies.
| Bias-Corrected | Percentile Method | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
| Leisure companionship | ↔ | Leisure palliative coping | 0.72 | 0.62 | 0.81 | 0.61 | 0.81 |
| Leisure companionship | ↔ | Leisure mood enhancement | 0.69 | 0.60 | 0.77 | 0.59 | 0.77 |
| Leisure palliative coping | ↔ | Leisure mood enhancement | 0.89 | 0.81 | 0.97 | 0.82 | 0.97 |
Bootstrap correlation coefficient 95% confidence interval of workplace spirituality.
| Bias-Corrected | Percentile Method | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
| A sense of work significance | ↔ | A sense of community | 0.64 | 0.55 | 0.74 | 0.54 | 0.73 |
| A sense of work significance | ↔ | A sense of organizational commitment | 0.63 | 0.53 | 0.71 | 0.52 | 0.70 |
| A sense of community | ↔ | A sense of organizational commitment | 0.90 | 0.85 | 0.96 | 0.84 | 0.96 |
Bootstrap correlation coefficient 95% confidence interval of Organizational Commitment.
| Bias-Corrected | Percentile Method | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | Lower Limit | Upper Limit | |||
| Effort commitment | ↔ | Retention commitment | 0.70 | 0.61 | 0.78 | 0.61 | 0.78 |
| Effort commitment | ↔ | Value commitment | 0.73 | 0.64 | 0.81 | 0.64 | 0.81 |
| Retention commitment | ↔ | Value commitment | 0.89 | 0.84 | 0.94 | 0.84 | 0.94 |
Summary of the mediating effect.
| Estimate | 95% Confidence Interval | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Indirect Effect | BC/PC | BC | PC | |
| Emotional labor→workplace spirituality→organizational | 0.508 | 0.001/0.002 | 0.357–0.742 | 0.341–0.726 |
| Direct effect | ||||
| Emotional labor→workplace spirituality | 0.559 | 0.002/0.002 | 0.393–0.714 | 0.391–0.713 |
| Emotional labor→organizational commitment | −0.117 | 0.060/0.055 | −0.255–0.004 | 0.003–0.055 |
| Workplace spirituality→organizational commitment | 0.910 | 0.002/0.002 | 0.805–1.057 | 0.803–1.046 |
| Total effect | ||||
| Emotional labor→organizational commitment | 0.559 | 0.002/0.002 | 0.229–0.555 | 0.225–0.549 |
Analysis on the research model overall goodness of fit.
| Fit Index | Allowable Standard | Model Corrected | Mode Fit Judgment |
|---|---|---|---|
| χ2 (Chi-square) | The smaller, the better | 1115.51 | |
| Ratio of χ2 to degrees of freedom | <3 | 2.05 | Conforming |
| GFI | >0.80 | 0.83 | Conforming |
| AGFI | >0.80 | 0.80 | Conforming |
| RMSEA | <0.08 | 0.06 | Conforming |
| CFI | >0.80 | 0.93 | Conforming |
| PCFI | >0.50 | 0.85 | Conforming |
Source: The analysis and organization of the research model overall goodness of fit based on the data collected by this study.
Figure 2Model diagram of medical staffs’ Emotional Labor, workplace spirituality, Organizational Commitment, and Leisure Coping Strategies.
Summary of the research hypotheses and test results.
| Research Hypothesis | Path Value | Test Result |
|---|---|---|
| 0.56 | Established | |
| 0.91 | Established | |
| −0.12 | Established | |
| 0.49 | Established | |
| Not established |
Source: The organization of the research hypotheses and test results of the path analysis were based on the data collected by this study.