| Literature DB >> 35814063 |
Yan Ma1.
Abstract
Employees are critical stakeholders for an organization because they directly deal with the end-users and represent the entire firm. To recognize the strategic importance of the employees, organizations create communication programs to keep employees apprised of organizational issues. In this regard, this study examined the role of communication strategies (i.e., information flow, information adequacy, and information feedback) on organizational commitment. The study also investigated the mediating effect of faculty engagement between communication strategies and organizational commitment. Self-administered survey aided in acquiring data from 276 English language teachers in China. The analysis of the data was conducted using SmartPLS through the Structured Equation Modeling technique. The outcome of the study demonstrated that information flow and information feedback significantly impact organizational commitment and faculty engagement. The analysis also revealed that information adequacy significantly impacts organizational commitment but has no relationship with faculty engagement. The mediation analysis demonstrated that faculty engagement mediated the relationship between information flow and organizational commitment and between information feedback and organization commitment. However, faculty engagement did not mediate the relationship between information adequacy and organizational commitment among English language teachers in China. In theoretical terms, the study contributed in terms of incorporating different communication strategies and examining their effect on organizational commitment and faculty engagement. In practical terms, this study would be beneficial for the management of the educational institutes to develop different ways of enhancing communication strategies within the institute. This study also provided directions for the future, for example, conducting the study on other subject teachers, increasing the sample, carrying out the research in a different context, and adding different mediators and moderators in the existing model.Entities:
Keywords: faculty engagement; information adequacy; information feedback; information flow; organizational commitment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35814063 PMCID: PMC9257226 DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.921797
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Psychol ISSN: 1664-1078
Figure 1Theoretical framework.
Demographics analysis (N = 276).
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
| ||
| Male | 160 | 57.97 |
| Female | 116 | 42.03 |
|
| ||
| 20–30 | 54 | 19.57 |
| 31–40 | 137 | 55.47 |
| 41–50 | 45 | 16.30 |
| Above 50 | 40 | 14.49 |
|
| ||
| Bachelors | 43 | 15.58 |
| Masters | 144 | 52.17 |
| Ph.D. and others | 89 | 32.48 |
|
| ||
| <1 | 50 | 18.25 |
| 1–3 | 120 | 43.48 |
| 4–6 | 77 | 27.90 |
| More than 6 | 29 | 10.51 |
Figure 2Output of measurement model. IFlow, Information flow; IAdeq, Information adequacy; IFeedback, Information feedback; FE, Faculty engagement; OC, Organizational commitment.
Model assessment (direct model).
|
| ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
| IF1 | 0.860 | 2.263 | ||||
| Information flow | IF2 | 0.885 | 2.493 | 0.884 | 0.920 | 0.742 |
| IF3 | 0.840 | 2.110 | ||||
| IF4 | 0.860 | 2.296 | ||||
| IA1 | 0.784 | 3.008 | ||||
| Information adequacy | IA2 | 0.838 | 4.030 | |||
| IA3 | 0.852 | 4.092 | ||||
| IA4 | 0.807 | 4.298 | 0.941 | 0.946 | 0.677 | |
| IA5 | 0.791 | 2.403 | ||||
| IA6 | 0.814 | 3.219 | ||||
| IA7 | 0.851 | 4.868 | ||||
| IA8 | 0.816 | 4.938 | ||||
| IA9 | 0.850 | 5.181 | ||||
| IFB1 | 0.884 | 3.851 | ||||
| IFB2 | 0.882 | 3.500 | ||||
| Information feedback | IFB3 | 0.923 | 3.310 | 0.922 | 0.941 | 0.762 |
| IFB4 | 0.806 | 2.592 | ||||
| IFB5 | 0.866 | 2.899 | ||||
| FE1 | 0.730 | 1.865 | ||||
| Faculty engagement | FE2 | 0.743 | 2.596 | |||
| FE3 | 0.711 | 2.253 | ||||
| FE4 | 0.703 | 1.657 | ||||
| FE5 | 0.789 | 3.341 | 0.906 | 0.921 | 0.566 | |
| FE6 | 0.772 | 3.378 | ||||
| FE7 | 0.746 | 2.795 | ||||
| FE8 | 0.780 | 4.670 | ||||
| FE9 | 0.794 | 3.224 | ||||
| OC1 | 0.769 | 1.665 | ||||
| Organizational commitment | OC2 | 0.910 | 4.082 | |||
| OC3 | 0.850 | 2.622 | 0.917 | 0.938 | 0.753 | |
| OC4 | 0.924 | 4.888 | ||||
| OC5 | 0.876 | 3.277 | ||||
IF, Information flow; IA, Information adequacy; IFB, Information feedback; FE, Faculty engagement; OC, Organizational commitment; VIF, Variance inflation factor; α, Cronbach alpha; AVE, Average variance extracted.
Discriminant validity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| |||||
| FE | 0.752 | ||||
| IA | 0.476 | 0.823 | |||
| IFB | 0.533 | 0.554 | 0.873 | ||
| IF | 0.564 | 0.756 | 0.656 | 0.861 | |
| OC | 0.588 | 0.429 | 0.585 | 0.615 | 0.868 |
|
| |||||
| FE | |||||
| IA | 0.475 | ||||
| IFB | 0.554 | 0.589 | |||
| IF | 0.593 | 0.819 | 0.727 | ||
| OC | 0.621 | 0.441 | 0.629 | 0.677 | |
N = 276, IF, Information flow; IA, Information adequacy; IFB, Information feedback; FE, Faculty engagement; OC, Organizational commitment.
Figure 3Structural model bootstrapping. IFlow, Information flow; IAdeq, Information adequacy; IFeedback, Information feedback; FE, Faculty engagement; OC, Organizational commitment.
Direct effects of the variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IF → FE | H1 | 0.322 | 0.315 | 0.098 | 3.276 | 0.057 | 0.000*** | Accepted |
| IF → OC | H2 | 0.396 | 0.395 | 0.065 | 6.091 | 0.103 | 0.001*** | Accepted |
| IA → FE | H3 | 0.077 | 0.086 | 0.069 | 1.128 | 0.004 | 0.260 | Rejected |
| IA → OC | H4 | −0.152 | −0.148 | 0.061 | 2.491 | 0.020 | 0.013* | Accepted |
| IFB → FE | H5 | 0.279 | 0.282 | 0.069 | 4.056 | 0.069 | 0.000*** | Accepted |
| IFB → OC | H6 | 0.246 | 0.242 | 0.072 | 3.426 | 0.064 | 0.001*** | Accepted |
| FE → OC | H7 | 0.306 | 0.306 | 0.072 | 4.263 | 0.119 | 0.000** | Accepted |
N = 276, .
H, Hypothesis; O, Original sample; M, Sample mean; SD, Standard deviation; SRMR = 0.092, NFI = 0.688, IF, Information flow; IA, Information adequacy; IFB, Information feedback; FE, Faculty engagement; OC, Organizational commitment.
Indirect effects of the variable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IF → FE → OC | H8 | 0.099 | 0.097 | 0.040 | 2.490 | 0.013* | Accepted |
| IA → FE → OC | H9 | 0.024 | 0.026 | 0.022 | 1.058 | 0.291 | Rejected |
| IFB → FE → OC | H10 | 0.085 | 0.086 | 0.028 | 3.012 | 0.003** | Accepted |
N = 276, .
H, Hypothesis; O, Original sample; M, Sample mean; SD, Standard deviation; SRMR = 0.092; NFI = 0.688; IF, Information flow; IA, Information adequacy; IFB, Information feedback; FE, Faculty engagement; OC, Organizational commitment.