| Literature DB >> 36231714 |
Yongjin Jung1, Haeok Liz Kim2, Sunghyup Sean Hyun1.
Abstract
Extant studies in medical and educational fields have demonstrated that employees' device use (smartphones, tablet PCs, etc.) can enhance job performance. Correspondingly, global airline companies have made substantial investments to enhance passenger services. An earlier study examined the impact of flight attendants' technology usage on job satisfaction by investigating the causal relationship between the benefits of tablet PC use, job performance, and its consequences. Based on the literature review, four advantages of technology use were derived: (1) efficiency, (2) convenience, (3) service effectiveness, and (4) pride. Additionally, three consequences of job satisfaction were derived: (1) team performance, (2) organizational commitment, and (3) turnover intention. Empirical data were collected from 208 flight attendants working for a South Korean airline, which provided tablet PCs for its employees. Data analysis revealed that work efficiency, convenience, and pride had a significant and positive impact on job satisfaction. However, flight preparation did not show a similar impact. This study is the first to investigate the benefits of using technology in the airline industry. Furthermore, it examined the convergence of airline management and information technology. The findings provide managerial implications for airline companies that are considering providing tablet PCs to flight attendants.Entities:
Keywords: convenience; efficiency; job satisfaction; organizational commitment; pride; service effectiveness; team performance; turnover intention
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36231714 PMCID: PMC9566674 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191912414
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Research Model.
Characteristics of the Sample (N = 208).
| Variables | Index | Frequency (n) | Percent (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 24 | 11.5 |
| Female | 184 | 88.5 | |
| Age | 20–29 | 41 | 19.7 |
| 30–39 | 123 | 59.1 | |
| 40–49 | 39 | 18.8 | |
| Over 50 | 5 | 2.4 | |
| Marital | Single | 90 | 43.3 |
| Married | 118 | 56.7 | |
| Education | College degree | 18 | 8.7 |
| University degree | 158 | 76.0 | |
| Graduate school | 15 | 7.2 | |
| Graduate degree | 17 | 8.2 | |
| Working | Less than 2 years | 4 | 1.9 |
| 2–5 years | 25 | 12.0 | |
| 5–10 years | 83 | 39.9 | |
| 10–15 years | 49 | 23.6 | |
| Over 15 years | 47 | 22.6 | |
| Working | Attendant | 90 | 43.3 |
| Assistant purser | 84 | 40.4 | |
| Purser | 29 | 13.9 | |
| Senior purser | 3 | 1.4 | |
| Chief purser | 2 | 1.0 | |
| Average | Less than KRW 30 million | 5 | 2.4 |
| KRW 30–40 million | 45 | 21.6 | |
| KRW 40–50 million | 83 | 39.9 | |
| KRW 50–60 million | 44 | 21.2 | |
| Over KRW 60 million | 31 | 14.9 | |
| Total | 208 | 100.0 |
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Items and Loadings.
| Construct and Scale Items | Factor Loading | Mean | Std dev. | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency | I think it is efficient to prepare the briefing before the flight at once with the use of tablet PC. | 0.516 | 4.692 | 0.492 |
| With the use of tablet PC, information can be checked in advance of the flight, so I think we can provide customized services to our passengers. | 0.603 | 4.519 | 0.589 | |
| By using tablet PC, the time to prepare flight information is reduced, and there is more time to prepare flight-related tasks (apron, scarf, interview, etc.). | 0.516 | 4.048 | 1.001 | |
| Convenience (3) | By using tablet PC, it is now possible to check information at a desired time compared to earlier. | 0.616 | 1.408 | 0.582 |
| With the use of tablet PC, it is now possible to check information in a desired place compared to earlier. | 0.619 | 1.375 | 0.616 | |
| I think that the execution speed of tasks has been faster than before since using tablet PC. | 0.780 | 1.548 | 0.672 | |
| I think that the accuracy of tasks has been higher than before since using tablet PC. | 0.769 | 1.596 | 0.688 | |
| Service effectiveness (3) | I think the quality of service has improved with the use of tablet PC. | 0.803 | 4.038 | 0.821 |
| I think that the use of tablet PC has made it possible to communicate quickly with colleagues. | 0.760 | 4.264 | 0.750 | |
| I think that the use of tablet PC reduces the flow of services and is efficient. | 0.809 | 4.057 | 0.991 | |
| Pride (4) | I feel proud of myself for using tablet PC in my work. | 0.838 | 4.043 | 0.897 |
| I feel pride while using tablet PC when serving passengers. | 0.907 | 4.014 | 0.975 | |
| By using a tablet PC for work, I feel pride in comparison with other flight attendants in Korea. | 0.880 | 4.101 | 0.950 | |
| I feel pride that the company provided me with a tablet PC. | 0.881 | 3.851 | 1.054 | |
| Job | The use of tablet PC makes work fun. | 0.825 | 3.423 | 0.954 |
| I believe that the use of tablet PC helps personal growth. | 0.850 | 3.461 | 1.025 | |
| By using tablet PC, I am willing to recommend my company to my friends in the same field. | 0.859 | 2.966 | 1.237 | |
| Team | The use of tablet PC seems to have reduced our team’s minor mistakes in their work. | 0.776 | 3.548 | 1.001 |
| The use of tablet PC seems to create a synergistic effect with the team members during team flight. | 0.838 | 3.572 | 0.999 | |
| The use of tablet PC seems to have a positive effect on overall team performance. | 0.866 | 3.283 | 1.129 | |
| Organizational commitment (3) | Using tablet PC made me feel more connected to the company. | 0.888 | 3.442 | 1.029 |
| Using tablet PC, I take pride in telling others about my company. | 0.932 | 3.384 | 1.131 | |
| Using tablet PC, I put in more effort than expected of myself for the company’s goal (improving service quality). | 0.894 | 3.528 | 1.111 | |
| Turnover | With the use of tablet PC, I intend to continue working at my current company. | 0.885 | 2.644 | 1.132 |
| By using tablet PC, I think I can work for a longer duration because the burden of work is reduced. | 0.920 | 2.543 | 1.132 | |
| With the expectation that the functions of tablet PC will improve, I have a desire to continue working for the company. | 0.838 | 2.355 | 1.057 | |
| χ2 = 677.930 (chi-square/df = 2.159, | ||||
Note: All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001.
Result of Convergent Validity.
| Variations | C.R. | AVE |
|---|---|---|
| Efficiency | 0.717 | 0.459 |
| Convenience | 0.905 | 0.708 |
| Service effectiveness | 0.874 | 0.698 |
| Pride | 0.935 | 0.782 |
| Job satisfaction | 0.850 | 0.654 |
| Team performance | 0.859 | 0.671 |
| Organizational commitment | 0.920 | 0.794 |
| Turnover intention | 0.896 | 0.743 |
Note: AVE: average variance extracted, C.R.: composite reliability.
Descriptive Statistics and Associated Measures.
| AVE | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency | 0.459 | 0.717 a | ||||||||
| Convenience | 0.708 | −0.830 b | 0.905 | |||||||
| Service effectiveness | 0.698 | 0.703 | −0.805 | 0.692 | 0.874 | |||||
| Pride | 0.782 | 0.68 | −0.65 | 0.581 | 0.712 | 0.935 | ||||
| Job | 0.654 | 0.596 | −0.528 | 0.749 | 0.743 | 0.666 | 0.850 | |||
| Team performance | 0.671 | 0.538 | −0.578 | 0.776 | 0.764 | 0.703 | 0.893 | 0.859 | ||
| Organizational commitment | 0.794 | 0.469 | −0.441 | 0.644 | 0.705 | 0.724 | 0.897 | 0.892 | 0.920 | |
| Turnover | 0.743 | −0.533 | 0.508 | −0.567 | −0.734 | −0.669 | −0.868 | −0.839 | −0.914 | 0.896 |
Note: AVE: average variance extracted. a Composite reliability is along the diagonal; b Correlations are above the diagonal; c Squared correlations are below the diagonal.
Scandalized Parameter Estimates for Structural Model.
| Paths | Hypothesis | β | S.E. | C.R. |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Efficiency | → | Job satisfaction | Not supported | 0.607 | 0.205 | 0.910 | 0.363 |
| Convenience | → | Job satisfaction | Supported | 1.092 | 0.518 | 2.140 | 0.032 |
| Service effectiveness | → | Job satisfaction | Supported | 0.634 | 0.555 | 3.063 | 0.002 |
| Pride | → | Job satisfaction | Supported | 0.306 | 0.306 | 2.693 | 0.007 |
| Job satisfaction | → | Team performance | Supported | 0.955 | 0.931 | 11.390 | *** |
| Job satisfaction | → | Organizational | Supported | 1.161 | 0.955 | 14.032 | *** |
| Job satisfaction | → | Turnover intention | Supported | −1.232 | −0.922 | −13.403 | *** |
S.E.: Standardized estimate, C.R.: composite reliability. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 2The Results of the Proposed Model (* p < 0.05).