The Impact of Psychological Climate and Self-Resilience on Employee Performance During the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Empirical Study in Indonesia

Abstract

The study aims to investigate the impact of psychological climate, self-resilience, Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB) and job stress on employee performance during Covid-19 pandemic. This paper also attempts to find out the mediating role of OCB and job stress in this context. A confirmatory survey was conducted on 316 employees of several institutions in Indonesia who worked from home during Covid-19 for a minimum period of 2 months. The research revealed that 1) PC has significant and positive influence on OCB and performance; 2) Self resilience have positive and significant influence on performance; 3) PC and self-resilience have a negative influence on job stress; 4) there are insignificant relationship between self-resilience on OCB; OCB and job stress on performance; 5) PC and self-resilience have no indirect influence on performance through OCB and job stress. The findings of this study reveal that organizations expected to have strategic approach in order to handle Covid-19 pandemic in different work patterns that are required to carry out routine office tasks from home, including handling stress as a fast adaptation for both employees and organizations that have a routine task from home.

1. Introduction

The dynamic workplaces need to adapt to the fast pace of technology and must have the work culture in order to deal with the challenges at the work place, including facing unpleasant situations (Meymand et al., 2017). Organizations seek stability that comes from a resilient workforce in an often volatile business environment (Varshney & Varshney, 2017). Especially in anticipation of the Covid-19 pandemic, according to the WHO’s report, was the first confirmed case in China on December 8, 2019. This change has been associated with different negative implications and several positive things as some professionals find it more flexible and comfortable to work remotely (Khudhair et al., 2020). The dramatic changes caused by Covid-19 have unprecedented implications for companies worldwide and profoundly impact human resource management (Gigauri, 2020). The situation during the Covid-19 was undoubtedly felt by most organizations at various levels in many countries require decisive and drastic measures to prevent massive transmission throughout life, including by education (Tanveer et al., 2020).

Self-resilience is still considered an emergency managed crisis problem, where the relationship between a resilient workforce and its impact on organizational outcomes is still not well understood by organizations (McManus et al., 2008). The option to retain workers in a Covid-19 situation has cost implications by implementing training and other activities in a fast and comprehensive manner (Langkamer & Ervin, 2008), to increase employee awareness in viewing the work environment in normal conditions compared to force management conditions (Biswas & Varma, 2007). Employees are expected to have the resilience to adapt and accept conditions that are different, beyond their perceptions of their work environment, and translate it into how they are treated and predict the results that will be obtained from both the advantages and the disadvantages of their work environment (Parker et al., 2003). These feelings certainly have a gradual impact on job engagement, effort and performance (Brown & Leigh, 1996). Resilient employees do not react very strongly to adverse situations; they will instead respond calmly and with positive emotions, and are able to make sense of their work, understand the intensity of the situation, and handle it with certainty (Paul et al., 2016).

Both pandemic and other variables on psychological well-being have different economic and social implications (Pailler & Tsaneva, 2018), management is always tested in achieving its goals in a structured, directed and in a comprehensive manner. Psychological climate (PC) related to structures, processes, and events that occur in organizations (O’Neill & Arend, 2008) are also associated with the characteristics of the work environment (Burke et al., 2002). Ensuring the health of an organization and its members avoid disturbances in the form of stress because it relates to the psychological climate and its performance (Yee et al., 2014). A positive PC will lead to the empowerment of an individual, which is reflected in a change in positive attitudes towards the implementation of their work. This favorable PC allows individuals to expand their activity-domain and increase their dedication to the organization (Biswas, 2009). For this reason, it is important for the organizations to improve the climate in the work environment so that employees have a pleasant experience and enjoy their work (Suratman, 2017). OCB was originally used in business areas, manufacturing companies. Then it also develops in many other organizations such as on campuses, hospitals, consumers and in the military (Hakim et al., 2014). OCB today includes altruism and generalized compliance, more broadly OCB also includes conscientiousness, sportsmanship and civic virtue (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Nonetheless, considerations about the mediating role of engagement in this relationship remain, to the best of our knowledge, still unexplored. Realizing that there is a gap in existing research, this study aims to answer the following questions: how PC, and self-resilience affect performance through OCB and job stress? How OCB and job stress affect performance? Would the role of OCB and job stress appear as intervening variable between PC and self-resilience on performance? This study investigated the role of the psychological climate, OCB, work stress and self-resilience on the performance of employees working from home during Covid-19.

1.1. Psychological Climate (PC)

PC describes the existing climate in the company that causes employees to like their work wholeheartedly or it can cause psychological barriers to their work (Kahn, 1990). PC characterized of the structure, processes, and events that occur in the organization (O’Neill & Arend, 2008) as well as the characteristics of the work environment (Burke et al., 2002) as well. Cognitively, it is called organizational climate by assessing the environment as a whole based on self-meaning and personal values (Isaksen & Lauer, 2002). The PC is formed as a form of one’s experience of the work environment. In addition, the psychological climate has a significant influence relevant to the emergence of the affective commitment system (Biswas, 2009). Positively, the PC appears in the form of a sense of security and a sense of meaning which can affect work effort, performance of work ability and work involvement Brown and Leigh (1996), related to work policies, procedures and practices (Beus et al., 2012) which in turn affect results and work attitudes (Balogun et al., 2013) and the extent to which a person is involved in their work (Clissold, 2006). Emphasis on the importance of personal values (clarity, responsibility, support, and friendly social relations) also produces a pattern for assessing the work environment (Burke et al., 2002).

1.2. Organizational Citizenship Behaviour (OCB)

Organizational citizenship behavior is one of the most important factors which influence the organizational performance (Dong & Phuong, 2018). OCB is a preferred behavior that is not part of the formal work obligations of an employee, but supports the effective functioning of the organization (Robbins, 2006). Graham (1991 in Bolino et al., 2002) proposes the concept of OCB which is based on political philosophy and modern political theory, and produces three forms of OCB (obedience, loyalty and participation). Particularly for participation which describes the willingness of employees to be actively developing all aspects of organizational life, consisting of; social, advocacy, and functional participation. Compliance and loyalty are the essence of organizational behavior in participating (Vigoda & Golembiewski, 2001). Such behavior is not a requirement that must be carried out in a specific role or job description, or behavior that is a personal choice (Podsakoff et al., 2000). Individual OCB can have a significant positive impact on the overall performance of the organization. so that the employees are motivated to get it go beyond responsibility in their roles and duties (Biswas & Varma, 2007).

1.3. Self-Resilience

Self-resilience (SR) is the individual’s ability to be able to cope with change, survive and rise again in order to recover after facing an unpleasant situation (Luthans et al., 2006). Resilience concept is a combination of the physiological and psychological condition of a human being, which refers to the condition of a person who is disturbed or shocked that can cause stress. Employees are expected to go through many difficult situations in their jobs such as difficult job responsibilities, lack of resources and support, emotional and physical issues, and work-life conflicts. So with these qualities employees will be able to overcome these challenges (Lhalloubi & Ibnchahid, 2020). Resilience is needed to be able to turn threats into opportunities to grow, develop, and increase the ability to adapt for a positive change. Meanwhile, this self-resilience capacity changes over time and is enhanced by protective factors in the individual and the environment (Stewart et al., 1997). SR can help individuals deal with stressors that are inherent in the work environment but cannot be changed (Cooper & Cartwright, 1997). Factors that strengthen self-reliance, namely the values a person has, then guide, shape, and provide consistency and meaning to cognition, emotions and related actions.

1.4. Job Stress

Job stress refers to situations in which work-related factors interact with workers to change the psychological and or physiological condition of the employees so that the person is forced to deviate from normal functioning from normal (Newman & Beehr, 1979). Stress is stated as a psychological impact of external factors that go beyond simple surface pressure, meaning there are underlying factors (Yang et al., 2021). Stress can occur when employees are at work. It can be lead by job intention because of burnout job (Choi et al., 2018). Stress is shown through normal psychophysical responses to demanding and tiring events or environments (Selye, 1974), while insufficient resources to meet individual demands or needs cause mental physical and psychological disorders (Naqvi et al., 2013). It is a dynamic condition in which a person is faced with opportunities, obstacles, or requests related to what he wants and for which success seems uncertain (Robbins, 2006). Stress symptoms can be shown through 3 aspects: 1) physical symptoms; 2) behavioral symptoms, and 3) workplace symptoms (Cooper and Straw, 1995).

1.5. Employee Performance

Job performance is a means to achieve a goal or set of goals in a job, role, or organization (Campbell, 1990), then recorded over a certain period of time (Bernardin and Russel, 2011) to find out the comparison of actual performance compared to the expected performance of employees (Dessler, 2007) and noted the increase and related reasons (Snell & Morris, 2019). Then it will record the performance of what is done or not done by employees including the elements of quantity and quality of work, time utilization, attendance level and cooperation as previously determined (Mathis & Jackson, 2011). More performance on work that has been carried out by employees as a form of responsibility given to them. There are six indicators to measure employee performance, namely: 1) quality, 2) quantity, 3) timeliness, 4) effectiveness, 5) independence and 6) work commitment (Robbins, 2006). Meanwhile, indicators of work knowledge, reliability, availability and dependability can be added in assessing performance (Dessler, 2007).

2. Hypothesis

2.1. The Influences of Psychological Climate on OCB, Job Stress and Performance

Biswas and Varma (2007) showed positive results from the psychological climate on OCB. The perceived meaningfulness that is accepted is the perception that work affects the processes and results of the organization and that they, employees, help the organization to achieve its goals (Eisele & D’Amato, 2011). A well-developed communication system is also needed by PC actively involves all levels of the organization in preventing job stress (Dollard & Bakker, 2010). The PC which is supported by the existence of trust and credibility towards superiors are able to ensure the level of job stress of employees (Soeharso & Christie, 2009) but the existence of work-family conciliation as part of the psychological climate does not have a significant impact on job stress. Positively, the PC appears in the form of a sense of security and a sense of meaning which can affect work effort, performance of work ability and work involvement Brown and Leigh (1996), related to work policies, procedures and practices (Beus et al., 2012) which in turn affect results and work attitudes (Balogun et al., 2013) and the extent to which a person is involved in their work (Clissold, 2006).

H1: Psychological climate has positive influence on OCB.

H2: Psychological climate has negative influence on job stress.

H3: Psychological climate has positive influence on performance.

H4: Psychological climate has indirectly influence on performance through OCB and job stress.

2.2. The Influences of Self-Resilience on OCB, Job Stress and Performance

One research result provides empirical evidence for a positive relationship between resilience and OCB, this occurs when individuals who are resilient are more likely to experience positive emotions even in difficult situations (Paul et al., 2016). Someone who is resilient is able to learn new knowledge and is increasingly likely to have relationships with other people (Luthans et al., 2006). If employees feel free to do their jobs, then the employees will be able to maximize their performance as per their capabilities. (Logahan & Rahman, 2015). While employees feel discomfort at work it will cause their level of self-resistance to weaken, instead of providing performance, employees will be more absorbed in their energy in dealing with job stress due to discomfort (Chen et al., 2017). The resilience possessed by individuals has an implication that it is important for organizations that in addition to monitoring safety, it also provides the strength to provide the expected performance. Resilience as the part of the psychological aspect builds character strength, and psychological wellbeing has also been found to improve job satisfaction which helps in enhancing the performance (Yang et al, 2015).

H5: Self-resilience has positive influence on OCB.

H6: Self-resilience has negative influence on job stress.

H7: Self-resilience has positive influence on performance.

H8: Self-resilience has indirect influence on performance through OCB and job stress.

2.3. The Influences of OCB and Job Stress on Performance

Sriboonlue and Peemanee (2013), Yuniarto (2018), Pranata et al., (2020) support a study which says that OCB has a positive influence on employee performance. With this it can be considered that organizations can improve this OCB through performance appraisal and determine work standards in terms of compliance, loyalty and participation aspects (Vigoda and Golembiewski, 2001; Bolino et al., 2002). So that the organizations can strengthen the positive behavior of employees (Hakim et al., 2014) in terms of personal development needed to achieve organizational efficiency and empowerment capabilities towards future competition. The associated OCB dimensions; altruism, conscientiousness, sportsmanship, courtesy, and civic virtue have simultaneously positive factors for increased performance (Rejeki et al., 2019). Job stress is the result or response to certain stimuli in the environment (Mathis and Jackson, 2011). In summary, the conceptual model of this study is displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

H9: OCB has a positive influence on performance.

H10: Job stress has negative influence on performance.

3. Research Methods

3.1. Methods and Data Collection

A survey was carried out on the office workers who experienced changes in work activities due to the outbreak of the Covid-19. All these office workers had worked in offices till the onset of the pandemic. These office workers continued to work from their home for their respective offices after the outbreak of the Covid-19. A total of N = 316 employees from 4 sectors completed the questionnaires through Google Form link to respondents who were employees of several institutions who experienced work from home for a minimum period of 2 months. The questionnaire used a Likert scale to examine how strongly the subject agrees with a statement on a Likert scale of 8 points from a scale value of 1 which means “very very strongly disagree” to a scale value of 8 which means “very very strongly agree” with the guide point (anchor) or reference (Sekaran and Bougie, 2016). In this study, the psychological climate and resilience variables are independent variables; performance as the dependent variable and the intervening variables used were OCB and the job stress. In this research, PC measured by 6 indicators that were adopted from Brown & Leigh’s (2006). Self-resilience measured by two indicators developed by (Cooper & Cartwright, 1997), OCB measured by Podsakoff et al. (2000), Job stress measured by symptoms developed by (Cooper and Straw, 1995) and the measurement of performance based on Bernadin & Russel (2003). The demographic characteristics of the participants are presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Characteristics of Respondents

3.2. Factors and Reliability Analysis

The confirmatory factors analysis results in Table 2 show that for 13 items of psychological climate statement items, it shows that there are 3 statement items that do not have good validity. For the items of job stress, the total of 8 statement items shows that they have good validity, while for the 11 items of the OCB statement it shows that there are 10 items that have good validity. For performance items totaling 10 items the overall statement has good validity. From several invalid statement items, it was withdrawn then a second CFA was carried out of all statement items from the five research variables which were validated by reducing the previous statement items from a total of 49 items to 44 statement items that survive as supporters of each variable as in Table 2.

Table 2: Validity Distribution of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Cronbach’s Alpha measured for each variable’s reliability; the value’s range from α = 0.895 to α = 0.947, detailed in Table 3.

Table 3: Result of Reliability Test

4. Empirical Results

Mahalanobis distance was evaluated using x² degrees of freedom 44 item were used, all cases that had a mahalanobis distance greater than x² (44; 0.001) = 78.749 were multivariate outliers. In this study, the results of the Mahalanobis distance evaluation were no cases that could be categorized as outliers because all observations had a mahalanobis distance of < 78.749. Univariate and multivariate normality for the data used in this analysis, are checked. Univariate for the values in Cr skewness, most of the statement items showed a value > 2 as for the values in Cr kurtosis, all the statement item shows a value > 7 which indicates univariate not normally distributed. The data in this study were also not normally distributed in a multivariate manner with a C.R kurtosis value of 35.130 which is in the range C.R kurtosis > 21. However, the Maximum Likelihood Estimates (MLE) technique used in this study is not very affected (robust) to abnormal data so that further analysis can be continued.

4.1. Fit Analysis Model (Goodness-of-Fit)

Table 6, explains the results of the goodness of fit of the used research model. In this test, the value of x² produces a significance level of less than 0.05 with a value of x² of 2574.601 indicating that the proposed research model has not met. Chi-Square is very sensitive to sample size, so other indicators are needed to produce a definite justification for the fit model. The value of GFI, AGFI, in this research model shows a poor level of conformity. Researchers consider making error modifications to form an alternative model that has a better goodness of fit. (See Table 4 below).

Table 6: Standardized Indirect Effects (Group Number 1 - Default Model)

Table 4: Result Comparation of Goodness-of-Fit Model 1 & 2

Through the value of modification indices it can be seen whether or not there is a possibility of modification to the proposed model. Modification indices that can be seen from the amos output will show relationships that need to be estimated that were not previously present in the model to get a better research model. Researchers estimated the correlation between error terms which had a value of modification indices greater than or equal to 4.0 (Ferdinand, 2005). Based on Table 4, the results of model modification obtained an increase in the goodness of fit model. The values of CMIN / DF, TLI, CFI, and RMSEA show a good level of conformity. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the overall model is acceptable.

Table 5 showed the regression weight model which 3 of 8 hypothesis; are insignificant because the value of significant level (P) is greater than 5%: the effect of PC on job stress, the effect of OCB on performance and the effect of job stress on performance.

Table 5: Regression Weights

4.2. Results and Discussion

The influence of PC on OCB, job stress and performance

The psychological climate presented in Table 5 toward OCB has a C.R. value 4.475, significant with a significance level of p < 0.05 (p value 0.316). These results indicate that the psychological climate is considered a direct factor that can positively influence the emergence of organizational behavior. The PC has a significant influence on employee OCB (Logahan & Rahman, 2015) and the work environment (Burke et al., 2002). The relationship between PC and the organizational citizenship behavior also mediates the psychological empowerment (Meymand et al., 2017), so as to indicate appropriate behavior in the environment (Barkhi and Kao, 2011). While CR’s value of PC toward job stress is −0.660 and shows no significant effect with a significance level of p > 0.05. This phenomenon probably occurs because the respondents are in a condition of having to work from home, psychologically the respondent is at home with their family during the pandemic, but at the same time they have to keep doing their work as routine in the office. From employees to the management level, they came up with ideas to present policies, practices and procedures to protect the psychological health and safety of their workers (Law et al., 2011). On the other side, the new routine causes respondents to feel comfortable at home but they are under pressure to adapt to work at home environment accompanied by having to face other tasks in their respective households. Still in Table 5, the value of C.R. the influence of PC toward performance is 2.901 and value of P as 0.004 at the level of significance p < 0.05. This result indicated that the psychological climate is a factor that can have a direct effect on performance, regardless of having to work harder to condition oneself with a new work environment at home. Biswas and Varma (2007) in their research showed positive results from PC on performance. Not only directly, but involved the OCB variable which mediates and strengthens the influence of psychological climate on employee performance (Eisele & D’Amato, 2011). In addition to affecting employee engagement, PC affects both employee effort and performance (Brown & Leigh, 1996).

Table 6 shows that there is an indirect effect of psychological climate on performance of 0.030. The results of AMOS work in Table 5 do not include information on whether there is an indirect effect of the psychological climate on employee performance of 0.030 which was meant to test whether it was significant or not. So the Sobel Test was applied to see the effect of OCB mediation and work stress on the influence of psychological climate on performance. From the Sobel test for work stress as an intervention, it is known that the t-count value of 0.391 is smaller than the t-table of 1.966. So the influence of psychology on performance mediated by job stress is not significant. While the Sobel test on the indirect effect of psychology on performance through OCB, it is known that the t-count is 1.249 while the t-table is 1.966 which means that t-count < t-table, so hypothesis 5 is not supported.

The influence of self-resilience on OCB, job stress and performance

Table 5 showed self-resilience has a significance effect on OCB with data showing that the value of C.R. amounting to 8.210: significant with a significance level of p > 0.05. This shows that the factor of self-resilience has a positive impact on influencing a person to remain and behave well in organizational terms such as staying connected and working with colleagues even though they are far from the office. SR is the ability of the individual to be able to cope with significant changes, successes, difficulties, or risks. This individual’s resilience capacity changes over time and is enhanced by protective factors in the individual and the environment (Stewart et al., 1997).

Likewise, the effect of self-resilience on job stress with the calculation results of the value of C.R. amounting to −1.986; at the level of significance p < 0.05. The phenomenon explained from the results of this research is that self-resistance has a negative effect on job stress. This can occur when the an employee’s higher self-resistance is able to minimize the level of work stress experienced or perceived by someone at work. As well as the C.R. of self-resistance toward performance is 8.528: significant with 0.000 of p < 0.05. The results of this study indicate that self-resistance has a positive effect on performance. As an explanation, higher the level of self-resilience of an employee, higher will be the performance that is produced or perceived by the employee. Individuals always face stressors that are inherent in the work environment but cannot be changed (Cooper & Cartwright, 1997). Employees have self-resistance in an effort to survive in doing their job. Willingness to work together, help others, provide advice, actively participate and even provide extra services for providing extra services (Agustiningsih et al., 2017).

From the Table 6, it can be inferred that that there is an indirect effect of the psychological climate on performance of 0.071. When traced the direct supporting influence of OCB and work stress both, they do not have a significant effect on performance. To ascertain whether the indirect effect is significant or not, the Sobel Test is applied to determine the magnitude of the effect of OCB and work stress mediation on the effect of self-resistance on performance. From the Sobel test, it is known that the t-count value of −0.366 is smaller than the t-table of 1.966. So the results show that the effect of psychological climate on performance mediated by job stress is not significant. While the Sobel test on the indirect effect of self-resistance on performance through OCB, it is known that the t-count is 1.306 while the t-table is 1.966 which means t-count < t-table, so hypothesis 8 is not supported.

The influences of OCB and job stress on performance

Based on Table 5 with the value of C.R. 1.341 is not significant with a significance level of p < 0.05; the effect of OCB on performance is considered to have no direct and significant impact on performance. It can be understood that someone who is far from the work environment as in normal conditions has constraints in providing positive behavior in organization, but this does not affect the resulting performance because not all performance activities have to be done together. Job stress with its effect toward performance has a value of C.R 0.428; not significant with a significance level of p < 0.05. This can be understood when someone is working at home with a certain level of stress because they not only have to engage in office work but they also have to perform other jobs at home with more flexible timings. When it is viewed from the point of view of job stress, it is not considered to have a direct influence in producing performance. Meanwhile, job stress is often perceived as leading to low employee morale and performance (Vijayan, 2017). The causes of job stress can be linked to changes in technology, competitive lifestyles and various other social factors. Thus, any workload and role conflicts, and inadequate monetary rewards are also the main reasons for stress on employees, and this stress reduces performance efficiency (Ali et al., 2014). See Table 6 below:

5. Conclusion

The results of the study on 4 of 10 hypotheses have insignificant results. There are allegations, the existence of bias in several variables tested in different contexts both from the professional side, the organizational conditions of the respondents who do not come from the same institutions. In addition, all respondents are employees affected by Covid-19 who require that they must be at home with routine office work that is still mandatory. Future studies should still examine the effect of existing variables by focusing on specific institutions.

From the descriptive analysis of the respondents related to the variables, it is known that both the psychological climate variables, self-resilience, OCB and the perceived performance of employees are in a “Very high” condition but have not reached “Very very high”. However, it turns out that the exposure to job stress that is perceived by the respondents is also in the “Fairly high” category. Organizations need to consider the importance of handling job stress faced by their employees. Even though it has the same workload, the Covid-19 pandemic requires rapid adaptation both from the employee side and the organization side to improve in terms of policies and organizational systems that allow it to continue despite having a work from home policy. A stress-free work life is impossible to find in any organization. Management can take steps to minimize it by reducing stress levels on employees by redesigning jobs so that they can reduce the workload on employees and reduce role conflicts that occur at home. In addition, this organization must also provide counseling to its employees to learn skills to manage stress while working at home.