Next Article in Journal
The Crossovers and Connectivity between Systems Engineering and the Sustainable Development Goals: A Scoping Study
Previous Article in Journal
Sustainability through Operational Excellence: An Emerging Country Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 6
10.3390/su13063175
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Impact of Coordination, Psychological Safety, and Job Security on Employees’ Performance: The Moderating Role of Coercive Pressure

by
Yong Ming Wang
1,
Waqar Ahmad
1,*,
Muhammad Arshad
2,*,
Hong Li Yin
3,
Bilal Ahmed
4 and
Zulfiqar Ali
1
1
Faculty of Management and Economics, Kunming University of Science and Technology, Kunming 650500, China
2
School of Business Management, Yunnan University of Finance and Economics, Kunming 650500, China
3
School of Information Science and Technology, Yunnan Normal University, Kunming 650093, China
4
Institute of International Relations, South and Southeast Asian Institute, Yunnan University, Kunming 650500, China
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(6), 3175; https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063175
Submission received: 3 February 2021 / Revised: 7 March 2021 / Accepted: 10 March 2021 / Published: 14 March 2021
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Based on institutional theory, the current study examines the relationship of coordination, job security, psychological safety, and coercive pressure with employees’ performance. Further, coercive pressure is treated as a boundary condition between coordination, job security, and psychological safety with employees’ performance. A survey method was used to collect data from 235 faculty members of higher education institutions (HEIs) in Pakistan. Study results show that there is a positive and significant relationship between job security and coordination with employees’ performance. The results also reveal that coercive pressure moderates job security, coordination, and psychological safety with employees’ performance. Implications for organizations and HEIs administration are discussed.

1. Introduction

Employees are the most important element for an organization; indeed, they are the most important asset of an organization. Their performance in an organization collectively affects the organization’s performance [1]. So, performance is like behavior that improves the capacity of the employees [2]. Further, employee performance for the organization is a motivating factor to strengthen the organization’s performance as a whole [3]. Employees’ performance is relevant to the behavior and action of the employees at the workplace, which is a link to the organization’s goals [4]. So, the employees’ (faculty members) performance plays a significant role in all types of organizations, including higher education [5].
Higher education has a primary role in enhancing the nation’s knowledge economy [6]. Any country’s knowledge indicators predict the development of a society [7]. It is imperative for the education sector’s higher authority to underpin those problems, which are associated with the HEIs and their employees. HEIs’ employees’ performance has unique importance for the knowledge economy of a country, which is still not given much attention from the actors for the survival of HEIs’ quality and research [8].
In past studies, researchers explored the relationship of psychological safety with an individual’s work performance [9,10], psychological safety with a mediating variable workplace bullying and harassment [11], psychological safety and creative performance [12,13], coordination and employees’ performance [14,15]. All these previous researchers’ work explains the importance of the relationship between psychological safety, coordination, and job security with employee performance. Therefore, coordination, psychological safety, and job security play a significant role in enhancing employees’ performance in the organization [16,17]. So, it is clear from the previous research that individual relationships of these variables have been explored with different dependent variables, but together, these three variables coordination, psychological safety, and employees’ performance are unexplored so far.
According to [18], Institutional Theory explains there are three institutional pressures—those which have an impact on the organization’s and its employees’ performance. These institutional pressures are coercive, mimetic, and normative [18,19]. From the three institutional pressures, coercive pressure is more important because it relates to rules, regulations, punishments, and sanctions by government regulations and other shareholders that influence employees’ performance [20]. This pressure changes institutional practices, which ultimately affect the organization and its employees. Streams of studies explain that coercive pressure has a strong role in the long life and development of an organization and its employees [21] and compels an organization to improve its performance [22]. Furthermore, coercive pressure has importance for educational institutions that enforce an organization to meet leading organization standards [23,24]. However, the authors of [25] explain that coercive pressure is important for organizational fit. So, it is imperative to address this issue on a priority basis. Moreover, it is assumed that coercive pressure may moderate the relationship of coordination, job security, and psychological safety with employee performance (Figure 1 shows study model). Streams of research explain that no such studies were carried out to fill the theoretical void between moderating variable (coercive pressure) coordination, job security, psychological safety, and employees’ performance in Pakistan’s context [26].
The current study will attempt to answer these questions: (a) Does coordination, psychological safety, job security have a positive relationship with employees’ performance? (b) Does coercive pressure moderate the relationship between coordination and employee performance? (c) Does coercive pressure moderate the relationship between job security and employee performance (EP)? (d) Does coercive pressure strengthen the relationship between psychological safety and an employee’s performance?
This study tries to fill the theoretical void, which is so far rarely discussed by researchers. This study framework contributes to the study in several ways in the literature of employee performance. Firstly, it investigates the relationship between coordination, job security, psychological safety, and employee performance. Secondly, coercive pressure plays a role in strengthening the relationship between coordination, job security, psychological safety, and employee performance.

2. Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Testing

2.1. Employees’ Performance

Employees’ performance is a vital building block of an organization, a pre-requisite for an organization’s success. In other words, employees’ performance directly affects an organization’s progress and efficiency [27]. According to the study in [28], it explains that employees’ performance has a significant and multidimensional role that aims to achieve results that strongly link to an organization’s strategic goals. It means that employees’ performance measures both efficiency and productivity [16]. Employees’ performance has a relationship with the job performance of the employees, which has a final effect on an employee’s effort, as modified by his abilities, roles, or task perceptions [29,30] which is integrated with the job satisfaction and commitment of employees with the organization. The relationship between job performance and feedback has been studied extensively in motivational theories, such as social learning theory [31]. According to this theory, employees’ performance includes establishing their performance appraisal plans’ elements and standards. Employees’ performance should be measurable, understandable, verifiable, equitable, and achievable. Streams of research explain that employee performance has importance in educational sectors, illuminating and magnifying its importance [32]. Scholars have described the need for an improved understanding of job security and satisfaction in an organization; this factor should be fulfilled for results [33], although there are various approaches and benefits for an organization to motivate the employees for their better performance. Due to employees’ performance, the organization’s productivity increased which ultimately affected the organization economically [34].

2.2. Coordination and Employees’ Performance

Coordination has generally been known as a mechanism to regulate interdependent objects in the form of the tasks, responsibilities, capabilities, and information of different groups that must match both ways and time for an integrated accomplishment of organizational objectives [35]. Coordination has an integrated role in the group of people in an organization to work in a team to tackle issues and minimizes the obstacles for individuals and an organization’s goal [36]. It is essential to enhance employees’ motivation and employees’ voice and management, as well as develop, and define their role and responsibilities [37]. According to the study in [38] “coordination is putting the pieces together, we do not have an organization but only a collection of separate activities”. Coordination is the actual relationship when the people in the group work together to achieve a common goal.
Researchers in [39] believe that coordination has a positive and significant role in the development of employees’ performance. Further, Mohiuddin [40] and Akhtar et al., [41] have explained that coordination plays a crucial role in an organization’s commitment and performance. Further, coordination has significance in the education sector to improve the performance of the faculty members [42]. Therefore, based on the above arguments, it can be analyzed that coordination has importance for the employees’ performance in an organization. So, the following hypothesis can be assumed as:
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Coordination has a positive and significant influence on employees’ performance.

2.3. Psychological Safety and Employees’ Performance

Psychological safety is a sense of showing and employing self-respect without negative consequences [43]. Psychological safety can also be clarified as a psychological climate, where employees feel safe [10]. The studies reveal that psychological safety is the need for the employees’ safety and security on the job, which affects the organization’s performance. According to the study in [44], the authors suggested a climate of psychological safety allows people to feel safe while taking risks, setting high standards that require enormous effort, and such a type of interdependent safe environment to perform their job. Further research [44] explains that psychological safety promotes situations where employees can learn and improve their performance safely. It indicated that psychological safety is an essential relational catalyst for employees’ learning behaviors in the organizational work setting for their performance. Psychological safety and trust environment play a significant role in fueling intrinsic motivation [44]. Psychological safety helps develop the employees’ confidence, and it ultimately strengthens the courage of the employees to take risks and show performance [45,46]. Psychological safety emphasizes an organization’s environment where critical or reflective thinking is openly exercised [47]. Psychological safety could be developed by facilitating high-quality relationships of shared goals, knowledge, information, planning, and mutual respect among employees [48]. This explains that psychological safety has a role in changing the attitude and behavior of the employees [49].
Psychological safety for the employees’ performance is an essential factor for an organization’s survival [50]. It carries great importance for the organization’s good environment. For knowledge sharing, the perceptions of psychological safety are vital for employees. Furthermore, from the work in [50], study findings expanded our knowledge that different employees react differently to HR practices within the same organization environment, so an organization needs to pay attention to the psychological safety of employees’ performance factors. A psychologically safe environment within the organization has an alignment with its employees and organization performance [10,51].
Furthermore, the researcher indicated that psychological safety within the organization positively links with its stakeholders, ultimately giving appositive moves for the organization employees and its other stakeholders [45]. Therefore, psychological safety has a supporting role in the employees’ performance at the workplace. Based on the above discussion, our hypothesis is as follows:
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Psychological safety has a statistically positive effect on the employees’ performance.

2.4. Job Security and Employees’ Performance

Job security can be defined as security associated with a decline in average tenure and an increase in employment exit rates [52]. Organizations need human resources to accomplish their goals, and also, employees need job security and satisfaction at the workplace [53]. So, this factor has importance for employees. As job security has a significant role, so researchers have worked extensively and defined it differently. As per the study in [54], studies explain that job security is the main factor for accomplishing organizational tasks by securing employees’ jobs. Furthermore, Lăzăroiu [55] has explained that job security is an essential factor for an organization’s motivation. Job insecurity [56] has diverse and risky effects that affect the employees psychologically and economically and ultimately affect the organization’s goals and objectives. Therefore, job security has an integrated role in the organization, primarily for its performance [17]. Suppose the employees observe distributive justice and coordination within the organization regarding their job security and satisfaction [56]. In that case, they perform well and show their involvement within the organization and with the organization’s customers. New policies and institutional pressure have importance for the organization that is still suffering to address employees’ job security [53]. The issues and problems arise in most organizations where most employees feel insecure and psychologically depressed. So, there needs to be attention to address these issues on a priority basis [57,58]. Job insecurity creates the risk of unemployment for an employee, which usually has negative psychological consequences and affects employees’ performance [59]. Therefore, this issue needs to address the organization’s productivity and employees’ satisfaction. Based on the above arguments, the following hypothesis proposed:
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Job security has a positive and significant relationship with employees’ performance.

2.5. The Moderating Role of Coercive Pressure

Institutional factors play an essential role in employees’ performance enhancement [60,61]. The coercive pressures significantly affect an organization because it compels the organization to follow the rules and regulations of higher authority, vital for its survival in a competitive environment [62]. Educational institutions have increasingly been subjected to the stakeholders’ enormous pressure and the education department to improve performance [63,64]. As in the context of Europe, the role of the institutional environment has not shown a significant difference in education sector performance [64,65]. The increased attention on performance measures by academics and consultants reflects the increased pressure to enhance organizational performance [66]. The significant relationship between coercive pressure and organizational performance is evident in recent literature [19].
Further, according to the findings of [67] that universities and academic workers are affected by external pressures related to higher education that include government regulations and control of the state (state pressure), the expectations of the professional norms, and collegiality of the academic community (academic pressures)compel the institutions to adapt themselves as according to requirements of the main actors. In the European context, the institutional pressures have a partial role in the performance of the institutions [68]. Institutional pressures also affect the decision and strategies of institutions, which ultimately affects the performance of the employees [69].
Moreover, according to the study in [70], external drivers have a mediating effect on an organization’s performance. Further, Huang and Yang [71] believes that coercive pressure has a role in the organization’s employees’ performance [72]. It means that coercive pressure plays a leading role in the development and performance of an organization and its employees. Furthermore, according to [73,74], innovation and development in the organization need to adapt according to the external environment for the organization’s performance and its employees. Coercive pressure plays a vital role in the organization to adapt itself according to the current competitive environment.
Market pressure, regulatory pressure, and competitiveness pressure, are all factors that play a vital role in deploying the organization’s business and enhancing the employees’ performance [75]. According to [70], external environment pressure has a significant and moderating effect on the organization to compete in a competitive environment. It means that external institutional pressure plays a central role in enhancing organizational productivity. Moreover, coercive pressure improves an organization’s performance directly and indirectly [76,77].
Further, Sahadev [78] explored how coercive pressure plays a moderator role between coordination and employees’ performance. His findings expound that external institutional pressure plays a primary role in the isomorphism process of the organization. Further, Dubey et al. [74] also elaborated that external institutional pressures enhance coordination and collaboration between the institutions for better organization performance. Further, the institutional environment also affects the psychological safety of the employees [49,79].
Based on the previous research, it is considered that there exists a link between coercive pressures and employees’ performance. Hence, this is considered as one of the main theoretical voids in the literature. Coercive pressure has a significant interaction between coordination, psychological safety, job security, and employee performance based on the discussed arguments. Based on the above discussion, the hypotheses are as follows:
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Coercive pressure has a positive and significant relationship with employee performance.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Coercive pressure plays the role of moderator between coordination and employees’ performance.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Coercive pressure strengthens the relationship between psychological safety and employees’ performance.
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Coercive pressure has a strong relationship between job security and employees’ performance.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection and Participants

The target group of the study was HEIs’ faculties and administration. A standard questionnaire was employed to collect the data from faculty members of HEIs.
Based on the simple random sampling technique, 26 HEIs were selected for this study. Three hundred questionnaires were distributed among the employees; 250 responses were recorded. The HEIs’ faculty members were asked to record their responses by filling out the standard questionnaire. The participants responded against every variable’s items based on the 5-point scale from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Based on the eligibility criteria and careful checking, we only included 235 responses for this study.
The higher education institutions’ faculties list was downloaded from the higher education commission (HEC) website. Moreover, the HEIs’ heads and registrar were also approached for the data collection.

3.2. Measurement

In the present study, the measurement items were adapted from existing literature and tested scales of employees’ performance, coordination, psychological safety, and job security [46,64,72,73,74,75,76]. The strategy of inclusion and exclusion was adapted to make minor changes in the words and sentence structure. The details of the scale of study variables are given below and Appendix A.

3.2.1. Employees’ Performance

Items for employees’ performance were adapted from [80]. The generated value of α for the adopted items was α = 0.83.

3.2.2. Coordination

The coordination scale was adapted from [81,82]. The items values were (α = 0.814).

3.2.3. Job Security

Job security was assessed through three items, adapted from Probst [83]. The scale explained item values of (α = 0.85 and KMO = 0.717).

3.2.4. Psychological Safety

Three items were used to assess psychological safety, adapted from [47,84] scale. The value of items were (α = 0.811).

3.2.5. Coercive Forces

The five items were adapted from [70] to assess the coercive forces. This scale explains (α = 0.956) in the study.

3.2.6. Common Method Bias (CMB)

A single source was used to collect data from the respondents. So, there may be the existence of a common bias issue in the study data set [85]. If the data has a variance greater than 50%, then it explains the CMB problem. Harman’s single-factor approach was used to examine the CMB issue in the data. All of the items in this study data are divided into five constructs. The first construct showed 40% of the total variance, which was less than 50% [86]. Therefore, there is no such common variance problem in the data. All the values of the VIF are less than the threshold value of 3.3; these results show that there is no such issue of CMB in our data [87].

4. Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 demonstrates the characteristics of the sample, which indicates that in the data collection process, most of the respondents were male (n = 235, 65.1%), and only (n = 235, 34.9%) were females. On the other side, (n = 235, 36%) respondents were professors (associate, assistant), and 36% were lecturers. In terms of age ratio, the number of samples aged 20–25 was 83, accounting for 35.2%; the number of samples aged 26–30 is 70, accounting for 29.8%; the number of samples aged 31–35 was 59, the proportion was 25.1%; for 34–40 years, respondents were 16 with a proportion of 6.8%, and for 41 and above age, participants were 12, and their proportion was 6.8%. In the sample of age, most of the respondents were between the ages of 20–25 and, 26–30 years, which elaborates that most of the respondents were young. In terms of the proportion of education, the number of respondents of master education holders was 188, accounting for 80%, and the number of respondents with Ph.D./other level degrees was 47, and the proportion is 20%. The majority of the respondents had a master’s degree.

4.1. Measurement Model

In this study regression, four steps approach from Baron and Kenney (1986) was used to analyze the data. The reliability and validity of the scale were also checked [88]. The structural equation modeling technique in SmartPls was used to analyze the relationship between the data. This method is preferred because it estimated the multiple and interrelated dependence in a single analysis [88,89].

4.1.1. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used to check the model fitness test. According to this (see Table 2), all the requirements are full for a model fitness [89]. Results proved that our hypothesized five-factor model is fit (see Table 2), and values were within the range.

4.1.2. Validity and Reliability

In this study, discriminant and convergent validities were checked. Table 2 expounds the factor loading values and average variance extracted (AVE), which confirmed convergent validity. To analyze discriminant validity, we work according to the guidelines of the [88] technique by comparing the shared variance between the variables with the AVE of each variable, and the results confirmed discriminant validity AVE > shared variance. The linear regressions were used among the variables in the study. Before applying linear regression analysis to measure and validate a study variable’s model fit, some preliminary assumptions of the regression analysis like normality, outliers, homogeneity, and collinearity were checked. All these assumptions were fulfilling the regression requirements (collinearity, normality, outliers, and homogeneity were checked). The VIF values of all the items of the variables are less than the threshold value of 3.3%. Further, Figure 2 explains a good measurement model for the study. All these things explain a good fit of the model.
Table 3 depicts that the square root of the AVE is higher than the intercorrelation among constructs which indicates a good discriminant validity [90]. In Table 3, the intercorrelation of the variables is less than the square root of AVE.
Figure 2 illustrates a positive and significant relationship between coordination, psychological safety, job security, coercive pressure, and employees’ performance. Further, all the independent variables explain a variation of 59.8% in employees’ performance.

4.2. Testing of Hypotheses

A regression analysis was carried out to test the direct relationship of the coordination, job security, psychological safety relationship with employees’ performance, as well as the moderating effect of coercive pressure in the relationship between coordination, job security, psychological safety, and employees’ performance. Figure 3 below showing the structural model detail. The results are as follows.

4.2.1. Coordination

Table 4 illustrates that coordination positively and significantly influences employees’ performance. Coercive pressure also has a positive relationship with employees’ performance. Therefore, our study results supported Hypothesis H1 and H4. Further, Table 4 findings and Figure 4 explain that coercive pressure is dampening the positive relationship of coercive pressure between coordination and employee performance. So, results do not support Hypothesis H5.

4.2.2. Psychological Safety

Table 5 illustrates the psychological safety results (β = −0.133, p > 0.001), which show that there is a negative and insignificant relationship between psychological safety and employee’ performance. So, Hypothesis H2 is not supported. However, there is a positive and significant relationship between coercive pressure (β = 0.29 p < 0.001) and employees’ performance. Therefore, Hypothesis H4 is supported. Table 5 and Figure 5 show that coercive pressure has a dampening on the relationship between psychological safety and employees’ job performance. So, Hypothesis (H6) is supported.

4.2.3. Job Security

Table 6 illustrates that in the job security (β = 0.175 3, p < 0.001) results, there is a positive and significant relationship between job security and employees’ performance. Further, coercive pressure has a positive and significant relationship to employees’ performance. Hence Hypotheses H3 and H4 are supported. Further, Table 6 and Figure 6’s results (β = 0.055, p < 0.001) show that coercive pressure has a moderating role between job security and employees’ job performance. Therefore, results support Hypothesis (H7).

5. Discussion

The study’s primary purpose was to determine how coercive pressure moderates the relationship between coordination, job security, and psychological safety and how this affects employees’ performance in Pakistan’s private sector HEIs. These research questions were answered by testing the research framework used in this study by statistical analysis. Tables result in a display that show the coordination, psychological safety, and job security on employees’ performance in HEIs in Pakistan.
The study’s findings explain that coordination and employees’ performance has a positive relationship with each other; these results are consistent with work [14,15]. Further, the moderating variable coercive pressure is dampening the positive relationship between coordination and employees’ performance.
Moreover, we found that psychological safety has an insignificant relationship with the employees’ performance. The variable results are not consistent with the findings of [91], in which they have the views that psychological safety has a positive and significant attachment to employees’ performance. Further, study results report that coercive pressure has a partial moderating effect between psychological safety and employees’ performance. The results contradict [92] in which coercive pressure has a moderating relationship between psychological safety and employees’ performance, but these results are in line with [65,67]. These results demonstrated that institutional environments do not have a significant role in enhancing the performance of HEIs, but in the context of this study, these results support that institutional pressures affect performance of the employees. It shows that institutional pressure (coercive) has a role in enhancing the performance of the employees. However, a further study produced results that job security has a positive and significant predictor of employees’ performance, and the study results corroborate with previous work of [93] in which they found that job security has a positive and significant effect on employees’ performance. Furthermore, this study’s results elaborate that coercive pressure has a moderating role between job security and employee performance.

5.1. Theoretical Contribution

The current study contributes significantly to the literature on job security, coordination, psychological safety, coercive pressure, and employees’ performance. This paper also indicates that coercive pressure has a moderating effect on coordination, psychological safety, job security, and employees’ performance, and this relationship was unexplored in the literature of the studies done in the past. Previous studies only show us the psychological safety and employees’ performance [26] with individual work performance [9], psychological safety with a mediating variable workplace bullying and harassment [11], coordination and employees’ performance [14,15], relationship of coordination with job performance [15], and job stress and employees’ performance [94]. There is no such relationship explored in the past studies between job security, coordination, psychological safety, and employees’ performance with a mediating role of coercive pressure. Based on the above-mentioned relationship, further study was conducted in HIEs of Pakistan. This is a new contribution to the literature of institutional theory and employees’ performance.

5.2. Practical Contribution

With the theoretical contribution in place, this study also has some practical contributions to the HEIs’ main stakeholders. This suggests that they should focus on the effects of the institutional environment, particularly, coercive pressure in their institutions. Further, this research explains to the main actors that they should keenly observe the educational activities of HIEs for their better performance. Management should align the coercive pressure with employees’ performance on a priority basis. Further administration should focus on coordination, psychological safety and job security on a priority basis because these factors have an impact on the employees’ performance [95] and need to improve for the facilitation of the employees’ performance. Furthermore, based on coordination, job security and psychological safety with a moderating effect of coercive pressure. performance of employees of HEIs can be enhanced [94]. This study suggests that HEIs’ management thinks that coordination, job security, psychological safety, and institutional pressure are important for the best performance of their faculties.

5.3. Conclusions

This study purposes a theoretical model and hypothesizes the relationship between coordination, psychological safety, job security, and employee performance. Study results concluded a positive and significant relationship between coordination, job security, and employee performance. Moreover, there is a direct positive and significant association of job security with coercive pressure. Additionally, there exists a positive and significant relationship between coordination and coercive pressure.
Furthermore, there is a negative and insignificant relationship between psychological safety and employees’ performance. Psychological safety also has a direct positive and significant relationship with coercive pressure. Likewise, coercive pressure has a direct link with the employees’ performance. Finally, this study has tested the moderating role of coercive pressure between coordination, job security, psychological safety, and employee performance. Coercive pressure strengthens the relationship between coordination and job security positively.
Further, coercive pressure dampened the relationship between psychological safety and employee’s performance. This study explained that employee performance varies due to the absence of job security, lack of coordination, and psychological safety. All the findings of the study explain that coercive pressure has a moderating role between coordination, job security, and psychological safety.

5.4. Limitations and Recommendations for Future Direction

Although this research study contributes to the literature on coordination, job security, psychological safety, institutional pressure (normative pressure), and employees’ performance, it still has some limitations. First, in this study, only a cross-sectional approach was used to collect the respondents’ data. For in-depth analysis, a multi-method approach can be used. For instance, a semi-structured interview and disclosure analysis could be used. Secondly, our study examines both external and internal factors of HEIs that affect employees’ productivity. Although only one institutional environment theory factor was taken in this study, in future studies, normative and mimetic pressures can also be considered as a mediator and moderating variables among coordination, job security, psychological safety, and employees’ performance. Furthermore, the sample size of the study may be enlarged to generalize the results of the study for other higher education institutions.
Finally, our study’s findings provide a footing for future research. Additionally, these study variables can be tested in other areas such as health care, the business sector, and small-medium enterprises to generalize the results. Along with these variables, employees’ sustainable performance can be tested in future research. This research could also be extended to Pakistan’s public sector HEIs for better investigations of the effects. Furthermore, the replication of the current study in multi-cultural perspectives across boundaries will develop more understanding of employees’ performance, coordination, psychological safety, job security with institutional pressures (coercive, mimetic, normative). This study has implemented and validated the current model through the lens of institutional theory. In future avenues, learning organization theory may be used.

Author Contributions

Y.M.W., W.A. and H.L.Y.: These three have an equal contribution. They did the conceptualization, writing—original draft and methodology, formal analysis and validation and data curation. M.A., B.A. and Z.A. did the writing—review and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The work is supported by Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 71640028, and 71362030), Key Laboratory of Educational Information for Nationalities (YNNU), and Ministry of Education.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express special thanks and gratitude to reviewers and editors for their efforts in reviewing and correcting this paper manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Appendix A.1. Employees’ Performance [80]

  • Are you aware of your work that you do being important for the institutions?
  • Do you learn new things while doing work in institutions?
  • Do you use your potential fully in your work?
  • Are you aware of the losses of the institutions if you do not work according to the requirements?

Appendix A.2. Job Security [73]

  • Are you satisfied with your present job or business in terms of job security?
  • Do you think that in the future you will lose your job?
  • Do you think that your job is guaranteed?

Appendix A.3. Coordination [81,82]

  • Do you prefer to work as a team with your colleagues?
  • Do you think that sharing information for better performance is important?
  • Do you think that your institutions’ sharing of knowledge is strongly encouraged?

Appendix A.4. Coercive Pressure [63]

  • Institutions in our education sector that did not meet the legislated standards for learning faced a significant threat of legal prosecution from HEC.
  • Institutions in our education sector were aware of the fines and penalties potentially associated with environmentally irresponsible learning organization’s behavior.
  • There were negative consequences for HEIs that failed to comply with the HEC environmental rules and regulations.

References

  1. Paul, A.K.; Anantharaman, R.N. Impact of people management practices on organizational performance: Analysis of a causal model. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2003, 14, 1246–1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Arubayi, D.; Eromafuru, E.; Egbule, A. Human resource development and employee performance: The role of individual absorptive capacity in the Nigerian oil sector. J. Manag. Inf. Decis. Sci. 2020, 23, 1–15. [Google Scholar]
  3. Vipraprastha, T.; Sudja, I.N.; Yuesti, A. The Effect of Transformational Leadership and Organizational Commitment to Employee Performance with Citizenship Organization (OCB) Behavior as Intervening Variables (At PT Sarana Arga Gemeh Amerta in Denpasar City). Int. J. Contemp. Res. Rev. 2018, 9, 20503–20518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wang, H.; Tsui, A.S.; Xin, K.R. CEO leadership behaviors, organizational performance, and employees’ attitudes. Leadersh. Q. 2011, 22, 92–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Munizu, M.; Hamid, N. Mediation Effect of Innovation on the Relationship between Creativity with Business Performance at Furniture Industry in Indonesia. Qual. Access Success 2018, 19, 98–102. [Google Scholar]
  6. Tchamyou, V.S. The role of knowledge economy in African business. J. Knowl. Econ. 2017, 8, 1189–1228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ozturk, I. The role of education in economic development: A theoretical perspective. SSRN Electron. J. 2008. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Ozturk%2C+I.+The+role+of+education+in+economic+development%3A+A+theoretical+perspective.+SSRN+Electron.+J.+2008.&btnG= (accessed on 9 March 2021). [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Carayannis, E.G.; Campbell, D.F. Open innovation diplomacy and a 21st century fractal research, education and innovation (FREIE) ecosystem: Building on the quadruple and quintuple helix innovation concepts and the “mode 3” knowledge production system. J. Knowl. Econ. 2011, 2, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kark, R.; Carmeli, A. Alive and creating: The mediating role of vitality and aliveness in the relationship between psychological safety and creative work involvement. J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2009, 30, 785–804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Singh, B.; Winkel, D.E.; Selvarajan, T. Managing diversity at work: Does psychological safety hold the key to racial differences in employee performance? J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2013, 86, 242–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Law, R.; Dollard, M.F.; Tuckey, M.R.; Dormann, C. Psychosocial safety climate as a lead indicator of workplace bullying and harassment, job resources, psychological health and employee engagement. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 1782–1793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ahmad, I.; Donia, M.B.; Shahzad, K. Impact of corporate social responsibility attributions on employees’ creative performance: The mediating role of psychological safety. Ethics Behav. 2019, 29, 490–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kessel, M.; Kratzer, J.; Schultz, C. Psychological safety, knowledge sharing, and creative performance in healthcare teams. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2012, 21, 147–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. McDermott, A.M.; Conway, E.; Cafferkey, K.; Bosak, J.; Flood, P.C. Performance management in context: Formative cross-functional performance monitoring for improvement and the mediating role of relational coordination in hospitals. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 436–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Van Thielen, T.; Decramer, A.; Vanderstraeten, A.; Audenaert, M. The effects of performance management on relational coordination in policing: The roles of content and process. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wynn, S.C. What Research Says about Leadership Styles and Their Implications for School Climate and Teacher Job Satisfaction. Ph.D. Thesis, Cedarville University, Cedarville, OH, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  17. Loi, R.; Ngo, H.Y.; Zhang, L.; Lau, V.P. The interaction between leader–member exchange and perceived job security in predicting employee altruism and work performance. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2011, 84, 669–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. DiMaggio, P.J.; Powell, W.W. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1983, 48, 147–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Colwell, S.R.; Joshi, A.W. Corporate ecological responsiveness: Antecedent effects of institutional pressure and top management commitment and their impact on organizational performance. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2013, 22, 73–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Phan, T.N.; Baird, K. The comprehensiveness of environmental management systems: The influence of institutional pressures and the impact on environmental performance. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 160, 45–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bouckenooghe, D. The role of organizational politics, contextual resources, and formal communication on change recipients’ commitment to change: A multilevel study. Eur. J. Work Organ. Psychol. 2012, 21, 575–602. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hage, J.T. Organizational innovation and organizational change. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 1999, 25, 597–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Caravella, K.D. Mimetic, Coercive, and Normative Influences in Institutionalization of Organizational Practices: The Case of Distance Learning in Higher Education; Florida Atlantic University: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  24. Liang, H.; Saraf, N.; Hu, Q.; Xue, Y. Assimilation of enterprise systems: The effect of institutional pressures and the mediating role of top management. Mis Q. 2007, 31, 59–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Boselie, P.; Brewster, C.; Paauwe, J.; Boon, C.; Den Hartog, D. Institutional pressures and HRM: Developing institutional fit. Pers. Rev. 2009, 38, 492–508. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hasnain, Z.; Manning, N.; Pierskalla, J.H. Performance-Related Pay in the Public Sector: A Review of Theory and Evidence; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  27. Gopal, A.; Gosain, S. Research note—The role of organizational controls and boundary spanning in software development outsourcing: Implications for project performance. Inf. Syst. Res. 2010, 21, 960–982. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Khan, R.A.G.; Khan, F.A.; Khan, M.A. Impact of training and development on organizational performance. Glob. J. Manag. Bus. Res. 2011, 11, 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  29. Yun, S.; Takeuchi, R.; Liu, W. Employee self-enhancement motives and job performance behaviors: Investigating the moderating effects of employee role ambiguity and managerial perceptions of employee commitment. J. Appl. Psychol. 2007, 92, 745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Porter, L.W.; Steers, R.M.; Mowday, R.T.; Boulian, P.V. Organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and turnover among psychiatric technicians. J. Appl. Psychol. 1974, 59, 603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Bouton, M.E. Learning and Behavior: A Contemporary Synthesis; Sinauer Associates: Sunderland, MA, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  32. Johnson, L.; Becker, S.A.; Cummins, M.; Estrada, V.; Freeman, A.; Hall, C. NMC Horizon Report: 2016 Higher Education Edition; The New Media Consortium: Austin, TX, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  33. Garg, P.; Rastogi, R. New model of job design: Motivating employees’ performance. J. Manag. Dev. 2006, 25, 572–587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Grant, A.M. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Simatupang, T.M.; Sridharan, R. The collaborative supply chain. Int. J. Logist. Manag. 2002, 13, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cao, N.; Zhang, Z.; To, K.M.; Ng, K.P. How are supply chains coordinated? J. Fash. Mark. Manag. Int. J. 2008, 36, 384–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Fast, N.J.; Burris, E.R.; Bartel, C.A. Managing to stay in the dark: Managerial self-efficacy, ego defensiveness, and the aversion to employee voice. Acad. Manag. J. 2014, 57, 1013–1034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Okhuysen, G.A.; Bechky, B.A. 10 coordination in organizations: An integrative perspective. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2009, 3, 463–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Verburg, R.M.; Nienaber, A.-M.; Searle, R.H.; Weibel, A.; Den Hartog, D.N.; Rupp, D.E. The role of organizational control systems in employees’ organizational trust and performance outcomes. Group Organ. Manag. 2018, 43, 179–206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Mohiuddin Babu, M. Impact of firm’s customer orientation on performance: The moderating role of interfunctional coordination and employee commitment. J. Strateg. Mark. 2018, 26, 702–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Akhtar, P.; Marr, N.; Garnevska, E. Coordination in humanitarian relief chains: Chain coordinators. J. Humanit. Logist. Supply Chain Manag. 2012, 2, 85–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Irmer, R.; Droste, H.; Marsch, P.; Grieger, M.; Fettweis, G.; Brueck, S.; Mayer, H.-P.; Thiele, L.; Jungnickel, V. Coordinated multipoint: Concepts, performance, and field trial results. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2011, 49, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Siemsen, E.; Roth, A.V.; Balasubramanian, S.; Anand, G. The influence of psychological safety and confidence in knowledge on employee knowledge sharing. Manuf. Serv. Oper. Manag. 2009, 11, 429–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Edmondson, A.C.; Lei, Z. Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2014, 1, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Newman, A.; Donohue, R.; Eva, N. Psychological safety: A systematic review of the literature. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2017, 27, 521–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Rao-Nicholson, R.; Khan, Z.; Akhtar, P.; Merchant, H. The impact of leadership on organizational ambidexterity and employee psychological safety in the global acquisitions of emerging market multinationals. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2016, 27, 2461–2487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Carmeli, A.; Gittell, J.H. High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. J. Organ. Behav. Int. J. Ind. Occup. Organ. Psychol. Behav. 2009, 30, 709–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Brueller, D.; Carmeli, A. Linking capacities of high-quality relationships to team learning and performance in service organizations. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2011, 50, 455–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kim, M.-J.; Kim, B.-J. Analysis of the Importance of Job Insecurity, Psychological Safety and Job Satisfaction in the CSR-Performance Link. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Javed, B.; Naqvi, S.M.M.R.; Khan, A.K.; Arjoon, S.; Tayyeb, H.H. Impact of inclusive leadership on innovative work behavior: The role of psychological safety. J. Manag. Organ. 2019, 25, 117–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dollard, M.F.; Bakker, A.B. Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 579–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Farber, H.S. Job loss and the decline in job security in the United States. In Labor in the New Economy; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2010; pp. 223–262. [Google Scholar]
  53. Noe, R.A.; Hollenbeck, J.R.; Gerhart, B.; Wright, P.M. Human Resource Management: Gaining a Competitive Advantage; McGraw-Hill Education: New York, NY, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  54. Ashford, S.J.; Lee, C.; Bobko, P. Content, cause, and consequences of job insecurity: A theory-based measure and substantive test. Acad. Manag. J. 1989, 32, 803–829. [Google Scholar]
  55. Lăzăroiu, G. Work motivation and organizational behavior. Contemp. Read. Law Soc. Justice 2015, 7, 66–75. [Google Scholar]
  56. Landsbergis, P.A.; Grzywacz, J.G.; LaMontagne, A.D. Work organization, job insecurity, and occupational health disparities. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2014, 57, 495–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Raziq, A.; Maulabakhsh, R. Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Procedia Econ. Financ. 2015, 23, 717–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Khan, A.H.; Nawaz, M.M.; Aleem, M.; Hamed, W. Impact of job satisfaction on employee performance: An empirical study of autonomous Medical Institutions of Pakistan. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2012, 6, 2697–2705. [Google Scholar]
  59. Cheng, G.H.L.; Chan, D.K.S. Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 272–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Beheshtifar, M.; Rashidi, M.; Nekoie-Moghadam, M. Study of organizational socialization and its relationship on employees performance. Afr. J. Bus. Manag. 2011, 5, 10540–10544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Salama, A.A.; Abu Amuna, Y.M.; Al Shobaki, M.J.; Abu-Naser, S.S. The Role of Administrative Procedures and Regulations in Enhancing the Performance of The Educational Institutions-The Islamic University in Gaza is A Model. IJAMR 2018, 2, 14–27. [Google Scholar]
  62. Kouzes, J.; Posner, B. The Leadership Challenge: How to Make Extraordinary Things Happen; AtlantaGa: Better World Books; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  63. Pucciarelli, F.; Kaplan, A. Competition and strategy in higher education: Managing complexity and uncertainty. Bus. Horiz. 2016, 59, 311–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Van Deynze, F.; Santos, P. National policy responses to European institutional pressures on doctoral education: The case of Flanders and Portugal. Eur. J. High. Educ. 2020, 10, 347–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Reale, E.; Seeber, M. Organisation response to institutional pressures in Higher Education: The important role of the disciplines. High. Educ. 2011, 61, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Adams, C.A.; Muir, S.; Hoque, Z. Measurement of sustainability performance in the public sector. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2014, 5, 46–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Grossi, G.; Dobija, D.; Strzelczyk, W. The impact of competing institutional pressures and logics on the use of performance measurement in hybrid universities. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 2020, 43, 818–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Peters, B.G. Institutional Theory in Political Science: The New Institutionalism; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  69. Majid, A.; Yasir, M.; Yasir, M.; Javed, A. Nexus of institutional pressures, environmentally friendly business strategies, and environmental performance. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 706–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Zhu, Q.; Sarkis, J. The moderating effects of institutional pressures on emergent green supply chain practices and performance. Int. J. Prod. Res. 2007, 45, 4333–4355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Huang, Y.-C.; Yang, M.-L. Reverse logistics innovation, institutional pressures and performance. Manag. Res. Rev. 2014, 37, 615–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Decramer, A.; Smolders, C.; Vanderstraeten, A.; Christiaens, J. The impact of institutional pressures on employee performance management systems in higher education in the low countries. Br. J. Manag. 2012, 23, S88–S103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Jansen, J.J.; Van Den Bosch, F.A.; Volberda, H.W. Exploratory innovation, exploitative innovation, and performance: Effects of organizational antecedents and environmental moderators. Manag. Sci. 2006, 52, 1661–1674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  74. Dubey, R.; Gunasekaran, A.; Ali, S.S. Exploring the relationship between leadership, operational practices, institutional pressures and environmental performance: A framework for green supply chain. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2015, 160, 120–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sarkis, J.; Gonzalez-Torre, P.; Adenso-Diaz, B. Stakeholder pressure and the adoption of environmental practices: The mediating effect of training. J. Oper. Manag. 2010, 28, 163–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Wu, G.-C.; Ding, J.-H.; Chen, P.-S. The effects of GSCM drivers and institutional pressures on GSCM practices in Taiwan’s textile and apparel industry. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2012, 135, 618–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Abayomi, O.J.; Zhang, X.; Peng, X.; Zhao, S. How Do Institutional Pressures and Behavioral Intentions Affect Mobile Services Adoption? The Moderating Role of Perceived Risk. ACM Sigmis Database Database Adv. Inf. Syst. 2020, 51, 82–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Sahadev, S. Economic satisfaction and relationship commitment in channels. Eur. J. Mark. 2008, 42, 178–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yang, Y.; Li, Z.; Liang, L.; Zhang, X. Why and when paradoxical leader behavior impact employee creativity: Thriving at work and psychological safety. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 2019, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Dhammika, K. Measuring Employees’ Performance in the Public Sector in Sri Lanka: Testing of Two Models. Kelaniya J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2013, 8, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Gloede, T.D.; Hammer, A.; Ommen, O.; Ernstmann, N.; Pfaff, H. Is social capital as perceived by the medical director associated with coordination among hospital staff? A nationwide survey in German hospitals. J. Interprof. Care 2013, 27, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Van de Ven, A.H.; Delbecq, A.L.; Koenig, R., Jr. Determinants of coordination modes within organizations. Am. Sociol. Rev. 1976, 41, 322–338. [Google Scholar]
  83. Probst, T.M. Development and validation of the Job Security Index and the Job Security Satisfaction scale: A classical test theory and IRT approach. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2003, 76, 451–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Edmondson, A.C.; Kramer, R.M.; Cook, K.S. Psychological safety, trust, and learning in organizations: A group-level lens. Trust Distrust Organ. Dilemmas Approaches 2004, 12, 239–272. [Google Scholar]
  85. Podsakoff, N. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 885, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Matthews, L.M.; Ringle, C.M. Identifying and treating unobserved heterogeneity with FIMIX-PLS: Part I–method. Eur. Bus. Rev. 2016, 28, 63–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Kock, N. Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. Int. J. E-Collab. 2015, 11, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics; Sage Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 1981. [Google Scholar]
  89. Anderson, J.C.; Gerbing, D.W. Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol. Bull. 1988, 103, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Zulfiqar, S.; Sarwar, B.; Aziz, S.; Ejaz Chandia, K.; Khan, M.K. An analysis of influence of business simulation games on business school students’ attitude and intention toward entrepreneurial activities. J. Educ. Comput. Res. 2019, 57, 106–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Schaubroeck, J.; Lam, S.S.; Peng, A.C. Cognition-based and affect-based trust as mediators of leader behavior influences on team performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2011, 96, 863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Alkan, S.; Turgut, T. A research about the relationship of psychological safety and organizational politics perception with compulsory citizenship behavior and the pressures behind compulsory citizenship behavior. Res. J. Bus. Manag. 2015, 2, 185–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Wu, L. Social network effects on productivity and job security: Evidence from the adoption of a social networking tool. Inf. Syst. Res. 2013, 24, 30–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  94. Vijayan, M. Impact of Job Stress on Employees Job Performance in Aavin, Coimbatore. J. Organ. Hum. Behav. 2017, 6, 21. [Google Scholar]
  95. Chen, S.H.; Yang, C.C.; Shiau, J.Y.; Wang, H.H. The development of an employee satisfaction model for higher education. Tqm Mag. 2006, 18, 484–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Sustainability 13 03175 g001 550
Figure 1. Proposed research frame.
Figure 1. Proposed research frame.
Sustainability 13 03175 g001
Sustainability 13 03175 g002 550
Figure 2. Showing the relationship between independent and dependent variables.
Figure 2. Showing the relationship between independent and dependent variables.
Sustainability 13 03175 g002
Sustainability 13 03175 g003 550
Figure 3. The relationship between independent variables, moderating variable and dependent variable.
Figure 3. The relationship between independent variables, moderating variable and dependent variable.
Sustainability 13 03175 g003
Sustainability 13 03175 g004 550
Figure 4. Coercive pressure dampens the positive relationship between coordination and employees’ job performance.
Figure 4. Coercive pressure dampens the positive relationship between coordination and employees’ job performance.
Sustainability 13 03175 g004
Sustainability 13 03175 g005 550
Figure 5. Coercive pressure dampens the relationship between psychological safety and employees’ performance.
Figure 5. Coercive pressure dampens the relationship between psychological safety and employees’ performance.
Sustainability 13 03175 g005
Sustainability 13 03175 g006 550
Figure 6. This figure shows that coercive pressure strengthens the relationship between job security and employees’ performance.
Figure 6. This figure shows that coercive pressure strengthens the relationship between job security and employees’ performance.
Sustainability 13 03175 g006
Table
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Table 1. Descriptive statistics.
Sample InformationTypesNumber of SamplesPercentage
GenderMale15365.1%
Female8234.9%
DesignationLecturers15064%
Professors8536%
Age20–25 years old8335.3%
26–30 years old7029.8%
31–35 years old5925.1%
36–40 years old166.8%
41 years old and above 123.0%
EducationMaster/MS/M.Phil18880%
Ph.D. or other4720%
Table
Table 2. Reliability and convert validity.
Table 2. Reliability and convert validity.
ConstructItemsLoadingsCronbach’s AlphaCRAVE
CoordinationCO10.7820.7120.8390.635
CO20.791
CO30.816
Coercive PressureCP10.8280.7630.8630.678
CP20.863
CP30.778
Employees’ PerformanceEP10.8250.840.8930.676
EP20.858
EP30.84
Ep40.762
Job SecurityJS10.8480.6650.810.588
JS20.748
JS30.698
Psychological SafetyPS10.7870.630.8020.575
PS20.773
PS30.714
Note(s): All factor loadings are significant at p < 0.001; CR = Composite Reliability and AVE = Average Variance Extracted.
Table
Table 3. Correlation between the constructs.
Table 3. Correlation between the constructs.
Coercive PressureCoordinationEmployees’ PerformanceJob SecurityPsychological Safety
Coercive pressure0.824
Coordination0.6110.797
Employees’ performance0.6770.6850.822
Job security0.4690.4270.5020.767
Psychological safety0.6480.8750.6820.4990.758
Table
Table 4. Moderating effect of coercive pressure between coordination and employees’ performance.
Table 4. Moderating effect of coercive pressure between coordination and employees’ performance.
Original Sample (O)Sample Mean (M)Standard Deviation (STDEV)T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)p Values
coordination -> employees’ performance0.4730.4730.0974.8740.000
coercive pressure -> employees’ performance0.290.290.0594.8750.000
coordination-coercive pressure-> employees’ performance−0.335−0.3250.1073.1350.002
Table
Table 5. Moderating effects of coercive pressure between psychological safety and employees’ performance.
Table 5. Moderating effects of coercive pressure between psychological safety and employees’ performance.
Original Sample (O)Sample Mean (M)Standard Deviation (STDEV)T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)p Values
psychological safety -> employees’ performance−0.134−0.1330.1111.210.227
coercive pressure -> employees’ performance0.290.290.0594.8750.000
Psychological safety-coercive pressure -> employees’ performance0.4180.40.1133.6860.000
Table
Table 6. Moderating effect of coercive pressure between job security and employees’ performance.
Table 6. Moderating effect of coercive pressure between job security and employees’ performance.
Original Sample (O)Sample Mean (M)Standard Deviation (STDEV)T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)p Values
coercive pressure -> employees’ performance0.290.290.0594.8750.000
job security -> employees’ performance0.1740.1750.0553.1760.002
Job security-coercive pressure -> employees’ performance0.020.0220.0550.3670.001
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Y.M.; Ahmad, W.; Arshad, M.; Yin, H.L.; Ahmed, B.; Ali, Z. Impact of Coordination, Psychological Safety, and Job Security on Employees’ Performance: The Moderating Role of Coercive Pressure. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063175

AMA Style

Wang YM, Ahmad W, Arshad M, Yin HL, Ahmed B, Ali Z. Impact of Coordination, Psychological Safety, and Job Security on Employees’ Performance: The Moderating Role of Coercive Pressure. Sustainability. 2021; 13(6):3175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063175

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Yong Ming, Waqar Ahmad, Muhammad Arshad, Hong Li Yin, Bilal Ahmed, and Zulfiqar Ali. 2021. "Impact of Coordination, Psychological Safety, and Job Security on Employees’ Performance: The Moderating Role of Coercive Pressure" Sustainability 13, no. 6: 3175. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13063175

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop