Next Article in Journal
Translating Organizational Change into Entrepreneurial Identity—A Study of Energy Transition in a Large State-Owned Enterprise
Previous Article in Journal
The Public Sector Personality: The Effects of Personality on Public Sector Interest for Men and Women
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:

Mediating Effect of the Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies on the Relationship between Job Involvement and Job Performance of Millennials

Geovanni Fernando Tapia-Andino
1,2,* and
Luciano Barcellos-Paula
Departamento Académico de Posgrado en Negocios, CENTRUM Católica Graduate Business School, Lima 15023, Peru
Departamento Académico de Posgrado en Negocios, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima 15088, Peru
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Adm. Sci. 2023, 13(7), 159;
Submission received: 28 April 2023 / Revised: 29 May 2023 / Accepted: 9 June 2023 / Published: 28 June 2023


Despite recent interest in Industry 4.0, little is known about the relationship between job involvement and job performance of millennial workers in companies. The present study addresses this knowledge gap by exploring the mediation of the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies (IND) between job involvement (INV) and job performance (PRF). Data was collected from 241 employees of large Canadian companies. The structural equation model was used to test the mediation effect of IND and the relationship between INV and PRF. Results based on this model (SEM) revealed differences by gender. It was found that in men, INV was positively related to PRF and that in women, INV was positively related to IND, although it was also evident that millennial employees showed egalitarian gender attitudes by strongly perceiving IND positively with PRF. Furthermore, IND fully measured the relationship between INV and PRF in manufacturing firms but not in service firms. Years of work experience was also found to affect the mediation effect of IND between INV and PRF, while it was not significant for education level. This study also highlights demographic criteria such as the age, income, and status of millennial employees. Implications of these findings are discussed, and useful insights are provided on new I4.0 approaches that improve industrial processes. This research contributes to developing the Theory of Planned Behaviour and proposes that managers use current continuous improvement approaches, human-centred and consistent with new I4.0 technologies.

1. Introduction

Industry 4.0 (I4.0) was born as a public–private initiative in Germany with the purpose of creating smart factories with the use of technologies (Sommer 2015). It was presented for the first time in 2011 at the Hanover Fair, immediately becoming the focus of the German government and many other European countries (Brettel et al. 2014). Although the industrial revolution before 4.0 focused on mass production, it focuses on technologies that merge the physical, digital, and biological (Schwab 2017).
I4.0 has been catalogued as the maturity of new information and communication technologies (ICT) applied to industrial processes and products (Awan et al. 2021; Diez-Olivan et al. 2018). In general, it is interpreted as the application of cyber-physical systems within industrial production (Ghobakhloo 2018), including integration with product life cycle and supply chain activities (Dalenogare et al. 2018; Wang et al. 2016). Therefore, I4.0 promises to transform jobs and working conditions (Rahman et al. 2020; Bettiol et al. 2021; Babatunde 2020; Nedelko 2021; Cunha et al. 2022), where companies have been forced to modify their human resources and therefore change the way employees carry out their daily activities (Bednar and Welch 2019; Febriani et al. 2020; Richard et al. 2020; Aguilar-Rodríguez et al. 2021).
In this sense, companies are replicating an I4.0 adoption model based on economies of scale (Dalenogare et al. 2018). Stachová et al. (2019) identified that companies with a higher level of maturity and innovation better manage their Innovation and Development (R&D) processes, as well as human resources. However, even though I4.0 promotes communication between people, machines, and resources (Dassisti et al. 2018; Baena et al. 2017) and contributes to the relationship with customers (Ayala et al. 2017; Bortolini et al. 2017; Dalenogare et al. 2018; Jeschke et al. 2017) when companies have an advanced level of implementation, the supply products and services could generate restrictive changes (Frank et al. 2019).
On the other hand, it has been determined that I4.0 technologies are the basis for measuring job performance (Aguado et al. 2019), since, by adopting them, knowledge (intellectual capital) is managed, with decision-making strategies (Abubakar et al. 2019; Stachová et al. 2019; Diez-Olivan et al. 2018; Posada et al. 2015), where workers embrace new skills and abilities (Wei et al. 2017) to better carry out their work. However, job involvement is also a conditioning factor for job performance, even more so, because it establishes the degree to which workers psychologically identify with their tasks (Ćulibrk et al. 2018; Al Naggar and Saad 2019; Blau 1985), being part of the personality and organizational climate (Diefendorff et al. 2002; Loke et al. 2016; Narayanamurthy and Tortorella 2021).
Despite this, research to date has not specifically addressed whether job involvement is due to characteristics that differentiate people in their work (Govender and Parumasur 2010; Reeve and Smith 2001; Rehman et al. 2020), or if it is caused by situations in the work environment (Vroom 1962), or by motivation and commitment (Michie et al. 2002; Ćulibrk et al. 2018). Therefore, there are still unknown findings that show a solid association between job involvement and job performance when incorporating I4.0. In this way, job involvement can influence the adoption of I4.0 and influence job performance. In fact, there could be differences based on the gender of the employees and the business sector in which they work. The report of the World Economic Forum (WEF 2018) showed that I4.0 presents a greater risk for positions held by women and has estimated that in 2026, in the United States alone, 1.4 million jobs will be affected by digitalization, and of these, 57% are jobs held by women.
In this way, (Johari and Yahya 2016) specified that tasks should be developed that consider the skills of workers as a basis to improve job involvement and performance. In addition, (Rehman et al. 2020) suggested that adequate leadership behaviour increases the level of job involvement, job commitment and employee satisfaction, which in turn triggers a better job retention rate and job performance (Albuquerque et al. 2021). Furthermore, in the context of I4.0, the challenges faced by all economies are particularly important, involving companies from all branches of economic activity (Veith and Costea 2019).
On the other hand, although the behaviour of workers depends on their emotions (Bhutta et al. 2021; Albuquerque et al. 2021; Johari and Yahya 2016; Rehman et al. 2020; Saputra and Hutajulu 2020), this may be different when companies concentrate a particular number of generational employees (silent generation, baby boomers, generation X, or millennials). This study pays special attention to the generational cohort of millennials (also known as generation Y, people born between 1980 and 2000: aged between 22 and 42 years) (Alexander and Sysko 2012; Howe and Strauss 2000), since recent contributions have revealed that corporations are increasingly hiring employees of this generation (Moreno et al. 2022; Saputra and Hutajulu 2020; Hebles et al. 2022), because they belong to a diverse multicultural environment (Deal et al. 2010). Millennials are experiencing the incorporation of new technologies, which influences their personality and changes in their behaviour (Naim and Lenka 2018).
This research, therefore, determines the mediation of the adoption of I4.0 technologies in the relationship between job involvement and job performance. In addition, this study analyses comparatives by gender, and the level of education and years of experience are included as control variables. This is conducted to determine potential development benefits in the context of I4.0. For this analysis, millennial workers from large Canadian companies certified as a Great Place to Work are studied through a structural equation model. Canada has been chosen based on its cultural differences, its recent history, and high level of economic development. This study assumes that workers involved with their tasks will make additional efforts to comply with organizational objectives and, therefore, will have better job performance, or, on the contrary, those who do not get involved with the company will have a lower job performance.
This research is relevant, since, in addition to providing empirical evidence on the behaviour of millennials as support for human resource management in their current and future permanence in companies (Gorman et al. 2004; Hebles et al. 2022), changes generated by the COVID-19 pandemic are making I4.0 technologies more important in the job performance of workers (Narayanamurthy and Tortorella 2021; Hebles et al. 2022). Therefore, this study highlights new contributions to the knowledge and technical skills that enhance the intellectual capital of employees. This research provides new findings for decision makers to emphasize the new continuous improvement approaches that should be consistent with the new technologies adopted.
This research provides scientific value in the knowledge of millennials as a support for human resource management so that organizations are bearers of lasting competitive advantages over time. Since ICTs are a substantial part of the professional development of millennials, they can be used to improve organizational performance and maximize productivity (Gorman et al. 2004; Hebles et al. 2022).
The following section provides a literature review as support for the proposed research model. Subsequently, the methodology is established in which the population and analysis are determined by the measurement instruments used in this study. Moreover, the results of this research, discussion, conclusion, implications, limitations, and recommendations for future research studies are presented. The research methodology flowchart is in Appendix A.

2. Literature Review and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Job Involvement and Job Performance

According to (Ajzen 1991), through the Theory of Planned Behaviour, people have attitudes that announce their behaviour, where these attitudes arise from cognitive, affective, and behavioural mechanisms. For this reason, before an individual act, they will carry out a detailed and rational analysis of the implications of carrying out a specific behaviour (Ajzen 2011). In this way, employees will have beliefs (individual and subjective norms), which lead to attitudes and intentions that would predict their behaviour and, therefore, their job involvement (Ajzen 1991, 2002, 2011).
Various studies have shown a significant relationship between job involvement and job performance (Ali-Chughtai 2008; Bhutta et al. 2021; Brown and Leigh 1996; Diefendorff et al. 2002; Li et al. 2015; Loke et al. 2016; Qaiser-Danish et al. 2015; Rehman et al. 2020; Sapta et al. 2021; Shamim et al. 2019). For example, (Cohen 2000) indicated that job satisfaction intervenes positively between organizational involvement and commitment. This is confirmed by what was expressed by (Ali et al. 2018; Wu et al. 2017), in which workers who receive management training feel satisfied and deliver more efficient organizational performance. In the same way, employees will feel motivated, mainly, when they find an important meaning in their job, and consequently, their job involvement will determine their performance (Diefendorff et al. 2002).
However, job involvement could vary according to gender (Han and Yoo 2007). These authors found that employees showed more or less egalitarian gender role attitudes and that they were more involved in their families than in their work, and men had higher levels of job involvement. Similarly, (Zhang 2013) found that men had a stronger and more positive relationship than women between job involvement and organizational citizenship behaviour. Other studies have identified, on the contrary, that gender is not a determinant of job involvement (Ebrahimi 2021; Kim et al. 2018).

2.2. Job Involvement and Adoption of I4.0 Technologies

I4.0 is an adoption of technology (Dalenogare et al. 2018; Frank et al. 2019) where its potential finds better flexibility in manufacturing systems through ICTs, making production processes centralized and become decentralized and autonomous (Abubakar et al. 2019). According to (Vereycken et al. 2021), the job involvement of employees is associated with I4.0, regardless of the type of technology used, the size of the company, or the country of origin. Therefore, I4.0 could predict manufacturing results and boost communication between people, machines, and resources (Dassisti et al. 2018; Baena et al. 2017) and improve the relationship between customers (Ayala et al. 2017; Bortolini et al. 2017; Dalenogare et al. 2018; Jeschke et al. 2017). However, workers may also reject these technologies, perceiving that they replace their daily tasks (Lee et al. 2018).
The findings found by (Stachová et al. 2019) highlight that I4.0, particularly automation that interferes with multiple processes and professions, gradually changes the education and skill requirements of employees. All this, in addition, promotes that the involvement of employees, together with organizational change, has a positive relationship with the desire to work, as well as with the perceived organizational support and operational support of employees (Chun and Jo 2015). In this sense, it will be the workers who strengthen and promote I4.0 technologies, helping companies create new businesses (Luque-Vega et al. 2019).
On the other hand, it is known that the proportion of women working in the information and communication technology (ICT) sector is decreasing (Kirlidog et al. 2009; Veith and Costea 2019). ICT has been considered a male profession, both in industry and in academia (Krchová and Höesová 2021; Kirlidog et al. 2009; Güney-Frahm 2018). However, studies such as that of (Sardar et al. 2019) have found that these tools positively help women and that they can use them effectively to become successful entrepreneurs. (Mueller et al. 2018) found that Canadian women have better basic ICT skills than men, although they are less likely to be employed in ICT occupations.

2.3. Adoption of I4.0 Technologies and Job Performance

I4.0 uses various technological resources, such as ICT and intelligent assistance systems, that facilitate work and make it more flexible (Ras et al. 2017). Aguado et al. (2019) found that these technologies are related to certain elements that measure job performance such as productivity, absenteeism, and professional development potential. In the study by (Nantee and Sureeyatanapas 2021), it was identified that there is a better performance of workers when there is an effective implementation of technologies. I4.0, therefore, can improve industry performance (Ali and Aboelmaged 2021; Bettiol et al. 2021). In addition, (Narayanamurthy and Tortorella 2021) identified that the new ways of working (for example, home office, job insecurity, and virtual connection) due to the COVID-19 pandemic also affect employee performance. These I4.0 technologies are positively related to worker productivity (Polak-Sopinska et al. 2020).

2.4. Adoption of I4.0 Technologies, Job Involvement and Job Performance

I4.0 integrates machines and operators through network connections and information management, which organize the means of production differently, generating smart factories (Bortolini et al. 2017; Roldán et al. 2019). Digitalization, for its part, leads to paths of industrial, commercial, and value servitization (Coreynen et al. 2017).
Manufacturing companies have begun to integrate a series of emerging technologies into their processes, which are changing how products are designed, manufactured, and consumed (Wollschlaeger et al. 2017), and the architecture of microservices in the development of innovative industrial applications (Siqueira and Davis 2021). Moreover, according to (Rahman et al. 2020), I4.0 has an important role in promoting and improving the performance of service companies. (Nafchi and Mohelská 2021) identified that employment growth in the high-tech service sector has an upward trend from the use of I4.0. However, for (Cunha et al. 2022), the implementation of I4.0 still does not match the productivity and efficiency of workers.
Despite the contributions in these investigations, this study identified two gaps related to job involvement and the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies that affect the job performance of millennials:
The first gap is the influence of job involvement on job performance. Although the behaviour of the employees may depend on emotions, which if positive, would increase their involvement with the company and improve their job performance (Bhutta et al. 2021; Albuquerque et al. 2021; Johari and Yahya 2016; Rehman et al. 2020; Saputra and Hutajulu 2020), millennials are a generational cohort that has a most challenging professional development (Moreno et al. 2022). They are people who have an open and frequent communication with their supervisors, so they are loyal to them but not to the organization (Alexander and Sysko 2012; Hebles et al. 2022; Moreno et al. 2022; Myers and Sadaghiani 2010).
Additionally, millennials are difficult to interact with and are authoritative but service-focused (Deal et al. 2010; Myers and Sadaghiani 2010). When their jobs do not meet their expectations, they feel discouraged and leave their jobs (Alexander and Sysko 2012; Deal et al. 2010; Myers and Sadaghiani 2010; Naim and Lenka 2018). In this way, the positive relationship between involvement and job performance can be ambiguous and confusing because it could be affected by certain factors, such as: years of experience of millennials in the company, level of education, gender, and the business sector in which they meet. In addition, they are workers who present certain characteristics of interest to companies, because they belong to a diverse multicultural environment (Deal et al. 2010; Moreno et al. 2022; Myers and Sadaghiani 2010). Only 26% of them are looking for a fair and loyal job and 25% want integrity, honesty, and trust (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited 2019).
The second gap deals with the adoption of Industry 4.0 technologies and allowed measuring the relationship between job involvement and job performance. (Tortorella et al. 2018) proposed one of the first studies that evaluated the relationship of job involvement with Industry 4.0 and job performance, in which it was identified that the involvement of workers is related to the improvement of operational performance, which, although it is a relevant indication, its results are not entirely conclusive, since they do not present sufficient evidence on human resources. Empirical evidence is still lacking on the way in which companies adopt these technologies and how they are related to the involvement and job performance of their employees (Dalenogare et al. 2018; Frank et al. 2019).

2.5. Hypothesis Development

2.5.1. Job Involvement and Job Performance

Job performance according to (Oppenauer and Van De Voorde 2016) depends on skills practices, motivation, job design opportunities, and emotional exhaustion of employees, depending on work overload and job responsibility. Furthermore, (Blau 1986), and (Jayawardana et al. 2013) stated that job involvement can increase if employees have greater decision-making authority at work, while (Johari and Yahya 2016) identified that job involvement influences performance when workers incorporate their skills into their tasks. (Lawler and Hall 1970) pointed out that when employees feel involved in a job that satisfies their work needs, this feeling encourages them to make greater efforts, and this increases their work performance, which is confirmed by the findings of (Park et al. 2019) when they identify it as something very important in their lives. For this reason, the following are proposed:
Job involvement (INV) has a relationship with or positive influence on job performance (PRF).
Job involvement (INV) between men and women is related to or positively influences job performance (PRF).

2.5.2. Job Involvement and Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies

Job involvement allows employees to become more and more committed to the organization, thus, there will be a cognitive improvement, which will be reflected in the satisfaction of their work activities (Diefendorff et al. 2002; Emery and Barker 2007). In this sense, the use of I4.0 technologies is part of that individual commitment, which helps companies expand their markets and incorporate innovations (Coreynen et al. 2017). Thus, I4.0 technologies, in addition to reducing manufacturing times, help customers with the delivery of specialized products (Ayala et al. 2017; Bortolini et al. 2017; Dalenogare et al. 2018; Jeschke et al. 2017) where workers will act based on their behavioural and subjective beliefs (Ajzen 2012). For this reason, the following are suggested:
Job involvement (INV) has a relationship with or positively influences the adoption of I4.0 technologies (IND).
Job involvement (INV) between men and women has a relationship with or positively influences the adoption of I4.0 technologies (IND).

2.5.3. Adoption of I4.0 Technologies and Job Performance

I4.0 technologies create more complex work environments that require a greater effort from workers, who must improve their technical skills to perform better (Narayanamurthy and Tortorella 2021; Imran and Kantola 2018). Additionally, (Khampirat 2021) found that regardless of gender, self-esteem and self-regulated learning mediate the impact of these technologies. Similarly, (Nedelko 2021) identified that gender, the position of employees in the organization, and the size of the organization are not substantial in the use of management tools for I4.0. Furthermore, (Cunha et al. 2022; Babatunde 2020) explained that the application of I4.0 does not have an impact on gender. The following are proposed:
The adoption of I4.0 technologies (IND) has a relationship with or positive influence on job performance (PRF).
The adoption of I4.0 technologies (IND) among men and women has a relationship with or positive influence on job performance (PRF).

2.5.4. Adoption of I4.0 Technologies, Job Involvement and Job Performance

Other contributions have established that the active participation of workers in the continuous improvement process generates an increase in performance and productivity as key elements of the I4.0 approach (Moica et al. 2019). The study by (Tortorella et al. 2018) demonstrated that worker involvement has a positive effect on the relationship between I4.0 adoption and improved operational performance. In addition, employees who are highly involved in their work will put in extra effort to achieve organizational goals (Park et al. 2019; Bhutta et al. 2021). Meanwhile, they would be more likely to participate in productive work activities, resulting in an improvement in the level of work performance (Saputra and Hutajulu 2020). For this reason, the following are proposed:
The adoption of I4.0 technologies (IND) has a mediating effect between job involvement (INV) and job performance (PRF).
The adoption of I4.0 technologies (IND) among men and women has a mediating effect between job involvement (INV) and job performance (PRF).

2.6. Control Variables

The following control variable is included in the research model to estimate the relationships between IND, PRF, and IND: (a) level of education and (b) years of work experience. The selection is based on the previous discussion and the existing empirical evidence on the relationship between these variables in business management and the applicability of I4.0.
(Nedelko 2021) stated that a higher level of education leads to a significantly higher use of basic skills in the performance of workers. In addition, workplace learning has gradually replaced training and education (Rassameethes et al. 2021), although organizations that rely on increased activity in education and development are more open to cooperation with other companies (Stachová et al. 2019).
On the other hand, according to (Reinhardt et al. 2020), the work experience of employees is indifferent to the knowledge of the I4.0 they have. Likewise, the introduction of new technologies can cause a decrease in the perceived quality of the work experience, and training significantly mitigates this effect in organizational environments that are relatively less technical (Marcaletti et al. 2022). The distinction between education level and years of work experience allows us to determine if there is a substantial difference between INV, PRF, and IND that has important implications for the derived findings and future research designs.
Figure 1 represents the theoretical research model, which relates job involvement with job performance through the adoption of I4.0 technologies and proposes the level of education and years of work activity as control variables.

3. Methodology

A quantitative investigation with descriptive purpose was carried out through a structural equation model (SEM) with the Unweighted Least Squares (ULS) procedure because the SEM technique requires a strategy for the treatment and identification of latent factors or variables and their corresponding items or observable variables (Ullman 2006; Hair et al. 2014). Control variables were identified for a better SEM analysis, and a multigroup analysis classified by gender was applied.

3.1. Population and Sample

Through convenience sampling, millennial employees of large manufacturing and service companies were selected, which were certified as a Great Place to Work, that is, they concentrate at least 30% of millennial employees. Thus, 5250 millennials worked at these companies, and 241 valid responses were received, representing a 90% confidence level with a 5.2% error range. Millennials were chosen because they are the ones who are taking over the workforce of companies, and even though they have skills for the use of technologies (Deal et al. 2010; Myers and Sadaghiani 2010; Alexander and Sysko 2012; Hebles et al. 2022; Moreno et al. 2022; Deka 2018), are not prepared to take on the challenges that Industry 4.0 entails (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited 2019).
This study was carried out in Canada because this country (a) brings together a high number of large companies with millennial employees (Knoema 2017); (b) it is the second largest in the world with a market value between 113,418 and 1.619 million dollars; and (c) its innovation index is 50.80 (Global Innovation Index 2022). The research was carried out in the city of Toronto. The total sample was 241, of which 58.92% (142) correspond to young people between the ages of 22 and 29, and 41.08% (99) belong to the ages between 30 and 39.

3.2. Instrumentation

The questionnaire measures were based on the recommendations of the literature review. The questionnaire consisted of demographic scales related to gender, education level, time spent in the company, industry, income, and job title. To measure the I4.0 (IND), the questionnaire was created by (Frank et al. 2019), who proposed five factors with 44 items: (a) Technological bases (4); (b) Smart manufacturing (18); (c) Smart work (7); (d) Smart value chain (3); and (e) Smart products and services (12). Job involvement (INV) was based on (Lodahl and Kejnar 1965)’s questionnaire redefined by (Reeve and Smith 2001), made up of two factors of nine items (1, 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 18). Finally, for job performance (PRF), (Pearce and Porter 1986) ’s questionnaire was used with the adaptation of (Park et al. 2018), structured in four factors with four items. All the variables were designed on a five-point Likert scale (1 = totally disagree and 5 = totally agree).

3.3. Data Collection

All employees were informed of the nature of the research and asked for their voluntary participation. Each participant signed a record accepting the criteria related to the measurement instrument. If at any time, upon reading said consent, any of the members wished to withdraw from the study, they were available to do so. Each participant was explained, in the same terms, about what Industry 4.0 and its technologies are, and those were described in the questionnaire and were applicable to their workplace. The instrument was applied through online surveys through the virtual platforms of the companies, according to the availability and requirements of the human resources department. Data collection was carried out from August 2021 to March 2022, when the home office was in full swing due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Data was collected on large companies that included both manufacturing and service companies that were located in the city of Toronto. For the analysis of the data collected, the statistical package SPSS and Amos v26 were used.

4. Results

The quality of the data was verified, managing to unify some similar responses in the categorical variables. An exploratory data analysis was carried out, where it was found that there were no typing errors and there were no missing values. The descriptive statistics of each scale were calculated, and normality was validated with the Mardia multivariate test, which determined that the data had a univariate non-normal behaviour (>1.96). The kurtosis coefficient was 447 (>70). In addition, the C.R (composite reliability) was 44 (>5.91).

4.1. Bivariate Results by Age Groups and Gender

Bivariate tables classified according to age groups and gender were built, using the Chi-square test, to identify the possible dependence between these variables. Table 1 describes these variables analysed according to age groups. It can be seen that the youngest employees (under 30 years of age) are bachelors, representing 95.1%, while those from 30 to 39 years old presented approximately one-third of the master’s level and only 9.1% had a doctorate. This implies that age influences educational level (p = 0.000 ˂ 0.05). Regarding the annual income, an influence of the two age groups was also detected. The oldest (30–39 years old) showed a higher annual income (CAD 100,000 or more) with a percentage of 11.1%, while the group from 22 to 29 years old showed an even higher income (between CAD 30,000 and CAD 100,000), which represented the 81.0% (p = 0.000).
Contrary to what was previously found, the industrial sector did not show significant statistical differences, considering that, in both age groups, the highest percentages were found in the banking sector (33.8–32.2%). In mass consumption companies (CPG), similar percentages were also found in both groups (16.2% in the youngest and 14.1% in those aged 30–39 with p = 0.323 > 0.05); therefore, it can be affirmed that age does not influence the industrial sector to which they are dedicated.
On the other hand, the role played by the respondents did mark differences according to age groups. For example, in the oldest, the positions of supervisors or coordinators (33.3%) and directors (28.3%) stood out. On the contrary, the majority of people between 22 and 29 years old (64.1%) belonged to other positions (p = 0.000).
According to gender, as evidenced in Table 2, the number of women was 111 (40.05%), compared to 125 (51.86%) men, which means that gender does not influence educational level (women = 82.9% and men = 78.4%) or annual income (p = 0.528). Most of the participants had a high school education level (p = 0.575 > 0.05), and regardless of gender, many of them had an income between CAD 30,000 and CAD 100,000 (women = 57.7% and men = 56.8%).
On the other hand, gender influenced the sector where they work. Although in some sectors there is no difference (banks = 33.3–34.4, automobiles = 19.8–17.6, and pharmaceuticals = 14.4–12.8), in other sectors, differences were found (CPG, with a majority of women, 22.5%, compared to 9.6% of men, and in the pulp and paper industry where the majority is men, 25.6%, compared to 9.9% of women, p = 0.001 ˂ 0.05).
Finally, gender does not influence the role or function performed by employees, such as manager or director (10.8–12.8) and supervisors (14.4–15.2). Differences were found in other roles, including analyst (20.7–32.8) and others (54.1–39.2). In the Chi-square test, the p value was 0.227.

4.2. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Although questionnaires already validated in the literature were used, it was considered convenient and useful to divide the total sample of 241 participants into two: (a) approximately 40%, which is equivalent to 99 surveys, and with them, carry out an EFA using the SPSS version 26 program; and (b) with said results, apply them to the remaining sample of 142 surveys, performing a Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), thus guaranteeing the validity and reliability of the scales.
In the EFA, the main axes extraction method and the Promax rotation procedure (Hair et al. 2010; Byrne 2010; Hoyle 2015) were considered in order to determine the pattern matrix and, with it, identify the different factors. The criterion applied was the eigenvalue greater than the unit to determine the number of factors. The reliability in the EFA was analysed using Cronbach’s Alpha, assuming that the reliability is acceptable when it is greater than 0.70 (Hair et al. 2010; Powell 1992).
Thus, PRF has a KMO of 0.747 with a Barlett’s sphericity value of 0.00, finding only one factor, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.777 considered adequate. Regarding INV, the KMO was 0.888 with a Bartlett value of 0.00, finding only one factor, with Cronbach’s alpha of 0.516 not being adequate; therefore, considering that items INV5, 7, and 9 presented a negative corrected total correlation of elements, these items were eliminated, achieving an increase in alpha to 0.882. Regarding IND, there were 44 items and an initial approach of five factors; however, the EFA showed some items or statements with values greater than unity; therefore, these statements were eliminated, repeating the process eight times, considering the decision not to allow values that contributed to two factors, where the final result showed a total of 30 items, a KMO of 0.935, and a Bartlett’s sphericity value of 0.00.
The three new dimensions related to the adoption of I4.0 technologies were the following: (a) Smart manufacturing and working (SMART_Manu_Work), which is related to twenty-two investigative competencies; (b) Base technologies (Base_TECH) related to four investigative competencies; and (c) Smart products and services (Smart_PROD_SERV) with four competencies.
With what was detected in the EFA, it is concluded that the factor that measures IND has three dimensions, and therefore, a second-order model is configured, as can be seen in Figure 2.
With this model, the psychometric indicators were calculated by executing the plugin on reliability and validity implemented in the AMOS v26 program, as shown in Table 3. It can be seen that CR complies in all constructs, PRF (0.867), INV (0.842), and IND (0.750), with values greater than 0.70. Regarding the convergent validity measured with the AVE, it was found that this is also fulfilled in the various factors, PRF (0.623), INV (0.521), and IND (0.507), with a minimum value of 0.5.
According to (Henseler et al. 2015), the discriminant validity, which is the extent to which a construct is empirically distinct from other constructs in the structural model, proposed the traditional metric and suggested that each construct’s AVE should be compared to the squared inter-construct correlation of that same construct and all other reflectively measured constructs in the structural model. The shared variance for all model constructs should not be larger than their AVEs.
Although recent research points out that this metric is not suitable for discriminant validity assessment, (Henseler et al. 2015) shows that (Fornell and Larcker 1981)’s criterion does not perform well, particularly when the indicator loadings on a construct differ only slightly.
As a replacement, (Henseler et al. 2015) proposed the Heterotrait–Monotrait (HTMT) ratio. By using this technique, whose results are displayed in Table 4, it was possible to demonstrate the factors met the discriminant validity, given that the values of the diagonal are less than 0.900 (Henseler et al. 2015). The matrix shows adequate values with respect to discriminant validity, where the results are low in the crossovers of the different factors.
Through the ULS, it was possible to determine a good adjustment: SRMR = 0.069 (˂0.08), AGFI (0.994), NFI (0.995), and RFI (0.994) (all > 0.95). The modification indices were calculated, and it was decided to eliminate item IND29, since it was related to various items of other factors. The final graph is shown in Figure 3.
The fit indices were the following: SRMR = 0.064 (˂0.08), GFI (0.995), NFI (0.995), and RFI (0.995) (all > 0.95). In Table 5, the standardized coefficients are placed, noting that none of them exceeds the threshold of one. The same situation was found with the R2: INDC (0.365), INDB (0.825) and INDA (0.338). IND4 (0.988) and INV5 (−0.457) were eliminated for causing possible Heywood cases.

4.3. SEM Model—Structural Equations

Figure 4 shows the SEM with acceptable indicators: SRMR ˂ 0.08 (0.064). NFI, RFI, and AGFI >0.95 (0.995).
Through the bootstrapping procedure shown in Table 6, statistically significant relationships were found between IND and Base_TECH (p = 0.001 ˂ 0.05), IND and Smart_PROD_SERV (p = 0.000 ˂ 0.05), and IDN and SMART_Manu_Work (p = 0.009 ˂ 0.05). In addition, IND positively influenced PRF (p = 0.001 ˂ 0.05). In the relationships INV with IND (p = 0.302) and in INV with PRF (p = 0.157), no statistical significance was found.

4.4. Validation of Direct Hypotheses

Table 7 shows the results of the estimators and the p value for the respective validation of hypotheses.
Regarding the direct relationship, Table 8 presents the results of the multigroup analysis where the non-standardized coefficients for both men and women, the difference between the coefficients, and the p value of the difference are observed. Considering the relevant relationships of this study, it is observed that the contribution of I4.0 technologies to job performance is not different according to gender, where a difference was detected in INV with PRF, since this relationship was significant only for men.

4.5. Validation of Mediation Hypothesis

To validate the mediation hypotheses, the bootstrapping method (1000 samples) was used using the ULS procedure, finding (a) direct, indirect, and total effects; (b) their significance levels; and (c) 95% confidence intervals (MacKinnon et al. 2007; Preacher et al. 2011). It is important to highlight that the process was carried out jointly between companies in the service and manufacturing sectors, where the comparative results are presented in Table 9. It can be seen that only IND significantly influenced PRF, while INV was not statistically significant with PRF and with IND. Regarding the mediation of INF between INV and PRF, there was no mediating effect (p = 0.310). However, this situation changed when the companies are only manufacturing. The indirect effect of INV passing through IND to PRF (p = 0.025) was statistically significant, with a standardized coefficient = 0.141 and a 95% CI (0.041–0.326). There were differences, too, in direct effects when industry types were combined. There was no effect between INV and IND, while for manufacturing companies, a moderate effect was detected at 90%, because its p-value was 0.081, between 0.05 and 0.10. In the total effects, manufacturing industries showed some degree of effect, while, counting service companies, the INV–IND relationship did not show any relationship.

4.6. The Model with Control Variables

It was decided to use the variables educational level and years in the company as control variables, in order to minimize their confounding effect. Figure 5 presents the results of the model with acceptable adjustments.
In Table 10, it is observed that educational level is not a confounding factor to explain the PRF, since its value of statistical significance measured with the value p is greater than 0.05 (0.258). On the contrary, the working time in the company does influence the explanation of the PRF. since its p value was 0.002.

5. Discussion

This research responds to recent calls that highlight the need to consider how millennials are involved at work and face their job performance when I4.0 technologies intervene. With this in mind, this study incorporated the Theory of Planned Behaviour and examined the relationship between INV, PRF, and IND in millennial employees working in large Canadian companies. In addition, following the most recent literature, this research incorporates the level of education and the years of work experience as control variables, in addition to determining differences in the behaviour of employees, classified by gender. Therefore, the results of this study extend the existing literature in several ways. The findings partially support other works regarding INV and PRF (Bhutta et al. 2021; Rehman et al. 2020; Sapta et al. 2021; Shamim et al. 2019). The mediating role of IND that is included in these conclusions has not been studied in other investigations.
H1: The results were partially accepted (Estimate = 0.133 and p value = 0.157), which establishes that the INV is positively related to the PRF of millennials. Although, no significant relationships were observed between the INV and the PRF jointly between men and women. In the case of men (H1.1), INV had positive relationships to PRF (Male Beta = 0.188). Therefore, in line with other findings (Han and Yoo 2007; Zhang 2013), this study reveals that each time men become involved with the company, their PRF increases, that is, the more involved they are, the better their PRF. In this way, these employees will be willing to improve their performance and excel in their activities.
On the contrary, in the case of women (H1.1), INV did not have a positive relationship with PRF (Female Beta = −0.043). The research results highlight the crucial role of INV and PRF independently. This study determines that although millennial women base their behaviour on individual beliefs and subjective norms, this behaviour is not restrictive to being involved with the organization, and therefore, it is not a determinant of their PRF. Thus, the job performance of millennial women is not related to the degree of INV. With these findings, it is verified that the relationship between INV and PRF is established mainly by demographic characteristics such as gender rather than by the commitment, work environment, or motivation of the employees (Michie et al. 2002; Ćulibrk et al. 2018; Vroom 1962).
H2: This study establishes that there is no significant difference between men and women (Estimate = 0.170, p value = 0.302), that is, that the INV does not positively influence IND. In the case of women (H2.1), INV had a positive relationship with IND (Female Beta = 0.308, p < 0.10). This implies that even though in Canada, the proportion of women in ICT is lower than the proportion in other countries, the higher the INV of women, the higher the reception of I4.0 technologies in any business sector where they are found. Following (Mueller et al. 2018) who stated that Canadian women have better basic ICT skills than men and (WEF 2018) which determines that I4.0 presents a greater risk for jobs held by women, the findings of this study establish that I4.0 plays a crucial role in how women develop their work. It is then argued that the higher the INV, the more determined women will be to make an extra effort to use I4.0 and achieve their employment goals.
On the other hand, in the case of men (H2.1), INV had no positive relationship with IND (Male Beta = 0.034). This finding is interesting in this research, since, having been carried out in a developed economy, its socioeconomic context does not pose barriers to the implementation of I4.0. Therefore, regardless of the challenges of I4.0, men will be involved in their work, which will incentivize better PRF. In addition, despite the fact that I4.0 is known to provide its workers with new cognitive skills (Polak-Sopinska et al. 2020; Imran and Kantola 2018), organizations have not yet emphasized the training of their millennial employees to better execute work with new technologies.
H3: This research supports previous studies (Aguado et al. 2019) and justifies the importance of IND and PRF (Estimate = 0.706, p value = 0.001) regardless of gender (H3.1) (Female Beta = 0.936 and Male Beta = 0.720, p < 0.001). It suggests that millennial employees can increase their performance by fostering I4.0 (Abubakar et al. 2019; Diez-Olivan et al. 2018; Posada et al. 2015; Stachová et al. 2019), regardless of the business sector in which they operate. These results, in contrast to the previous literature that establishes that millennials are not yet ready to face the challenges that I4.0 promotes (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited 2019), invite organizations to reinforce I4.0 technologies.
Therefore, this study highlights that companies should emphasize both (a) base technologies (internet of things, cloud, and big data); (b) smart manufacturing and working (automatic identification of non-conformities in production, artificial intelligence for predictive diagnostics in equipment, real-time digital integration of manufacturing with customers and distributors, artificial intelligence for production planning and control, regulatory control of processes, real-time digital integration of manufacturing with suppliers, virtual commissioning, additive manufacturing, real-time digital integration with other company units and partners, etc); and (c) smart products and services (remote digital services, face-to-face technical services, and digital customer equipment monitoring services). In particular, this study shows that smart product and service technologies are more significant for men, while basic technologies and smart manufacturing and working do not differ in gender preferences. Meanwhile, in line with other authors (Tortorella et al. 2018; Gupta 2020), these findings encourage employees who reinforce I4.0 practices during continuous improvement activities to achieve a higher level of PRF when adopting IND.
H4: This study supports H4. For manufacturing companies, IND has a positive relationship with SMART_Manu_Work (Estimate = 0.580, p value = 0.009), IND has a positive relationship with SMART_Prod_Serv (Estimate = 0.912, p value = 0.000), and IND has a positive relationship with Base Tech (Estimate = 0.530, p value = 0.001). H4.1 has a positive relationship despite gender, with a p < 0.001. In fact, in recent years, I4.0 has gained relevance in this sector. The findings show that IND mediates the relationship between INV and PRF. Therefore, it is established that the employees of manufacturing companies that are involved at work, when they adopt I4.0 technologies, improve their work performance. It can be affirmed that these companies have a better development of I4.0, and therefore, they are better at managing their R&D processes and their human resources (Stachová et al. 2019). This is because in these companies, there is a very employee-oriented management philosophy, which explains the work performance of its workers through the use of I4.0. Therefore, these results show that manufacturing companies would be providing innovative and high-quality products.
When utility companies are included, this study establishes that IND does not mediate the relationship between INV and PRF; however, direct, and total effects are shown between IND and PRF and between INV and PRF. This means that, regardless of the use of I4.0 in companies, when millennials become involved at work, their performance increases. In addition, as (Nafchi and Mohelská 2021) suggested, when employees use I4.0, their performance also increases. However, this study shows a need to promote I4.0 in service companies to improve both the INV and the PRF of their employees. For this reason, it is necessary to develop motivation and training programs to satisfy the needs for prestige and autonomy of the employees, since, in addition, those who feel more involved will have a greater sense of duty to the company. As revealed by (Barkat and Beh 2018), intellectual capital is a source of competitive advantage, because it contributes to the creation of value.
Although the COVID-19 pandemic generated drastic changes in work environments and many workers felt comfortable working from home (Narayanamurthy and Tortorella 2021), it is possible that this is increasingly affecting the INV in these companies. As such (Johari and Yahya 2016), identified the importance that workers give to tasks and the feedback they receive increases their performance. In addition, Canada is one of the largest economies in the world and is oriented toward the market with a high cultural vision. Its companies must reinforce the typical roles in their work environments and influence the social actions of their members.
Finally, it was found that, after controlling the variables of the level of education and years of work experience, the latter had an impact on INV, PRF, and IND. In this way, the study validates that the greater the experience of the employees, the more likely they are to use I4.0. In addition, the results show a lack of presence of a younger workforce in management positions, as well as a lack of knowledge of I4.0 among the youngest millennials. In fact, millennials who have identified with management positions may not have complete knowledge transfer. Despite this, level of education is not relevant between INV, PRF, and IND. Although it was found that age is a determining factor for Canadian companies and they concentrate a greater number of millennial employees, only 5% of them have a higher educational level, which is not a determinant of their income, since millennials between 22 and 29 years old receive higher incomes than those between 30 and 39 years of age.
Regarding gender, this study found that level of education and salary were not different between men and women. In this way, although the companies do not have a gender distinction in their employees, the older ones are in management positions, despite the fact that the younger ones receive higher incomes. Furthermore, the industrial sector in which they are found is indifferent to the activities they carry out and the positions they hold.

6. Conclusions

This research analyses the mediating role of IND in the relationship between INV and PRF in millennial employees of large Canadian companies. This study identified the mediating effect of IND in manufacturing firms but not in service firms. This study reveals that although INV is stronger in men when it impacts PRF and that INV is even more significant in women when it impacts IND. IND is more relevant to PRF in both men and women. This means that, regardless of the millennials’ gender, the use of INDs substantially improves the PRF. Therefore, given the current and projected shortage of ICT professionals, women represent a large, as yet untapped pool of talent. In addition, it was evidenced that the years of work experience were substantial in the relationships between INV, PRF, and IND. This study highlights the relevance of I4.0 and proposes extending the workforce to new roles that improve productivity and lead to the creation of new roles in companies.

7. Implications

7.1. Theoretical Implications

This research is an effort to expand the knowledge base of previous studies using the Theory of Planned Behaviour, now being tested in Canadian millennial workers. In general, this study provides evidence by explaining the variations between INV and PRF from IND when different behaviours of employees are involved based on gender. It is found that men have higher INV and PRF, while women who feel more involved with the company are more IND, but it is not a determinant of their PRF. The theoretical contributions of this study suggest that I4.0 strengthens the IND of millennial employees, mainly in manufacturing companies, who can in turn significantly improve the PRF of millennials. Additionally, as companies continue to focus on implementing efficient ways of conducting business, there will be increased interest in incorporating new technologies.

7.2. Managerial Implications

The practical contributions assume that in the socioeconomic context and from the COVID-19 pandemic, additional barriers are raised for the implementation of I4.0 technologies, especially with regard to work experience in the company and differences by gender. Even in this context, the INV and the PRF are essential for the permanence of companies through a committed workforce. This research provides companies with arguments for managers to emphasize that their current continuous improvement approaches will need to be human-centred and consistent with new I4.0 technologies. In turn, managers who reinforce INV practice during continuous improvement activities might achieve a higher level of PRF by adopting IND than those who neglect the importance of these organizational actions.

8. Limitations and Directions for Further Research

This research complements previous work, and its findings advance the body of knowledge on I4.0 in organizations. However, it has some limitations that should be taken with care when generalizing the results. Firstly, the data collection was carried out through online surveys of millennial employees of different hierarchical levels, which despite being the most effective and reliable way through which information on the organization’s processes can be obtained and despite its relevance and ease of use, it is likely susceptible to participant bias. Secondly, the study applied convenience sampling for the researchers, due to the difficulty of access to companies that use I4.0 technologies, and because it is a technique suggested in similar studies; however, the interpretation of the results must be limited to the Canadian study population and companies. It is suggested to use random sampling for future studies.
Future research could replicate this study by examining other regions, countries, company sizes, job titles, or cultural backgrounds. In addition, as this study only included millennial employees in the analysis, other research could study the behaviour of other generational groups to compare them with millennials and corroborate the results of this research and, if possible, measure the evolution over time using a longitudinal study. Finally, future research can include, from the point of view of theories such as Job Demands-Resource, Societal Cognitive, Task-Technology Fit or the Technology Acceptance Model, the implications of adopting Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things (IoT), Organizational Culture, Development Skills and Training Programs, Motivation and Work Commitment, in the mediating role of the adoption of industry 4.0 technologies between job involvement and job performance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.F.T.-A. and L.B.-P.; methodology, G.F.T.-A. and L.B.-P.; software, G.F.T.-A.; validation, G.F.T.-A. and L.B.-P.; formal analysis, G.F.T.-A.; investigation, G.F.T.-A.; data curation, G.F.T.-A.; writing-original draft preparation, G.F.T.-A.; writing-review and editing, L.B.-P.; visualization, G.F.T.-A.; supervision, L.B.-P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.


This research has no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical clearance for this study was obtained from CENTRUM PUCP; Ref: DBA-002-2022.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Figure A1. Research methodology flowchart.
Figure A1. Research methodology flowchart.
Admsci 13 00159 g0a1


  1. Abubakar, Abubakar Mohammed, Hamzah Elrehail, Maher Ahmad Alatailat, and Alev Elçi. 2019. Knowledge management, decision-making style and organizational performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 4: 104–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Aguado, David, José C. Andrés, Antonio L. García-Izquierdo, and Jesús Rodríguez. 2019. LinkedIn “Big Four”: Job Performance Validation in the ICT Sector. Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo Y de Las Organizaciones 35: 53–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Aguilar-Rodríguez, Iliana E., César A. Bernal-Torres, Juan C. Aldana-Bernal, Andrés G. Acosta-Aguinaga, Carlos H. Artieda-Cajilema, and Priscila Chalá. 2021. Relationship between social culture, industry 4.0, and organizational performance in the context of emerging economies. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 14: 750–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ajzen, Icek. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ajzen, Icek. 2002. Perceived Behavioral Control, Self-efficacy, Locus of Control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32: 665–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ajzen, Icek. 2011. The theory of planned behaviour: Reactions and reflections. Psychology & Health 26: 1113–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ajzen, Icek. 2012. The Theory of Planned Behavior. In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London: Sage Publications Ltd., pp. 438–59. [Google Scholar]
  8. Al Naggar, Samer Ahmed, and Mohamed Ali Saad. 2019. The impact of organizational justice on job involvement level on Saudi postal corporation. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences 6: 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Albuquerque, André, Fagner José Coutinho de Melo, Larissa Xavier, and Denise Dumke Medeiros. 2021. Analyzing the profile of the manager from the perspective of the employees: A case study. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management 19: 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Alexander, Christopher, and James Sysko. 2012. A Study of the Cognitive Determinants of Generation Y’s Entitlement Mentality. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 16: 63–68. [Google Scholar]
  11. Ali, Imran, and Mohamed Gamal Shehata Aboelmaged. 2021. Implementation of supply chain 4.0 in the food and beverage industry: Perceived drivers and barriers. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 71: 1426–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ali, Muhammad, Suleman A. Lodhi, Orangzab, Basharat Raza, and Wasif Ali. 2018. Examining the Impact of Managerial Coaching on Employee Job Performance: Mediating Role of Work Engagement, Leader-Member-Exchange Quality, Job Satisfaction, and Turnover Intentions. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 12: 253–82. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ali-Chughtai. 2008. Impact of Job Involvement on In-Role Job Performance and Organizational Citizenship Behaviour. Journal of Behavioral and Applied Management 9: 169–83. [Google Scholar]
  14. Awan, Usama, Robert Sroufe, and Muhammad Shahbaz. 2021. Industry 4.0 and the circular economy: A literature review and recommendations for future research. Business Strategy and the Environment 30: 2038–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ayala, Néstor Fabián, Carolline Amaral Paslauski, Antonio Ghezzi, and Alejandro Germán Frank. 2017. Knowledge sharing dynamics in service suppliers’ involvement for servitization of manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics 193: 538–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Babatunde, Oluwayomi Kayode. 2020. Mapping the implications and competencies for Industry 4.0 to hard and soft total quality management. The TQM Journal 33: 896–914. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Baena, Felipe, Alvaro Guarin, Julian Mora, Joel Sauza, and Sebastian Retat. 2017. Learning Factory: The Path to Industry 4.0. Procedia Manufacturing 9: 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Barkat, Wassem, and Loo-See Beh. 2018. Impact of intellectual capital on organizational performance: Evidence from developing country. Academy of Strategic Management Journal 17: 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Bednar, Peter M., and Christine Welch. 2019. Socio-Technical Perspectives on Smart Working: Creating Meaningful and Sustainable Systems. Information Systems Frontiers 22: 281–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Bettiol, Marco, Mauro Capestro, Eleonora Di Maria, and Stefano Micelli. 2021. Disentangling the link between ICT and Industry 4.0: Impacts on knowledge-related performance. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management 71: 1076–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Bhutta, Zahra M., Gulnaz Afzal, Khadim Hussain, and Saim M. Hashmi. 2021. The Determinants of In-Role Performance: An Empirical Analysis of the Hospitality Industry in Pakistan. Asia-Pacific Journal of Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism 10: 61–72. [Google Scholar]
  22. Blau, Gary J. 1985. A multiple study investigation of the dimensionality of job involvement. Journal of Vocational Behavior 27: 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Blau, Peter M. 1986. Exchange and Power in Social Life, 2nd ed. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780887386282. [Google Scholar]
  24. Bortolini, Marco, Emilio Ferrari, Mauro Gamberi, Francesco Pilati, and Maurizio Faccio. 2017. Assembly system design in the Industry 4.0 era: A general framework. IFAC-PapersOnLine 50: 5700–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brettel, Malte, Niklas Friederichsen, Michael Keller, and Marius Rosenberg. 2014. How Virtualization, Decentralization and Network Building Change the Manufacturing Landscape: An Industry 4.0 Perspective. International Journal of Information and Communication Engineering 8: 37–44. [Google Scholar]
  26. Brown, Steven P., and Thomas W. Leigh. 1996. A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 81: 358–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Byrne, Barbara M. 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming, 2nd ed. New York: Taylor and Francis Group, LLC, vol. 22, ISBN 978-0-8058-6372-7. [Google Scholar]
  28. Chun, Hong-Min, and Kae H. Jo. 2015. Hotel Employee’s Cognition for Organization Support Influencing Involvement of Organization Change, Work Motivation, and Intention for Turnover. Journal of Hotel & Resort 14: 25–48. [Google Scholar]
  29. Cohen, Aaron. 2000. The Relationship between Commitment Forms and Work Outcomes: A Comparison of Three Models. Human Relations 53: 387–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Coreynen, Wim, Paul Matthyssens, and Wouter Van Bockhaven. 2017. Boosting servitization through digitization: Pathways and dynamic resource configurations for manufacturers. Industrial Marketing Management 60: 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ćulibrk, Jelena, Milan Delić, Slavica Mitrović, and Dubravko Ćulibrk. 2018. Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment and Job Involvement: The Mediating Role of Job Involvement. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Cunha, Liliana, Daniel Silva, and Sarah Maggioli. 2022. Exploring the status of the human operator in Industry 4.0: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology 13: 889129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dalenogare, Lucas Santos, Guilherme Brittes Benitez, Néstor Fabián Ayala, and Alejandro Germán Frank. 2018. The expected contribution of Industry 4.0 technologies for industrial performance. International Journal of Production Economics 204: 383–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dassisti, Michele, Antonio Giovannini, Pasquale Merla, Michela Chimienti, and Hervé Panetto. 2018. An approach to support Industry 4.0 adoption in SMEs using a core-metamodel. Annual Reviews in Control 47: 266–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Deal, Jennifer J., David G. Altman, and Steven G. Rogelberg. 2010. Millennials at work: What we know and whar we need to do (if anything). Journal of Business and Psychology 25: 1291–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Deka, Devajyoti. 2018. Are millennials moving to more urbanized and transit-oriented counties? Journal of Transport and Land Use 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. 2019. The Deloitte Global Millennial Survey. New York: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited. [Google Scholar]
  38. Diefendorff, James M., Douglas J. Brown, Allen M. Kamin, and Robert G. Lord. 2002. Examining the roles of job involvement and work centrality in predicting organizational citizenship behaviors and job performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior 23: 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Diez-Olivan, Alberto, Javier Del Ser, Diego Galar, and Basilio Sierra. 2018. Data fusion and machine learning for industrial prognosis: Trends and perspectives towards Industry 4.0. Information Fusion 50: 92–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ebrahimi, Elham. 2021. Work Family Enrichment as a Silver Lining of Work Family Interface in the Academic Society: Causes and Consequences. Iranian journal of Management Studies 14: 777–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Emery, Charles R., and Katherine J. Barker. 2007. Effect of commitment, job involvement and teams on customer satisfaction and profit. Team Performance Management 13: 90–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Febriani, Risky Ayu, Hong-Seok Park, and Chang-Myung Lee. 2020. An approach for designing a platform of smart welding station system. The International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 106: 3437–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker. 1981. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. Journal of Marketing Research 18: 39–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Frank, Alejandro Germán, Lucas Santos Dalenogare, and Néstor Fabián Ayala. 2019. Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation patterns in manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics 210: 15–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ghobakhloo, Morteza. 2018. The future of manufacturing industry: A strategic roadmap toward Industry 4.0. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 29: 910–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Global Innovation Index. 2022. Explore the Interactive Database of the GII 2022 Indicators. Available online: (accessed on 28 April 2023).
  47. Gorman, Phil, Teresa Nelson, and Alan Glassman. 2004. The Millennial Generation: A Strategic Opportunity. Journal of Organizational Behavior 12: 255–70. [Google Scholar]
  48. Govender, Sanjana, and Sanjana Brijball Parumasur. 2010. The relationship between employee motivation and job involvement. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences 13: 237–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Güney-Frahm, Irem. 2018. A new era for women? Some reflections on blind spots of ICT-based development projects for women’s entrepreneurship and empowerment. Gender, Technology and Development 22: 130–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Gupta, Anand K. 2020. Workplace Friendships: An Affirmative Effect on the Organizational Obligation. International Journal on Emerging Technologies 11: 526–30. [Google Scholar]
  51. Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson. 2010. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. [Google Scholar]
  52. Hair, Joseph F., William C. Black, Barry J. Babin, and Rolph E. Anderson. 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. Harlow: Pearson. ISBN 978-0138132637. [Google Scholar]
  53. Han, Ji Sook, and Gye-Sook Yoo. 2007. The Effects of Employees’ Gender Role Attitudes, Job Involvement, and Family Involvement on Work-Family Balance. Journal of Korean Home Management Association 25: 143–66. [Google Scholar]
  54. Hebles, Melany, Francisco Trincado-Munoz, and Karina Ortega. 2022. Stress and Turnover Intentions Within Healthcare Teams: The Mediating Role of Psychological Safety, and the Moderating Effect of COVID-19 Worry and Supervisor Support. Frontiers in Psychology 12: 758438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Henseler, Jörg, Christian M. Ringle, and Marko Sarstedt. 2015. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 43: 115–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Howe, Neil, and William Strauss. 2000. Millennials Rising: The next Great Generation. London: Vintage. ISBN 0375707190. [Google Scholar]
  57. Hoyle, Rick H. 2015. Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press. ISBN 9781462516797. [Google Scholar]
  58. Imran, Faisal, and Jussi Kantola. 2018. Review of Industry 4.0 in the Light of Sociotechnical System Theory and Competence-Based View: A Future Research Agenda for the Evolute Approach. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing 783: 118–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Jayawardana, Ananda K. L., Michael O’Donnell, and J. A. S. K. Jayakody. 2013. Job involvement and performance among middle managers in Sri Lanka. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 24: 4008–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Jeschke, Sabina, Christian Brecher, Tobias Meisen, Denis Özdemir, and Tim Eschert. 2017. Industrial Internet of Things and Cyber Manufacturing Systems. Berlin: Springer. [Google Scholar]
  61. Johari, Johanim, and Khulida Kirana Yahya. 2016. Job characteristics, work involvement, and job performance of public servants. European Journal of Training and Development 40: 554–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Khampirat, Buratin. 2021. Relationships between ICT competencies related to work, self-esteem, and self-regulated learning with engineering competencies. PLoS ONE 16: e0260659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kim, Kyung-Mi, Hyun-Jun Park, and Ji-joong Ruy. 2018. Gender Difference of Chinese Employees ’ Perception on Subsidiary Korean Company’s Organizational. Journal of Management & Economics 40: 157–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kirlidog, Melih, Meric Aykol, and Sevinc Gulsecen. 2009. Interpersonal communication and gender in the ICT profession. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine 28: 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Knoema. 2017. The World’s Biggest Public Companies. Available online: Empresas (accessed on 28 April 2023).
  66. Krchová, Hana, and Katarína Švejnová Höesová. 2021. Selected determinants of digital transformation and their influence on the number of women in the ICT sector. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues 8: 524–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Lawler, Edward E., and Douglas T. Hall. 1970. Relationship of job characteristics to job involvement, satisfaction, and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology 54: 305–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Lee, Cynthia, Guo-Hua Huang, and Susan J. Ashford. 2018. Job Insecurity and the Changing Workplace: Recent Developments and the Future Trends in Job Insecurity Research. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior 5: 335–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Li, Xirui, Kan Dan, Liu Li, Shi Meng, Wang Yang, Xiaoshi Yang, Jiana Wang, Lie Wang, and Hui Wu. 2015. The Mediating Role of Psychological Capital on the Association between Occupational Stress and Job Burnout among Bank Employees in China. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 12: 2984–3001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Lodahl, Thomas M., and Mathilde Kejnar. 1965. The definition and measurement of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology 49: 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Loke, K. B., A. H. Saharuddin, I. Rizal, M. R. Othman, A. S. A. Kader, and A. M. Zamani. 2016. Personality Factors Affected Job In-volvement in Container Terminal. Journal of Marine technology and Environment Year 2: 27–31. [Google Scholar]
  72. Luque-Vega, Luis F., Emmanuel Lopez-Neri, Anayeli Santoyo, Jorge Ruíz Duarte, and Neín Farrera Vázquez. 2019. Educational Methodology Based on Active Learning for Mechatronics Engineering Students: Towards Educational Mechatronics. Computación Y Sistemas 23: 325–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. MacKinnon, David P., Amanda J. Fairchild, and Matthew S. Fritz. 2007. Mediation Analysis. Annual Review of Psychology 58: 593–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Marcaletti, Francesco, Tatiana Iñiguez Berrozpe, and Carmen Elboj Saso. 2022. La formación como variable de calidad del envejecimiento en el empleo en entornos organizacionales tecnificados. Revista Internacional de Organizaciones, 85–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Michie, Jonathan, Christine Oughton, and Yvonne Bennion. 2002. A Research Report for Employees Direct from Birkbeck and The Work Foundation. In Employee Ownership, Motivation and Productivity. London: Birkbeck University of London, pp. 1–33. ISBN 1843730030. [Google Scholar]
  76. Moica, Sorina, Alina Gherendi, Cristina Veres, and Theodor Moica. 2019. The Integration of the Blended Learning Concept into Employee Training as a Factor in Shifting Mentalities towards the Industry 4.0 Approach. Paper presented at 2019 8th International Conference on Industrial Technology and Management, ICITM, Cambridge, UK, March 2–4; pp. 236–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Moreno, Angeles, Cristina Navarro, and Cristina Fuentes-Lara. 2022. Factors affecting turnover intentions among Millennial public relations professionals: The Latin American case. Public Relations Inquiry 11: 199–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Mueller, Richard, N. T. Khuong Truong, and Wynonna Smoke. 2018. Underrepresentation of Women in Canada’s Information and Communication Technology Sector: What Can We Learn from a Canadian Survey of Adult Skills? Canadian Public Policy 44: S73–S90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Myers, Karen K., and Kamyab Sadaghiani. 2010. Millennials in the Workplace: A Communication Perspective on Millennials’ Organizational Relationships and Performance. Journal of Business and Psychology 25: 225–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Nafchi, Majid Ziaei, and Hana Mohelská. 2021. Strategic Challenges of Human Resources Allocation in Industry 4.0. Information 12: 120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Naim, Mohammad, and Usha Lenka. 2018. Development and retention of Generation Y employees: A conceptual framework. Employee Relations 40: 433–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Nantee, Natnaree, and Panitas Sureeyatanapas. 2021. The impact of Logistics 4.0 on corporate sustainability: A performance assessment of automated warehouse operations. Benchmarking: An International Journal 28: 2865–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Narayanamurthy, Gopalakrishnan, and Guilherme Tortorella. 2021. Impact of COVID-19 outbreak on employee performance—Moderating role of industry 4.0 base technologies. International Journal of Production Economics 234: 108075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Nedelko, Zlatko. 2021. What Drives the Usage of Management Tools Supporting Industry 4.0 in Organizations? Sensors 21: 3512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Oppenauer, Viktoria, and Karina Van De Voorde. 2016. Exploring the relationships between high involvement work system practices, work demands and emotional exhaustion: A multi-level study. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 29: 311–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Park, Jiyoung, Kyoungsu Lee, Jung In Lim, and Young Woo Sohn. 2018. Leading With Callings: Effects of Leader’s Calling on Followers’ Team Commitment, Voice Behavior, and Job Performance. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  87. Park, Jiyoung, Sinae Kim, Myoungki Lim, and Young Woo Sohn. 2019. Having a Calling on Board: Effects of Calling on Job Satisfaction and Job Performance Among South Korean Newcomers. Frontiers in Psychology 10: 1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  88. Pearce, Jone L., and Lyman W. Porter. 1986. Employee responses to formal performance appraisal feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology 71: 211–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Polak-Sopinska, Aleksandra, Zbigniew Wisniewski, Anna Walaszczyk, Anna Maczewska, and Piotr Sopinski. 2020. Impact of Industry 4.0 on Occupational Health and Safety. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. Cham: Springer International Publishing, vol. 971, pp. 365–75. [Google Scholar]
  90. Posada, Jorge, Carlos Toro, Iñigo Barandiaran, David Oyarzun, and Peter Eisert. 2015. Visual Computing as Key Enabling Technology for Inductry 4.0 & Inductrial Internet. Computer Graphics and Applications 35: 26–40. [Google Scholar]
  91. Powell, Thomas C. 1992. Organizational alignment as competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal 13: 119–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Preacher, Kristopher J., Zhen Zhang, and Michael J. Zyphur. 2011. Alternative Methods for Assessing Mediation in Multilevel Data: The Advantages of Multilevel SEM. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 18: 161–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Qaiser-Danish, Rizwan, Nauman Aslam, and Hafiz Yasir-Ali. 2015. Relationship between JOB Performance, JOB Involvement and Career Salience of Employees in Education Sector of Pakistan. American Journal of Educational Research 1: 19–23. [Google Scholar]
  94. Rahman, Mushfiqur, Muhammad Mustafa Kamal, Erhan Aydin, and Adnan Ul Haque. 2020. Impact of Industry 4.0 drivers on the performance of the service sector: Comparative study of cargo logistic firms in developed and developing regions. Production Planning & Control 33: 228–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Ras, Eric, Fridolin Wild, Christoph Stahl, and Alexandre Baudet. 2017. Bridging the Skills Gap of Workers in Industry 4.0 by Human Performance Augmentation Tools. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series 2017: 428–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Rassameethes, Bordin, Kongkiti Phusavat, Zbigniew Pastuszak, Achmad Nizar Hidayanto, and Jukka Majava. 2021. From training to learning: Transition of a workplace for industry 4.0. Human Systems Management 40: 777–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Reeve, Charlie L., and Carlla S. Smith. 2001. Refining Lodahl and Kejner’s Job Involvement Scale with a Convergent Evidence Approach: Applying Multiple Methods to Multiple Samples. Organizational Research Methods 4: 91–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Rehman, Saif Ur, Mohsin Shahzad, Muhammad Shoaib Farooq, and Muhammad Umair Javaid. 2020. Impact of leadership behavior of a project manager on his/her subordinate’s job-attitudes and job-outcomes. Asia Pacific Management Review 25: 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Reinhardt, Ingrid Carla, Jorge C. Oliveira, and Denis T. Ring. 2020. Current Perspectives on the Development of Industry 4.0 in the Pharmaceutical Sector. Journal of Industrial Information Integration 18: 100131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Richard, Sophie, Robert Pellerin, Jocelyn Bellemare, and Nathalie Perrier. 2020. A business process and portfolio management approach for Industry 4.0 transformation. Business Process Management Journal 27: 505–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Roldán, Juan Jesús, Elena Crespo, Andrés Martín-Barrio, Elena Peña-Tapia, and Antonio Barrientos. 2019. A training system for Industry 4.0 operators in complex assemblies based on virtual reality and process mining. Robotics and Computer-Integrated Manufacturing 59: 305–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Sapta, I. Ketut Setia, I. Nengah Sudja, I. Nengah Landra, and Ni Wayan Rustiarini. 2021. Sustainability Performance of Organization: Mediating Role of Knowledge Management. Economies 9: 97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Saputra, Nopriadi, and Glenaldo E. Hutajulu. 2020. Engaging the Millennials at Office: Tracking the Antecedents of Holistic Work Engagement. Polish Journal of Management Studies 21: 342–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Sardar, Taiba, Zeng Jianqiu, Muhammad Bilal, Zubair Akram, and Khuram Shahzad. 2019. Revolution of ICT: Women entrepreneurs in Pakistan. Human Systems Management 38: 357–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Schwab, Klaus. 2017. The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Geneva: World Economic Forum. ISBN 9781944835019. [Google Scholar]
  106. Shamim, Saqib, Shuang Cang, Hongnian Yu, Yun Li, Leo Yi Chen, and Xifan Yao. 2019. How firms in emerging economies can learn industry 4.0 by extracting knowledge from their foreign partners? A view point from strategic management perspective. International Conference on Advanced Mechatronic Systems, ICAMechS 2019: 390–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Siqueira, Frank, and Joseph G. Davis. 2021. Service Computing for Industry 4.0: State of the Art, Challenges, and Research Opportunities. ACM Computing Surveys 54: 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Sommer, Lutz. 2015. Industrial revolution—industry 4.0: Are German manufacturing SMEs the first victims of this revolution? Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management 8: 1512–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  109. Stachová, Katarína, Ján Papula, Zdenko Stacho, and Lucia Kohnová. 2019. External Partnerships in Employee Education and Development as the Key to Facing Industry 4.0 Challenges. Sustainability 11: 345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  110. Tortorella, Guilherme, Rogério Miorando, Rodrigo Caiado, Daniel Luiz De Mattos Nascimento, and Alberto Portioli Staudacher. 2018. The mediating effect of employees’ involvement on the relationship between Industry 4.0 and operational performance improvement. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 32: 119–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Ullman, Jodie B. 2006. Structural Equation Modeling: Reviewing the Basics and Moving Forward. Journal of Personality Assessment 87: 35–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Veith, Christina, and Daniel Costea. 2019. Industry 4.0—A Challenge or a Risk for the Involvement of Women in Management and Business. Manager Journal 29: 91–98. [Google Scholar]
  113. Vereycken, Yennef, Monique Ramioul, Sam Desiere, and Michiel Bal. 2021. Human resource practices accompanying industry 4.0 in European manufacturing industry. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management 32: 1016–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Vroom, Victor H. 1962. Ego-Involvement, Job Satisfaction, and Job Performance. Personnel Psychology 15: 159–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Wang, Shiyong, Wan Jiafu, Li Di, and Chunhua Zhang. 2016. Implementing Smart Factory of Industrie 4.0: An Outlook. International Journal of Distributed Sensor Networks 12: 517–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  116. WEF. 2018. The Future of Jobs Report. Geneva: World Economic Forum, vol. 31. [Google Scholar]
  117. Wei, Zelong, Song Xi, and Donghan Wang. 2017. Manufacturing flexibility, business model design, and firm performance. International Journal of Production Economics 193: 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Wollschlaeger, Martin, Oleksandr Bieliaiev, Thomas Bangemann, and Max Weinmann. 2017. Modelle und Dienste für das Betriebsmanagement. Atp Edition 59: 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Wu, Chien-Hung, I-Shen Chen, and Jia-Chern Chen. 2017. A Study into the Impact of Employee Wellness and Job Satisfaction on Job Performance. International Journal of Organizational Innovation 10: 253–69. [Google Scholar]
  120. Zhang, Suchuan. 2013. Impact of Job Involvement on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in China. Journal of Business Ethics 120: 165–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Theoretical research model.
Figure 1. Theoretical research model.
Admsci 13 00159 g001
Figure 2. Initial second-order measurement model.
Figure 2. Initial second-order measurement model.
Admsci 13 00159 g002
Figure 3. Final second-order measurement model.
Figure 3. Final second-order measurement model.
Admsci 13 00159 g003
Figure 4. Final second-order SEM model.
Figure 4. Final second-order SEM model.
Admsci 13 00159 g004
Figure 5. SEM model with control variables.
Figure 5. SEM model with control variables.
Admsci 13 00159 g005
Table 1. Description of company information by age group.
Table 1. Description of company information by age group.
Level of EducationBachelor13595.1%6060.6%
Annual IncomeCAD 110,000–more00.0%1111.1%
CAD 30,000–CAD 70,00011581.0%2323.2%
CAD 70,001–CAD 110,0002719.0%6565.7%
Industry sectorAutomotive3323.2%1515.2%
Paper and Cellulose2215.5%2121.2%
Current role or functionAnalyst or Technician4733.1%1717.2%
Manager or Director10.7%2828.3%
Supervisor or Coordinator32.1%3333.3%
Table 2. Description of company information according to gender groups.
Table 2. Description of company information according to gender groups.
FemaleMalePrefer Not to Say
Level of EducationBachelor9282.9%9878.4%5100.0%
Annual IncomeCAD 110,000–more54.5%54.0%120.0%
CAD 30,000–CAD 70,0006457.7%7156.8%360.0%
CAD 70,001–CAD 110,0004237.8%4939.2%120.0%
Industry sectorAutomotive2219.8%2217.6%480.0%
Paper and Cellulose119.9%3225.6%00.0%
Current role or functionAnalyst or Technician2320.7%4132.8%00.0%
Manager or Director1210.8%1612.8%120.0%
Supervisor or Coordinator1614.4%1915.2%120.0%
Table 3. Psychometric indicators measurement model second initial order.
Table 3. Psychometric indicators measurement model second initial order.
INV0.8420.5210.227 *0.722
IND0.7500.5070.812 ***0.181 †0.712
p < 0.100, * p < 0.050, *** p < 0.001.
Table 4. HTMT matrix.
Table 4. HTMT matrix.
Table 5. Standardized coefficients final second order measurement model.
Table 5. Standardized coefficients final second order measurement model.
Estimate Estimate
Table 6. Standardized coefficients and their significance with bootstrapping.
Table 6. Standardized coefficients and their significance with bootstrapping.
Table 7. Hypothesis verification.
Table 7. Hypothesis verification.
H1: INV has a relationship with or positively influences PRF.0.133p = 0.157No supported
H2: INV has a relationship with or positively influences IND.0.170p = 0.302No supported
H3: IND has a relationship with or positively influences PRF.0.706p = 0.001Supported
H4: IND → SMART_Manu_Work
p = 0.009
p = 0.000
p = 0.001
Table 8. Gender differences in direct effects.
Table 8. Gender differences in direct effects.
HypothesisFemale BetaMale BetaDifference in Betasp-Value for DifferenceConclusion
H1.1: INV between men and women has a relationship or positively influences PRF.−0.0430.188 †−0.2310.184Supported male.
H2.1: INV between men and women has a relationship or positively influences IND.0.308 †0.0340.2740.175Supported female.
H3.1: IND between men and women has a relationship or positively influences PRF.0.936 ***0.720 ***0.2160.751There were no differences.
H4.1: IND → Base_TECH0.576 ***0.664 ***−0.0870.13Supported
H4.1: IND → Smart_PROD_SERV0.708 ***0.958 ***−0.250.022Supported
H4.1: IND → SMART_Manu_Work0.443 ***0.658 ***−0.2150.251Supported
p < 0.100, *** p < 0.001.
Table 9. Bootstrapping, mediation validation Industries 4.0, total effects, and according to manufacturing companies.
Table 9. Bootstrapping, mediation validation Industries 4.0, total effects, and according to manufacturing companies.
RelationsStandardized CoefficientsSignificance TestI.CConclusion
Direct effects Lower limitUpper limit
INV→PRF0.1840.137−0.0200.342There is no effect
INV→IND0.2590.0810.0180.451The effect at 90%
IND→PRF0.5340.0040.2190.802The effect at 95%
Indirect effects
H4: INV→IND→PRF0.1410.0250.0410.326Significant mediating effect
Total effects
INV→PRF0.3250.0160.1350.471The effect at 95%
INV→IND0.2590.0810.0180.451The effect at 90%
IND→PRF0.5430.0040.2190.802The effect at 95%
Manufacturing and services
Direct effects Lower limitUpper limit
INV→PRF0.1330.164−0.0200.279There is no effect
INV→IND0.1700.355−0.1220.338There is no effect
IND→PRF0.7060.0020.5530.823The effect at 95%
Indirect effects
H4: INV→IND→PRF0.1200.310−0.0770.246No mediating effect
Total effects
INV→PRF0.2530.0020.1290.377The effect at 95%
INV→IND0.1700.355−0.1220.338There is no effect
IND→PRF0.7060.0020.5530.823The effect at 95%
Table 10. Non-standardized coefficients and their significance with bootstrapping.
Table 10. Non-standardized coefficients and their significance with bootstrapping.
PRF <--- working experience−0.109−0.2680.039p = 0.258No supported
PRF <--- level education0.3430.2300.445p = 0.002Supported
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Tapia-Andino, G.F.; Barcellos-Paula, L. Mediating Effect of the Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies on the Relationship between Job Involvement and Job Performance of Millennials. Adm. Sci. 2023, 13, 159.

AMA Style

Tapia-Andino GF, Barcellos-Paula L. Mediating Effect of the Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies on the Relationship between Job Involvement and Job Performance of Millennials. Administrative Sciences. 2023; 13(7):159.

Chicago/Turabian Style

Tapia-Andino, Geovanni Fernando, and Luciano Barcellos-Paula. 2023. "Mediating Effect of the Adoption of Industry 4.0 Technologies on the Relationship between Job Involvement and Job Performance of Millennials" Administrative Sciences 13, no. 7: 159.

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