Muhammad Farhan Jalil
Azlan Ali1
Zeeshan Ahmed- 1School of Business and Management, University College of Technology Sarawak, Sibu, Malaysia
- 2Department of Business Management, University of Lahore Gujrat Campus, Gujrat, Pakistan
Amid difficulty, the psychological capital of small tourism firm owners/managers has been given less attention. In the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, this research examined how psychological capital (self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience) affects organizational resilience. By structural equation modeling (AMOS 21.0), 644 small tourism firm owners in Malaysia were randomly selected to investigate the relationship between psychological capital and organizational resilience, and the mediating effect of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies on this relationship. The findings of the study supported hypothesized relationships, as the psychological capital of small tourism firm owners in Malaysia significantly affects organizational resilience. Furthermore, the study discovered that problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies have partial mediating effects on the association between psychological capital and organizational resilience. In the context of small tourism businesses sector, the findings of the study have implications, as the firms identify the recovery procedure in the COVID-19 pandemic.
Introduction
With rise in frequency and effects, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has become more common all over the world (Popkin et al., 2020; Mishra et al., 2021). Recent evidence indicates that a new trend is emerging with COVID-19, with decreased mortality but increased costs (Cherry et al., 2020). Since epidemics such as COVID-19 influence tourism supply and demand simultaneously, the tourism sector is extremely sensitive to natural disasters (González-Torres et al., 2021). In the same way, Škare et al. (2021) have discussed huge consequences on tourism following the massive COVID-19 pandemic that hit the world. Moreover, the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the tourism sector were “rapid, significant, and persistent.”
Many epidemics, such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, influenza A (H1N1) in 2009, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) in 2012, and Ebola in 2014 (Zeng et al., 2005; Lee et al., 2012; Novelli et al., 2018), have seriously affected the tourism industry during the last 2 decades, as travel might aggravate health problems and it is best to avoid it. In the tourism sector, there has been several studies on health problems and tourism disaster management (Pforr and Hosie, 2008; Jamal and Budke, 2020). The major concern of previous studies has been on the flow of tourists and revenue generation due to the influence of epidemics. However, fewer studies have been undertaken on how owners/managers of small tourism firms can develop the psychological capital to help their businesses recover quickly during or after crisis (Pathak and Joshi, 2020). According to Prayag et al. (2020), understanding the impact of psychological capital and organizational resilience has become critical, since both concepts have unique significance for organizations undergoing any type of restructuring. Moreover, Luthans (2002) described that the development and sustainability of an organization are largely dependent on owners/managers in this period of uncertainty. Hence, the aim of this study is to examine the impact of the psychological capital of small tourism firm owners/managers on organizational resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. According to Luthans (2002), psychological capital is defined as “an individual’s positive psychological condition of development” as shown by four components: self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resiliency. Pathak and Joshi (2020) described organizational resilience as “organization’s perceived capacity to overcome disruptions and accept change.”
The literature on disaster management emphasizes the difficulties that individuals and businesses confront in the aftermath of a disaster. Businesses must find new strategies to adapt to the changing climate (Andersson and Keskitalo, 2018). According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), a coping strategy is an activity, a sequence of acts, or a mental process that is used to deal with a stressful or unpleasant circumstance or to change the attitude of one to it. In contrast to defensive systems, coping methods usually entail a deliberate and direct approach to difficulties (Abbas et al., 2020). The importance of psychological capital in coping strategies and recovery from tough situations has been highlighted in the research. In terms of coping strategies in a pandemic, the present literature supports the “individual” viewpoint above “business.” One major gap in the past studies is in what way coping strategies help the development of resiliency in small tourism firms.
The importance of psychological capital in small businesses is often crucial to the recovery of a business, and it may affect the resilience of the business (Mao et al., 2020; Prayag et al., 2020). However, it is unclear how psychological capital shows itself and how it affects organizational resilience. In the tourism industry, Pathak and Joshi (2020) pointed out that little attention has been paid to establish or sustain organizational resilience in crisis situations. More crucially, little emphasis has been paid to the influence of psychological capital on the resilience of small tourism businesses in the literature. Individuals are said to use coping strategies (Schroder et al., 2017; Baloran, 2020), but it has an impact on organizational resilience, and so far it has not yet been studied among small firms in pandemics. Given that coping strategies are positively associated with psychological capital, individuals must be able to deal with and adapt to the change in order to be persistent (Rabenu et al., 2017). However, studies on the association among psychological capital, coping strategies, and organizational resilience are actually needed.
Therefore, this study adds to the literature by including psychological capital into the resilience of small tourism businesses during pandemics, and the novelty of the study is to identify the mediating impact of coping strategies between the relationships. Current research on the resiliency of small tourism businesses (Prayag et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2020; Sobaih et al., 2021) has not adequately established how owners/managers of small business use psychological capital to promote organizational resilience in the COVID-19 pandemic through coping strategies.
Literature Review
Organizational Resilience
When confronted with difficulties in life, certain people crack whereas some swing back (Ma et al., 2018). According to Bhamra et al. (2011), what is it that makes all the difference between people, societies, and countries surviving, adapting, and even prospering in the face of the most unforeseen life challenges? The solution is primarily based on resiliency qualities. Holling (1973, p. 17) invented the term “resilience” in his landmark book “Resilience and stability of ecological systems,” in which he claimed that resilience was a measure of the ability of a system to absorb changes while still surviving, and it determined how long it could last.
Resilience, as a holistic perspective, has been studied in a variety of areas. Walker et al. (2002) researched on ecological systems, Powley (2009) investigated positive psychology, Sheffi and Rice (2005) examined organizational management, and Hollnagel et al. (2006) analyzed engineering. According to Linnenluecke (2017), each field has its own definition of resilience; thus, operationalization and conceptualization differed among research. Werner and Smith (1977), for example, believed that resilience was critical for children’s development and growth, and therefore, several early studies focused on the individual resilience conceptualization for child development and growth. Management scholars and practitioners have recently been quite interested in conceptualizing and operationalizing organizational resilience (such as, Coutu, 2002; Weick et al., 2008; Oeij et al., 2017; Prayag et al., 2020) to investigate how organizations deal with difficulties and create new abilities and skills.
However, Burnard and Bhamra (2011) referred to organizational resilience as “the ability of an organization to generate awareness and reduce vulnerability to risky environments, to reinvent business strategies in the face of change, to continuously be aware of and adjust to changes, and to proactively react before the need for a change becomes obvious.” The concept of survival and recovery from adversity is entrenched in this definition, and it is the ability of an organization to adapt that is critical to its long-term viability (Salehi and Veitch, 2020). Firms should not just respond and adapt to various disruptions, but should also initiate, restore, and rebuild the structure of an organization and its affiliations to ensure that they can thrive in the adversity (Jiang et al., 2019). The literature recognizes two major components of organizational resilience: adaptive and planned (Filimonau et al., 2020; Prayag et al., 2020). Firm continuity and planning of risk management are examples of planned resilience, since they make use of current or established planning and resources. These are mostly activities that occur before a disaster. According to Chowdhury et al. (2019), adaptive resilience arises throughout the pandemic phase, as businesses create new skills by flexibly answering unexpected conditions. Adaptive resilience is built on risk knowledge, flexibility, and change preparedness of an organization (McCarthy et al., 2017).
According to Duchek (2020), resilience occurs at various levels within an organization, and these stages interrelate to define the resilience of the organization. The competence of an organization and procedures that are involved in resilience, according to Lengnick-Hall et al. (2011), are formed from a mixture of personal level characteristics such as, understanding, abilities, and skills. Thus, owners of small firms with high level of psychological capital (i.e., hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy) are more probable to encourage the resilience of their firms.
Psychological Capital
In organizational behavior theory, psychological capital has a long research history (Wu and Chen, 2018). According to Luthans et al. (2007), psychological capital has been advocated as a positive, distinctive, and long-lasting method that goes beyond typical human resource management and organizational behavior to recognize and develop the full potential of individuals. According to research in these fields (such as Baron et al., 2016; Ozturk and Karatepe, 2019; Sihag, 2020), psychological capital has been demonstrated to improve employee individual performance, as well as minimize employee absenteeism, stress, and attrition. Firm commitment and job satisfaction are positively associated with psychological capital, according to current research on the impact of psychological capital on individual performance, attitudes, and behaviors at work (Kang and Busser, 2018). Furthermore, according to Saud et al. (2021), psychological capital has a significant association with employee innovative and optimistic behaviors while dipping down negative attitudes of employees like anxiety. It can be considered that psychological capital can minimize employee anxiety and stress, and maximize employee productivity.
Psychological capital has been related to a variety of organizational behaviors and outcomes in the tourism literature. For instance, according to Schuckert et al. (2018), leadership styles in the hotel sector have a substantial influence on the psychological capital of an individual at work. Furthermore, psychological capital can have a substantial influence on the perceptions by hotel employees of their work-life quality and minimize the likelihood of turnover (Huang et al., 2020). Paek et al. (2015) emphasized that psychological capital improves job satisfaction and firm commitment, and lowers down the rate of stress. Positive innovative work behaviors can be influenced by psychological capital (Wang et al., 2021). On the other hand, these studies have not been undertaken in the context of small businesses in the tourism sector during the pandemic.
This study employs the definition by McFarlane and Norris (2006) of disaster, who defined it as “a potentially traumatic occurrence that is collectively experienced, has an immediate beginning, and is time-limited; disasters may be attributed to natural, technological, or human causes.” People who have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic may feel extensive and long-term stress; thus, those who are affected by disasters must devise strategies for dealing with it (Hansel et al., 2020). Psychological capital, according to Prayag et al. (2020), plays a crucial role in the responses of people in stressful situations and can help to alleviate the stress and anxiety caused by disasters. It can also help people to increase their ability to take preventative measures (Pathak and Joshi, 2020). On the other hand, the recent studies concentrate on individual recovery in the event of a crisis rather than firm recovery through the role of an entrepreneur, which is a major gap in the literature on crisis restoration. When pressures are seen as demanding by an individual in the workplace, they can lead to positive organizational outcomes. However, negative organizational outcomes may grow if they are seen as dangerous (Prayag et al., 2020). The positive psychological capital of individuals can play a crucial role in their recovery from crises (Milosevic et al., 2017).
Coping Strategies
The Transaction Model of Coping developed by Lazarus and Folkman (1984) describes the “process of a potentially stressful person-environment transaction.” Person and environment influencing variables, coping, cognitive evaluation, stress, and outcomes were all incorporated in their model. Moreover, according to Lazarus and Folkman (1987), cognitive evaluation and coping are critical determinants of traumatic person-environment interactions and their short and long-term effects. The transactional theory given by Lazarus and Folkman (1987) states that stress is a connection between the environmental expectations of a person and the availability of the resources to respond.
According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984), coping is a basic strategy to managing stress, and it refers to continuously changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to regulate a problematic person-environment connection. Furthermore, Lazarus and Folkman (1984) and, subsequently, Taylor and Schneider (1989) identified two categories of coping strategies: problem- and emotion-focused strategies. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) described both strategies as “problem-focused coping attempts to change the cause of stress or address issues by direct actions, while emotion-focused coping aims to avoid, distance, and selective attention to lessen or manage the emotional pain associated with stressors.” According to Folkman and Moskowitz (2004), both methods can be employed as an immediate stress response.
The recent study of Prayag et al. (2020) suggests that emotion-focused coping may be more effective in instances where an individual has less control over stresses. Some argue that determining the coping effectiveness requires examining the context or scenario (Zeidner, 1995). The literature on tourism has focused on coping strategies of tour guides in connection to stress and emotions while guiding, as well as how locals deal with the probable consequences of tourism growth (Min, 2014; Jordan et al., 2015). These studies, however, do not investigate it in the context of a pandemic. For instance, the study of Mason et al. (2010) on flood victims discovered that reasoning, detachment, and avoidance were the most common problem- and emotion-oriented coping strategies. Furthermore, as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes, Prayag and Orchiston (2016) identified that entrepreneurs employed coping strategies through a problem- and emotion-based approach to deal with gloomy tourism locations.
Hypotheses Development
Components of Psychological Capital
Positive psychology is the foundation of psychological capital and focuses on how people may maximize their abilities and skills by concentrating on the optimistic characteristics of their environments (Pathak and Joshi, 2020). Individuals who have accumulated psychological capital, according to Luthans (2002), are more adaptable to changes in the external as well as internal surroundings of an organization. Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy as the belief of an individual in his/her capacity to do a task effectively and productively. The capability altitudes of individuals improve when they have faith in their own skills to complete a task. The ability of an individual to achieve desired goals and self-worth are just few of the components that lead to the higher level of reliance of an organization during a difficult environment (Prayag et al., 2020). Thus, individuals with greater level of self-efficacy will be more effective in terms of the resilience of an organization. Accordingly, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1a: Self-efficacy is a significant component of psychological capital to improve organizational resilience.
Hope, according to Snyder et al. (1991), is “a positive motivational state based on an interactively generated feeling of effective agency (goal-directed energy) and paths (planning to fulfill objectives).” Hope is having clear goals in mind and having a strategy in place to deal with any setbacks along the way to reach those goals (Pathak and Joshi, 2020). Hope can help individuals to manage their emotional discomfort while also motivating them to overcome problems (Prayag et al., 2020). Hope entails assessing the chances of achieving the objectives of an individual in the future. Therefore, hope is a way to attain organizational resilience (Othman and Nasurdin, 2011). The capability to transform goals and strive toward achieving goals in the face of hardship improves organizational resilience (Searle and Barbuto, 2011). Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1b: Hope is a significant component of psychological capital to improve organizational resilience.
Extremera et al. (2009) discovered a relationship between optimism and resilience, which is defined as a general assumption of positive aspects that will occur in the future. Liu et al. (2012) explain that disasters provide a variety of obstacles for the tourism industry, and that managers must remain optimistic and minimize any changes from the strategy to achieve the intended objectives. Optimism theory, according to Scheier and Carver (1985), indicates that expectations about good outcomes lead to targeted action to attain the main objective. Furthermore, according to Luthans (2002), as a component of psychological capital, optimism is defined as having optimistic expectations for the present and the future. Higher goal orientation is associated with higher perceived success expectations (Carver et al., 2010; Pathak and Joshi, 2020). When confronted with a problem, optimistic individuals are better at regulating their negative emotions and are more adaptable and receptive to new experiences (Prayag et al., 2020). In the existing situation, once small tourism organizations are on the edge of shutting down their businesses, optimism might inspire owners/managers to consider new approaches to overcome a difficulty, enhancing their overall success. Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H1c: Optimism is a significant component of psychological capital to improve organizational resilience.
Luthans et al. (2007) explained that resilience is a combination of assets and resources inside an individual that helps them to gain confidence and see the positive aspect of a challenge. In the small tourism sector facing a variety of internal and external difficulties, such as changes in technologies and preferences of customer, climate change and natural disasters, and substantial arrangements during or after crises, owners/managers of hotels must have the ability to rebound in the occasion of any crisis (Pathak and Joshi, 2020; Prayag et al., 2020). According to Beasley et al. (2003), the capability to overcome difficulties during crisis and succeed in doing so gives an individual a sense of accomplishment that will create a sustainable impact on their business. Furthermore, the empirical study by Prayag et al. (2020) suggests that resilience correlates to better organizational resilience during times of crisis. Therefore, this study recommends the following hypothesis:
H1d: Resilience is a significant component of psychological capital to improve organizational resilience.
Psychological Capital and Organizational Resilience
Psychological capital is concerned with how entrepreneurs may take advantage of their assets by focusing on the optimistic parts of their environment (Sarwar et al., 2017; Baluku et al., 2018). Entrepreneurs that have a high level of psychological capital are more adaptable to changes in the external environment (Tang, 2020). The study of Pathak and Joshi (2020) investigates the impact of psychological capital of hotel owners on organizational resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study gathered data from 103 respondents in Indian urban cities, all of whom were small business owners of hotels, in order to better comprehend these interactions. The findings demonstrate that the psychological capital of small hotel owners can promote hope, self-efficiency, and optimism in order to realize circumstances and planning for future uncertainties. It also emphasizes how the association between psychological capital and organizational resilience has a substantial impact on the recovery process. Therefore, the following hypothesis is developed in this study:
H2: Psychological capital has a significant relationship with organizational resilience.
Mediating Effect of Coping Strategies
The role of mediating variables in the relationship between stressful situations and adaptive outcomes has received a lot of attention lately (Boswell et al., 2004). In previous research (such as Folkman et al., 1986; Folkman and Lazarus, 1988; Parkes, 1994), coping has been shown to be a key mediating element in the person-environment connection. According to Folkman and Lazarus (1980), there are two forms of coping: “emotion-focused which aims to control or reduce the associated emotional discomfort, and problem-focused, which aims to change the problematic person-environment relationship.”
Anshel (2000) explains that coping has been defined in psychology as realistic and adaptable ideas, emotions, and relationships between a person and their environment in order to solve issues and handle stressful situations. Lazarus and Folkman (1984) established that coping encompasses “cognitive and behavioral efforts to handle particular external and internal pressures that are assessed as straining or surpassing a person’s resources.” The levels of coping of individuals are determined by the dynamics of change in their relationships with their surroundings (Drnovsek et al., 2010).
Psychological capital carries hope that not only allows entrepreneurs to cope with the emotional distress that comes with their circumstances, but it also motivates them to address the difficulties (Castro and Zermeño, 2020). Similarly, optimism is an essential element of psychological capital, since it is related to an emotion-focused coping strategy that allows an individual to reinterpret a circumstance in a more positive way (Liang and Cao, 2021). The third component of psychological capital is self-efficacy; it might be considered a problem-focused coping strategy, since it allows business owners to act in reaction to a situation (Prayag et al., 2020). Finally, according to Luthans (2002), the ability of individuals to cope successfully in the face of considerable change is defined as resilience, which encompasses prosocial behavior and issue-solving abilities. As a result, coping strategies, problem and emotion-focused, are involved with resilience.
Prayag et al. (2020) conducted a study to examine how psychological capital (optimism, hope, resilience, and self-efficacy) affects organizational resilience in a crisis. A qualitative research study in Kaikoura, New Zealand, found that participants were able to activate psychological capital to improve organizational resilience by adopting problem-focused and emotion-focused coping techniques. As small tourism firms manage the recovery process after a crisis, this may lead to better awareness of situation modifications in internal as well as external circumstances. Hence, the previous studies found a mediating effect of coping strategies (problem-focused and emotion-focused) between psychological capital and organizational resilience; therefore, this study hypothesized the following hypothesis:
H3a: Psychological capital has a significant relationship with problem-focused coping strategy.
H3b: Psychological capital has a significant relationship with emotion-focused coping strategy.
H4a: Problem-focused coping strategy has a significant relationship with organizational resilience.
H4b: Emotion-focused coping strategy has a significant relationship with organizational resilience.
H5: Problem-focused coping strategy has a mediating effect between psychological capital and organizational resilience.
H6: Emotion-focused coping strategy has a mediating effect between psychological capital and organizational resilience.
Conceptual Framework
As previously discussed, it is critical to comprehend psychological capital of small tourism firm owners/managers to build organizational resilience during a crisis. Therefore, the first aim of this study is to identify the significant influence of psychological capital on the resilience of tourism SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia, and the second aim is to assess the mediating impact of coping strategies between psychological capital and the resilience of tourism SMEs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Malaysia. Hence, Figure 1 shows the conceptual model for this study, which conceptualized major components of psychological capital and their impact on organizational resilience. Moreover, the novelty of the study is to introduce the components of coping strategies (problem- and emotion-focused) as mediators to explore its effects between psychological capital and organizational resilience.
Figure 1. Conceptual framework.
Methodology
Ellen (1984) defines methodology as, “an articulated, theoretically informed approach to the production of data” (p. 9). Methodology refers to the study design, strategies, procedures, and approaches employed in a well-planned investigation to discover something new (Kivunja and Kuyini, 2017). Moreover, Crotty (1998) explained that methodology is the “strategy, plan of action, process or design” that notifies the selection of methods by researchers (p. 3). It assists the researcher in determining what kind of data is needed for a study and which collection of data methods/tools are best suited to their needs (Askarzai and Unhelkar, 2017). It is concerned with how scholars learn about the domain or a particular component of it.
Venkatesh et al. (2016) argued that the methods used to lead the research must be on the same path as the main objective. Hence, a quantitative method was used in this study to test the hypotheses and to achieve the aim of the study. According to Queirós et al. (2017), quantitative approaches are structured method for uniting inferential reason with defined empirical investigations in order to find and verify a set of probabilistic causal relationships. Similarly, Smith and Hasan (2020) use a quantitative approach to assist researchers in establishing statistical proof of links between dependent and independent constructs.
Data collection approaches include self-administered surveys, telephone interviews, and personal interviews (Kraus and Augustin, 2001). This study used a self-administered questionnaire known as a “drop-off survey.” Using this approach, the researcher or a representative of the researcher (in this case, enumerators) should travel to the respondent’s location and hand out questionnaires (Chen et al., 2003).
Data were collected from small tourism firm owners in different cities of Malaysia, such as Kuala Lumpur, Malacca, Kota Kinabalu, Petaling Jaya, Kuching, George Town, and Ipoh. A total of 800 survey questionnaires were sent to SMEs Crop Malaysia-registered small tourism enterprises. The data were acquired using a stratified random sample method with 82.5% response rate. A cover letter outlined the objective of the study, as well as the criteria and directions for completing the questionnaire. Hence, only 644 questionnaires were completed in all respects after the data were screened and then imported for further assessment.
Items were chosen for this study to assess the effect of psychological capital on small tourism organizational resilience and the mediating influence of coping strategies. To measure the variables of the study, the items were adapted from the literature. The items for measuring psychological capital (hope, optimism, self-efficacy, and resilience) were adapted from Luthans et al. (2007) and Pathak and Joshi (2020). To measure the mediating effect of coping strategies (problem-focused and emotion-focused), items were adapted from Scherer et al. (1988) and Minnie et al. (2015). Items from Orchiston and Higham (2016) and Pathak and Joshi (2020) were adapted to measure organizational resilience.
To evaluate the hypotheses, structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed on the data in a two-stage approach to analyze the structural and measurement models using AMOS 21.0. The researchers performed SEM to examine the fundamental associations between the constructs in this study. In the first step, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the convergent validity of the measurement model and causal relationship among adapted items and variables (Hair et al., 2014; Kline, 2015). The structural model was used in the second stage to examine the relationship between the exogenous variable (psychological capital) and the endogenous variables (coping strategies and organizational resilience).
Results
Demographic Characteristics
The data were collected from 644 owners/managers of small enterprises in the tourism sector of various cities in Malaysia. Set (2013) identified tourism business activities, which was followed by this study. The economic activities of the respondents were: accommodation services; transportation services; art, entertainment and recreation services; food and beverage services; miscellaneous tourism services; travel agency; tour operator; and tourism guide services. Furthermore, gender, age, marital status, education, religion, and income level of the respondents have all been categorized. A demographic analysis was performed based on the items in the questionnaire to establish the backgrounds of the respondents, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Profile of respondents.
Normality Statistics
Testing for multivariate normality is the most important assumption in structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM assumes continuous variables in the research and produces the best results (Andreassen et al., 2006). Skewness and kurtosis values in the ± 3 range, according to Ghasemi and Zahediasl (2012), may indicate that a variable is distributed normally. In this study, the statistical value of skewness and kurtosis for each construct is determined and reported in Table 2.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics.
Reliability
According to Tarhini et al. (2016), “internal consistency signifies the extent to which respondents are reliable across the items mentioned in the questionnaire as a measurement scale.” Furthermore, Pallant (2020) explained that Cronbach’s alpha of more than 0.7 is considered as good internal consistency. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the internal consistency for the following variables: self-efficacy (α = 0.884), hope (α = 0.895), optimism (α = 0.843), psychological resilience (α = 0.869), problem-focused (α = 0.858), emotion-focused (α = 0.891), and organizational resilience (α = 0.838). According to Kline (2015), variables that have reliability of more than 0.8 is considered as very good or excellent internal consistency.
Discriminant Validity
Discriminant validity refers to the degree to which one construct differs from another (Cheah et al., 2018). According to Voorhees et al. (2016), the correlation between the two conceptions should be lower than 0.85. In this study, the discriminant validity of all the constructs was evaluated using SPSS statistics version 22.0. The results are presented in Table 3, and show that the correlation among the constructs is less than 0.85.
Table 3. Correlation of the constructs.
Assessment of Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the first step of two-stage SEM statistical method, allows a researcher to rectify measurement error during the assessment of multiple variable relationships (Ong and Puteh, 2017). Maximum likelihood valuation is performed to estimate the associations among the variables and their corresponding indicator items. Shek and Yu (2014) identified that in CFA the factor loading of each item should be 0.6 or above to be considered acceptable. According to the findings, the factor loading of items and fit indices are in the acceptable range; summarized CFA results are shown in Table 4.
Table 4. Results after CFA.
Assessment of Overall Measurement Model
Following the CFA validation findings, the overall measurement model was assessed. The model that links the latent constructs to their indicators is referred to as the overall measurement model (Kline, 2015). The findings of this study demonstrated that the goodness-of-fit indices for the overall measurement model was well-fitted, such as RMSEA of 0.043 and chi square value of 623.433 with 643 degrees of freedom, GFI = 0.916, AGFI = 0.919, CFI = 0.934, and CMIN/df = 1.546. The overall measurement model is depicted in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Measurement model.
Average Variance Extracted and Composite Reliability
The findings of the study show that the composite reliability (CR) values of all the constructs are over 0.7, indicating that the variables are internally consistent. Furthermore, the value of average variance extracted (AVE) for all the variables was found to be greater than 0.5, indicating that the constructs are convergent valid (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).
As described by Fornell and Larcker (1981), “the discriminant validity was determined by comparing the square root of each AVE in the diagonal with the correlation coefficients (off-diagonal) for each construct in the relevant rows and columns.” The statistical results of the average variance extracted (AVE) value in this study is more than 0.6 for all the constructs. Table 5 shows the AVE and CR findings.
Table 5. Convergent validity evaluation.
Assessment of Structural Model
The structural model (stage 2) was used to investigate the relationship of psychological capital and organizational resilience. AMOS 21.0 was used to evaluate the data. In contrast to earlier studies (such as Hair et al., 2014; Kline, 2015), the goodness-of-fit indices are tested in this study, as shown in Figure 3. The results were well-fitted, with an RMSEA of 0.037 and a chi square value of 565.886 with 643 degrees of freedom, GFI = 0.915, AGFI = 0.909, CFI = 0.941, and CMIN/df = 1.674.
Figure 3. Structural model.
Table 6 shows the results of direct relationships. The study used a significance level of 1.96 for the z-value and a p-value < 0.05, as recommended by Kline (2015). Hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H2, H3a, H3b, H4a, and H4b were statistically significant in the evaluation of hypothesized relationship.
Table 6. Testing direct relationship.
Assessment of Mediating Effect
Relationships that proposed the mediating influence of problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies on psychological capital and organizational resilience were investigated in this study using H5 and H6. The indirect effect of a problem-focused coping strategy was 0.27 (0.61 × 0.45 = 0.27), whereas the direct effect of psychological capital on organizational resilience was 0.24. Similarly, the indirect effect of an emotion-focused coping strategy was 0.28 (0.58 × 0.49 = 0.28), whereas the direct effect was 0.24. The form of mediation used here is partial mediation, because the direct effect remains significant after the mediator enters the model (Awang et al., 2015). As a result, it was discovered that both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping techniques played a role in mediating the relationship.
We implement the bootstrapping method to validate the mediation analysis after confirming direct and indirect effects. According to Awang et al. (2015), the researchers calculated the standardized indirect and direct effects, as well as their significance levels, using a 1,000-bootstrap sample with a bias adjustment of 95%. Hypothesis H5 and H6 were accepted. The statistical findings of the investigation are shown in Table 7.
Table 7. Assessment of mediating effect (bootstrapping results).
Discussion
There has been no research on Malaysian small tourism that investigated the relationship between psychological capital and organizational resilience. Previous research (such as Biggs et al., 2012; Orchiston, 2013; Dahles and Susilowati, 2015; Kang et al., 2018) has been carried out in countries other than Malaysia to explore the organizational resilience in tourism organizations, as well as the function of psychological capital in large firms. This research explored the influence of the psychological capital of small business owners/managers on organizational resilience, and the novelty of the study is to identify the mediating effect of coping strategies between psychological capital and organizational resilience. According to the findings of the study, psychological capital (hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism) effectively enhanced small tourism firm resilience (Pathak and Joshi, 2020; Prayag et al., 2020). Furthermore, the findings suggest that both problem-focused and emotion-focused coping strategies partially mediate the relationship between psychological capital and organizational resilience. Therefore, the findings of the study were compatible with the research hypotheses and able to answer the research questions.
The first research question (RQ1) was: “Does psychological capital influence the resilience of tourism SMEs during Covid-19 pandemic in Malaysia”?
Research question 1 was related to the test path of self-efficacy. Hope, optimism, and resilience are predictors of psychological capital during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hypothesis H1a was found to predict self-efficacy as a positive component of psychological capital (path 0.43, z-score 5.362, and p-value 0.05). Hypothesis H1b found that hope is a predictor of positive psychological capital, with a path of 0.40, a z-score of 5.038, and a p-value <0.005. Hypothesis H1c, optimism to the psychological capital path, was tested; hence, coefficient 0.35, z-score 4.429, and p-value < 0.05 validate the hypothesis. Hypothesis H1d, resilience to the positive psychological capital path, was assessed. Path coefficient 0.38, z-score 4.676, and p-value < 0.05 confirms that resilience predicts positive psychological capital. H1a–H1d testify that positive psychological capital comprised the four predictors named above according to the theory of Luthans (2002). Hence, the obtained results are according to the theory. However, it is important to note that the authors used the COVID-19 phenomenon to measure the contribution of positive psychological capital in this study. A more suitable and efficient technique of human psychology should be applied to human resources and psychological capital (PsyCap). It aspires to save the resources of an organization and use them to solve problems and depreciation. Managers are first-line leaders who actively participate in crisis management. Using positive psychological capital, such as hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism, they can make flourish tourism-related business value and prestige. According to Luthans et al. (2007), positive psychological development happens in humans by their self-efficacy. Individuals with high positive psychological capital can make positive attributions utilizing optimism to achieve goals now and in the future. This also refers to achieving goals and people may perceive a bright future ahead of them. Finally, when faced with obstacles and hardship, resiliency operates in the human mind to achieve a goal.
The second research question (RQ2) is: “Does coping strategies mediate the relationship between psychological capital and the resilience of tourism SMEs during Covid-19 pandemic in Malaysia”?
H2 determined that positive psychological capital is a predictor of organizational resilience. Hence, path PsyCap to OR 0.24, z-score 3.398, p-value < 0.05 confirm the positive and significant relationship between psychological capital and organizational resilience. The results of the study are in agreement with the previous findings of Pathak and Joshi (2020) and Prayag et al. (2020), who, among others, found that a small tourism owner/manager psychological capital might encourage hope, self-efficiency, resilience, and optimism in order to realize situations and resilience plan for uncertainty. Thus, the finding contributes to the tourism literature that focuses on how a small tourism business owner/manager employs psychological capital to activate organizational resilience that benefits their firm.
H3a was formulated to test the relationship between PsyCap and problem-focused strategy. Coefficient 0.61, z-score 0.692, and p-value < 0.05 confirm the positive and significant relationship between psychological capital and problem-focused strategy. H3b hypothesized that positive psychological capital is required for emotionally focused strategy during the COVID-19 pandemic. Coefficient 0.58, z-score 6.673, and p-value < 0.05 confirm the positive and significant relationship. It is pertinent that positive psychological capital predicts an emotionally focused strategy. Positive psychological capital brings emotional consistency in humans. H4a determined that a problem-focused strategy builds organizational resilience. Path coefficient 0.45, z-score 5.891, and p-value 0.05 confirm the positive and consistent relationship. H4b determined that emotionally focused strategy builds organizational reliance; hence obtained coefficient 0.49, z-score 6.189, and p-value 0.05 confirm the positive and significant relationship. It is evident in path testing that individuals feel more contented and emotionally focused than problem-focused.
According to Folkman and Lazarus (1988), coping has been proven to be a major mediating factor in the person-environment relationship. Moreover, they identified that problem- and emotion-focused coping are two key components of coping strategies. Therefore, this study investigated the mediating effect of problem- and emotion-focused coping strategies between the psychological capital of small business owners and organizational resilience in the tourism sector during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a partial mediating effect was confirmed by the findings. The study implies that small business owners/managers employ various coping strategies to trigger business recovery during the pandemic. The results extend to the research of Prayag et al. (2020) by demonstrating that, in addition to psychological capital, multiple coping strategies have an indirect impact on organizational resilience during a crisis.
Conclusion
This study focuses on the impact of psychological capital on organizational resilience and the mediating role of coping strategies in helping small tourism business owners/managers to develop long-term resilience. The findings show that psychological capital plays an important role in enhancing coping strategies, and that coping plays a vital role for owners/managers in the rehabilitation of small businesses during or after a crisis, implying that the psychological capital of owners/managers is critical in building organizational resilience.
The rising literature on the tourism sector (such as Pathak and Joshi, 2020; Prayag et al., 2020) is paying attention to owners/managers of large tourism organizations to adapt to changes and endure disasters. On the other hand, small tourism businesses have not paid attention to it as compared to the large tourism businesses, and there is lack of disaster preparedness among them. In the context of small firms in the tourism sector, organizational resilience is more dependent on the capability of the owner/manager to analyze the situation, and adoption of innovation to overcome disturbances (Orchiston and Higham, 2016). Constructing resilience in small firms in the tourism sector needs additional attention to the psychological capital of owners or managers as compared to infrastructural improvements. The psychological capital of owners and managers of small tourism firms will assist them in developing coping strategies and resilience to counter the difficulties created by COVID-19.
Implications of the Study
From a theoretical perspective, this research contributed to the existing literature in the domains of tourism, entrepreneurship, and disaster management. Previous empirical research has focused on large tourism firms in either psychological capital (Ozturk and Karatepe, 2019; Mao et al., 2020) or organizational resilience (Pathak and Joshi, 2020; Sobaih et al., 2021), but none has examined how coping mechanisms connect psychological capital and organizational resilience in small tourism enterprises. Therefore, this study shows empirically how entrepreneurs may employ problem- and emotion-focused coping mechanisms stimulated by psychological capital to minimize the impacts of the COVID-19 crisis on small tourism firms. According to this research, the psychological capital of owners/managers of small tourism firms supports the strengthening of organizational resilience to quickly recover and survive from disaster-related difficulties. This is one of the reasons why most tourism organizations chanting are a new slogan of sustainability, most critical is to improve organizational resilience strategies, and this study contributes to this goal by emphasizing the importance of the psychological capital of owners and the use of coping strategies to enhance organizational resilience.
From a practitioner perspective, the findings of this study have clarified the importance of psychological capital for the resilience of small firms in the tourism sector. Small tourism firm owners/managers appear to have made their firms develop resilience through psychological capital and coping techniques used by successful peer mentors or role models during the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, providing small firms in the tourism sector the chance to be led by industry experts who have successfully employed psychological capital and coping strategies in their businesses the during pandemic would be an effective way to aid business recovery. According to Prayag et al. (2020), small company owners/managers can master the stepping method, which involves breaking down difficult and long-term goals into smaller and more achievable milestones. From a management standpoint, the study has identified the necessity for small tourism firms to recognize the value of personal assets, such as the psychological capital of owners, and to develop them in an effort to combat the problems created by COVID-19. Psychological capital may be used to develop a strong social capital that will assist in discovering approaches to achieve organizational goals and increase the overall resilience. The psychological capital of owners/managers may restore faith in the capacity of an organization to endure difficulties and accomplish intended objectives.
Limitations and Future Scope of the Study
First, the cross-sectional approach utilized in this study has limitations when it comes to understanding the causal relationships among psychological capital, organizational resilience, and coping strategies. Longitudinal studies should be conducted in the future to investigate certain causal relationships. Second, this study was confined to major cities in Malaysia, owing to severe COVID-19 sanctions and closure. Nevertheless, the research was not limited to small tourism businesses in cities, as it also covered rural areas. Researchers should do research on rural tourism businesses or comparatively examine the organizational resilience of rural and urban small businesses in the tourism sector. Third, this study focused on the impact of psychological capital in owner/managers of small tourism businesses, but there was no assessment of psychological capital in workers. Multi-level assessment and diversification of information sources should be considered in a future study.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author/s.
Ethics Statement
Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author Contributions
All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work, and approved it for publication.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Abbas, A., Eliyana, A., Ekowati, D., Saud, M., Raza, A., and Wardani, R. (2020). Data set on coping strategies in the digital age: the role of psychological well-being and social capital among university students in Java Timor, Surabaya, Indonesia. Data Brief 30:105583. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.105583
Andersson, E., and Keskitalo, E. C. H. (2018). Adaptation to climate change? Why business-as-usual remains the logical choice in Swedish forestry. Glob. Environ. Change 48, 76–85. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2017.11.004
Andreassen, T. W., Lorentzen, B. G., and Olsson, U. H. (2006). The impact of non-normality and estimation methods in SEM on satisfaction research in marketing. Q. Quant. 40, 39–58. doi: 10.1007/s11135-005-4510-y
Anshel, M. H. (2000). A conceptual model and implications for coping with stressful events in police work. Crim. Justice Behav. 27, 375–400. doi: 10.1177/0093854800027003006
Askarzai, W., and Unhelkar, B. (2017). Research methodologies: an extensive overview. Int. J. Sci. Res. Methodol. 6, 21–42.
Awang, Z., Afthanorhan, A., and Asri, M. A. M. (2015). Parametric and non parametric approach in structural equation modeling (SEM): the application of bootstrapping. Modern Appl. Sci. 9, 58–67. doi: 10.5539/mas.v9n9p58
Baloran, E. T. (2020). Knowledge, attitudes, anxiety, and coping strategies of students during COVID-19 pandemic. J. Loss Trauma 25, 635–642. doi: 10.1080/15325024.2020.1769300
Baluku, M. M., Kikooma, J. F., Bantu, E., and Otto, K. (2018). Psychological capital and entrepreneurial outcomes: the moderating role of social competences of owners of micro-enterprises in East Africa. J. Glob. Entrepreneursh. Res. 8, 1–23. doi: 10.1186/s40497-018-0113-7
Bandura, A. (1997). The anatomy of stages of change. Am. J. Health Promot. 12, 8–10. doi: 10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.8
Baron, R. A., Franklin, R. J., and Hmieleski, K. M. (2016). Why entrepreneurs often experience low, not high, levels of stress: the joint effects of selection and psychological capital. J. Manag. 42, 742–768. doi: 10.1177/0149206313495411
Beasley, M., Thompson, T., and Davidson, J. (2003). Resilience in response to life stress: the effects of coping style and cognitive hardiness. Pers. Individ. Diff. 34, 77–95. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00027-2
Bhamra, R., Dani, S., and Burnard, K. (2011). Resilience: the concept, a literature review and future directions. Int. J. Product. Res. 49, 5375–5393. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2011.563826
Biggs, D., Hall, C. M., and Stoeckl, N. (2012). The resilience of formal and informal tourism enterprises to disasters: reef tourism in Phuket, Thailand. J. Sustain. Tour. 20, 645–665. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2011.630080
Boswell, W. R., Olson-Buchanan, J. B., and LePine, M. A. (2004). Relations between stress and work outcomes: the role of felt challenge, job control, and psychological strain. J. Vocat. Behav. 64, 165–181. doi: 10.1016/S0001-8791(03)00049-6
Burnard, K., and Bhamra, R. (2011). Organisational resilience: development of a conceptual framework for organisational responses. Int. J. Product. Res. 49, 5581–5599. doi: 10.1080/00207543.2011.563827
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., and Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 30, 879–889. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.01.006
Castro, M. P., and Zermeño, M. G. G. (2020). Being an entrepreneur post-COVID-19–resilience in times of crisis: a systematic literature review. J. Entrepreneursh. Emerg. Econ. [Epub ahead of print]. doi: 10.1108/JEEE-07-2020-0246
Cheah, J. H., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., Ramayah, T., and Ting, H. (2018). Convergent validity assessment of formatively measured constructs in PLS-SEM: on using single-item versus multi-item measures in redundancy analyses. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 30, 3192–3210. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2017-0649
Chen, C. Y., Nace, G. W., and Irwin, P. L. (2003). A 6× 6 drop plate method for simultaneous colony counting and MPN enumeration of Campylobacter jejuni, Listeria monocytogenes, and Escherichia coli. J. Microbiol. Methods 55, 475–479. doi: 10.1016/S0167-7012(03)00194-5
Cherry, G., Rocke, J., Chu, M., Liu, J., Lechner, M., Lund, V. J., et al. (2020). Loss of smell and taste: a new marker of COVID-19? Tracking reduced sense of smell during the coronavirus pandemic using search trends. Expert Rev. Anti Infect. Ther. 18, 1165–1170. doi: 10.1080/14787210.2020.1792289
Chowdhury, M., Prayag, G., Orchiston, C., and Spector, S. (2019). Postdisaster social capital, adaptive resilience and business performance of tourism organizations in Christchurch, New Zealand. J. Travel Res. 58, 1209–1226. doi: 10.1177/0047287518794319
Crotty, M. (1998). The Foundations of Social Research: Meaning and Perspective in the Research Process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Dahles, H., and Susilowati, T. P. (2015). Business resilience in times of growth and crisis. Ann. Tour. Res. 51, 34–50. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2015.01.002
Drnovsek, M., Örtqvist, D., and Wincent, J. (2010). The effectiveness of coping strategies used by entrepreneurs and their impact on personal well-being and venture performance. Proc. Rijeka Faculty Econ. J. Econ. Bus. 28, 193–220.
Duchek, S. (2020). Organizational resilience: a capability-based conceptualization. Bus. Res. 13, 215–246. doi: 10.1007/s40685-019-0085-7
Ellen, R. F. (1984). Ethnographic Research: A Guide to General Conduct. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Extremera, N., Durán, A., and Rey, L. (2009). The moderating effect of trait meta-mood and perceived stress on life satisfaction. Pers. Individ. Diff. 47, 116–121. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2009.02.007
Filimonau, V., Derqui, B., and Matute, J. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic and organisational commitment of senior hotel managers. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 91:102659. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102659
Folkman, S., and Lazarus, R. S. (1980). An analysis of coping in a middle-aged community sample. J. Health Soc. Behav. 21, 219–239. doi: 10.2307/2136617
Folkman, S., and Lazarus, R. S. (1988). Coping as a mediator of emotion. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 466–475. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.3.466
Folkman, S., Lazarus, R. S., Dunkel-Schetter, C., DeLongis, A., and Gruen, R. J. (1986). Dynamics of a stressful encounter: cognitive appraisal, coping, and encounter outcomes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 50, 992–1003.
Folkman, S., and Moskowitz, J. T. (2004). Coping: pitfalls and promise. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 745–774.
Fornell, C., and Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 18, 39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
Ghasemi, A., and Zahediasl, S. (2012). Normality tests for statistical analysis: a guide for non-statisticians. Int. J. Endocrinol. Metab. 10, 486–489. doi: 10.5812/ijem.3505
González-Torres, T., Rodríguez-Sánchez, J. L., and Pelechano-Barahona, E. (2021). Managing relationships in the Tourism Supply Chain to overcome epidemic outbreaks: the case of COVID-19 and the hospitality industry in Spain. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 92:102733. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102733
Hair, J. F., Gabriel, M., and Patel, V. (2014). AMOS covariance-based structural equation modeling (CB-SEM): guidelines on its application as a marketing research tool. Braz. J. Market. 13, 44–55.
Hansel, T. C., Saltzman, L. Y., and Bordnick, P. S. (2020). Behavioral health and response for COVID-19. Disaster Med. Public Health Preparedness 14, 670–676. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2020.180
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 4, 1–23. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245
Hollnagel, E., Woods, D. D., and Leveson, N. (eds) (2006). Resilience Engineering: Concepts and Precepts. London: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.
Huang, S. S., Yu, Z., Shao, Y., Yu, M., and Li, Z. (2020). Relative effects of human capital, social capital and psychological capital on hotel employees’ job performance. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 33, 490–512. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-07-2020-0650
Jamal, T., and Budke, C. (2020). Tourism in a world with pandemics: local-global responsibility and action. J. Tour. Futures 6, 181–188. doi: 10.1108/JTF-02-2020-0014
Jiang, Y., Ritchie, B. W., and Verreynne, M. L. (2019). Building tourism organizational resilience to crises and disasters: a dynamic capabilities view. Int. J. Tour. Res. 21, 882–900. doi: 10.1002/jtr.2312
Jordan, E. J., Vogt, C. A., and DeShon, R. P. (2015). A stress and coping framework for understanding resident responses to tourism development. Tour. Manag. 48, 500–512. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2015.01.002
Kang, H. J. A., Busser, J., and Choi, H. M. (2018). Service climate: how does it affect turnover intention? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 30, 76–94. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-04-2016-0185
Kang, H. J. A., and Busser, J. A. (2018). Impact of service climate and psychological capital on employee engagement: the role of organizational hierarchy. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 75, 1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.03.003
Kivunja, C., and Kuyini, A. B. (2017). Understanding and applying research paradigms in educational contexts. Int. J. High. Educ. 6, 26–41. doi: 10.5430/ijhe.v6n5p26
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford publications.
Kraus, L., and Augustin, R. (2001). Measuring alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems: comparison of responses from self-administered questionnaires and telephone interviews. Addiction 96, 459–471. doi: 10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9634599.x
Lazarus, R. S., and Folkman, S. (1987). Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. Eur. J. Pers. 1, 141–169. doi: 10.1002/per.2410010304
Lee, C. K., Song, H. J., Bendle, L. J., Kim, M. J., and Han, H. (2012). The impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions for 2009 H1N1 influenza on travel intentions: a model of goal-directed behavior. Tour. Manag. 33, 89–99. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2011.02.006
Lengnick-Hall, C. A., Beck, T. E., and Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (2011). Developing a capacity for organizational resilience through strategic human resource management. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 21, 243–255. doi: 10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.07.001
Liang, F., and Cao, L. (2021). Linking employee resilience with organizational resilience: the roles of coping mechanism and managerial resilience. Psychol. Res. Behav. Manag. 14:1063. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S318632
Linnenluecke, M. K. (2017). Resilience in business and management research: a review of influential publications and a research agenda. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 19, 4–30. doi: 10.1111/ijmr.12076
Liu, Y., Wang, Z. H., and Li, Z. G. (2012). Affective mediators of the influence of neuroticism and resilience on life satisfaction. Pers. Individ. Diff. 52, 833–838. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2012.01.017
Luthans, F. (2002). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 23, 695–706. doi: 10.1002/job.165
Luthans, F., Avolio, B. J., Avey, J. B., and Norman, S. M. (2007). Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers. Psychol. 60, 541–572. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00083.x
Ma, Z., Xiao, L., and Yin, J. (2018). Toward a dynamic model of organizational resilience. Nankai Bus. Rev. Int. 9, 246–263. doi: 10.1108/NBRI-07-2017-0041
Mao, Y., He, J., Morrison, A. M., and Andres Coca-Stefaniak, J. (2020). Effects of tourism CSR on employee psychological capital in the COVID-19 crisis: from the perspective of conservation of resources theory. Curr. Issues Tour. 24, 2716–2734. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1770706
Mason, V., Andrews, H., and Upton, D. (2010). The psychological impact of exposure to floods. Psychol. Health Med. 15, 61–73. doi: 10.1080/13548500903483478
McCarthy, I. P., Collard, M., and Johnson, M. (2017). Adaptive organizational resilience: an evolutionary perspective. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 28, 33–40. doi: 10.1016/j.cosust.2017.07.005
McFarlane, A. C., and Norris, F. H. (2006). “Definitions and concepts in disaster research,” in Methods for Disaster Mental Health Research, eds F. H. Norris, S. Galea, M. J. Friedman, and P. J. Watson (New York, NY: Guilford publications).
Milosevic, I., Bass, A. E., and Milosevic, D. (2017). Leveraging positive psychological capital (PsyCap) in crisis: a multiphase framework. Organ. Manag. J. 14, 127–146. doi: 10.1080/15416518.2017.1353898
Min, J. (2014). The relationships between emotional intelligence, job stress, and quality of life among tour guides. Asia Pac. J. Tour. Res. 19, 1170–1190. doi: 10.1080/10941665.2013.839459
Minnie, L., Goodman, S., and Wallis, L. (2015). Exposure to daily trauma: the experiences and coping mechanism of Emergency Medical Personnel. A cross-sectional study. Afr. J. Emerg. Med. 5, 12–18. doi: 10.1016/j.afjem.2014.10.010
Mishra, A., Bruno, E., and Zilberman, D. (2021). Compound natural and human disasters: managing drought and COVID-19 to sustain global agriculture and food sectors. Sci. Total Environ. 754:142210. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142210
Novelli, M., Burgess, L. G., Jones, A., and Ritchie, B. W. (2018). ‘No Ebola…still doomed’–The Ebola-induced tourism crisis. Ann. Tour. Res. 70, 76–87. doi: 10.1016/j.annals.2018.03.006
Oeij, P. R., Dhondt, S., Gaspersz, J. B., and Van Vuuren, T. (2017). Innovation resilience behavior and critical incidents: validating the innovation resilience behavior-scale with qualitative data. Project Manag. J. 48, 49–63. doi: 10.1177/875697281704800504
Ong, M. H. A., and Puteh, F. (2017). Quantitative data analysis: choosing between SPSS, PLS, and AMOS in social science research. Int. Interdiscip. J. Sci. Res. 3, 14–25.
Orchiston, C. (2013). Tourism business preparedness, resilience and disaster planning in a region of high seismic risk: the case of the Southern Alps, New Zealand. Curr. Issues Tour. 16, 477–494. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2012.741115
Orchiston, C., and Higham, J. E. S. (2016). Knowledge management and tourism recovery (de) marketing: the Christchurch earthquakes 2010–2011. Curr. Issues Tour. 19, 64–84. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2014.990424
Othman, N., and Nasurdin, A. M. (2011). Work engagement of Malaysian nurses: exploring the impact of hope and resilience. World Acad. Sci. Eng. Technol. 5, 391–395.
Ozturk, A., and Karatepe, O. M. (2019). Frontline hotel employees’ psychological capital, trust in organization, and their effects on nonattendance intentions, absenteeism, and creative performance. J. Hosp. Market. Manag. 28, 217–239. doi: 10.1080/19368623.2018.1509250
Paek, S., Schuckert, M., Kim, T. T., and Lee, G. (2015). Why is hospitality employees’ psychological capital important? The effects of psychological capital on work engagement and employee morale. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 50, 9–26. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2015.07.001
Pallant, J. (2020). SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using IBM SPSS. London: Routledge.
Parkes, K. R. (1994). Personality and coping as moderators of work stress processes: models, methods and measures. Work Stress 8, 110–129. doi: 10.1080/02678379408259984
Pathak, D., and Joshi, G. (2020). Impact of psychological capital and life satisfaction on organizational resilience during COVID-19: Indian tourism insights. Curr. Issues Tour. 24, 2398–2415. doi: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1844643
Pforr, C., and Hosie, P. J. (2008). Crisis management in tourism: preparing for recovery. J. Travel Tour. Market. 23, 249–264. doi: 10.1300/J073v23n02_19
Popkin, B. M., Du, S., Green, W. D., Beck, M. A., Algaith, T., Herbst, C. H., et al. (2020). Individuals with obesity and COVID-19: a global perspective on the epidemiology and biological relationships. Obes. Rev. 21:e13128. doi: 10.1111/obr.13128
Powley, E. H. (2009). Reclaiming resilience and safety: resilience activation in the critical period of crisis. Hum. Relat. 62, 1289–1326. doi: 10.1177/0018726709334881
Prayag, G., and Orchiston, C. (2016). “Earthquake impacts, mitigation, and organisational resilience of business sectors in Canterbury,” in Business and Post-Disaster Management, eds C. M. Hall, S. Malinen, R. Vosslamber, and R. Wordsworth (New York, NY: Routledge), 97–118.
Prayag, G., Ozanne, L. K., and de Vries, H. (2020). Psychological capital, coping mechanisms and organizational resilience: insights from the 2016 Kaikoura earthquake, New Zealand. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 34:100637. doi: 10.1016/j.tmp.2020.100637
Queirós, A., Faria, D., and Almeida, F. (2017). Strengths and limitations of qualitative and quantitative research methods. Eur. J. Educ. Stud. 5, 65–72. doi: 10.46827/ejes.v0i0.1017
Rabenu, E., Yaniv, E., and Elizur, D. (2017). The relationship between psychological capital, coping with stress, well-being, and performance. Curr. Psychol. 36, 875–887. doi: 10.1007/s12144-016-9477-4
Salehi, V., and Veitch, B. (2020). Measuring and analyzing adaptive capacity at management levels of resilient systems. J. Loss Prevent. Process Ind. 63:104001. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2019.104001
Sarwar, H., Nadeem, K., and Aftab, J. (2017). The impact of psychological capital on project success mediating role of emotional intelligence in construction organizations of Pakistan. J. Global Entrepreneursh. Res. 7, 1–13. doi: 10.1186/s40497-017-0080-4
Saud, M., Ashfaq, A., Abbas, A., Ariadi, S., and Mahmood, Q. K. (2021). Social support through religion and psychological well-being: COVID-19 and coping strategies in Indonesia. J. Relig. Health 60, 3309–3325. doi: 10.1007/s10943-021-01327-1
Scheier, M. F., and Carver, C. S. (1985). Optimism, coping, and health: assessment and implications of generalized outcome expectancies. Health Psychol. 4, 219–247. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.4.3.219
Scherer, R. F., Luther, D. C., Wiebe, F. A., and Adams, J. S. (1988). Dimensionality of coping: factor stability using the ways of coping questionnaire. Psychol. Rep. 62, 763–770. doi: 10.2466/pr0.1988.62.3.763
Schroder, H. S., Yalch, M. M., Dawood, S., Callahan, C. P., Donnellan, M. B., and Moser, J. S. (2017). Growth mindset of anxiety buffers the link between stressful life events and psychological distress and coping strategies. Pers. Individ. Diff. 110, 23–26. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.016
Schuckert, M., Kim, T. T., Paek, S., and Lee, G. (2018). Motivate to innovate: how authentic and transformational leaders influence employees’ psychological capital and service innovation behavior. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 30, 776–796. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-05-2016-0282
Searle, T. P., and Barbuto, J. E. Jr. (2011). Servant leadership, hope, and organizational virtuousness: a framework exploring positive micro and macro behaviors and performance impact. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 18, 107–117. doi: 10.1177/1548051810383863
Set, K. (2013). Tourism small and medium enterprises (TSMEs) in Malaysia. Int. J. Bus. Soc. Sci. 4:58.
Sheffi, Y., and Rice, J. B. Jr. (2005). A supply chain view of the resilient enterprise. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 47:41.
Shek, D. T., and Yu, L. (2014). Confirmatory factor analysis using AMOS: a demonstration. Int. J. Disab. Hum. Dev. 13, 191–204. doi: 10.1515/ijdhd-2014-0305
Sihag, P. (2020). The mediating role of perceived organizational support on psychological capital–employee engagement relationship: a study of Indian IT industry. J. Indian Bus. Res. 13, 154–186. doi: 10.1108/JIBR-01-2019-0014
Škare, M., Soriano, D. R., and Porada-Rochoñ, M. (2021). Impact of COVID-19 on the travel and tourism industry. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 163:120469. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120469
Smith, J. D., and Hasan, M. (2020). Quantitative approaches for the evaluation of implementation research studies. Psychiatry Res. 283:112521. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112521
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., et al. (1991). The will and the ways: development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60, 570–585. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.4.570
Sobaih, A. E. E., Elshaer, I., Hasanein, A. M., and Abdelaziz, A. S. (2021). Responses to COVID-19: the role of performance in the relationship between small hospitality enterprises’ resilience and sustainable tourism development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 94:102824. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2020.102824
Tang, J. J. (2020). Psychological capital and entrepreneurship sustainability. Front. Psychol. 11:866. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00866
Tarhini, A., Teo, T., and Tarhini, T. (2016). A cross-cultural validity of the E-learning Acceptance Measure (ElAM) in Lebanon and England: a confirmatory factor analysis. Educ. Inform. Technol. 21, 1269–1282. doi: 10.1007/s10639-015-9381-9
Taylor, S. E., and Schneider, S. K. (1989). Coping and the simulation of events. Soc. Cogn. 7, 174–194. doi: 10.1521/soco.1989.7.2.174
Venkatesh, V., Brown, S. A., and Sullivan, Y. W. (2016). Guidelines for conducting mixed-methods research: an extension and illustration. J. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 17, 435–495. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00433
Voorhees, C. M., Brady, M. K., Calantone, R., and Ramirez, E. (2016). Discriminant validity testing in marketing: an analysis, causes for concern, and proposed remedies. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 44, 119–134. doi: 10.1007/s11747-015-0455-4
Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Anderies, J., Abel, N., Cumming, G., Janssen, M., et al. (2002). Resilience management in social-ecological systems: a working hypothesis for a participatory approach. Conserv. Ecol. 6:114.
Wang, Y., Chen, Y., and Zhu, Y. (2021). Promoting innovative behavior in employees: the mechanism of leader psychological capital. Front. Psychol. 11:598090. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.598090
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., and Obstfeld, D. (2008). “Organizing for high reliability: processes of collective mindfulness,” in Crisis Management, Vol. III, ed. A. Boin (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage), 31.
Werner, E. E., and Smith, R. S. (1977). Kauai’s Children Come of Age. Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii.
Williams, C., You, J. J., and Joshua, K. (2020). Small-business resilience in a remote tourist destination: exploring close relationship capabilities on the island of St Helena. J. Sustain. Tour. 28, 937–955. doi: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1712409
Wu, C. M., and Chen, T. J. (2018). Collective psychological capital: linking shared leadership, organizational commitment, and creativity. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 74, 75–84. doi: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2018.02.003
Zeidner, M. (1995). Adaptive coping with test situations: a review of the literature. Educ. Psychol. 30, 123–133. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep3003_3
Keywords: psychological capital, coping strategies, problem-focused, emotion-focused, organizational resilience, small tourism firms
Citation: Jalil MF, Ali A, Ahmed Z and Kamarulzaman R (2021) The Mediating Effect of Coping Strategies Between Psychological Capital and Small Tourism Organization Resilience: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic, Malaysia. Front. Psychol. 12:766528. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.766528
Received: 29 August 2021; Accepted: 28 October 2021;
Published: 03 December 2021.
Edited by:
Mike Mustafa, Nottingham University Business School, MalaysiaReviewed by:
Ansar Abbas, Airlangga University, IndonesiaNoor Fareen Abdul Rahim, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), Malaysia
Copyright © 2021 Jalil, Ali, Ahmed and Kamarulzaman. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Muhammad Farhan Jalil, muhammad.farhan@ucts.edu.my
†Present address: Zeeshan Ahmed, Lahore Business School, University of Lahore, Gujrat, Pakistan