Next Article in Journal
Application of Long-Range Cross-Hole Acoustic Wave Detection Technology in Geotechnical Engineering Detection: Case Studies of Tunnel-Surrounding Rock, Foundation and Subgrade
Next Article in Special Issue
Organisational Resilience during COVID-19 Times: A Bibliometric Literature Review
Previous Article in Journal
Energy Production from Cattle Manure within a Life Cycle Assessment Framework: Statistical Optimization of Co-Digestion, Pretreatment, and Thermal Conditions
Previous Article in Special Issue
Knowledge Trajectories Detection and Prediction of Modern Emergency Management in China Based on Topic Mining from Massive Literature Text
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 14
Issue 24
10.3390/su142416946
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Employee Adversarial Growth Driven by Organizational Learning in the Chinese Pharmaceutical Industry

by
Yanwei Sun
1,
Dazhuo Mo
2 and
Ting Nie
2,*
1
School of Humanities, Zhuhai City Polytechnic, Zhuhai 519090, China
2
School of Business, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau 999078, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(24), 16946; https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416946
Submission received: 7 November 2022 / Revised: 12 December 2022 / Accepted: 13 December 2022 / Published: 17 December 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Disaster and Emergency Management: Prediction, Evacuation and Recovery)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has brought unprecedented challenges to pharmaceutical companies and their employees. Over the past three years, intensive antipandemic tasks have placed high demands on the physical and mental strength of pharmacy professionals. By using a questionnaire, data were collected from 391 technicians in pharmaceutical companies from southern coastal areas of China. The study examined the influence mechanism of organizational learning on employee adversarial growth with the moderating effect of resilience. Our analysis shows that adaptive and experimental learning promote employee adversarial growth by enhancing individual role-breadth self-efficacy. Moreover, resilience reinforces the positive effect of organizational learning on role-breadth self-efficacy. The results imply that in a complex and changing environment, experimental learning has greater value for organizations to respond to crises and enables employees to promote personal growth.

1. Introduction

Over the past three years, due to the spread of COVID-19, the way people live and work has changed dramatically. In particular, the pharmaceutical industry is facing unprecedented pressure. Many technicians have worked overtime for a long time to improve detection accuracy and develop vaccines, which has generated a certain impact on their physical and mental health [1]. Lots of studies have shown that after major public events such as pandemics, some individuals experience negative reactions such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), while others may realize their potential, adjust to a more positive mindset, and demonstrate adversarial growth [2]. For the latter, there are positive changes in their cognition and emotion, which includes increased individual strength, life appreciation, greater intimacy with others, positive spiritual changes, and discovery of new possibilities [3].
Positive transformation happens to many different people who have experienced various types of trauma and adversity [4]. Most previous studies have focused on explaining this phenomenon from the perspective of the individual. Positive coping styles and social support can predict personal adversarial growth [5,6,7]. The influences of organizational factors and social factors on individual growth after dilemmas have rarely been involved. However, for social public events such as pandemics, the impact is far-reaching and requires the joint efforts of organizations and society to deal with them. Organization learning can not only improve employees’ competency in the marketplace, but also enhance the skills of employees to deal with crises [8,9]. In particular, employees with high resilience can be more active and optimistic when dealing with difficulties, and the learning opportunities provided by enterprises will help them grow rapidly [10]. Therefore, special attention is needed with regard to how organizations can facilitate employee adversarial growth through management measures when responding to adversity. This study seeks to explain the internal mechanism of employee adversarial growth in pharmaceutical companies from the perspective of organizational learning, and to verify the moderating effect of resilience.

2. Theoretical Basis and Research Hypotheses

Organizational learning is the process of effectively presenting, explaining, and analyzing various information within an organization to optimize and upgrade the organization or business. Organization members respond to changes in the internal and external environment through self-observation, discovery, and correction of mistakes in business operations [11]. Through organizational learning, organizations are able to make full use of knowledge through the creation, processing, transfer, and integration of knowledge to modify behaviors and improve business performance [12]. Organizational learning changes the behavioral inertia of the organization by affecting the organization’s decision-making mechanism, resource utilization and other activities. It then subtly affects the overall competitiveness of the organization through the optimized organizational inertia. Organizations can also develop innovative capabilities, enhance organizational creativity, improve organizational performance, and change innovative models through organizational learning [13,14]. There are many kinds of learning in organizations [15]. One type of learning is the concept of adaptive learning. Adaptive learning emphasizes that organizations have the abilities to sense environmental changes and adapt to changes by modifying its existing states. Therefore, adaptive learning is reactive and based on changes in the corporate environment [16]. Hulland [17] put forward the concept of experimental learning, which is a kind of experiential learning and is the process of consciously acquiring knowledge through direct experience. Experimental learning can generate new knowledge within an organization [18]. Adaptive learning and experimental learning are considered as two main organizational learning modes that affect organizational performance under uncertain environmental conditions [19].
Adversarial growth refers to the positive changes that occur after an individual has experienced life adversity and social crises [20]. These positive changes include more life meaning, a heightened sense of personal strength, improved interpersonal relationships, and spiritual growth [21,22]. Even if the suffering in reality is irreversible, people can still try to control their negative emotions and get out of the pain. During the process, they try to be grateful for life, strive to appreciate themselves and others, and make positive changes in themselves [23]. Adversarial growth is not an automatic consequence of adversity or trauma, but rather the result of many potential factors. After experiencing negative events, people are more likely to develop adversarial growth if they can engage in meaningful thinking and effective coping measures to achieve a positive psychological adjustment process [24]. In general, optimistic individuals can cope well with stress, show a positive attitude toward reality, and thus obtain a higher quality of life [25]. Adversarial growth is an intuitive response to adversity and a result of self-improvement and adaptation [26]. Moreover, the adversarial growth generally depends on the individual’s management of self-cognition, emotional behavior, and other aspects [27]. Resources and abilities determine whether an individual has sufficient confidence to deal with high-stress events. They also guide individuals to utilize successful experiences in negative emotions and events to promote individual psychological or behavioral self-growth and positive development [6]. Organizational learning theory emphasizes the interrelation between cognition and action. Organizational learning can promote cognitive and behavioral change [11]. The process of organizational learning is to help individuals acquire the capacity to adapt to the external environment and be prepared to respond to emergencies at any time [28]. Organizational learning enhances the individual’s cognitive resources and practical ability, and therefore it is more likely to stimulate individual adversarial growth. Thus, we propose the following research hypotheses.
Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Experimental learning has a significant positive influence on employee adversarial growth.
Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Adaptive learning has a significant positive influence on employee adversarial growth.
Self-efficacy refers to an individual’s beliefs about their ability to organize and implement specific achievement goals [29]. It emphasizes individual assessment of their own ability cognition and environmental cognition. It essentially reflects people’s expectations and beliefs about their ability to complete a certain task [30]. During social public events such as pandemics, organizations hope that their employees can take on more responsibilities and adapt to the complex and changing external environment. Some employees are willing to spend their own resources and energy to take on work beyond their duty to help the organization accomplish tasks. Parker [31] defined this positive mental state as role-width self-efficacy, which pays more attention to employees’ initiative and the breadth of work tasks. It focuses on employees’ assurance to perform a broader set of jobs outside their responsibilities [32]. Axtell and Parker [33] proposed that organizations can improve the breadth and depth of employees’ abilities and increase their confidence in completing various tasks by carrying out extensive training, especially training related to interpersonal skills and active technical mastery. A high-performance work system can enhance employees’ knowledge reserves, expand employees’ work boundaries, and enhance employees’ confidence in participating in a wider range of tasks. Role breadth self-efficacy enables potential knowledge providers to actively seek out the knowledge, which they believe can help solve work-related problems. This belief can act as self-motivation to facilitate knowledge sharing within an organization [34]. Employees taking on broader roles are considered necessary for organizational success, especially in highly competitive and dynamic environments [35]. They are more confident in completing broader role tasks and therefore more likely to be proactive in work behavior. They also have more career development opportunities [36,37] and higher levels of career satisfaction [38]. According to the trait activation theory, there is a close relationship between the external situation and the intrinsic trait, which has a predictive effect on individual behaviors [39]. Organizational learning opportunities that address current issues and future growth opportunities increase individual confidence in accomplishing tasks in a variety of areas, and also promote personal growth in the face of adversity. Therefore, we propose the following research hypotheses.
Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Experimental learning affects employee adversarial growth through role-breadth self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Adaptive learning affects employee adversarial growth through role-width self-efficacy.
Resilience describes the dynamic process of an individual adapting to an unfavorable environment by interacting with the environment when facing emergencies or threatening events in life [40]. It is also an ability or trait of an individual to show good adaptability to the environment when faced with negative events such as stress, difficulties, and misfortune [41]. Goldin et al. [42] found that individuals with resilience will choose cognitive reappraisal strategies independently when they have negative emotions. This method can effectively carry out psychological regulation and enhance positive emotional responses. Therefore, when individuals face high pressure, they can actively cope with rapid recovery, get out of difficulties, and restore their mental health [43]. Resilience, as a positive psychological trait, is essential for an individual’s physical and mental health and growth [44]. Within organizations, the key to individual resilience lies in the ability to understand dynamic environments [45]. Cooke et al. [46] pointed out that a high-performance work system with sufficient organizational learning can effectively promote employee resilience. Cognitive and knowledge reserves enable individuals to quickly notice and understand the potential crises. They use critical thinking, integrated knowledge, and actions to solve problems before things get worse. Organizational resources can support employees in crisis, help them cope with challenges, and improve their resilience [47,48]. As a result, individuals will have more confidence in handling diverse work tasks. Individual resilience will enhance the promotion of adaptive learning and experimental learning on role-width self-efficacy, so we propose the following research hypotheses.
Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Resilience has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between experimental learning and role breadth self-efficacy.
Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Resilience has a positive moderating effect on the relationship between adaptive learning and role breadth self-efficacy.
Resilience emphasizes that individuals can acquire resources in different ways to cope with negative or positive stressful practices [49]. The Broaden-and-Build theory holds that positive emotions and traits can broaden people’s thought–action ability, as well as enhance their personal resources and social coordinating ability [50]. Organizational learning is an effective way to obtain resources. Learning organizations emphasize lifelong learning and constant adaptation to changing circumstances, which provides opportunities to inspire positive emotions and contributes to employee growth. Individuals with high resilience can take advantage of learning opportunities provided by the organization to adapt to different environments [51,52]. At the same time, resilience can also moderate the relationship between individual stress perceptions and deviant behaviors, which can reduce negative effects of high-intensity work [53]. Resilient individuals will be more able to use adaptive learning and experimental learning to acquire knowledge for coping with difficult situations, and thus increase their chances of gaining adversarial growth. Accordingly, we propose the following research hypotheses.
Hypothesis 7 (H7).
Resilience moderates the relationship between experimental learning, role-breadth self-efficacy, and employee adversarial growth.
Hypothesis 8 (H8).
Resilience moderates the relationship between adaptive learning, role-breadth self-efficacy, and employee adversarial growth.

3. Method

3.1. Sample and Data Collection

The COVID-19 pandemic has generated great challenges to the pharmaceutical industry. The technicians have made great efforts to help control the pandemic faster and better. In this context, the study explores the mechanisms of organizational learning on individual adversarial growth through a statistical survey of technicians in Chinese pharmaceutical companies of the southeastern Chinese coastal area during the pandemic. A total of 500 questionnaires were distributed through convenient sampling. Respondents could choose a paper questionnaire or online questionnaire. In the questionnaire, the researchers explained the purpose of the study and assured that the study data would be used for academic research only. Respondents who confirmed that they had participated in organizational learning would continue to answer the questionnaire, whereas those who had not participated in organizational learning would end their responses. The questionnaire is anonymous and respondents can terminate their responses at any time. A total of 433 questionnaires were recovered with the recovery rate of 86.6%, and 391 questionnaires are valid with the effective recovery rate of 78.2%.
Among respondents, there were 221 males (56.5%) and 170 females (43.5%). The gender ratio was basically balanced. In addition, 120 respondents were between the ages of of 20 and 30 (30.7%), 186 respondents were between the ages of 31 and 40 (47.6%), and 71 respondents were between the ages of 41 and 50 (18.2%). This is consistent with the age distribution of employees in pharmaceutical companies. The majority of respondents were well educated. A total of 230 respondents had bachelor degrees (58.8%), 112 respondents had master degrees, and 25 respondents have doctoral degrees (6.4%). The respondents were mainly from research-and-development departments and the production technology department. The pharmaceutical companies under investigation are all located in southeastern coastal areas of China.

3.2. Measures

The questionnaire mainly included a research purpose statement, commitment to confidentiality, demographic control variables, and research variables (organizational learning, role-width self-efficacy, resilience, and adversarial growth), which were measured with a five-point Likert scale (from complete disagreement to complete agreement).
Organizational learning is the process of effectively presenting, explaining, and analyzing various information within the organization in order to optimize and upgrade the organization or business [11]. Organizational learning in this study was discussed in two dimensions: experimental learning and adaptive learning. Experimental learning is the process of generating new knowledge within an organization, which emphasizes knowledge exchange and innovation [54]. Adaptive learning focuses on problems or opportunities within the routine scope of organizational activities in response to changes in the environment [55]. Organizational learning was measured based on the research of Zuo et al. [19], in which the reliability coefficient of experimental learning is 0.877, and the reliability coefficient of adaptive learning is 0.892 in this study.
Role-width self-efficacy focuses on employees’ perceptions of their ability to perform a broader set of jobs outside their responsibilities [32]. Role-width self-efficacy was measured based on the research of Parker et al. [56], and its coefficient of reliability is 0.907 in this study.
Adversarial growth refers to the positive changes that occur after an individual has experienced life adversity and social crises [20]. Adversarial growth was measured based on the research of Cann et al. [57] and its coefficient of reliability is 0.954 in this study.
Resilience is the dynamic process by which an individual can adapt to an unfavorable environment through interaction with the environment when facing emergencies or threatening events in life [40]. Resilience was measured based on the research of Connor and Davidson [41], and its coefficient of reliability is 0.903 in this study.
SPSS 26, Process3.4, and AMOS24 were used to conduct statistical analysis. Through descriptive statistical analysis, reliability test, confirmatory factor analysis, correlation analysis, and regression analysis, we try to verify the influence mechanism of organizational learning on employee adversarial growth with the moderating effect of resilience.

4. Results

4.1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was first conducted to test the data validity and the severity of common method bias. Table 1 shows that the overall model fit of the five-factor model (experimental learning, adaptive learning, role-width self-efficacy, adversarial growth, resilience.) is better than that of other models ( χ 2 / d f = 1.347,GFI = 0.961, NFI = 0.967, CFI = 0.991, RMSEA = 0.027, RMR = 0.014). The model fit in the single-factor model does not reach the acceptable standard ( χ 2 / d f = 10.162, GFI = 0.724, NFI = 0.726, CFI = 0.744, RMSEA = 0.143, RMR = 0.046). There is no serious common method bias in the study.

4.2. Correlation Analysis

Correlation analysis was conducted in this study to test the relations between experimental learning, adaptive learning, role-width self-efficacy, adversarial growth, and resilience. When controlling gender, age, education, and department, variables in the study are all significantly related. In Table 2, experimental learning has a positive correlation with role-width self-efficacy (r = 0.672, p < 0.01) and adversarial growth (r = 0.766, p < 0.01). Adaptive learning has a positive correlation with role-width self-efficacy (r = 0.597, p < 0.01) and adversarial growth (r = 0.693, p < 0.01). Both experimental learning and adaptive learning help to enhance individual role-width self-efficacy and promote adversarial growth. Role-width self-efficacy has positive correlation with adversarial growth (r = 0.681, p < 0.01). Resilience has positive correlation with with experimental learning (r = 0.643, p < 0.01), adaptive learning (r = 0.503, p < 0.01), role-width self-efficacy (r = 0.501, p < 0.01), and adversarial growth (r = 0.553, p < 0.01).

4.3. Hierarchical Regression

Hierarchical regression was conducted to verify the relations between variables and the results in Table 3. When controlling gender, age, education, and department, both experimental learning ( β = 0.499, p < 0.01) and adaptive learning ( β = 0.275, p < 0.01) significantly influence role-width self-efficacy in Model 1. Experimental learning and adaptive learning can enhance employee role-width self-efficacy. In addition, the effect of experimental learning on role-width self-efficacy is stronger than that of adaptive learning. Model 2 shows that both experimental learning ( β = 0.555, p < 0.01) and adaptive learning ( β = 0.332, p < 0.01) significantly influence adversarial growth. Experimental learning and adaptive learning can enhance employee adversarial growth. Moreover, the effect of experimental learning on adversarial growth is stronger than that of adaptive learning. Therefore, research hypothesis 1 has been verified.
Models 3, 4, and 5 show the mediating effect of role-width self-efficacy between experimental learning and employee adversarial growth. When controlling gender, age, education, and department, experimental learning has a significant relationship with adversarial growth ( β = 0.789, p < 0.01) and role-width self-efficacy ( β = 0.693, p < 0.01). When role-width self-efficacy is considered as a mediating variable, the effect is still significant ( β = 0.300, p < 0.01). Although the relationship between experimental learning and adversarial growth still exists, the influence becomes weaker ( β = 0.581, p < 0.01). Therefore, role-width self-efficacy has a partially mediating effect between experimental learning and adversarial growth. Research hypothesis 3 has been verified.
Models 6, 7, and 8 show the mediating effect of role-width self-efficacy between adaptive learning and adversarial growth. When controlling gender, age, education, and department, adaptive learning has a significant relationship with adversarial growth ( β = 0.693, p < 0.01) and role-width self-efficacy ( β = 0.600, p < 0.01). When role-width self-efficacy is considered as a mediating variable, the effect is still significant ( β = 0.402, p < 0.01). Although the relationship between adaptive learning and adversarial growth still exists, the influence becomes weaker ( β = 0.452, p < 0.01). Therefore, role-width self-efficacy has a partial mediating effect between adaptive learning and adversarial growth. Research hypothesis 4 has been verified.

4.4. Moderating Effect Analysis

We first explore (1) the moderating effect of resilience between experimental learning and role-width self-efficacy, and (2) the moderated mediating effect of resilience among experimental learning, role-width self-efficacy, and adversarial growth. As shown in Table 4, the 95% confidence interval of the moderating effect of resilience between experimental learning and role-width self-efficacy (b = 0.081 SE = 0.036) is [0.010, 0.151], which does not contain zero. This indicates that resilience has a positive moderating effect. At the low standard of resilience, the 95% confidence interval of the effect between experimental learning and role-width self-efficacy (b = 0.516, SE = 0.043) is [0.431, 0.601], which does not contain zero. At the high standard of resilience, the 95% confidence interval of the effect between experimental learning and role-width self-efficacy (b = 0.596, SE = 0.052) is [0.493, 0.700], which does not contain zero either. Individuals with high resilience are more likely to promote role-width self-efficacy owing to experimental learning. Therefore, hypothesis 5 has been verified. Next, we test the moderated mediating effect of resilience (b = 0.027, SE = 0.031) between experimental learning, role-width self-efficacy, and adversarial growth. The 95% confidence interval is [−0.009, 0.102], and it contains zero. The result indicates that resilience does not play a moderated mediating role. Therefore, hypothesis 7 has not been verified.
Secondly, we explore (1) the moderating effect of resilience between adaptive learning and role-width self-efficacy, and (2) the moderated mediating effect of resilience among adaptive learning, role-width self-efficacy, and adversarial growth. The 95% confidence interval of the moderating effect of resilience between adaptive learning and role-width self-efficacy (b = 0.099 SE = 0.036) is [0.022, 0.166], which does not contain zero. This indicates resilience has a positive moderating effect. At the low standard of resilience, the 95% confidence interval of the effect between adaptive learning and role-width self-efficacy (b = 0.350, SE = 0.038 is [0.275, 0.424], and the interval does not contain zero. At the high standard of resilience, the 95% confidence interval of the effect between adaptive learning and role-width self-efficacy (b = 0.443, SE = 0.045) is [0.355, 0.531], which does not contain zero either. Individuals with high resilience are more likely to promote role-width self-efficacy because of adaptive learning. Therefore, hypothesis 6 has been verified. Then, we test the moderated mediating effect of resilience (b = 0.043, SE = 0.045 between adaptive learning, role-width self-efficacy, and adversarial growth. The 95% confidence interval is [−0.012, 0.149], and the interval contains zero. It indicates that resilience does not have a moderated mediating effect. Therefore, hypothesis 8 has not been verified. The Moderating effect diagram is shown in Figure 1.

5. Conclusions

Lifelong learning has become a fundamental concept of organizational development and personal growth [58]. It helps organizations to maintain a lasting competitive advantage and it helps individuals to actively respond to changing job requirements [59]. Based on a survey of technicians in Chinese pharmaceutical companies under the COVID-19 outbreak, the study dicusses the influence mechanism of organizational learning on adversarial growth and the moderating effect of resilience. Statistical analysis shows that role-width self-efficacy has a mediating effect on the relations between organizational learning and adversarial growth. Both experimental learning and adaptive learning enhance the role-width self-efficacy of individuals, which not only allows them to acquire the competence to do their jobs, but also increases their confidence in various emergent tasks. As a result, they are more likely to develop adversarial growth.
The impact of experimental learning on role-width self-efficacy and adversarial growth is stronger than that of adaptive learning. Experimental learning mainly focuses on acquiring new knowledge, which substantially enhances employee ability to deal with complex situations [17]. The COVID-19 virus is a new challenge for the entire human race. The fight against the COVID-19 pandemic is highly uncertain, and there is no prior experience to learn from. Therefore, the skills acquired by experimental learning will be more effective than adaptive learning. Resilience has a positive moderating effect on the relations between organizational learning and role-width self-efficacy. However, the mediated moderating effect of resilience in the relationship between organizational learning, role-width self-efficacy, and adversarial growth has not been supported. In summary, resilience, as a positive psychological characteristic, can enhance the influence of organizational learning on role-width self-efficacy. When individuals have high resilience, experimental learning and adaptive learning play a more significant role in promoting role-width self-efficacy.

6. Discussion

Previous research efforts have examined the positive effects of organizational learning on the expansion of employee skills. The present study, which analyzed data from technicians in pharmaceutical companies, also confirmed that both experimental learning and adaptive learning can enhance employees’ role-wise self-efficacy and lead them to take on more extra-role responsibilities. Due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, pharmaceutical companies are facing an unprecedented state of crisis, and their employees are working in a high-pressure environment, which is also an opportunity for individual development. This study illustrates that organizational factors can also play a positive role in promoting individual growth in adversity. Employees develop skills and confidence to cope with adversity through learning opportunities provided by the organization. In particular, experimental learning, which aims to improve employees’ innovative abilities, is particularly effective in promoting individual adversarial growth. Along with the intensification of competition for talents, in order to gain long-term competitive advantage, enterprises need to provide space and opportunities for employees to develop and create a win–win situation for the organization and employees. Thus, organizational learning in a crisis should not be perceived as an cost increase, but rather as a management initiative with high value for both employees and the organization. In particular, employees with higher resilience will gain more from it. Organizational learning enhances the flexibility of organizations to cope with crises and develops a highly competent workforce, while also promoting personal adversarial growth and enhancing career satisfaction.

7. Suggestions

The impact, scope, and duration of the COVID-19 pandemic have been completely beyond the expectations of human beings. It has caused tremendous pressure on the pharmaceutical industry. It is a huge crisis for both pharmaceutical organizations and their employees. It is gratifying that many technicians have not only withstood the challenge, but also achieved growth during this battle. They have attained new skills and development opportunities. Meanwhile, they have rethought their lives and cherished what they have. During this process, organizations should actively make moves to take advantage of this opportunity to help employees achieve this positive change. First of all, the organization should make it clear that personal development of employees is their social responsibility. Organizations should not only pursue financial benefits, but also provide opportunities for employees to grow. Crisis and adversity are unavoidable for both organizations and individuals. Organizations should provide employees with sufficient support to reduce potential physical and mental harm, help employees actively cope with difficulties, and develop new talents during crises. At the same time, the crisis response capability of the entire organization will also be enhanced.
Secondly, organizations should pay attention to the important role played by organizational learning. Learning is an effective way for people to grow and is a driving force for organizational development. In an era during which knowledge is exploding, the uncertainty of organizations’ external environment is increasing and the speed at which knowledge is updated is accelerating. In order to ensure that the competency of employees matches job requirements, organizational learning is an essential investment for enterprises, which is conducive to maintaining organizational long-term competitiveness.
Thirdly, organizations can focus on different types of organizational learning depending on the tasks and environments they face. Experimental learning is more suitable for highly uncertain tasks and environments, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. It helps the organization prevent problems before they occur and improves the ability of employees to handle any emergency. Adaptive learning is more suitable for a relatively stable external environment and routine tasks to ensure that individuals are competent for continuous improvement of work requirements.
Finally, an organization should assign tasks according to different traits of employees. Employees with high resilience have more possibilities to enhance their role-width self-efficacy due to organizational learning. They are also more capable of going beyond their jobs and accomplishing tasks outside of their job role. This positive psychological trait is very valuable for completing unconventional tasks. Therefore, when companies face emergencies such as the COVID-19 pandemic, individuals with high resilience are more suited to handle pressure and take important responsibilities.

8. Limitations and Future Study

Certain limitations exist in the study. The research samples are all from pharmaceutical companies in the coastal areas of China, which may limit the external validity of the research conclusions to a certain extent. In addition, the study focused on measuring whether technicians would grow due to the impact of the pandemic from the perspective of individual perceptions. The paired survey is not adopted in data collection. Although the statistical test conducted in our study indicates that the common method bias is not a serious problem. The results may still be affected.
Adversarial growth is a topic that has received much attention in positive psychology in recent years. Existing literature shows great differences between individuals in the face of trauma and adversity. However, its internal mechanism remains unclear and is affected by many factors such as social environment, organizational policies, community atmosphere, and personal characteristics. The exact explanation of its antecedents and consequences requires a long process of exploration, which deserves further discussion in future studies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Y.S. and T.N.; Methodology, T.N.; Software, T.N.; Validation, T.N.; Formal analysis, T.N.; Investigation, Y.S. and D.M.; Resources, D.M. and T.N.; Data curation, T.N.; Writing—original draft, Y.S., D.M. and T.N.; Writing—review & editing, Y.S. and T.N.; Visualization, Y.S., D.M. and T.N.; Supervision, T.N.; Project administration, T.N.; Funding acquisition, T.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Higher Education Fund of Macau, grant number: HSS-MUST-2020-08.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Ethical review and approval were waived for this study, due to no identifiable private information involved.

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
OLOrganizational Learning
ELExperimental Learning
ALAdaptive Learning
RSERole-width Self-Efficacy
AGGAdversarial Growth
RSResilience

References

  1. Wilson, C.A.; Metwally, H.; Heavner, S.; Kennedy, A.B.; Britt, T.W. Chronicling moral distress among healthcare providers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal analysis of mental health strain, burnout, and maladaptive coping behaviours. Int. J. Ment. Health Nurs. 2022, 31, 111–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Mcelheran, M.; Briscoe-Smith, A.; Khaylis, A.; Westrup, D.; Hayward, C.; Gore-Felton, C. A conceptual model of post-traumatic growth among children and adolescents in the aftermath of sexual abuse. Couns. Psychol. Q. 2012, 25, 73–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tedeschi, R.G.; Shakespeare-Finch, J.; Taku, K.; Calhoun, L.G. Posttraumatic Growth: Theory, Research, and Applications; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  4. Parikh, D.; Ieso, P.D.; Garvey, G.; Thachil, T.; Jayaraj, R. Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Post-traumatic Growth in Breast Cancer Patients—A Systematic Review. Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2015, 16, 641–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Kunz, S.; Joseph, S.; Geyh, S.; Peter, C. Coping and posttraumatic growth: A longitudinal comparison of two alternative views. Rehabil. Psychol. 2017, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Laslo-Roth, R.; George-Levi, S.; Margalit, M. Social participation and posttraumatic growth: The serial mediation of hope, social support, and reappraisal. J. Community Psychol. 2022, 50, 47–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yeung, N.C.; Huang, B.; Lau, C.Y.; Lau, J.T. Finding the silver linings in the COVID-19 pandemic: Psychosocial correlates of adversarial growth among Filipina domestic helpers in Hong Kong. Psychol. Trauma 2022, 14, 291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Lemmetty, S.; Collin, K. Throwaway knowledge, useful skills or a source for wellbeing? Outlining sustainability of workplace learning situations. Int. J. Lifelong Educ. 2020, 39, 478–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Matić, I. Managerial interpersonal competencies: Benefiting from learning organization characteristics in SMEs. Manag. Dyn. Knowl. Econ. 2022, 10, 19–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Schmidt, F.L.; Shaffer, J.A.; Oh, I.S. Increased accuracy for range restriction corrections: Implications for the role of personality and general mental ability in job and training performance. Pers. Psychol. 2008, 61, 827–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Argyris, C.; Schön, D.A. Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reis 1997, 345–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Mallen, F.; Chiva, R.; Alegre, J.; Guinot, J. Organicity and performance in excellent HRM organizations: The importance of organizational learning capability. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2016, 10, 463–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Rerup, C.; Feldman, M.S. Routines as a source of change in organizational schemata: The role of trial-and-error learning. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 577–610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Hina, S.M.; Hassan, G.; Parveen, M.; Arooj, S. Impact of entrepreneurial orientation on firm performance through organizational learning: The moderating role of environmental turbulence. Perform. Improv. Q. 2021, 34, 77–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Senge, P. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Science of the Learning Organization; Currency Doubleday: NewYork, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
  16. Luo, Y. Adaptive learning in international business. J. Int. Bus. Stud. 2020, 51, 1547–1567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hulland, J. Organizational learning: The contributing processes and the literatures. Organ. Sci. 1999, 2, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zahra, S.A.; Nielsen, A.P.; Bogner, W.C. Corporate Entrepreneurship, Knowledge, and Competence Development. Entrep. Theory Pract. 2017, 23, 169–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Zuo, L.; Fisher, G.J.; Yang, Z. Organizational learning and technological innovation: The distinct dimensions of novelty and meaningfulness that impact firm performance. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2019, 47, 1166–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Linley, P.A.; Joseph, S. Positive change following trauma and adversity: A review. J. Trauma. Stress 2004, 17, 11–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tedeschi, R.G.; Calhoun, L.G. Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LGThe posttraumatic growth inventory: Measuring the positive legacy of trauma. J. Trauma. Stress 1996, 9, 455–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Linley, P.A.; Joseph, S. The human capacity for growth through adversity. Am. Psychol. 2005, 60, 262–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gonzalez-Mendez, R.; Díaz, M.; Aguilera, L.; Correderas, J.; Jerez, Y. Protective Factors in Resilient Volunteers Facing Compassion Fatigue. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Alsubaie, M.K.; Dolezal, M.; Sheikh, I.S.; Rosencrans, P.; Walker, R.S.; Zoellner, L.A.; Bentley, J. Religious coping, perceived discrimination, and posttraumatic growth in an international sample of forcibly displaced Muslims. Ment. Health Relig. Cult. 2021, 24, 976–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zoellner, T.; Maercker, A. Posttraumatic growth in clinical psychology—A critical review and introduction of a two component model. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2006, 26, 626–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Borawski, B.M. Reflecting on adversarial growth and trauma through autoethnography. J. Loss Trauma 2007, 12, 101–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cieslak, R.; Shoji, K.; Luszczynska, A.; Taylor, S.; Benight, C.C. Secondary trauma self-efficacy: Concept and its measurement. Psychological Assessment 2013, 25, 917–928. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hannachi, Y. The learning organisation: Choice of a model and study of its empirical modeling. Technol. Anal. & Strateg. Manag. 2021, 33, 700–712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change. Psychol. Rev. 1977, 84, 191–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Bandura, W.A. Social Cognitive Theory of Organizational Management. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 361–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Parker, S.K. Enhancing role breadth self-efficacy: The roles of job enrichment and other organizational interventions. J. Appl. Psychol. 1998, 83, 835–852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Hartog Deanne, N.D.; Belschak, F.D. When does transformational leadership enhance employee proactive behavior? The role of autonomy and role breadth self-efficacy. J. Appl. Psychol. 2015, 97, 194–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Axtell, C.M.; Parker, S.K. Promoting Role Breadth Self-Efficacy Through Involvement, Work Redesign and Training. Human Relations 2003, 56, 113–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Schwaer, C.; Biemann, T.; Voelpel, S. Antecedents of employee’s preference for knowledge-sharing tools. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2012, 23, 3613–3635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Iii, E. From job-based to competency-based organizations. J. Organ. Behav. 1994, 15, 3–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sonnentag, S.; Spychala, A. Job Control and Job Stressors as Predictors of Proactive Work Behavior: Is Role Breadth Self-Efficacy the Link? Human Perform. 2012, 25, 412–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Beltrán-Martín, I.; Bou-Llusar, J.C.; Roca-Puig, V.; Escrig-Tena, A.B. The relationship between high performance work systems and employee proactive behaviour: Role breadth self-efficacy and flexible role orientation as mediating mechanisms. Hum. Resour. Manag. J. 2017, 27, 403–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Nauta, A.; Vianen, A.V.; Heijden, B.V.D.; Dam, K.V.; Willemsen, M. Understanding the factors that promote employability orientation: The impact of employability culture, career satisfaction, and role breadth self-efficacy. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2009, 82, 233–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Tett, R.P.; Burnett, D.D. A personality trait-based interactionist model of job performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 500–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Rutter, M. Resilience concepts and findings: Implications for family therapy. J. Fam. Ther. 1999, 21, 119–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Connor, K.M.; Davidson, J.R.T. Development of a new resilience scale: The Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). Depress. Anxiety 2003, 18, 76–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Goldin, P.R.; Mcrae, K.; Ramel, W.; Gross, J.J. The Neural Bases of Emotion Regulation: Reappraisal and Suppression of Negative Emotion. Biol. Psychiatry 2008, 63, 577–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Luthans, F.; Youssef, C.M.; Avolio, B.J. Psychological Capital: Developing the Human Competitive Edge; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007; Volume 198. [Google Scholar]
  44. Ali, D.A.; Figley, C.R.; Tedeschi, R.G.; Galarneau, D.; Amara, S. Shared trauma, resilience, and growth: A roadmap toward transcultural conceptualization. Psychol. Trauma 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Williams, T.A.; Gruber, D.A.; Sutcliffe, K.M.; Shepherd, D.A.; Zhao, E.Y. Organizational response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 733–769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cooke, F.L.; Cooper, B.; Bartram, T.; Wang, J.; Mei, H. Mapping the relationships between high-performance work systems, employee resilience and engagement: A study of the banking industry in China. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2019, 30, 1239–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Näswall, K.; Malinen, S.; Kuntz, J.; Hodliffe, M. Employee resilience: Development and validation of a measure. J. Manag. Psychol. 2019, 34, 353–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Kealy, D.; Rice, S.M.; Seidler, Z.E.; Oliffe, J.L.; Ogrodniczuk, J.S. Reflective functioning and men’s mental health: Associations with resilience and personal growth initiative. Stress Health 2021, 37, 706–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Kossek, E.E.; Perrigino, M.B. Resilience: A Review Using a Grounded Integrated Occupational Approach. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2016, 10, 729–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fredrickson, B.L. The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. Am. Psychol. 2001, 56, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Malik, P.; Garg, P. The relationship between learning culture, inquiry and dialogue, knowledge sharing structure and affective commitment to change. Management 2017, 30, 610–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Luthans, F.; Avey, J.B.; Patera, J.L. Experimental analysis of a web-based training intervention to develop positive psychological capital. Acad. Manag. Learn. & Educ. 2008, 7, 209–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Tulucu, F.; Anasori, E.; Kinali Madanoglu, G. How does mindfulness boost work engagement and inhibit psychological distress among hospital employees during the COVID-19 pandemic? The mediating and moderating role of psychological resilience. Serv. Ind. J. 2022, 42, 131–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hitt, M.A.; Li, H.; Iv, W.J.W. Emerging Markets as Learning Laboratories: Learning Behaviors of Local Firms and Foreign Entrants in Different Institutional Contexts. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2005, 1, 353–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Baker, W.E.; Sinkula, J.M. Does Market Orientation Facilitate Balanced Innovation Programs? An Organizational Learning Perspective. J. Prod. Innov. Manag. 2010, 24, 316–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Parker, S.K.; Williams, H.M.; Turner, N. Modeling the Antecedents of Proactive Behavior at Work. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 636–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Cann, A.; Calhoun, L.G.; Tedeschi, R.G.; Taku, K.; Vishnevsky, T.; Triplett, K.N.; Danhauer, S.C. A short form of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory. Anxiety Stress Coping 2010, 23, 127–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Kaplan, A. Lifelong learning: Conclusions from a literature review. Int. Online J. Prim. Educ. 2016, 5, 43–50. [Google Scholar]
  59. Kordab, M.; Raudeliūnienė, J.; Meidutė-Kavaliauskienė, I. Mediating role of knowledge management in the relationship between organizational learning and sustainable organizational performance. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 14 16946 g001 550
Figure 1. Moderating effect diagram.
Figure 1. Moderating effect diagram.
Sustainability 14 16946 g001
Table
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis (N = 391).
Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis (N = 391).
ModelFactors χ 2 / df NFIGFICFIRMSEARMR
Five-factor modelEL, AL, RSE, AG, RS1.3470.9670.9610.9910.0270.014
Four-factor modelEL + AL, RSE, AG, RS3.1850.9220.9050.9440.0680.037
Three-factor modelEL + AL + RSE, AG, RS4.7700.8800.8660.9020.0900.033
Two-factor modelEL + AL + RSE + AG, RS8.5450.7820.7650.8010.1270.046
One-factor modelEL + AL + RSE + AG + RS10.1620.7260.7240.7440.1430.046
EL, experimental learning; AL, adaptive learning; RSE, role-width self-efficacy; AG, adversarial growth; RS, resilience.
Table
Table 2. Correlation statistics (N = 391).
Table 2. Correlation statistics (N = 391).
MeanSD12345678
Gender1.430.496
Age2.880.787−0.036
Education2.350.696−0.308 **0.036
Department1.700.9640.045−0.340 **0.093
EL3.8260.5960.0470.240 **−0.070−0.238 **
AL3.9040.648−0.0270.112 *−0.0200.0110.658 **
RSE3.6020.529−0.0210.113 *0.014−0.132 **0.672 **0.597 **
AG3.8070.5910.0160.137 **−0.051−0.122 *0.766 **0.693 **0.681 **
RS3.450.611−0.0240.170 **0.041−0.152 **0.643 **0.503 **0.501 **0.553 **
** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05. EL, experimental learning; AL, adaptive learning; RSE, role-width self-efficacy; AG, adversarial growth; RS, resilience.
Table
Table 3. Hierarchical Regression results (N = 391).
Table 3. Hierarchical Regression results (N = 391).
M1M2M3M4M5M6M7M8
RSEAGAGRSEAGAGRSEAG
Gender−0.021−0.003−0.027−0.041−0.0150.037−0.0150.031
Age−0.053−0.035−0.034−0.052−0.0180.019−0.0050.021
Education0.053−0.005−0.0080.050−0.024−0.0150.044−0.032
Department−0.038−0.0040.0570.0120.053−0.123−0.146−0.065
EL0.499 ***0.555 ***0.789 ***0.693 ***0.581 ***
AL0.275 ***0.332 *** 0.693 ***0.600 ***0.452 ***
RSE 0.300 *** 0.402 ***
△ R 2 0.500 ***0.652 ***0.593 ***0.434 ***0.642 ***0.500 ***0.377 ***0.600 ***
F63.967119.716112.22665.482114.60076.90446.61596.087
*** p < 0.001, EL, experimental learning; AL, adaptive learning; RSE, role-width self-efficacy; AG, adversarial growth.
Table
Table 4. Moderating effect analysis (N = 391).
Table 4. Moderating effect analysis (N = 391).
Moderating EffectMediated Moderating Effect
Variable EffectSE95% CIEffectSE95% CI
EL LowerUpperLowerUpper
Int0.08060.03590.01000.1512
L0.51580.04340.43050.60120.02730.0314−0.00900.1019
H0.59640.05240.49330.6995
Moderating EffectMediated Moderating Effect
Variable EffectSE95% CIEffectSE95% CI
AL LowerUpperLowerUpper
Int0.09930.03620.02200.1664
L0.34970.03800.27500.42440.04330.0453−0.01150.1448
H0.44300.04470.35500.5309
EL, experimental learning; AL, adaptive learning; CI, confidence interval.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sun, Y.; Mo, D.; Nie, T. Employee Adversarial Growth Driven by Organizational Learning in the Chinese Pharmaceutical Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16946. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416946

AMA Style

Sun Y, Mo D, Nie T. Employee Adversarial Growth Driven by Organizational Learning in the Chinese Pharmaceutical Industry. Sustainability. 2022; 14(24):16946. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416946

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sun, Yanwei, Dazhuo Mo, and Ting Nie. 2022. "Employee Adversarial Growth Driven by Organizational Learning in the Chinese Pharmaceutical Industry" Sustainability 14, no. 24: 16946. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142416946

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