Abstract
Purpose
This study aims at establishing the moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between organisational culture (OC) and organisational commitment in the perspective of institutions of higher learning in a developing country.
Design/methodology/approach
A cross-sectional design was used to obtain quantitative data from 572 academic staff in eight universities. The sample was selected following a simple random technique. The study data were analysed using SPSS version 23.
Findings
The study findings reveal that OC and self-efficacy influence organisational commitment. Further, self-efficacy moderates the relationship between OC and organisational commitment.
Practical implications
Universities should foster a culture that emphasises collaboration, open communication, inclusion, equity and staff development to increase organisational commitment. In order to build academic staff self-efficacy, universities should provide opportunities for training and development, mentoring, coaching, continuous performance evaluation, and regular feedback to stimulate academic staff's desire to remain committed to the institution. University administrators should look beyond traditional skills and competencies when recruiting future academic staff as their personal beliefs are essential to accelerating organisational commitment.
Originality/value
This study extends the current literature in organisational behaviour and provides a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between OC and organisational commitment using the Competing Values Framework. This study was also conducted in a developing country context, which can always lead to different results than studies conducted in developed countries.
Keywords
Citation
Opolot, J.S., Lagat, C., Kipsang, S.K. and Muganzi, Y.K. (2024), "Organisational culture and organisational commitment: the moderating effect of self-efficacy", Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 280-296. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHASS-09-2023-0105
Publisher
:Emerald Publishing Limited
Copyright © 2023, Julius Samuel Opolot, Charles Lagat, Stanley Kipkwelon Kipsang and Yonah Katto Muganzi
License
Published in Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
Introduction
The importance of organisational commitment in driving quality education in institutions of higher learning has grown considerably in recent years (Shahriari et al., 2023). This has been precipitated by the increasing knowledge-ability of the community and the globally competitive industrial sector where the output/graduate of these institutions finally converge, thus, achieving the national education goals is a paramount (Adel et al., 2022; Al Fauzani and Mujanah, 2022). To survive in the ever-highly competitive environment, the prime stakeholder to deliver this in universities is academic staff who provide a unique competitive edge (Al-Sada et al., 2017). This intensifies the need to ensure that academic staff are committed to the entire university's values, processes, activities and goals (Adikoeswanto et al., 2020). It is believed that a committed academic staff devotes effort and time aimed at contributing towards achieving institutional goals (Mousa and Othman, 2020; Mustafa et al., 2020). Organisational commitment reflects the desire of staff to strive for and endure the realisation of university goals and mandate (Cheng et al., 2022). They uphold university norms and values and contribute greatly to a consistent and high level of performance, thereby harnessing the institution's visibility, productivity and attainment of a competitive edge (Senjaya and Anindita, 2020). In fact, committed staff who are satisfied with their jobs, manifest loyalty to the university and display pro-social behaviours lead to improved service delivery (Batugal and Tindowen, 2019; Giao et al., 2020). Because of these manifestations, it's imperative for universities to implement antecedents that boost commitment.
Existing literature indicates that organisational commitment is influenced by several factors such organisational culture (OC) (Aji et al., 2017; Hamidi et al., 2017) and self-efficacy (Demir, 2020; Yoon et al., 2018). In pursuit of quality education, the culture embedded in the university plays a crucial role particularly in bridging the internal and external environment (Senjaya and Anindita, 2020). In this case, culture provides the internal code of values, behaviour and practice adhered to by all employees in the course of service performance (interacting with the customers). Overall, culture shapes the organisation's identity, values and relationships with stakeholders resulting into positive institutional image, accomplished service level agreements and adapt to changes for long-term success (Yin and Mahrous, 2022). In essence, for universities to position themselves in the competitive environment, OC should be embraced because it fosters environmental inclusiveness, collaboration, fairness, flexibility and recognition for the purpose of having committed staff for improved quality education (Andleeb et al., 2019). This implores universities to build organisational commitment around the university culture that aligns with the values of employees (Mujanah et al., 2019). Although the literature provides abundant evidence of how culture Competing Values Framework (CVF) affect commitment, some of those studies used secondary data analysis to validate the role of CVF in building institutional commitment that undermines results generalisation (Krajcsák, 2018). In addition, CVF has majorly been used in banks and hospitals to predict performance (Cobbinah et al., 2020), thus providing an averse to advance CVF in universities.
Self-efficacy has been recommended as a key ingredient that stirs greater organisational commitment. In order for academic staff to deliver on their academic roles of teaching, research and community engagement, their perception of the levels of ability is paramount. Drawing for the social cognitive theory, self-efficacy enables individuals to persevere and expend efforts towards an end goal amid adversities (Rodríguez-Cifuentes et al., 2018). Specifically, individuals with high self-efficacy exhibit sense of competence, intrinsically motivated and actively engaged in their work, resilient and persistent in the face of challenges and setbacks that increases on their positive outlook (commitment) towards the employing institution (Demir, 2020; Hameli and Ordun, 2022). Whereas self-efficacy positively impacts on several attitudes like commitment, empirical researchers have devoted less attention to analysing the predictive role of self-efficacy in organisational commitment studies (Ashfaq et al., 2021).
Despite the importance of OC and its effect on organisational commitment (Azizollah et al., 2016), the findings remain mixed and inconsistent (Al-Shurafat and Halim, 2018). One stream of studies reports a positive and significant relationship between OC and organisational commitment (Hamidi et al., 2017; Kerdpitak and Jermsittiparsert, 2020; Muliana et al., 2022). This group of scholars argues that organisational commitment can be enhanced through improvements in OC. The favourable OC supports employees to think and act in ways that sustain human relations between the organisational members (Andleeb et al., 2019). Similarly, other studies have quantified the inverse relationship between culture and commitment (Lahiry, 1994; Carlos Pinho et al., 2014; Mustafa et al., 2016), whereas Horwitz and Horwitz (2017) found no significant link between OC and organisational commitment. Further still, a number of existing empirical studies assume a direct link between OC and organisational commitment without paying attention to other internal contextual factors that could affect this relationship (Batugal and Tindowen, 2019; Hayes, 2018). For example, self-efficacy has been shown to influence some individual and organisational outcomes (Busch et al., 1998; Yoon et al., 2018). However, the existing human resource management literature rarely addresses the contextual role of self-efficacy between OC and organisational commitment. Based on social cognitive theory, self-efficacy provides reasons to rationalise certain acts, thoughts and behaviours (Demir, 2020, 2021). As such, it plays a crucial role in explaining why and how individuals engage in certain acts or behaviours, expend effort and persevere to reach an ultimate goal (Rodríguez-Cifuentes et al., 2018). Given that OC and organisational commitment depend on individual perceptions and expectations, enhancing high levels of self-efficacy can reduce low levels of culture and commitment (Soomro et al., 2023). In addition, empirical studies on the organisational commitment domain have been conducted in different sectors, ignoring educational institutions, especially universities with low-committed staff (Kayiira et al., 2016; Mugizi et al., 2015). Besides, the majority of the studies focused on primary and secondary school teachers (Anari, 2012; Batugal and Tindowen, 2019; Hulpia et al., 2009). Further, studies conducted on higher education institutions focused mainly on public institutions, ignoring private entities that are also challenged in terms of maintaining high organisational commitment as they aspire to contribute to the national educational goal (Azizollah et al., 2016; Batugal and Tindowen, 2019).
To enrich research on commitment, this study is not a duplication of the earlier studies but rather aims at establishing the moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between OC and organisational commitment using survey data from academic staff. Using the CVF framework, this study finds that OC and self-efficacy have a direct effect on organisational commitment, as well as whether self-efficacy moderates the relationship between OC and organisational commitment. The research findings are anticipated to inform scholars, policymakers and practitioners to have a robust understanding of the moderating role of self-efficacy in the perspective of higher education institutions in the developing world. This will provide real-time information for policymakers to develop approaches to inculcating the CVF model from higher institutions with the aim of enhancing organisational commitment meant to increase staff involvement and attachment in boosting quality education. The subsequent sections of the paper cover the literature review, methodology, results, discussion, conclusion, implications and limitations of the study.
Theoretical underpinning and literature review
Theoretical foundation
The study utilises the multi-factor social cognitive theory (SCT) to explain the relationship between OC, self-efficacy and organisational commitment (Cayupe et al., 2023). SCT has its origins in psychology and has long been used to predict organisational behaviour (Lin, 2020). SCT provide a framework for understanding how individuals learn, develop and engage in various behaviours within the context of their social and cognitive environment. This theory assumes that cognitive processes influence behaviour and learning, people and their environment mutually influence each other, and individuals possess self-beliefs that enable them to make effort to control their thoughts, feelings and actions. SCT postulates that individual behaviours, beliefs and attitudes are shaped by a dynamic interaction between personal, environmental and behavioural factors (Liu and Huang, 2019). In this context, OC represents the environmental factor, self-efficacy represents the personal factor, and organisational commitment represents the behavioural outcome (Cayupe et al., 2023). Integrating culture and self-efficacy into the SCT model helps explain how organisational commitment can be improved. Here, self-efficacy influences how individuals perceive and interpret the OC. Specifically, when individuals have high self-efficacy, they may perceive the OC as supportive and conducive to their personal and professional growth (Liu and Huang, 2019). This positive perception enhances a higher level of commitment to the organisation. On the other hand, individuals with low self-efficacy may interpret the OC as challenging or unsupportive, which can negatively affect their commitment. In such cases, the OC may have a weaker influence on their commitment as their self-efficacy beliefs act as a buffer or constraint (Ahmed, 2019; Choi et al., 2021). This makes SCT applicable in fostering self-efficacy beliefs among academic staff and optimising the positive effects of OC on commitment.
Hypotheses development
Organisational culture and organisational commitment
OC has emerged as a key factor that influences organisational commitment in contemporary work environments (Tyagi et al., 2020; Yusuf, 2020). It encompasses its shared values, beliefs, norms and practices in an organisation that shapes the behaviour and attitudes of its members (Gavino and Mariani, 2022). A strong and positive OC fosters a sense of belonging, engagement and commitment among employees. When an organisation fosters a culture that values teamwork, open communication and employee well-being, it creates an environment where employees feel motivated, engaged and connected to the organisation's goals and values (Carvalho et al., 2018) that promote a sense of purpose leading to higher levels of commitment, ultimately contributing to the organisation’s performance and success. Recent research suggests that OC plays a vital role in shaping employees' attitudes, behaviours and overall commitment to the organisation (Krajcsák, 2018; Mujanah et al., 2019; Senjaya and Anindita, 2020). A positive culture promotes a sense of belonging, trust and shared values, which in turn enhance employee satisfaction and commitment. When employees feel supported, valued and aligned with the organisation's mission and values, they are more likely to demonstrate higher levels of commitment and dedication to their work (Arifin et al., 2019). To this end, finding a universal OC typology that predicts organisational commitment in all contexts remains disputed.
A critical review of extant literature linking OC and organisational commitment shows that OC as a predictor variable has been predominantly operationalised using varied frameworks (Fischer and Mansell, 2009; Lin et al., 2018; Meyer et al., 2012), ignoring the CVF (Krajcsák, 2018), pausing an elusive link. The strength of CVF lies in integrating different values to create four culture typologies that simultaneously exist in one specific organisation and has been validated in various contexts (Belias et al., 2015). According to Hartnell et al. (2011), these cultural types are applied to suit a specific need. This study uses the CVF framework to assess the culture–commitment link as it focuses on the characteristics of individual employees and supports the interpretation of commitment patterns assigned to OC dimensions (Krajcsák, 2018). The CVF, according to Quinn and Rohrbaugh (1981), is composed of clan culture that is framed around the human relations approach to management. In this approach, family like values of teamwork, collaboration and mentoring are fronted in promoting employee commitment. Second, adhocracy culture encourages innovation, risk-taking, an entrepreneurial mindset and the dynamic and proactive influence of work-related events. Market culture emphasises competitiveness and performance orientated outlook. Finally, hierarchy culture hinges on predictability and stability, where expectations and ways to fulfil them are clearly defined and regulated through policies and rules. However, Meyer et al. (2010) established non-significant relationship between OC and commitment in the lower quarters of CVF (hierarchy and market). In disagreement with this finding, Chatman and O’Reilly (2016) note that researchers should endeavour replicate models in different contexts in order to validate their weaknesses. Thus, it remains to be seen whether all the CVF dimensions will be validated in this study.
In accordance with SCT, the observed and learnt elements of OC significantly influence employees' organisational commitment. As such, organisations endeavour to tailor their corporate culture to reflect the values, beliefs and lifestyle of organisational members, which constitute the way work processes are to be carried out within the organisation, thereby impacting their commitment (Tyagi et al., 2020). Therefore, employees who are satisfied with the OC characterised by inclusiveness, fairness, flexibility and recognition demonstrate affective, normative and continuous commitment. From the preceding theoretical and empirical evidence, how OC framed around CVF predicts organisational commitment can be hypothesised as follows:
OC is associated with organisational commitment.
Self-efficacy and organisational commitment
Drawing on SCT (Bandura, 1986), self-efficacy influences personal achievement as well as commitment (Ashfaq et al., 2021). Based on beliefs, SCT determines the length of time, amount of energy and effort that individuals invest in getting a task accomplished (Bandura, 1977). Thus, integrating past successes, modelling on others, gaining verbal approval from influential persons and attaining arousal and emotion antecedents boosts one's confidence (Agarwal and Mishra, 2016). In this regard, self-efficacy has the potential to foster individual behaviour in erratic circumstances by altering their expectations (Ashfaq et al., 2021). However, empirical researchers have devoted less attention to analysing the predictive role of self-efficacy in organisational commitment studies (Ashfaq et al., 2021). This calls for simultaneous examination of the various self-efficacy antecedents (enactive mastery, vicarious experience, verbal feedback and physiological arousal) in order to identify the relative strengths of each with commitment. Enactive mastery refers to past experiences or performances that a person uses to project and validate future occurrences. Vicarious experience refers to the confidence gained by having and observing role models perform tasks. Verbal persuasion is derived from the feedback we get from our significant others, like family, supervisors, teachers, colleagues and mentors. Physiological arousal refers to the negative and positive reactions or states we exhibit when faced with challenges. For one to exhibit high self-efficacy, he or she ought to use one or more dimensions of self-efficacy. In situations of uncertainty, self-efficacy ensures employees remain resilient, motivated and confident when faced with challenges and ultimately become more committed and engaged in their work (Choi et al., 2021). Similarly, numerous meta-analyses corroborate that self-efficacy is strongly linked to commitment (Hameli and Ordun, 2022; Syabarrudin et al., 2020). Hence, when employees are confident in performing a particular task that leads to meaningful contributions, they are motivated to invest their time and effort into their work and organisation.
Based on the preceding empirical arguments, SCT posits that self-efficacy significantly influences the organisational commitment of academic staff. In light of SCT, individuals with higher self-efficacy are more likely to be committed to their organisation because they possess the confidence and motivation to engage proactively and persistently in their work and organisation. SCT, therefore, provides a robust theoretical foundation for exploring the relationship between self-efficacy and organisational commitment; hence, we hypothesise as follows:
Self-efficacy is associated with organisational commitment.
The moderating role of self-efficacy
Previous studies (Nawaz et al., 2018; Yousef, 2017) have shown that OC is significantly related to organisational commitment. This suggests that organisations need to focus on their culture and strive to create a positive and supportive work environment that fosters commitment among employees (Andleeb et al., 2019). By fostering a culture that values employees, encourages open communication, provides opportunities for growth and development, and recognises and rewards performance, organisations can enhance employees' organisational commitment, and thus contribute to their long-term success and competitiveness. Similarly, self-efficacy has been reported to significantly affect organisational commitment (Caleb et al., 2020; Orgambídez et al., 2019). Because academic staff with high self-efficacy are driven to meet appealing future outcomes, tend to adjust their expectations, develop strategies and make decisions in response to setbacks that shape their motivation and commitment to the organisation (Srivastava and Dhar, 2016), the significant influence of self-efficacy on organisational commitment means that organisations can enhance employees' commitment by fostering an environment that promotes and supports self-efficacy beliefs. By strengthening employees' self-efficacy, organisations can cultivate a more committed and motivated workforce, leading to improved performance and organisational success. Thus, one can conclusively state that OC and self-efficacy are perquisites for organisational commitment, but this remains to be seen in this study.
From the available literature, both self-efficacy and OC have been found to be important predictors of organisational commitment when examined independently (Mahesar et al., 2020). Yet, little is known regarding the moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between OC and organisational commitment. Specifically, beyond its direct impact on various organisational outcomes, scanty research is available on the role of academic staff self-efficacy in moderating work-related behaviour. Yet studies conducted by Çelik et al. (2016), Khalid et al. (2021), Munir et al. (2016) and Khattak et al. (2017) suggest that self-efficacy plays a contingent role in influencing organisational processes and outcomes. Such literature provides evidence for the importance of self-efficacy in explaining certain behaviours and coping outcomes in unpredictable situations (Choi et al., 2021).
Based on the foregoing discussion and the principles of SCT, this study suggests that self-efficacy moderating the relationship between OC and organisational commitment. In particular, academic staffs with high self-efficacy are confident in their ability to perform tasks and respond to challenges from the OC. In this case, a positive and supportive OC is more likely to increase their commitment. On the other hand, academic staff with low self-efficacy may find it hard to cope with the organisational cultural demands and expectations. They may doubt their own abilities and feel less capable of adapting to or thrive within a particular OC, resulting in reduced organisational commitment (Busch et al., 1998; Nawaz et al., 2018). This understanding provides insight into the mechanisms by which OC influences commitment and highlights the importance of self-efficacy development in creating a positive and supportive work environment that fosters higher levels of organisational commitment. Based on the missing links of self-efficacy in the relationship between OC and organisational commitment, we hypothesise as follows:
Self-efficacy moderates the relationship between OC and organisational commitment.
Methodology
This study followed a cross-sectional design that involved explanatory research strategy. The rationale of this design is to obtain a wider understanding of organisational commitment across different academic staff in different universities at snapshot (Kuye and Akinwale, 2021). The study was conducted in eight selected universities in Uganda with a total population of 4,192 academic staff ranging from a professor to a Teaching Assistant (Alkadash, 2020). Based on Yamane (1967), a sample of 572 was drawn using simple random sampling technique, which enabled each academic staff to have an equal chance to be considered as a study participant (Sharma, 2017). The calculated sample size of 572 respondents was considered large enough to support testing conditional indirect effects using process macro software (Hayes, 2018; Maravelakis, 2019). Further, since the study variables were measurable, quantitative data collected by a questionnaire were used (Alias et al., 2018). Also, quantitative data enable the researcher to experience the phenomenon first hand without any manipulation or distortion that occurs as information passes from one person to the other (Kusemererwa et al., 2020). The quantitative data were analysed through SPSS 23 software. Here, the researcher performed both regression and moderation analyses. Before running moderation, conditions set by Aiken et al. (1991) were followed. First, variables are mean-centred to minimise multicollinearity (Iacobucci et al., 2017). Second, the moderator should significantly correlate with the dependent variable. Third, compute the products of the moderator and independent variables to obtain the interaction term, which should be non-zero. Fourth, running a moderated hierarchical regression model to establish the model's moderating effect. Finally, the moderated effect exists when the amount of variance (R2) accounted for by the moderated model is significant and higher than (R2) in the model without moderation (Preacher et al., 2006).
Measurement of variables
After adopting previous measures, they were validated and modified to suit the Ugandan context. This was achieved by testing for validity and reliability using exploratory factor analysis. All the questionnaire items were anchored on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = “strongly disagree” to 7 = “strongly agree.” Organisational commitment was measured on three dimensions suggested by Meyer and Allen (1997): on affective (7 items), normative (6 items) and continuance (6 items). This ensured that the measurement model used for organisational commitment was reliable and valid. OC was operationalised using the OCAI 24 items (Cameron and Quinn, 2011), while self-efficacy was measured following suggested items by Bandura (2001) and Haddad and Taleb (2016). Age, tenure, education and academic rank were taken as control variables.
Sample characteristics
Age, educational level, tenure and type of institution were considered as sample characteristics. Results in Table 1 indicate that in terms of age, the highest age group was 31–40 (45.3%), while the least was 60+ years at 1.2%. Regarding tenure, the majority of respondents (32.7%) have been in the same institution for 6–10 years, while 2.8% have not finished one year. From the perspective of educational level, 54.5% had master's degrees, 35.7% had PhDs and 9.8% had finished undergraduates. Based on academic rank, most were lecturers, accounting for 42.8% of the sample; 2.4% were professors.
Diagnostic tests
This present data set conformed to preliminary assumptions of regression, enabling robust analysis to be done. Specifically, the data were found to be normally distributed with the Shapiro–Wilk test for normality applied since the sample was less than 2000 cases being non-significant (p > 0.05). Again, the correlation results in Table 2 show that the variables are linear and significantly related. In addition, multicollinearity was tested using the VIF value of 1.325 < 0.5 and the tolerance value of 0.755 < 0.2, which are both within the threshold, suggesting there is no multicollinearity problem (Hair et al., 2010).
Results
Correlations
The purpose of correlation analysis is to understand the nature and magnitude of the relationship between research variables. The zero-order correlation coefficients in Table 2 show a positive and significant relationship between OC and organisational commitment (r = 0.496; ρ < 0.05). This implies that the more academic staff align with the university culture, the more they exhibit high organisational commitment. The results reveal that self-efficacy and organisational commitment are positively and statistically significant (r = 0.217; ρ < 0.05). This means that a positive change in self-efficacy leads to a positive change in organisational commitment.
Regression
Before testing the hypotheses (H1 and H2), multiple hierarchical regressions were performed in order to establish the unique contribution of each predictor variable (see Table 3). Model 1 explained only 0.9% of the variance in organisational commitment. In Model 2, we entered OC, and results show that OC has a positive and significant effect on organisational commitment (β = 0.501, t = 13.693). Model 2 explained 24.7% of the variance in organisational commitment, thus supporting H1. In Model 3, self-efficacy has a positive and significant effect on organisational commitment (β = 0.159, t = 4.387). Model 3 explained 2.5% of the variance in organisational commitment; hence, H2 was supported. Overall, the hypothesised regression model explained up to 28% of the variance in organisational commitment.
The main objective of this study is to test the moderating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between OC and organisational commitment. Hayes Process Macro v4.2 was used to test for moderation effects due to its ability to produce robust results (Hayes, 2018). The moderation results presented in Table 4 were derived based on the moderation conditions set by Aiken et al. (1991). The model results indicate that self-efficacy has a positive and significant moderating effect on the link between OC and organisational commitment [Coeff. = −0.121, t = −3.571, CI = −0.187, −0.054], thus providing support for H3. This model accounts for 29.6% of the variance in organisational commitment.
Further, slope analysis was used to better understand the nature of moderation effect (Figure 1). As presented in Figure 1, the lines running from the left to right are not parallel to each other confirming the existence of an enhancing moderation effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between OC and organisational commitment (Jose, 2013; Karama, 2022). In addition, the lines are much steeper at the low OC. Thus, commitment is strong with higher SE at low OC.
Discussion
This study set out to establish the moderating effect of s antecedents of organisational commitment. The findings from this study reveal that OC is positively and significantly associated with organisational commitment. This suggests that universities that embrace an inclusive, fair, collaborative, reward-based and flexible work culture have an impact on behaviour and attitudes related to organisational commitment. By implementing an acceptable culture, academic staff have common goals, values and beliefs that eventually boost their emotional attachment to the university and help them remain committed and loyal to it. The finding coincides with Aji et al. (2017), Hamidi et al. (2017) and Pratama et al. (2020), who link organisational commitment levels to espoused OC. Thus, universities operating in today's highly dynamic environment can guarantee their long-term prosperity by embracing cultures that promote positive interactions, the free flow of information, equity and fairness, flexibility and establishing rewards to boost academic staff's spirit and emotions and help them understand that they are important to their institutions. Consequently, this creates an inclusive and favourable work environment that enhances a sense of identity and organisational commitment at the selected universities.
In addition, self-efficacy is positively and significantly related to organisational commitment. In the context of this study, the results show that universities whose academic staff display high self-efficacy and confidence exhibit reciprocate with higher levels of commitment. Such academic staff invest their energies, efforts, dedication and commitment that extend beyond mere contractual obligations towards the university's goals and mission. The findings of the current study align with those of Ahmed (2019), Mahesar et al. (2020), Malik and Malik (2016) and Syabarrudin et al. (2020), who confirm that self-efficacy has a significant influence on employees' organisational commitment. When academic staff have a high level of self-efficacy, they approach challenges with a positive mindset, put in effort to achieve their goals and persevere in the face of obstacles. Thus, universities can support the development of self-efficacy by providing training, feedback, mentoring, support, recognition, performance evaluation and opportunities for employees to build and demonstrate their skills and competence, resulting in increased commitment.
Finally, self-efficacy has a positive and significant moderating effect on the relationship between OC and organisational commitment. This finding suggests that academic staff with high self-efficacy outlook increase OC's contribution to organisational commitment. As a result, universities in Uganda that embrace an inclusive, collaborative, fair, flexible and rewarding culture and whose academic staff exhibit a high level of self-efficacy are more likely to experience high organisational commitment. In a related study, Nawaz et al. (2018) found that self-efficacy significantly moderated the relationship between OC and organisational commitment. In the same study, self-efficacy moderated the effect of social interaction on organisational commitment. In addition, Simosi (2012) highlighted that self-efficacy increases the transfer of knowledge and skills in supportive a culture. These findings support the indirect role of self-efficacy in strengthening the link between culture and commitment outcomes. In the current study, it is deduced that neither OC nor self-efficacy alone was sufficient to produce greater positive changes in academic staff's organisational commitment. Instead, these two variables reinforce each other, leading to greater variations in organisational commitment. In essence, OC has a stronger effect on organisational commitment and is dependent on the self-efficacy of the academic staff. In this study, the level of self-efficacy of academic staff in Ugandan universities significantly modified the influence of OC on commitment.
Conclusion
The ability of universities to retain committed staff is highly influenced by OC and self-efficacy. This study set out to fill the observed gap in existing OC-commitment literature by adopting the CVF, which links employee characteristics to the specific domains of organisational commitment. To fill these gaps, a conceptual model was developed for universities in Uganda. From the hierarchical regression perspective, the results confirm that OC and self-efficacy are important predictors of organisational commitment. Similarly, the moderation analysis indicated that self-efficacy strengthened the contribution of OC to organisational commitment. As such, universities can enjoy high levels of organisational commitment when a strong and positive culture is instituted and academic staff demonstrate high levels of self-efficacy. Thus, a high level of commitment is dependent on the level of self-efficacy among academic staff. These findings enrich the OC in the CVF framework and commitment literature and provide a nuanced understanding for researchers and practitioners of the development of commitment under the CVF model in the Ugandan context.
Implications
In light of the study's findings, theoretical and practical implications are drawn. Theoretically, this paper contributes to our understanding of organisational commitment in a university context in a developing nation. The SCT aids our understanding of organisational commitment when OC and self-efficacy are interacted. The study results support the SCT in explaining the influence of self-efficacy on OC and organisational commitment. Specifically, the findings showed that academic staff's beliefs (self-efficacy) impact how they interpret and respond to the OC they are exposed to within the university. For this reason, the level of self-efficacy strengthens the effect of OC on organisational commitment. As a result of understanding the interplay between self-efficacy, OC and commitment, universities can design interventions and strategies to enhance self-efficacy and create a positive and supportive culture that fosters higher levels of commitment among academic staff. Overall, this study contributes to the body of literature that emphasises the moderating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between OC and organisational commitment in universities.
Practically, findings suggest that OC is a significant predictor of organisational commitment. It is crucial for university administrators to cultivate a positive and robust OC within universities. By advocating for a culture that prioritises inclusiveness and diversity, fairness, collaboration, open communication and staff development, universities can bolster the level of organisational commitment among academic staff. Importantly, committed staff contribute to improved productivity (teaching, research output and community engagement), staff retention and a strong institutional brand, especially as Uganda envisages a knowledge-based economy by Vision 2040.
Second, self-efficacy is an essential element in improving academic staff's organisational commitment in universities. Therefore, universities should focus on strategies to develop and strengthen the self-confidence of academic staff. This can be achieved by offering training and professional development opportunities, mentoring or coaching programs and recognising and rewarding individual achievements. By sustaining and maintaining high self-efficacy, universities can benefit from academic staff's high resilience, proactive behaviour, adaptability and resourcefulness, which will be more allocated to teaching, research and public engagement, contributing to quality university education and international rankings.
Finally, the study shows that self-efficacy moderates the relationship between OC and organisational commitment. This means that differences in self-efficacy strengthen the influence of culture on academic staff's commitment to the university. This calls for universities to consider more than just knowledge and skills when hiring. University managers should prioritise candidates' level of self-confidence and self-belief during interviews by asking questions that encourage them to reflect on their accomplishments, challenges they have overcome and how they handled difficult situations. By finding indicators of self-assurance, resilience, persistence and growth mindsets, universities will achieve the desired staff self-efficacy needed to succeed in the turbulent business environment.
Limitations
First, the study used a cross-sectional design that precludes causal interpretations. Hence, longitudinal studies might provide a better understanding of the causal links between commitment and culture since it is believed that culture, norms, and values are inculcated in an individual over time. Second, although the study focused on the moderating effect of self-efficacy, other variables, such as leadership style, may moderate the relationship between OC and organisational commitment. The style of leadership displayed within an institution significantly shapes perceptions of OC and subsequently influences academic staff's organisational commitment. Future researchers should explore leadership as a possible moderator in this intricate relationship. Third, the data were collected from a single source, which may have resulted in common source bias. Future studies should use multiple sources of data.
Figures
Figure 1
The moderating effect of self-efficacy on organisational culture and commitment
Sample characteristics
| Age level | Tenure | Education background | Current rank | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | % | Tenure | % | Education | % | Rank | % |
| <30 | 9.4 | ≤1 year | 2.8 | Undergraduate degree | 9.8 | Teaching Assistant | 12.8 |
| 31–40 | 45.3 | 1–5 | 19.9 | Master's degree | 54.5 | Assistant Lecturer | 22.4 |
| 41–50 | 33.6 | 6–10 | 32.7 | PhD | 35.7 | Lecturer | 42.8 |
| 51–60 | 10.5 | 10–15 | 29.0 | Senior Lecturer | 13.6 | ||
| 60+ | 1.2 | 16–20 | 12.4 | Associate Prof | 5.9 | ||
| 20+ | 3.1 | Prof | 2.4 | ||||
Source(s): Primary data
Zero-order correlation statistics for the study variables
| Transformed variables | Mean | Std. Deviation | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organisational commitment (1) | 5.078 | 0.403 | 1 | ||
| Organisational culture (2) | 4.884 | 0.605 | 0.496** | 1 | |
| Self-efficacy (3) | 5.207 | 0.629 | 0.217** | 0.118** | 1 |
Source(s): Primary data
Hierarchical multiple regression analysis
| Dependent variable: Organisational commitment | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||||
| β | t | β | t | β | t | |
| Gender | 0.099 | 1.505 | 0.121 | 2.105 | 0.127 | 2.247 |
| Age | −0.026 | −0.525 | 0.037 | 0.858 | 0.017 | 0.407 |
| Education | 0.070 | 0.748 | −0.028 | −0.339 | −0.021 | −0.267 |
| Rank | −0.012 | −0.201 | −0.035 | −0.675 | −0.031 | −0.607 |
| Organisational culture | 0.501 | 13.693 | 0.481 | 13.234 | ||
| Self-efficacy | 0.159 | 4.387 | ||||
| R2 | 0.009 | 0.255 | 0.280 | |||
| R2 Change | 0.009 | 0.247 | 0.025 | |||
| F | 1.255 | 38.832 | 36.611 | |||
| Sig. | 0.287 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |||
| Durbin Watson | 1.720 | |||||
Note(s): *** Significant at 0.001, dependent variable: organisational commitment
Source(s): Primary data
Moderation effect
| Variable | Coeff | Se | t | LLCI | ULCI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age | 0.120 | 0.056 | 2.150 | 0.010 | 0.230 |
| Tenure | 0.016 | 0.043 | 0.370 | −0.068 | 0.099 |
| Education | −0.032 | 0.079 | −0.400 | −0.187 | 0.124 |
| Rank | −0.023 | 0.050 | −0.488 | −0.121 | 0.076 |
| OC | 0.470 | 0.036 | 13.009 | 0.399 | 0.541 |
| SE | 0.166 | 0.036 | 4.636 | 0.096 | 0.237 |
| Int_1(OC*SE) | −0.121 | 0.034 | −3.571 | −0.187 | −0.054 |
| R2 | 0.296 | ||||
| F | 33.854*** |
Note(s): ***p < 0.001, OC = organisational culture, SE = self-efficacy, Se = standard error of the estimate, LLCI = lower limit confidence intervals and ULCI = upper limit confidence intervals
Source(s): Primary data
References
Adel, H.M., Zeinhom, G.A. and Younis, R.A.A. (2022), “From university social-responsibility to social-innovation strategy for quality accreditation and sustainable competitive advantage during COVID-19 pandemic”, Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 5, pp. 410-437.
Adikoeswanto, D., Eliyana, A., Sariwulan, T., Buchdadi, A.D. and Firda, F. (2020), “Quality of work life's factors and their impacts on organizational commitments”, Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, Vol. 11 No. 7, pp. 450-461.
Agarwal, S. and Mishra, P. (2016), “Self efficacy as predictor of organizational commitment among revenue personnel”, The International Journal of Indian Psychology, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 44-52.
Ahmed, N.O.A. (2019), “Career commitment: the role of self-efficacy, career satisfaction and organizational commitment”, World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, (just-accepted).
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G. and Reno, R.R. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions, Sage, London.
Aji, A.A., Hamid, J.A., Hassan, A. and Rasdi, R.M. (2017), “Effect of organizational cultures on lecturers psychological empowerment and organizational commitment: structural equation modeling approach”, IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 71-82.
Al Fauzani, M. and Mujanah, S. (2022), “Effect of IT capabilities, organizational support, and self awareness towards organizational commitment and performance of vocational high school teachers in Surabaya”, International Journal of Scientific Engineering and Science, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 82-88.
Al-Sada, M., Al-Esmael, B. and Faisal, M.N. (2017), “Influence of organizational culture and leadership style on employee satisfaction, commitment and motivation in the educational sector in Qatar”, EuroMed Journal of Business, Vol. 12 No. 2, pp. 163-188.
Al-Shurafat, M.S. and Halim, B.B.A. (2018), “A review of organisational culture and organizational commitment”, IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 21-26.
Alias, N.E., Rohmanan, N.H., Ismail, S., Koe, W.-L. and Othman, R. (2018), “Factors influencing turnover intention in a Malaysian manufacturing company”, KnE Social Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 10, pp. 771-787.
Alkadash, T.M. (2020), “Mediating role between authentic leadership, organizational commitment on talents turnover intention: in Palestine higher education”, TEST Engineering and Management, Vol. 83, pp. 5320-5341.
Anari, N.N. (2012), “Teachers: emotional intelligence, job satisfaction, and organizational commitment”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 256-269.
Andleeb, N., Chan, S.W. and Nazeer, S. (2019), “Triggering employee creativity through knowledge sharing, organizational culture and internal marketing”, International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, Vol. 8 No. 8, pp. 275-279.
Arifin, A., Saputra, J., Puteh, A. and Qamarius, I. (2019), “The role of organizational culture in the relationship of personality and organization commitment on employee performance”, International Journal of Innovation, and Creativity Change, Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 105-129.
Ashfaq, F., Abid, G. and Ilyas, S. (2021), “Impact of ethical leadership on employee engagement: role of self-efficacy and organizational commitment”, European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, Vol. 11 No. 3, pp. 962-974.
Azizollah, A., Abolghasem, F. and Amin, D.M. (2016), “The relationship between organizational culture and organizational commitment in Zahedan University of Medical Sciences”, Global Journal of Health Science, Vol. 8 No. 7, pp. 195-202.
Bandura, A. (1977), “Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavior change”, Psychological Review, Vol. 84, pp. 101-215.
Bandura, A. (1986), Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A Social Cognitive Theory, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 23-28.
Bandura, A. (2001), “Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Batugal, M.L.C. and Tindowen, D.J.C. (2019), “Influence of organizational culture on teachers' organizational commitment and job satisfaction: the case of catholic higher education institutions in the Philippines”, Universal Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 7 No. 11, pp. 2432-2443.
Belias, D., Koustelios, A., Vairaktarakis, G. and Sdrolias, L. (2015), “Organizational culture and job satisfaction of Greek banking institutions”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 175, pp. 314-323.
Busch, T., Fallan, L. and Pettersen, A. (1998), “Disciplinary differences in job satisfaction, self‐efficacy, goal commitment and organisational commitment among faculty employees in Norwegian colleges: an empirical assessment of indicators of performance”, Quality in Higher Education, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 137-157.
Caleb, O., Ogwuche, C.H. and Howell, D.R. (2020), “Work-life balance and self-efficacy as predictors of organisational commitment among bankers in Benue State, Nigeria”, Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 110-119.
Cameron, K.S. and Quinn, R.E. (2011), Diagnosing and Changing Organizational Culture: Based on the Competing Values Framework, Jossey Bass, Reading, MA.
Carlos Pinho, J., Paula Rodrigues, A. and Dibb, S. (2014), “The role of corporate culture, market orientation and organisational commitment in organisational performance: The case of non-profit organisations”, Journal of Management Development, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 374-398.
Carvalho, C.R.S.P., Castro, M.A.R., Silva, L.P. and Carvalho, L.O.P. (2018), “The relationship between organizational culture, organizational commitment and job satisfaction”, Revista Brasileira de Estrategia, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 201-215.
Cayupe, J.C., Bernedo-Moreira, D.H., Morales-García, W.C., Alcaraz, F.L., Peña, K.B.C., Saintila, J. and Flores-Paredes, A. (2023), “Self-efficacy, organizational commitment, workload as predictors of life satisfaction in elementary school teachers: the mediating role of job satisfaction”, Frontiers in Psychology, Vol. 14, p. 1066321.
Çelik, D.A., Yeloğlu, H.O. and Yıldırım, O.B. (2016), “The moderating role of self efficacy on the perceptions of justice and turnover intentions”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 235, pp. 392-402.
Chatman, J.A. and O’Reilly, C.A. (2016), “Paradigm lost: reinvigorating the study of organizational culture”, Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 36, pp. 199-224.
Cheng, J., Bai, H. and Hu, C. (2022), “The relationship between ethical leadership and employee voice: the roles of error management climate and organizational commitment”, Journal of Management and Organization, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 58-76.
Choi, W.S., Kang, S.W. and Choi, S.B. (2021), “Innovative behavior in the workplace: an empirical study of moderated mediation model of self-efficacy, perceived organizational support, and leader–member exchange”, Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 12, p. 182.
Cobbinah, E., Tackie-Otoo, G. and Ayensu, S. (2020), “The effect of organizational culture on job performance: the intervening role of organizational commitment”, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Vol. 10 No. 12, pp. 294-308.
Demir, S. (2020), “The role of self-efficacy in job satisfaction, organizational commitment, motivation and job involvement”, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 20 No. 85, pp. 205-224.
Demir, A.N. (2021), “An extended literature review on in-service EFL teachers' self-efficacy beliefs”, Focus on ELT Journal, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 36-50.
Fischer, R. and Mansell, A. (2009), “Commitment across cultures: a meta-analytical approach”, Journal of International Business Studies, Vol. 40, pp. 1339-1358.
Gavino, Z.C. and Mariani, M.J.P. (2022), “The internal efficiency of the college of engineering and information technology”, International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences (IJELS), Vol. 7 No. 6, pp. 623-630.
Giao, H.N.K., Vuong, B.N. and Duy Tung, D. (2020), “A model of organizational culture for enhancing organizational commitment in telecom industry: evidence from vietnam”, WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, Vol. 17 No. 2020, pp. 215-224.
Haddad, S.I. and Taleb, R.A. (2016), “The impact of self-efficacy on performance (An empirical study on business faculty members in Jordanian universities)”, Computers in Human Behavior, Vol. 55, pp. 877-887.
Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B. and Anderson, R. (2010), Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed., Pearson Education International, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Hameli, K. and Ordun, G. (2022), “The mediating role of self-efficacy in the relationship between emotional intelligence and organizational commitment”, European Journal of Management Studies, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 75-97.
Hamidi, Y., Mohammadibakhsh, R., Soltanian, A. and Behzadifar, M. (2017), “Relationship between organizational culture and commitment of employees in health care centers in west of Iran”, Electronic Physician, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 3646-3652.
Hartnell, C.A., Ou, A.Y. and Kinicki, A. (2011), “Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: a meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 96 No. 4, p. 677.
Hayes, A.F. (2018), “Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: quantification, inference, and interpretation”, Communication Monographs, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 4-40.
Horwitz, S.K. and Horwitz, I.B. (2017), “The effects of organizational commitment and structural empowerment on patient safety culture: an analysis of a physician cohort”, Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 10-27.
Hulpia, H., Devos, G. and Rosseel, Y. (2009), “The relationship between the perception of distributed leadership in secondary schools and teachers' and teacher leaders' job satisfaction and organizational commitment”, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 291-317.
Iacobucci, D., Schneider, M.J., Popovich, D.L. and Bakamitsos, G.A. (2017), “Mean centering, multicollinearity, and moderators in multiple regression: the reconciliation redux”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 49, pp. 403-404.
Jose, P.E. (2013), Doing Statistical Mediation and Moderation, Guilford Press, New York.
Karama, F.B (2022), “The moderating effect of legal framework on the delivery of devolved services in selected counties in Kenya”, International Journal of Science Academic Research, Vol. 03 No. 08, pp. 4255-4262.
Kayiira, P., Kyamanywa, T.N., Namutebi, J.S.S.G. and Musumba, I. (2016), “Organisational culture and employee commitment in public organisations: a case of Uganda human rights commission”, Journal Of Harmonized Research in Management, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 143-168.
Kerdpitak, C. and Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020), “The influence of organizational culture, employee commitment and organization citizen behaviour on the HRM practices: mediating role of perceived organization support”, Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 407-415.
Khalid, S., Tadesse, E., Abdellahi, M.L., Jiali, Y. and Gao, C. (2021), “International doctoral student research self-efficacy scandal: a case study of Chinese university”, International Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 10 No. 5, pp. 88-100.
Khattak, S.R., Batool, S. and Haider, M. (2017), “Relationship of leadership styles and employee creativity: a mediating role of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of organizational climate”, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 698-719.
Krajcsák, Z. (2018), “Relationships between employee commitment and organizational cultures: a theoretical framework”, International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 398-414.
Kusemererwa, C., Munene, J.C., Laura, O.A. and Balunywa, J.W. (2020), “Individual learning behavior: do all its dimensions matter for self-employment practice among youths in Uganda?”, Journal of Enterprising Communities: People and Places in the Global Economy, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 373-396.
Kuye, O.L. and Akinwale, O.E. (2021), “Conundrum of bureaucratic processes and healthcare service delivery in government hospitals in Nigeria”, Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 25-48.
Lahiry, S. (1994), “Building commitment through organizational culture”, Training and Development, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 50-52.
Lin, C.-P. (2020), “Exploring career commitment and turnover intention of high-tech personnel: a socio-cognitive perspective”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 760-784.
Lin, Z., Zhou, Z., Fang, Y., Vogel, D. and Liang, L. (2018), “Understanding affective commitment in social virtual worlds: the role of cultural tightness”, Information and Management, Vol. 55 No. 8, pp. 984-1004.
Liu, E. and Huang, J. (2019), “Occupational self-efficacy, organizational commitment, and work engagement”, Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, Vol. 47 No. 8, pp. 1-7.
Mahesar, A.J., Khokhar, S., Abbasi, K.H. and Shaikh, N. (2020), “Impact of self-efficacy and organizational culture on organizational commitment of bank officers”, SALU-Commerce and Economic Review, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 131-147.
Malik, F. and Malik, S.K. (2016), “Exploring relationship of self efficacy and organizational commitment among university teachers”, Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 59-90.
Maravelakis, P. (2019), “The use of statistics in social sciences”, Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 87-97.
Meyer, J.P. and Allen, N.J. (1997), Commitment in the Workplace: Theory, Research, and Application, Sage publications, London.
Meyer, J.P., Hecht, T.D., Gill, H. and Toplonytsky, L. (2010), “Person–organization (culture) fit and employee commitment under conditions of organizational change: a longitudinal study”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 458-473.
Meyer, J.P., Stanley, D.J., Jackson, T.A., McInnis, K.J., Maltin, E.R. and Sheppard, L. (2012), “Affective, normative, and continuance commitment levels across cultures: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 80 No. 2, pp. 225-245.
Mousa, S.K. and Othman, M. (2020), “The impact of green human resource management practices on sustainable performance in healthcare organisations: a conceptual framework”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 243, 118595.
Mugizi, W., Bakkabulindi, F.E. and Bisaso, R. (2015), “Antecedents of commitment of academic staff in universities in Uganda: a conceptual paper”, Nkumba Business Journal, Vol. 4, pp. 218-241.
Mujanah, S., Brahmasari, I.A. and Brahma Ratih, I.A. (2019), “The impact of collective ambition, organizational culture, and organizational commitment on organizational citizenship behavior and the women's cooperatives' performance in East Java Indonesia”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, Vol. 10 No. 8, pp. 30-44.
Muliana, H., Wibosono, C., Catrayasa, I.W., Catrayasa, I. and Gita Indrawan, M. (2022), “The influence of organizational culture, organizational commitment and employee competency on job satisfaction through organizational behavior as intervening variables in public works and space arrangements in the Karimun district Covid-19 era”, International Journal of Social Science, Educational, Economics, Agriculture Research and Technology, Vol. 1 No. 12, pp. 691-704.
Munir, Y., Khan, S.-U.-R., Sadiq, M., Ali, I., Hamdan, Y. and Munir, E. (2016), “Workplace isolation in pharmaceutical companies: moderating role of self-efficacy”, Social Indicators Research, Vol. 126, pp. 1157-1174.
Mustafa, G., Ilyas, M. and Rehman, A. (2016), “Do the employees’ job satisfaction interferes organizational culture and affective commitment relationship: test of bootstrap mediation”, Journal of Applied Environmental and Biological Sciences, Vol. 6 No. 5, pp. 125-133.
Mustafa, M.Z.B., Nordin, M.B., Razzaq, A.R.B.A. and bin Ibrahim, B. (2020), “Organizational commitment of vocational college teachers in Malaysia”, PalArch's Journal of Archaeology of Egypt/Egyptology, Vol. 17 No. 9, pp. 5023-5029.
Nawaz, M., Bhatti, G.A., Ahmad, S. and Ahmed, Z. (2018), “How can the organizational commitment of Pakistan railways' employees be improved? The moderating role of psychological capital”, Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 123-142.
Orgambídez, A., Borrego, Y. and Vázquez‐Aguado, O. (2019), “Self‐efficacy and organizational commitment among Spanish nurses: the role of work engagement”, International Nursing Review, Vol. 66 No. 3, pp. 381-388.
Pratama, H.R., Sunaryo, W. and Yusnita, N. (2020), “Studying the relationship between transformational leadership and organizational culture with organizational commitment at Minhaj Shahabah Islamic Boarding School Bogor”, JHSS (Journal of Humanities and Social Studies), Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 146-151.
Preacher, K.J., Curran, P.J. and Bauer, D.J. (2006), “Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis”, Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 437-448.
Quinn, R.E. and Rohrbaugh, J. (1981), “A competing values approach to organizational effectiveness”, Public Productivity Review, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 122-140.
Rodríguez-Cifuentes, F., Farfán, J. and Topa, G. (2018), “Older worker identity and job performance: the moderator role of subjective age and self-efficacy”, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, Vol. 15 No. 12, p. 2731.
Senjaya, V. and Anindita, R. (2020), “The role of transformational leadership and organizational culture towards organizational commitment through job satisfaction among Mining Industry employees”, Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 767-782.
Shahriari, M., Tajmir Riahi, M., Azizan, O. and Rasti-Barzoki, M. (2023), “The effect of green organizational culture on organizational commitment: the mediating role of job satisfaction”, Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 180-197.
Sharma, G. (2017), “Pros and cons of different sampling techniques”, International Journal of Applied Research, Vol. 3 No. 7, pp. 749-752.
Simosi, M. (2012), “The moderating role of self‐efficacy in the organizational culture–training transfer relationship”, International Journal of Training and Development, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 92-106.
Soomro, B.A., Zehri, A.W., Anwar, S., Abdelwahed, N.A.A. and Shah, N. (2023), “Developing the relationship between corporate cultural factors and employees' organizational commitment via self-efficacy”, South Asian Journal of Business Studies, ahead-of-print.
Srivastava, A.P. and Dhar, R.L. (2016), “Impact of leader member exchange, human resource management practices and psychological empowerment on extra role performances: the mediating role of organisational commitment”, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 65 No. 3, pp. 351-377.
Syabarrudin, A., Eliyana, A. and Naimah, J. (2020), “Does employees' self-efficacy drive their organizational commitment?”, Systematic Reviews in Pharmacy, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 135-141.
Tyagi, N., Moses, D.B. and Director, I. (2020), “Organizational culture and managerial effectiveness: a study in selected institutions of higher learning”, Gurukul Business Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 16-27.
Yamane, T. (1967), Statistics: An Introductory Analysis, Harper and Row, New York, Vol. 213, p. 25.
Yin, E. and Mahrous, A. (2022), “Covid-19 global pandemic, workplace spirituality and the rise of spirituality-driven organisations in the post-digital era”, Journal of Humanities and Applied Social Sciences, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 79-93.
Yoon, D.-Y., Han, S.-h., Sung, M. and Cho, J. (2018), “Informal learning, organizational commitment and self-efficacy: a study of a structural equation model exploring mediation”, Journal of Workplace Learning, Vol. 30 No. 8, pp. 640-657.
Yousef, D.A. (2017), “Organizational commitment, job satisfaction and attitudes toward organizational change: a study in the local government”, International Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 77-88.
Yusuf, F.A. (2020), “The effect of organizational culture on lecturers' organizational commitment in private universities in Indonesia”, International Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 16-24.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the academic regiour of the anonymous reviews.