Next Article in Journal
The European Green Deal: Determination of the Energy Parameters of the String Husking Device in Buckwheat Processing
Previous Article in Journal
A Comprehensive Study of Biochar Yield and Quality Concerning Pyrolysis Conditions: A Multifaceted Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
Spatiotemporal Evolution and Influencing Factors of Tourism Economic Resilience under the Impact of COVID-19—A Case Study of Coastal Cities in China
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 2
10.3390/su16020939
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

Come and Gone! Psychological Resilience and Organizational Resilience in Tourism Industry Post COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Life Satisfaction

by
Ibrahim A. Elshaer
Management Department, School of Business, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 380, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
Sustainability 2024, 16(2), 939; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020939
Submission received: 13 December 2023 / Revised: 15 January 2024 / Accepted: 17 January 2024 / Published: 22 January 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Resilience in Tourism)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This research paper delves into the multifaceted relationships between psychological resilience, organizational trust, life satisfaction, and organizational resilience within the context of tourism firms in Egypt. Against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and its profound effects on the tourism industry, the study aims to unravel the intricate interplay of individual and organizational factors that contribute to the adaptive capacity and well-being of employees. The research employs a quantitative methodology, engaging full-time sales and marketing employees from five-star hotels and class A travel agents (660) as key participants, employing SmartPLS-SEM vs4 to analyze the collected data. Through a nuanced examination of their experiences post-pandemic, the study investigates how psychological resilience, defined as the ability to bounce back from adversity, influences both life satisfaction and organizational resilience. Additionally, the impact of organizational trust, characterized by the confidence and faith employees place in their organization, on life satisfaction and organizational resilience is explored. Preliminary findings suggest a positive association between psychological resilience and both life satisfaction and organizational resilience. Employees exhibiting higher levels of psychological resilience tend to not only experience greater life satisfaction but also contribute significantly to their organization’s resilience. Furthermore, organizational trust emerges as a critical factor, positively influencing life satisfaction and organizational resilience. The study contributes valuable insights to the evolving landscape of tourism management and lays the foundation for future research endeavors in this domain.

1. Introduction

Enterprises on a global scale are currently contending with urgent challenges, including geopolitical threats, technological advancements, shifting demographics, and the de-globalization trend. In order to thrive and endure in the modern market landscape, organizations must actively foster increased flexibility and creativity [1]. When delving into the realm of organizational resilience (OR), it becomes essential to closely examine the dynamic interplay of the organization and its environment, especially in the context of the tourism industry. Tourism forms an intricate system [2], where its components interact in a non-linear system and minor adjustments can lead to significant or negligible impacts [3]. As an industry, it remains notably susceptible to disruption from various factors, encompassing healthcare issues, political instability, and geological and climatic hazards. These events possess the potential to thrust a destination into the global media spotlight, yielding enduring negative repercussions and cascading effects in some instances [4]. Furthermore, such occurrences can impede the recovery efforts of both individuals and organizations, hindering their return to normal operations. Similarly, achieving a comprehensive understanding of organization resilience in the tourism industry requires a thorough exploration of both employee resilience and trust in the organization’s leaders. As we navigate the transition into the ‘new normal,’ marked by the prolonged coexistence with COVID-19 and the adoption of practices like mask-wearing and social distancing for the foreseeable future, a pivotal question arises: How can we sustain work members’ resilience? How do we foster trust in the organization? Organizational resilience assumes a distinct and crucial role in nurturing resilience in the workplace [5]. Previous research underscores the adaptability of a learning-based organization to a swiftly changing unpredicted environment that is facilitated by organizational resilience [6]. Nevertheless, limited research has explored the role of employees’ psychological resilience and organizational trust in fostering organizational resilience. Additionally, while there is a growing body of research examining the impact of psychological resilience on individual outcomes, there is a noticeable gap in understanding its role within the specific context of the tourism industry post COVID-19. Furthermore, the connection between individual well-being, as measured by life satisfaction, and organizational resilience in the tourism sector remains an underexplored area. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for developing strategies to enhance both individual and organizational capacities to navigate future disruptions in the tourism sector.
To cover this gap in the current literature, this research aimed to explore the impact of psychological resilience and organizational trust on organizational resilience and on perceived life satisfaction. Given that organizational resilience significantly influences corporate performance, our research addresses a critical need. This study adopted a cross-sectional research approach, with employees in the workplace as the target respondents. The remainder of this study is structured below. The study framework is described Section 2, as is a review of the literature. Section 3 contains the justifications of the study hypotheses; additionally, Section 4 describes the employed methodology and the collection of the study data. The results are displayed and discussed in Section 5, and finally, Section 6 is the study conclusion.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Resilience in Egyptian Tourism Industry

After the 2011 revolution, Egypt faced a significant wave of terrorism, with attacks primarily targeting security forces and tourists, resulting in a negative impact on the nation’s reputation as a safe tourism nation [7,8,9]. From 2011 to 2016, the volume of worldwide tourists visiting Egypt witnessed a significant decrease, plummeting to around 65% below the figures recorded in 2010 (“World Tourism Organization” [WTO]) [10]. Confronted with this unforeseeable and tumultuous scenario, several hospitality enterprises opted for downsizing or closure [9]. Nevertheless, by late 2017, there was a revival in tourist influx, leading to Egypt being acknowledged by the WTO [10] as the globe’s fastest-growing destination, with a remarkable percentage rise in inbound visitors (55.1%). This resurgence underscores the resilience and ongoing operations of numerous hospitality businesses within the country.
Similar to many other nations, the outbreak of COVID-19 has had a substantial impact on Egypt, particularly affecting the tourism industry, a crucial factor of the economy in Egypt. In the preceding year (2019), the tourism sector in Egypt yielded revenues of $13 billion, indicating signs of recovery after years of political turmoil following the 2011 Egyptian revolution (“Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics” (CAPMAS)) [9]. In response to the pandemic, the Egyptian government has initiated a program to combat its impact, allocating USD 6.3 billion to this effort [9].
The Egyptian government has instituted some initiatives to aid the tourism sector amid the pandemic, encompassing tax reductions for tourism companies, lowering gas and electricity costs for businesses, and ensuring salaries for tenured employees. In preparation for the reopening of tourism establishments for domestic tourism in early June, the “Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities” has issued safety instructions and regulations emphasizing a “safety first” approach for hotels and resorts. The guidelines include a maximum occupancy rate of 50% for the initial phase of reopening [11].
Within the field of tourism, ecological resilience has served as the theoretical underpinning for numerous conceptual [2,12,13,14,15,16,17] and empirical studies [8,18,19,20,21,22,23]. To date, investigations into the socio-ecological systems’ resilience, including tourism destinations [8,12,24,25] and local tourism societies [26,27,28], have predominantly concentrated on these broader levels of analysis. Some studies have delved into the socio-ecological systems’ resilience specifically in response to disasters [29]. While recognizing the vulnerability of organizations within ecosystems to both external and internal shocks [30], the examination of tourism companies’ resilience, often termed as “business resilience” [31] or “enterprise resilience” [32], has gained limited attention in the existing literature [16,33,34,35].

2.2. Organizational Resilience

Organizational resilience has surfaced in studies of organizational behavior [36], disaster management [37], and, more recently, in the tourism literature [38,39] to examine how organizations strategize and adjust in response to business and environmental upheavals, including disasters. It denotes the capacity of an organization to adeptly assimilate, formulate context-specific responses, and undertake transformative actions to leverage unexpected disruptions that may pose a potential threat to organizational survival [22]. Inherent in this definition is the idea of survival and recovery from challenging circumstances. Sobaih et al. contend that organizations should not merely respond and adjust to environmental crises or disruptions but should also take proactive measures to initiate, restore, renew, and redesign organizational structures and relationships, enabling them to flourish during times of adversity. Developing organizational resilience thus becomes a strategic endeavor, altering the operational dynamics of an organization [40]. Within tourism enterprises, research indicates that interconnected elements like lifestyle, human, financial, and social capital influence organizational resilience [41,42]. Although gauging organizational resilience is intricate [37], other studies have recognized various indicators that cover two dimensions—planned and adaptive resilience [28,30,39]. Planned resilience entails the utilization of established, predefined plans and capabilities, illustrated in business continuity and risk management planning [43,44]. Adaptive resilience, on the other hand, arises during the post-disaster phase as organizations cultivate new capabilities by dynamically responding to emergent situations that fall outside of their initial plans [30].
Different factors can affect organization resilience from adverse conditions such as leadership style [39], adaptive performance and institutional orientation [8], digital transformation [45,46], corporate social responsibility [47,48], social capital [49], psychological capital [50], and talent management practices [51]. Nevertheless, by adopting the Ceteris Paribus assumption, the researchers aimed to keep all variables, except for psychological resilience and trust in the organization, constant. This approach allows for the isolation of the impact of organizational resilience while keeping all other relevant variables unchanged. Moreover, conventional statistical methods for identifying omitted variables may not discern various types of omissions [52]. Therefore, the primary guiding principle remains “theory, theory, and more theory” [53]. The hypotheses were formulated based on an in-depth literature review, with all other potentially omitted variables held constant.

2.3. Psychological Resilience, Life Satisfaction, and Organizational Resilience

Psychological resilience (PR) has two prevailing perspectives [54]. The initial perspective considers PR as a capability or trait that empowers individuals to effectively confront and adapt to challenges [55]. Conversely, the second standpoint characterizes resilience as a dynamic practice involving disturbance and reintegration within the environment, leading to positive change despite encountering adversity [56]. This indicates that resilience is a ‘state’ that can be managed and nurtured [57]. Together, “trait” and “state” approaches infer that people can recover from psychological and physical stressors [58]. The synergy between psychological resilience and organizational resilience forms a solid foundation for sustainable practices. Organizations that invest in fostering resilience at both the individual and organizational level are better positioned to thrive in the long run, adapt to changing circumstances, and contribute positively to societal and environmental goals. As organizations navigate the complexities of the modern world, the integration of psychological and organizational resilience becomes a cornerstone for achieving lasting sustainability.
In tourism enterprises, it is conceivable that employees, managers, and owners might need to tap into their individual resilience to navigate and rejuvenate the work post-disaster, although this remains empirically unverified. Some studies acknowledge the impact of psychological resilience (PR) on organizational resilience (OR) [16,21]. Nurturing employee psychological resilience entails dedicating resources to initiatives that strengthen OR, and these investments do not necessarily have to be tailored to specific crises or contexts [59]. In particular, the resilience of employees’ psychological well-being enhances the adaptive resilience of organizations [43]. Resilient employees, akin to resilient approaches, possess the ability to respond successfully to instability and represent a vibrant attribute of an organization [60], thus nurturing workers’ resilience to a more adaptive, successful, and resilient workplace [56]. The positive significant impact of psychological resilience (PR) on organizational resilience (OR) lies in the creation of a work environment where individuals can effectively cope with challenges, adapt to change, and contribute to the overall strength and adaptability of the organization [61]. Cultivating psychological resilience among employees becomes a strategic asset for organizations aiming to thrive in an ever-changing business landscape [62]. Consequently, our proposition is that:
H1. 
PR has a positive significant impact on OR.
Employee psychological resilience (PR) serves as a managing instrument and a means to enhance well-being and life satisfaction (LS) [63]. Rooted in the “broaden-and-build theory”, which posits that negative or positive events have momentary effects on the happiness of resilient individuals, with life satisfaction levels swiftly returning to a usual state [64], psychological resilience is associated with better LS [65] and psychological well-being [66]. As an illustration, in the aftermath of the acts of terrorism targeting the “World Trade Center towers” in New York City on 11 September 2001, research demonstrated that individuals possessing elevated levels of psychological resilience reported greater life satisfaction and personal well-being [48]. The positive significant link between psychological resilience and life satisfaction highlights the importance of cultivating resilience as a key component of mental well-being [67]. Building psychological resilience not only equips individuals to face life’s challenges but also enhances their overall satisfaction and fulfillment in various domains of life [68]. Psychologically resilient individuals demonstrate effective coping mechanisms when faced with life challenges, leading to a more positive outlook [67]. Resilient individuals tend to maintain a positive mindset even in the face of setbacks, fostering an optimistic perspective on life [67,69]. This positive outlook contributes to a sense of fulfillment and satisfaction with one’s life circumstances. Additionally, a study conducted by [65] established an indirect link between psychological resilience from one side and life satisfaction from the other side, indicating that individuals with higher resilience tend to experience increased perception of life satisfaction. Therefore, we propose that:
H2. 
PR has a positive significant impact on LS.
The well-being of employees has been associated with various favorable organizational outcomes. Individuals with higher life satisfaction (LS) tend to exhibit lower turnover rates [70]. Existing empirical research in organization behavior (OB) and psychology showed that stress experienced by employees in the workplace can lead to changes in their psychological, physiological, and behavioral roles, negatively affecting their overall well-being [71]. However, there is a noticeable gap in research examining the direct link between life satisfaction and organizational resilience. While previous studies suggest that employers’ training with regard to resilience in the workplace can enhance employee well-being [54], other research found a connection between life satisfaction with job satisfaction [72] and job commitment [73]. Interestingly, some other studies have even considered LS as a better predictor of performance than job satisfaction [74]. It can be argued that people with high levels of LS are more likely to navigate cumulative and unpredictable changes in work more successfully. The positive significant link between life satisfaction and organizational resilience highlights the interdependence between individual well-being and organizational success [75]. The adaptive capacity of an organization, a key component of resilience, is positively influenced by satisfied and motivated employees [76]. Employees with high life satisfaction are more likely to contribute positively to an organization’s adaptive capacity. Nurturing a positive work environment that prioritizes employee satisfaction contributes to organizational resilience, creating a cycle of mutual benefit [61]. Therefore, we can propose that:
H3. 
LS has a positive significant impact on OR.

2.4. Organization Trust, Life Satisfaction, and Organizational Resilience

According to Robinson [77] and Chaudhary et al. [78], trust is characterized as peoples’ beliefs, assumptions, or expectations regarding another person’s future actions, anticipating that these actions will be beneficial or, at the very least, not harmful. Past research contends that trust comprises both affective and cognitive dimensions [79,80,81]. Cognitive trust is rooted back to a rational evaluation of another party’s capability to accomplish obligations, thus demonstrating reliability and trustworthiness. On the other hand, affective trust progresses from a shared sense of concern and emotional connection between two parties [7,77].
During organizational changes such as downsizing, mergers, or acquisitions, employees often grapple with heightened feelings of job insecurity and uncertainty. These emotions not only affect their mental well-being and health [82] but also influence their level of life satisfaction [9,83,84]. Employees can adopt to this feeling of ambiguity by evaluating their level of trust in the leaders of the organization [85]. If employees perceive the organization as competent, supportive, and committed, they are more likely to believe that all organizational practices, actions, and decisions will be successfully managed and their own benefits will be considered [86].
Organizational trust provides a sense of comfort that can enhance life satisfaction and contribute to organizational resilience. Consequently, trust in the organization has the potential to improve employees’ life satisfaction. This is corroborated by the results of Mishra and Spreitzer [87] and Tu et al. [88], who carried out a study in downsized establishments which revealed that trust stimulates survivors’ positive behavior and actions amid the stress syndromes following downsizing. Likewise, Colquitt et al. [86] propose that nurturing trust within the organization assists employees in navigating ambiguous periods, enabling them to maintain focus on their job responsibilities and reinforce organizational resilience. Trustworthy organizational practices and leadership positively impact employees’ psychological well-being [89]. A supportive and trusting work environment enhances life satisfaction by addressing the psychological needs of employees [7,90]. Trust is a foundational element of organizational resilience, influencing how individuals and teams respond to disruptions [91]. Organizational trust serves as a catalyst for both individual life satisfaction and organizational resilience. Nurturing a culture of trust within an organization contributes to the well-being of employees and establishes a solid foundation for the organization’s ability to adapt, innovate, and thrive in the face of challenges [92]. Organizational trust creates a foundation of mutual respect, transparency, and collaboration, influencing both the satisfaction of individuals and the adaptive capacity of the organization. Therefore, as shown in Figure 1, we can propose as shown in Figure 1 that
H4. 
OT has a positive significant impact on LS.
H5. 
OT has a positive significant impact on OR.

3. Methods

3.1. Sampling

Our research employs a quantitative approach with a deductive methodology. We utilize convenience sampling, a form of non-probability sampling widely employed in both qualitative and quantitative research, owing to its various advantages, including its ease of use [93,94]. The participants employed in this study were full-time marketing and sales professionals within five-star hotels and class A travel agencies in Egypt. In the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, it was anticipated that they would actively manage their uncertainties, make precise assessments of disruptive challenges, identify optimal strategic approaches, and leverage opportunities. The objective was to empower their respective organizations not only to endure the challenges but also to cultivate resilience for future endeavors. In the period between January 2023 and March 2023, we reached out to a combined total of 100 five-star hotels and 100 class A travel agents. The contact details were sourced from the Egyptian Hotel Guide [95], which is published by the “Egyptian Tourism Authority” (ETA). To ensure balanced representation and prevent misrepresentation or skewed representation of travel agents and hotels, each organization received 4 questionnaires for distribution. The distribution of questionnaires employed the drop-and-collect method [96,97]. Initially, 800 questionnaires were manually distributed and subsequently retrieved in person. This process yielded 660 usable questionnaires, resulting in an overall response rate of approximately 82%. Participation was both anonymous and voluntary, and rigorous measures were implemented to safeguard the confidentiality of the data. To eliminate the possibility of respondent identification, all identifying details were carefully segregated from the publicly accessible analysis. Additionally, sensitive inquiries, including personal details such as age, company name, and participant name were optional.
Out of the 660 individuals who participated in the research, all were engaged in full-time employment within five-star hotels and class A travel agents. The gender distribution was 65% male and 35% female, with the majority (75%) being married. Approximately 70% of the participants were aged between 25 and 44 years. A significant portion (65%) had completed a bachelor’s degree. Regarding the length of service, around 60% of the respondents, totaling 369 individuals, had been affiliated with their respective organizations for more than 5 years, while the remaining participants had a shorter tenure.

3.2. Study Measures

Although the assessment of organizational resilience is intricate [2,16,29,98], the existing literature identifies two dimensions—planned and adaptive resilience [27,30]. These dimensions incorporate items that gauge a spectrum of perceived behaviors in the organization, encompassing top leadership, executive decision making, resourcing, collaboration, and interrelationships. Planned resilience revolves around the utilization of existing, pre-established plans and capabilities, as seen in activities such as business continuity and risk management, primarily conducted as pre-disaster indictors [43]. Adaptive resilience arises in the post-disaster stage as organizations foster new resources by dynamically reacting to unforeseen situations beyond their plans [30]. Adaptive resilience is fostered by an organization’s risk intelligence, flexibility, and readiness to embrace change [27,99].
In line with the suggestion by Orchiston, Prayag, and Brown [18], our study measured organizational resilience (OR) as a second-order dimension, with two sub-dimensions and five indicators each, using a five-point Likert scale (1 = “Strongly Disagree” and 5 = “Strongly Agree”). Additionally, a four-item scale of Psychological Resilience from Smith et al.’s (2008) [100] study was employed in our study, capturing variables such as “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times” and “I have a hard time making it through stressful events.” Life satisfaction was assessed using five items following Diener et al. [64], with sample items including “In most ways, my life is close to my ideal” and “I am satisfied with my life.” Employees’ trust in the organization (OT) was gauged through a six-item scale derived from Podsakoff et al. [101], featuring statements like “I feel quite confident that my leader will always treat me fairly”, “I have complete faith in the integrity of my supervisor, and “I feel strong loyalty to my leader”. All the scale items are included in Appendix A.

4. Data Analysis and Results

The data underwent analysis using PLS-SEM, a variance-based algorithm for path analysis. PLS-SEM serves as an alternative to the more conventional covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM) [102]. Recognized for its suitability in prediction-oriented and exploratory research, PLS-SEM has gained prominence [103]. It is not bound by the assumption of normality in the sampling distribution and is effective with both small and large samples [102]. A review of PLS-SEM (2000–2014) in tourism by do Valle and Assaker [104] revealed its underutilization compared to CB-SEM in existing studies. The method’s inclination towards exploratory research and its flexibility in accommodating varied sample sizes motivated its selection for this study. The PLS analysis was carried out using SmartPLS 4 [105]. The implementation of PLS-SEM involves two main stages: (1) the measurement model and (2) the structural model [106]. Model estimation was conducted through a bootstrapping procedure (n = 5000 resamples) using Mode A (reflective mode) [104]. Additionally, to address common-method variance (CMV), as suggested by Podsakoff et al. [107], an examination was conducted through Harman’s one-factor test. All the 25 items were loaded into an exploratory factor analysis (EFA), revealing that the first factor explained only 35.28% of the total variance. This indicates that CMV is not a pervasive issue in this study. Furthermore, all the VIF values are below 0.5, indicating that multicollinearity is not an issue (Table 1).
Assessment of the outer model (measurement model) involved evaluating the psychometric properties of various scales using criteria such as “Cronbach’s α, Composite Reliabilities (CR), and Average Variance Extracted (AVE)”. All the scale items exhibited standardized loadings of 0.7 and above, indicating good convergent validity. All Cronbach’s α and CR values surpassed the minimum threshold of 0.7, indicating the internal consistency of the items and constructs (Table 1), and the AVE values for all constructs surpassed the value of 0.5, as suggested by Fornell & Larcker [108]. Accordingly, convergent validity was deemed adequate as all AVEs were 0.5 and above.
Employing Fornell and Larcker’s [108] approach, we confirmed discriminant validity by guaranteeing that the square root of the “Average Variance Extracted” (AVE) for each construct exceeded the correlations between that construct and all others (Table 2).
We further assessed discriminant validity using the “Heterotrait-Monotrait” (HTMT) ratio of correlations, a method considered more vigorous than Fornell and Larcker’s [108]. Moreover, the bold cross-loading values in Table 3 further confirmed discriminant validity as each item was highly loaded to its related dimension, more than any other dimension in the scale. When the HTMT values surpass 0.9, it raises concerns about discriminant validity. As depicted in Table 3, all ratios fall below the specified value of 0.9, affirming the discriminant validity.
The bootstrapped R2 values indicated that psychological resilience (PR), organizational trust, and life satisfaction collectively accounted for 59% of the variance in organizational resilience. Moreover, psychological resilience and organizational trust contributed to 50% of the variance in life satisfaction. Additionally, the Q2 prediction values, with a life satisfaction Q2 value of 0.500 and an organization resilience Q2 value of 0.422, exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.0. This outcome signifies the strong predictive relevance of the latent variables, in accordance with the guidelines proposed by Hair et al. [109].
Examining the bootstrapped path coefficients (Table 4), it was observed that psychological resilience exhibited a significant and positive correlation with organizational resilience (β = 0.115, t = 2.277, p < 0.05) and life satisfaction (β = 0.475, t = 12.313, p < 0.001), supporting H1 and H2. Additionally, life satisfaction displayed a positive and significant relationship with organizational resilience (β = 0.547, t = 11.596, p < 0.001), corroborating H3. Furthermore, organizational trust demonstrated a positive and significant association with life satisfaction (β = 0.369, t = 8.208, p < 0.001) and organizational resilience (β = 0.179, t = 5.176, p < 0.001), confirming the support for H4 and H5.
Analyzing the bootstrapped (n = 5000) direct and indirect effects for all of the study hypotheses as shown in Figure 2 revealed consistently significant effects with a positive sign. Consequently, it can be inferred that life satisfaction serves as a partial mediator in the relationship between psychological resilience and organizational resilience (β = 0.272, t = 8.451, p < 0.001). Similarly, life satisfaction was identified as a partial mediator in the link between organizational trust (OT) and organizational resilience (β = 0.211, t = 6.733, p < 0.001).

5. Discussion

The current study investigated the impact of psychological resilience and organizational resilience in the tourism industry post COVID-19 pandemic, with life satisfaction as a mediator. To date, there has been insufficient examination in the tourism literature regarding the interconnections among various resilience types, life satisfaction, and organizational trust in the aftermath of a disaster. Understanding these interrelationships is crucial for the recovery of socio-ecological systems following disturbances [7,16,21,27]. Our study reveals a positive impact of psychological resilience on organizational resilience (H1). This implies that employees in tourism firms and hotels who demonstrate resilience in the face of disasters, such as waves of terrorism attacks and the COVID-19 pandemic, can significantly contribute to their organization’s recovery in the post-disturbance period. Consistent with the socio-ecological literature, different types of resilience, particularly psychological resilience, act as valuable buffers for organizational resilience in the aftermath of disasters [8,16].
By implementing strategies that bolster employee resilience [59], tourism firms can enhance their organizational resilience. The findings suggest that when these psychologically resilient individuals are backed by positive organizational trust, they are more likely to exhibit resilience as employees. This underscores the importance of creating a supportive work environment in tourism firms, similar to other organizations, to foster resilience among employees. While our results indicate a positive impact of psychological resilience (PR) on organizational resilience (OR), it is crucial to emphasize that solely focusing on individual employee resilience may not be adequate for tourism firms to achieve overall resilience. Our findings validate that psychological resilience directly influences employees’ perceived life satisfaction, aligning with the results of H2 and being consistent with Liu et al.’s [65] findings. This correlation can be attributed to the positive attitudes resilient individuals generally hold toward work and life [110]. Consequently, our study contributes to this body of literature by demonstrating that resilient employees in tourism firms often experience heightened life satisfaction, with their well-being benefiting from organizational practices that promote resilience. In a post-disaster context, our study implies that for tourism organizations, their resilience is linked to life satisfaction (H2).
For tourism firms, LS (H5) and employee psychological resilience exert a more substantial impact on OR. From a pragmatic standpoint, these findings propose that fostering positive organizational trust in tourism firms and proactively investing in employee resilience prior to a disaster can enhance perceived OR. In essence, human resource practices aimed at building resilience in tourism firms are crucial and can contribute to employees’ ability to adapt to a changing workplace post-disaster. Consistent with the existing literature, strategies for cultivating employee resilience encompass fostering positive professional relationships, nurturing networks, promoting a positive organization culture, evolving emotional intelligence, achieving balance in work–life, and fostering reflective practices [55].
As anticipated, there is a positive link between the level of OT and the LS of tourism employees (H3). Resilient employees with a high level of OT are more inclined to contribute by proposing innovative solutions to emerging challenges, addressing problems, and making suggestions to improve performance, thereby enhancing overall well-being and life satisfaction. This aligns with recent research emphasizing the role of trust in elevating the well-being of resilient employees [100,111,112,113]. The findings suggest that a foundation of trust establishes a conducive atmosphere for employees to navigate challenges, fostering a positive work environment that, in turn, contributes to their overall well-being and life satisfaction. Furthermore, the results reveal a compelling connection between the level of OT and the organizational resilience (H4). This implies that organizations with a higher degree of trust among their workforce are more likely to exhibit resilience in the face of adversity. Trust, as a foundational element, fosters a cooperative and supportive culture within the organization, enabling it to effectively navigate uncertainties, adapt to changes, and emerge stronger from disruptive events. In essence, trust emerges as a cornerstone that not only enhances the satisfaction and well-being of individual employees but also contributes significantly to broader organizational resilience.

6. Conclusions and Implications

This research delves into the intricate dynamics between psychological resilience (PR) and organizational resilience (OR) within the post-COVID-19 tourism industry, placing a specific emphasis on the mediating role of life satisfaction (LS). The primary aim was to explore how the psychological well-being of individuals, particularly their resilience, contributes to the overall adaptive capacity and sustainable performance of organizations in the aftermath of a global crisis. Our PLS-SSEM analysis uncovered compelling insights, demonstrating a substantial positive impact of psychological resilience on organizational resilience. This suggests that individuals with heightened PR levels are associated with organizations that exhibit elevated resilience in navigating challenges. This direct association underscores the pivotal role of individual psychological attributes in shaping organizational dynamics. Moreover, the introduction of life satisfaction as a mediator provided a nuanced understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Our findings revealed that life satisfaction partially mediates the relationship between psychological resilience and organizational resilience. This implies that the positive influence of PR on OR is, to some extent, channeled through the enhancement of individuals’ life satisfaction. Employees with elevated psychological resilience not only directly contribute to organizational resilience but also experience increased life satisfaction, thereby fortifying organizational adaptive capacity.
The research holds significance in both theoretical and practical realms that can provide a foundation for both academic discussions on resilience theories and actionable insights for tourism firms in Egypt seeking to navigate challenges and enhance their overall resilience and the well-being of their workforce. Theoretically, the study contributes to resilience theory by examining the nuanced interplay between PR and OT in the context of tourism firms in Egypt. It expands the understanding of how individual and organizational factors collectively influence both LS and OR. Additionally, the research bridges the gap between individual and organizational resilience, shedding light on how the psychological resilience of employees interacts with the trust they place in the organization. This integration enriches theoretical frameworks on organizational responses to disruptive events. Moreover, the study contextualizes resilience theories within the unique challenges of the tourism sector in Egypt. It acknowledges the sector’s susceptibility to external shocks, such as terrorism and pandemics, providing a specialized lens to analyze resilience dynamics.
Practically, tourism firms can leverage the findings to implement targeted interventions aimed at enhancing the psychological resilience of their employees. Investing in programs that build emotional strength and coping mechanisms can positively impact employees’ overall well-being and life satisfaction. Additionally, understanding the role of PR in OR informs crisis management strategies. Organizations can develop contingency plans that consider the psychological well-being of employees, ensuring that the workforce remains adaptable and engaged during challenging times. Moreover, the study emphasizes the dynamic nature of resilience. Tourism firms are encouraged to regularly assess employees’ psychological resilience, organizational trust levels, and overall satisfaction. Continuous monitoring allows for adaptive strategies that align with evolving organizational and individual needs.

7. Limitations and Future Study Opportunities

The research design employed in this study is cross-sectional, which limits the establishment of causality. Subsequent research endeavors could consider longitudinal or experimental designs to delve deeper into the temporal relationships between psychological resilience (PS), organizational trust (OT), life satisfaction (LS), and organizational resilience (OR). The study does not extensively delve into demographic variables that might exert influence on the studied relationships. Scholars may explore the moderating impact of variables such as age, tenure, and job roles on the interplay between PS and OR in the tourism industry. Moreover, the study predominantly concentrates on positive outcomes, such as life satisfaction and organizational resilience. Subsequent research endeavors might delve into potential negative consequences, such as burnout or turnover intentions, offering a more comprehensive insight into the underlying dynamics. Lastly, forthcoming research could investigate potential moderators that may influence the strength or direction of the observed relationships. Analyzing factors like leadership styles, organizational culture, or external environmental conditions could contribute to a more nuanced comprehension.

Funding

This work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [Grant No. 5575].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the deanship of the scientific research ethical committee, King Faisal University (project number: 5575, date of approval: 25 April 2023).

Informed Consent Statement

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

Data Availability Statement

Data are available upon request from researchers who meet the eligibility criteria. Kindly contact the first author privately through e-mail.

Conflicts of Interest

The author declares no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Scale
Adoptive Resilience
Adpt_Res_1: “People in our organization are committed to working on a problem until it is resolved”.
Adpt_Res_2: “Our organization maintains sufficient resources to absorb some unexpected change”.
Adpt_Res_3: “If key people were unavailable, there are always others who could fill their role”.
Adpt_Res_4: There would be good leadership from within our organization if we were struck by a crisis”.
Adpt_Res_5: “We are known for our ability to use knowledge in novel ways”.
Planned Resilience
Plnd_Res_1: “Given how others depend on us, the way we plan for the unexpected is appropriate”.
Plnd_Res_2: “Our organization is committed to practicing and testing its emergency plans to ensure they are effective”.
Plnd_Res_3: “We have a focus on being able to respond to the unexpected”.
Plnd_Res_4: “We have clearly defined priorities for what is important during and after a crisis”.
Plnd_Res_5: “People in our organisation are committed to working on a problem until it is resolved”.
Life Satisfaction
Lif_Sats_1: “In most ways my life is close to my ideal”.
Lif_Sats_2: “The conditions of my life are excellent”.
Lif_Sats_3: “I am satisfied with my life”.
Lif_Sats_4: “So far I have gotten the important things I want in life”.
Lif_Sats_5: “If I could live my life over, I would change almost nothing”.
Psychological resilience
Psyc_Res_1: “I tend to bounce back quickly after hard times”.
Psyc_Res_2: “I have a hard time making it through stressful events”.
Psyc_Res_3: “It is hard for me to snap back when something bad happens”.
Psyc_Res_4: “I tend to take a long time to get over set-backs in my life”.
Organization trust
Org_Trst_1: “I feel quite confident that my leader will always treat me fairly”.
Org_Trst_2: “My manager would never try to gain an advantage by deceiving workers”.
Org_Trst_3: “I have complete faith in the integrity of my supervisor”.
Org_Trst_4: “I feel a strong loyalty to my leader”.
Org_Trst_5: “I would support my leader in almost any emergency”.
Org_Trst_6: “I have a strong sense of loyalty toward my leader”.

References

  1. Wut, T.M.; Xu, J.B.; Wong, S. Crisis Management Research (1985–2020) in the Hospitality and Tourism Industry: A Review and Research Agenda. Tour. Manag. 2021, 85, 104307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Butler, R.W. (Ed.) Tourism and Resilience, 1st ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; ISBN 978-1-78064-833-0. [Google Scholar]
  3. Baggio, R. Symptoms of Complexity in a Tourism System. Tour. Anal. 2008, 13, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Faulkner, B. Towards a Framework for Tourism Disaster Management. In Managing Tourist Health and Safety in the New Millennium; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 155–176. [Google Scholar]
  5. Hirst, G.; Van Knippenberg, D.; Chen, C.; Sacramento, C.A. How Does Bureaucracy Impact Individual Creativity? A Cross-Level Investigation of Team Contextual Influences on Goal Orientation–Creativity Relationships. Acad. Manag. J. 2011, 54, 624–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Malik, P.; Garg, P. Learning Organization and Work Engagement: The Mediating Role of Employee Resilience. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 1071–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Saad, S.K.; Elshaer, I.A. Justice and Trust’s Role in Employees’ Resilience and Business’ Continuity: Evidence from Egypt. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 35, 100712. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Elshaer, I.A.; Saad, S.K. Entrepreneurial Resilience and Business Continuity in the Tourism and Hospitality Industry: The Role of Adaptive Performance and Institutional Orientation. Tour. Rev. 2021, 77, 1365–1384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Elshaer, I.A.; Saad, S.K. Political Instability and Tourism in Egypt: Exploring Survivors’ Attitudes after Downsizing. J. Policy Res. Tour. Leis. Events 2017, 9, 3–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. World Tourism Organization (WTO). UNWTO Tourism Highlights; UNWTO: Madrid, Spain, 2018; Available online: https://www.google.com/search?q=World+Tourism+Organization+(WTO)+(2018).+UNWTO+tourism+highlights%2C+2018+edition.+Madrid%3A+UNWTO.&rlz=1C1GCEU_en-GBSA978SA978&oq=World+Tourism+Organization+(WTO)+(2018).+UNWTO+tourism+highlights%2C+2018+edition.+Madrid%3A+UNWTO.&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQRRg80gEHODUyajBqNKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (accessed on 9 December 2023).
  11. Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities. Available online: https://www.google.com/search?q=Ministry+of+Tourism+and+Antiquities%2C+2020&rlz=1C1GCEU_en-GBSA978SA978&oq=Ministry+of+Tourism+and+Antiquities%2C+2020&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigAdIBBzQ2NmowajSoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (accessed on 9 December 2023).
  12. Calgaro, E.; Lloyd, K.; Dominey-Howes, D. From Vulnerability to Transformation: A Framework for Assessing the Vulnerability and Resilience of Tourism Destinations. J. Sustain. Tour. 2014, 22, 341–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Windle, G.; Bennett, K.M.; Noyes, J. A Methodological Review of Resilience Measurement Scales. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2011, 9, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Saarinen, J.; Gill, A.M. Tourism, Resilience, and Governance Strategies in the Transition towards Sustainability. In Resilient Destinations and Tourism; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; pp. 15–33. [Google Scholar]
  15. Rutter, M. Resilience in the Face of Adversity: Protective Factors and Resistance to Psychiatric Disorder. Br. J. Psychiatry 1985, 147, 598–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Hall, C.M.; Prayag, G.; Amore, A. Tourism and Resilience: Individual, Organisational and Destination Perspectives; Channel View Publications: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 5. [Google Scholar]
  17. de Oliveira Teixeira, E.; Werther, W.B., Jr. Resilience: Continuous Renewal of Competitive Advantages. Bus. Horiz. 2013, 56, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Orchiston, C.; Higham, J.E.S. Knowledge Management and Tourism Recovery (de)Marketing: The Christchurch Earthquakes 2010–2011. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 64–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Elshaer, I.A.; Augustyn, M.M. Testing the Dimensionality of the Quality Management Construct. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2016, 27, 353–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Vlasov, M.; Bonnedahl, K.J.; Vincze, Z. Entrepreneurship for Resilience: Embeddedness in Place and in Trans-Local Grassroots Networks. J. Enterprising Communities People Places Glob. Econ. 2018, 12, 374–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Prayag, G.; Spector, S.; Orchiston, C.; Chowdhury, M. Psychological Resilience, Organizational Resilience and Life Satisfaction in Tourism Firms: Insights from the Canterbury Earthquakes. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 1216–1233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Lengnick-Hall, C.A.; Beck, T.E.; Lengnick-Hall, M.L. Developing a Capacity for Organizational Resilience through Strategic Human Resource Management. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 2011, 21, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Awotoye, Y.; Singh, R.P. Entrepreneurial Resilience, High Impact Challenges, and Firm Performance. J. Manag. Policy Pract. 2017, 18, 28–37. [Google Scholar]
  24. Amore, A.; Prayag, G.; Hall, C.M. Conceptualizing Destination Resilience from a Multilevel Perspective. Tour. Rev. Int. 2018, 22, 235–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Buultjens, J.; Ratnayake, I.; Gnanapala, A.C. Sri Lankan Tourism Development and Implications for Resilience. In Tourism and Resilience; Butler, R.W., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 83–95. ISBN 978-1-78064-833-0. [Google Scholar]
  26. Bec, A.; McLennan, C.; Moyle, B.D. Community Resilience to Long-Term Tourism Decline and Rejuvenation: A Literature Review and Conceptual Model. Curr. Issues Tour. 2016, 19, 431–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sobaih, A.E.E.; Elshaer, I.; Hasanein, A.M.; Abdelaziz, A.S. Responses to COVID-19: The Role of Performance in the Relationship between Small Hospitality Enterprises’ Resilience and Sustainable Tourism Development. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 94, 102824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Azazz, A.M.S.; Elshaer, I.A. Amid COVID-19 Pandemic, Entrepreneurial Resilience and Creative Performance with the Mediating Role of Institutional Orientation: A Quantitative Investigation Using Structural Equation Modeling. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Becken, S.; Khazai, B. Resilience, Tourism and Disasters. In Tourism and Resilience; Butler, R.W., Ed.; CABI: Wallingford, UK, 2017; pp. 96–104. ISBN 978-1-78064-833-0. [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee, A.V.; Vargo, J.; Seville, E. Developing a Tool to Measure and Compare Organizations’ Resilience. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2013, 14, 29–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Cheer, J.M.; Milano, C.; Novelli, M. Tourism and Community Resilience in the Anthropocene: Accentuating Temporal Overtourism. J. Sustain. Tour. 2019, 27, 554–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dahles, H.; Susilowati, T.P. Business Resilience in Times of Growth and Crisis. Ann. Tour. Res. 2015, 51, 34–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xu, H.; Chen, F.; Dai, S. Disaster Resilience of Small Businesses in Guanxian Ancient Town, Sichuan, China. In Tourism Resilience and Adaptation to Environmental Change; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 185–203. [Google Scholar]
  34. Saad, M.H.; Hagelaar, G.; van der Velde, G.; Omta, S.W.F. Conceptualization of SMEs’ Business Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1938347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Elshaer, I.A. Dimensionality Analysis of Entrepreneurial Resilience amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparative Models with Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. Mathematics 2022, 10, 2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Luthans, F. The Need for and Meaning of Positive Organizational Behavior. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 695–706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. McManus, S.; Seville, E.; Vargo, J.; Brunsdon, D. Facilitated Process for Improving Organizational Resilience. Nat. Hazards Rev. 2008, 9, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Elshaer, I.A. Front-line hotel employees mental health and quality of life post COVID-19 pandemic: The role of coping strategies. Heliyon 2023, e16915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Elshaer, I.A.; Saad, S.K. Learning from Failure: Building Resilience in Small- and Medium-Sized Tourism Enterprises, the Role of Servant Leadership and Transparent Communication. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sheffi, Y.; Rice, J.B., Jr. A Supply Chain View of the Resilient Enterprise; MIT Sloan: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  41. Bhaskara, G.I.; Filimonau, V. The COVID-19 pandemic and organisational learning for disaster planning and management: A perspective of tourism businesses from a destination prone to consecutive disasters. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021, 46, 364–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Xu, S.; Barbieri, C.; Anderson, D.; Leung, Y.-F.; Rozier-Rich, S. Residents’ Perceptions of Wine Tourism Development. Tour. Manag. 2016, 55, 276–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Nilakant, V.; Walker, B.; Kuntz, J.; de Vries, H.P.; Malinen, S.; Näswall, K.; van Heugten, K. Dynamics of Organisational Response to a Disaster. In Business and Post-Disaster Management: Business, Organisational and Consumer Resilience and the Christchurch Earthquakes; Vosslamber, R., Wordsworth, R., Hall, C.M., Malinen, S., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 35–47. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nilakant, V.; Walker, B.; van Heugen, K.; Baird, R.; De Vries, H. Research Note: Conceptualising Adaptive Resilience Using Grounded Theory. N. Z. J. Employ. Relat. 2014, 39, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  45. He, Z.; Huang, H.; Choi, H.; Bilgihan, A. Building Organizational Resilience with Digital Transformation. J. Serv. Manag. 2022, 34, 147–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Zhang, M.; Tse, Y.K.; Doherty, B.; Li, S.; Akhtar, P. Sustainable Supply Chain Management: Confirmation of a Higher-Order Model. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 128, 206–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Huang, W.; Chen, S.; Nguyen, L.T. Corporate Social Responsibility and Organizational Resilience to COVID-19 Crisis: An Empirical Study of Chinese Firms. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sajko, M.; Boone, C.; Buyl, T. CEO Greed, Corporate Social Responsibility, and Organizational Resilience to Systemic Shocks. J. Manag. 2021, 47, 957–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Jia, X.; Chowdhury, M.; Prayag, G.; Hossan Chowdhury, M.M. The Role of Social Capital on Proactive and Reactive Resilience of Organizations Post-Disaster. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 2020, 48, 101614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Fang, S.; Prayag, G.; Ozanne, L.K.; de Vries, H. Psychological Capital, Coping Mechanisms and Organizational Resilience: Insights from the 2016 Kaikoura Earthquake, New Zealand. Tour. Manag. Perspect. 2020, 34, 100637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bouteraa, A.; Bouaziz, F. Do Talent Management Practices Improve Organizational Resilience? An Empirical Study within Tunisian Companies. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Stud. 2023, 14, 271–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Antonakis, J.; Bendahan, S.; Jacquart, P.; Lalive, R. Causality and Endogeneity: Problems and Solutions. Oxf. Handb. Leadersh. Organ. 2014, 1, 93–117. [Google Scholar]
  53. Antonakis, J.; Dietz, J. More on Testing for Validity Instead of Looking for It. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2011, 50, 418–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Robertson, I.T.; Cooper, C.L.; Sarkar, M.; Curran, T. Resilience Training in the Workplace from 2003 to 2014: A Systematic Review. J. Occupat Organ. Psychol. 2015, 88, 533–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jackson, D.; Firtko, A.; Edenborough, M. Personal Resilience as a Strategy for Surviving and Thriving in the Face of Workplace Adversity: A Literature Review. J. Adv. Nurs. 2007, 60, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Luthar, S.S.; Cicchetti, D.; Becker, B. The Construct of Resilience: A Critical Evaluation and Guidelines for Future Work. Child Dev. 2000, 71, 543–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. King, D.D.; Newman, A.; Luthans, F. Not If, but When We Need Resilience in the Workplace. J. Organ. Behav. 2016, 37, 782–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Garcia-Dia, M.J.; DiNapoli, J.M.; Garcia-Ona, L.; Jakubowski, R.; O’Flaherty, D. Concept Analysis: Resilience. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2013, 27, 264–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Kuntz, J.R.; Malinen, S.; Näswall, K. Employee Resilience: Directions for Resilience Development. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 2017, 69, 223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gittell, J.H.; Cameron, K.; Lim, S.; Rivas, V. Relationships, Layoffs, and Organizational Resilience: Airline Industry Responses to September 11. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2006, 42, 300–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Wut, T.-M.; Lee, S.-W.; Xu, J. Role of Organizational Resilience and Psychological Resilience in the Workplace—Internal Stakeholder Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Barbhuiya, M.R.; Chatterjee, D. Just Survive or Thrive? Effect of Psychological and Organizational Resilience on Adoption of Innovative Strategies by Hospitality Sector Post COVID-19. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2023, 20, 188–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pooley, J.A.; Cohen, L. Resilience: A Definition in Context. Aust. Community Psychol. 2010, 22, 30–37. [Google Scholar]
  64. Diener, E.; Lucas, R.E.; Scollon, C.N. Beyond the Hedonic Treadmill: Revising the Adaptation Theory of Well-Being. In The Science of Well-Being; Diener, E., Ed.; Social Indicators Research Series; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; Volume 37, pp. 103–118. ISBN 978-90-481-2349-0. [Google Scholar]
  65. Liu, Y.; Wang, Z.-H.; Li, Z.-G. Affective Mediators of the Influence of Neuroticism and Resilience on Life Satisfaction. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2012, 52, 833–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Beasley, M.; Thompson, T.; Davidson, J. Resilience in Response to Life Stress: The Effects of Coping Style and Cognitive Hardiness. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2003, 34, 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Hu, J.; Ye, B.; Yildirim, M.; Yang, Q. Perceived Stress and Life Satisfaction during COVID-19 Pandemic: The Mediating Role of Social Adaptation and the Moderating Role of Emotional Resilience. Psychol. Health Med. 2023, 28, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tamarit, A.; De La Barrera, U.; Schoeps, K.; Castro-Calvo, J.; Montoya-Castilla, I. Analyzing the Role of Resilience and Life Satisfaction as Mediators of the Impact of COVID-19 Worries on Mental Health. J. Community Psychol. 2023, 51, 234–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wang, Q.; Sun, W.; Wu, H. Associations between Academic Burnout, Resilience and Life Satisfaction among Medical Students: A Three-Wave Longitudinal Study. BMC Med. Educ. 2022, 22, 248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rode, J.C.; Rehg, M.T.; Near, J.P.; Underhill, J.R. The Effect of Work/Family Conflict on Intention to Quit: The Mediating Roles of Job and Life Satisfaction. Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2007, 2, 65–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lundberg, U.; Cooper, C. The Science of Occupational Health: Stress, Psychobiology, and the New World of Work; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  72. Judge, T.A.; Locke, E.A. Effect of Dysfunctional Thought Processes on Subjective Well-Being and Job Satisfaction. J. Appl. Psychol. 1993, 78, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Redman, T.; Snape, E. The Consequences of Perceived Age Discrimination Amongst Older Police Officers: Is Social Support a Buffer? Br. J Manag. 2006, 17, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Jones, M.D. Which Is a Better Predictor of Job Performance: Job Satisfaction or Life Satisfaction? J. Behav. Appl. Manag. 2006, 8, 20–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Dirzyte, A.; Patapas, A. Positive Organizational Practices, Life Satisfaction, and Psychological Capital in the Public and Private Sectors. Sustainability 2022, 14, 488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Beuren, I.M.; dos Santos, V.; Theiss, V. Organizational Resilience, Job Satisfaction and Business Performance. Int. J. Product. Perform. Manag. 2022, 71, 2262–2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Robinson, S.L. Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract. Adm. Sci. Q. 1996, 41, 574–599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Chaudhary, S.; Dhir, A.; Ferraris, A.; Bertoldi, B. Trust and Reputation in Family Businesses: A Systematic Literature Review of Past Achievements and Future Promises. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 137, 143–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Aryee, S.; Budhwar, P.S.; Chen, Z.X. Trust as a Mediator of the Relationship between Organizational Justice and Work Outcomes: Test of a Social Exchange Model. J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 267–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Mayer, R.C.; Davis, J.H.; Schoorman, F.D. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1995, 20, 709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Jena, L.K.; Pradhan, S.; Panigrahy, N.P. Pursuit of Organisational Trust: Role of Employee Engagement, Psychological Well-Being and Transformational Leadership. Asia Pac. Manag. Rev. 2018, 23, 227–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Näswall, K.; Sverke, M.; Hellgren, J. The Moderating Role of Personality Characteristics on the Relationship between Job Insecurity and Strain. Work Stress 2005, 19, 37–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Greenhalgh, L.; Rosenblatt, Z. Job Insecurity: Toward Conceptual Clarity. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1984, 9, 438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Darvishmotevali, M.; Ali, F. Job Insecurity, Subjective Well-Being and Job Performance: The Moderating Role of Psychological Capital. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 87, 102462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Van Prooijen, J.; Van Den Bos, K.; Wilke, H.A.M. The Role of Standing in the Psychology of Procedural Justice: Towards Theoretical Integration. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 15, 33–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Colquitt, J.A.; LePine, J.A.; Piccolo, R.F.; Zapata, C.P.; Rich, B.L. Explaining the Justice–Performance Relationship: Trust as Exchange Deepener or Trust as Uncertainty Reducer? J. Appl. Psychol. 2012, 97, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Mishra, A.K.; Spreitzer, G.M. Explaining How Survivors Respond to Downsizing: The Roles of Trust, Empowerment, Justice, and Work Redesign. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1998, 23, 567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Tu, Y.; Li, D.; Wang, H.-J. COVID-19-Induced Layoff, Survivors’ COVID-19-Related Stress and Performance in Hospitality Industry: The Moderating Role of Social Support. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2021, 95, 102912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Eisenbeiß, S.A.; Brodbeck, F. Ethical and Unethical Leadership: A Cross-Cultural and Cross-Sectoral Analysis. J. Bus Ethics 2014, 122, 343–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Ciziceno, M.; Travaglino, G.A. Perceived Corruption and Individuals’ Life Satisfaction: The Mediating Role of Institutional Trust. Soc. Indic. Res. 2019, 141, 685–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Kim, Y. Organizational Resilience and Employee Work-Role Performance after a Crisis Situation: Exploring the Effects of Organizational Resilience on Internal Crisis Communication. J. Public Relat. Res. 2020, 32, 47–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Srivastava, S.; Madan, P. The Relationship between Resilience and Career Satisfaction: Trust, Political Skills and Organizational Identification as Moderators. Aust. J. Career Dev. 2020, 29, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Sedgwick, P. Convenience Sampling. Bmj 2013, 347, f6304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Etikan, I.; Musa, S.A.; Alkassim, R.S. Comparison of Convenience Sampling and Purposive Sampling. Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat. 2016, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Egyptian Hotel Guide Egyptian Hotel Guide. Available online: http://www.egyptianhotels.org/ (accessed on 11 December 2023).
  96. Allred, S.B.; Ross-Davis, A. The Drop-off and Pick-up Method: An Approach to Reduce Nonresponse Bias in Natural Resource Surveys. Small-Scale For. 2011, 10, 305–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Brown, S. Drop and collect surveys: A neglected research technique? Market. Intel. Plan. 1987, 5, 19–23.–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Jamrog, J.J.; McCann, J.E.I.; Lee, J.M.; Morrison, C.L.; Selsky, J.W.; Vickers, M. Agility and Resilience in the Face of Continuous Change; American Management Association: New York, NY, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  99. Elshaer, I.A.; Azazz, A.M.; Ghaleb, M.M.; Abdulaziz, T.A.; Mansour, M.A.; Fayyad, S. The Impact of Work-Related ICT Use on Perceived Injustice: Exploring the Effects of Work Role Overload and Psychological Detachment. J. Open Innov. Technol. Market Complex. 2024, 10, 100208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Smith, B.W.; Dalen, J.; Wiggins, K.; Tooley, E.; Christopher, P.; Bernard, J. The Brief Resilience Scale: Assessing the Ability to Bounce Back. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2008, 15, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Moorman, R.H.; Fetter, R. Transformational Leader Behaviors and Their Effects on Followers’ Trust in Leader, Satisfaction, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Leadersh. Q. 1990, 1, 107–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Hair, J.F.H., Jr.; Matthews, L.M.; Matthews, R.L.; Sarstedt, M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated Guidelines on Which Method to Use. Int. J. Multivar. Data Anal. 2017, 1, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Henseler, J.; Ringle, C.M.; Sinkovics, R.R. The Use of Partial Least Squares Path Modeling in International Marketing. In Advances in International Marketing; Sinkovics, R.R., Ghauri, P.N., Eds.; Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK, 2009; Volume 20, pp. 277–319. ISBN 978-1-84855-468-9. [Google Scholar]
  104. Do Valle, P.O.; Assaker, G. Using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in Tourism Research: A Review of Past Research and Recommendations for Future Applications. J. Travel Res. 2016, 55, 695–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Ringle, C.M.; Sarstedt, M.; Mitchell, R.; Gudergan, S.P. Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling in HRM Research. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2020, 31, 1617–1643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Leguina, A. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Int. J. Res. Method Educ. 2015, 38, 220–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Podsakoff, P.M.; MacKenzie, S.B.; Lee, J.-Y.; Podsakoff, N.P. Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 2003, 88, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 382–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Hair, J.F., Jr.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Gudergan, S.P. Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling; Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  110. Fredrickson, B.L.; Tugade, M.M.; Waugh, C.E.; Larkin, G.R. What Good Are Positive Emotions in Crisis? A Prospective Study of Resilience and Emotions Following the Terrorist Attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Bouzari, M.; Karatepe, O.M. Test of a Mediation Model of Psychological Capital among Hotel Salespeople. Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 29, 2178–2197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Smith, B.W.; Tooley, E.M.; Christopher, P.J.; Kay, V.S. Resilience as the Ability to Bounce Back from Stress: A Neglected Personal Resource? J. Posit. Psychol. 2010, 5, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Hwang, J.-M.; Han, J.-H. Influence of Job Embeddedness and Resilience on Turnover Intention in Dental Hygienists. J. Dent. Hyg. Sci. 2020, 20, 171–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 00939 g001
Figure 1. Research framework. + Means positive effect.
Figure 1. Research framework. + Means positive effect.
Sustainability 16 00939 g001
Sustainability 16 00939 g002
Figure 2. The examined research model.
Figure 2. The examined research model.
Sustainability 16 00939 g002
Table 1. Dimensions’ and variables’ psychometric properties.
Table 1. Dimensions’ and variables’ psychometric properties.
Scale Loadings VIFαCRAVE
Organizational resilience 0.9530.9530.703
Adoptive Resilience 0.9100.9100.862
Adpt_Res_10.9641.604
Adpt_Res_20.9381.471
Adpt_Res_30.8911.032
Adpt_Res_40.9234.607
Adpt_Res_50.9254.077
Planned Resilience 0.9150.9150.94
Plnd_Res_10.9761.351
Plnd_Res_20.9743.991
Plnd_Res_30.9654.785
Plnd_Res_40.9682.472
Plnd_Res_50.9711.292
Life Satisfaction 0.9290.9330.783
Lif_Sats_1 0.8811.412
Lif_Sats_20.9221.578
Lif_Sats_30.7581.782
Lif_Sats_40.9401.235
Lif_Sats_50.9111.448
Psychological resilience 0.9280.9290.826
Psyc_Res_10.9224.604
Psyc_Res_20.9391.637
Psyc_Res_30.9611.161
Psyc_Res_40.8061.842
Organization trust 0.9340.9370.756
Org_Trst_10.7812.153
Org_Trst_20.9481.600
Org_Trst_30.9221.643
Org_Trst_40.9331.528
Org_Trst_50.7952.089
Org_Trst_60.8232.387
Table 2. Discriminant validity based on “Fornell and Larcker and HTMT” methods.
Table 2. Discriminant validity based on “Fornell and Larcker and HTMT” methods.
Adaptive ResilienceLife SatisfactionOrganization TrustPlanned ResiliencePsychological Resilience
Adaptive Resilience0.929
Life Satisfaction0.686 [0.728]0.885
Organization Trust0.581 [0.612]0.564 [0.602]0.870
Planned Resilience0.558 [0.574]0.633 [0.659]0.395 [0.409]0.971
Psychological Resilience0.511 [0.541]0.626 [0.673]0.411 [0.442]0.458 [0.478]0.909
Bold figures show the square root of AVE, HTMT ratios are shown in brackets.
Table 3. Cross loadings.
Table 3. Cross loadings.
Adaptive
Resilience		Life
Satisfaction		Organization
Trust		Planned
Resilience		Psychological
Resilience
Adpt_Res_10.9640.6470.5600.5240.503
Adpt_Res_20.9380.5970.5520.4850.466
Adpt_Res_30.8910.6690.5150.5540.493
Adpt_Res_40.9230.6500.5300.5190.461
Adpt_Res_50.9250.6230.5390.5090.447
Lif_Sats_10.6310.8810.5050.4200.551
Lif_Sats_20.6150.9220.4900.5260.543
Lif_Sats_30.5680.7580.4510.5620.499
Lif_Sats_40.6320.9400.4860.6490.541
Lif_Sats_50.5910.9110.5540.6270.628
Org_Trst_10.4480.4520.7810.2970.389
Org_Trst_20.5390.4980.9480.3360.351
Org_Trst_30.5300.4640.9220.3220.337
Org_Trst_40.5470.5000.9330.3350.349
Org_Trst_50.4970.5560.7950.4290.366
Org_Trst_60.4540.4500.8230.3210.351
Plnd_Resl_10.5520.6250.3900.9760.462
Plnd_Resl_20.5570.6140.3990.9740.456
Plnd_Resl_30.5300.6070.3740.9650.433
Plnd_Resl_40.5250.6090.3760.9680.430
Plnd_Resl_50.5440.6180.3780.9710.440
Psych_Resl_10.4890.5620.3690.4050.922
Psych_Resl_20.4860.5510.3850.3620.939
Psych_Resl_30.4900.5910.3790.4010.961
Psych_Resl_40.3880.5670.3570.4920.806
Table 4. Path coefficient and related t and p values.
Table 4. Path coefficient and related t and p values.
PathsStd. Path Coeff. (β)T Statisticsp ValuesResults
Psychological Resilience → Organizational Resilience (H1)0.1152.2770.023Confirmed
Psychological Resilience → Life Satisfaction (H2)0.47512.3130.000Confirmed
Life Satisfaction → Organizational Resilience (H3)0.57411.5960.000Confirmed
Organization Trust → Life Satisfaction (H4)0.3698.2080.000Confirmed
Organization Trust → Organizational Resilience (H5)0.1795.1760.000Confirmed
Specific indirect paths
Psychological Resilience → Life Satisfaction → Organizational Resilience0.2728.4510.000Confirmed
Organization Trust → Life Satisfaction → Organizational Resilience0.2116.7330.000Confirmed
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Elshaer, I.A. Come and Gone! Psychological Resilience and Organizational Resilience in Tourism Industry Post COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Life Satisfaction. Sustainability 2024, 16, 939. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020939

AMA Style

Elshaer IA. Come and Gone! Psychological Resilience and Organizational Resilience in Tourism Industry Post COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Life Satisfaction. Sustainability. 2024; 16(2):939. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020939

Chicago/Turabian Style

Elshaer, Ibrahim A. 2024. "Come and Gone! Psychological Resilience and Organizational Resilience in Tourism Industry Post COVID-19 Pandemic: The Role of Life Satisfaction" Sustainability 16, no. 2: 939. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16020939

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