Tag Archives: COVID-19

The students’ perceptions on remote learning through video conferencing!

Photo by Chris Montgomery on Unsplash

This is an excerpt from a recent article that was published by Springer’s Technology, Knowledge and Learning Journal.

Source: Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri, A.C. (2021). The Acceptance of Learning Management Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID-19. Technology, Knowledge & Learning.

The unexpected Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted the provision of education in various contexts around the globe. Education service providers, including higher education institutions (HEIs) were required to follow their respective governments’ preventative social distancing measures and to increase their hygienic practices, to mitigate the spread of the pandemic. They articulated contingency plans, disseminated information about the virus, trained their employees to work remotely, and organised virtual sessions with students or course participants.

These latest developments have resulted in both challenges and opportunities to students and educators. Course instructors were expected to develop a new modus operandi to deliver their education services, in real time. During the first wave of COVID-19, HEIs were suddenly expected to shift from traditional and blended learning approaches to a fully virtual course delivery.

The shift to online, synchronous classes did not come naturally. COVID-19 has resulted in different problems for course instructors and their students. In many cases, educators were compelled to utilise online learning technologies to continue delivering their courses. In the main, educators have embraced the dynamics of remote learning technologies to continue delivering educational services to students, amid the peaks and troughs of COVID-19 cases.

Subsequently, policy makers have eased their restrictions when they noticed that there were lower contagion rates in their communities. After a few months of lockdown (or partial lock down) conditions, there were a number of HEIs that were allowed to open their doors. They instructed their visitors to wear masks, and to keep socially distant from each other. Most HEIs screened individuals for symptoms as they checked their temperatures and introduced strict hygienic practices like sanitisation facilities in different parts of their campuses.

However, after a year and a half, since the outbreak of COVID-19, some academic members of staff were still relying on the use of remote learning technologies to deliver education services, as they utilised learning management systems (LMS) and video conferencing software to teach their courses. During the pandemic, they became acquainted with online technologies that facilitated asynchronous as well as synchronous learning.

Whilst their asynchronous approaches included text and/or recorded video that were made available through LMS (like Moodle), in many cases, they also utilised video conferencing platforms including Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Zoom, D2L, Webex, Adobe Connect, Skype for Business, Big Blue Button and EduMeet, among others, to interact with students in real time.

In this light, our research investigated the facilitating conditions that can foster the students’ acceptance and usage of remote learning technologies including LMS and video conferencing programs. We examined the participants’ motivations to use them to continue pursuing their educational programs from home, during COVID-19. Specifically, our study investigated students’ perceptions about the usefulness of remote learning, their interactive capabilities, their attitudes toward their utilisation, the facilitating conditions as well as their intentions to continue using them.

Our targeted respondents were registered students who followed full-time and part-time courses at the University of Malta in Malta. We used a structural equation modeling partial least squares (SEM-PLS) analytical approach to examine the responses of 501 students who voluntarily participated in our research.

The findings clearly indicated that the higher education students perceived the usefulness of remote learning technologies during COVID-19 and valued their interactive attributes. They confirmed that the respondents held positive perceptions toward their universities’ facilitating conditions (like ongoing support, as well as training and development opportunities).

The empirical results reported that the HEI’s facilitating conditions had a significant effect on the students’ interactive engagement with online learning resources and on their attitudes towards these technologies.

The confirmatory composite analysis reported that there were positive and highly significant effects that predicted the students’ intentions to continue using remote learning technologies. Evidently, educators have provided them with the necessary resources, knowledge and technical support to avail themselves of remote learning technologies.

The respondents indicated that they accessed their course instructors’ online resources and regularly interacted with them through live conferencing facilities. The findings from SEM-PLS confirmed that the perceived usefulness and perceived interactivity with online technologies had a positive effect on their attitudes toward remote learning.

In sum, this contribution has differentiated itself from other studies as it investigated the students’ perceptions and attitudes on the use of asynchronous as well as synchronous learning technologies in higher education. It implies that the integration of these technologies ought to be accelerated in the foreseeable future as they may become the norm, in a post COVID-19 era. Therefore, HEIs ought to continue investing in online learning infrastructures, resources and facilitating conditions, for the benefit of their students and faculty employees.

Leave a comment

Filed under Digital Learning Resources, digital media, Education, education technology, Marketing, mobile learning, Remote Learning

The acceptance of learning management systems and video conferencing technologies

The following texts are excerpts from one of my latest articles.

Suggested Citation: Camilleri, M.A. & Camilleri, A.C. (2021). The Acceptance of Learning Management Systems and Video Conferencing Technologies: Lessons Learned from COVID-19, Technology, Knowledge and Learning, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09561-y

Introduction

An unexpected Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted the provision of educational services in various contexts around the globe (Rahiem, 2020; Johnson, Veletsianos & Seaman, 2020; Bolumole, 2020). During the first wave of COVID-19, several educational institutions were suddenly expected to interrupt their face-to-face educational services. They had to adapt to an unprecedented situation. This latest development has resulted in both challenges and opportunities to students and educators (Howley, 2020; Araújo, de Lima, Cidade, Nobre, & Neto, 2020). Education service providers, including higher education institutions (HEIs) were required to follow their respective governments’ preventative social distancing measures and to increase their hygienic practices, to mitigate the spread of the pandemic. Several HEIs articulated contingency plans, disseminated information about the virus, trained their employees to work remotely, and organized virtual sessions with students or course participants.

Course instructors were expected to develop a new modus operandi to deliver their higher education services, in real time (Johnson et al., 2020). During the pandemic, many HEIs migrated from traditional and blended teaching approaches to fully virtual and remote course delivery. However, their shift to online, synchronous classes did not come naturally. COVID-19 has resulted in different problems to course instructors and to their students. In many cases, during the pandemic, educators were compelled to utilize online learning technologies to continue delivering their courses (Fitter, Raghunath, Cha, Sánchez, Takayama & Matarić, 2020). In the main, educators have embraced the dynamics of remote learning technologies to continue delivering educational services to students, amid peaks and troughs of COVID-19 cases.

Subsequently, policy makers have eased their restrictions when they noticed that there were lower contagion rates in their communities. After a few months of lockdown (or partial lock down) conditions, there were a number of HEIs that were allowed to open their doors. They instructed their visitors to wear masks, and to keep socially distant from each other. Most HEIs screened individuals for symptoms as they checked their temperatures and introduced strict hygienic practices like sanitization facilities in different parts of their campuses.  

However, after a year and a half, since the outbreak of COVID-19, some academic members of staff were still relying on the use of remote learning technologies like learning management systems (like Moode) and video conferencing software to teach their courses (Cesco, Zara, De Toni, Lugli, Betta, Evans & Orzes, 2021). During the pandemic, they became acquainted with online technologies that facilitated asynchronous learning through text and/or recorded video (Sablić, Mirosavljević & Škugor, 2020). Moreover, many of them, organized interactive sessions with their students in real time. Very often, they utilized video conferencing platforms including Microsoft Teams, Google Meet, Zoom, D2L, Webex, Adobe Connect, Skype for Business, Big Blue Button and EduMeet, among others. COVID-19 has triggered them to use these remote technologies to engage in two-way communications with their students.

Although in the past year, there were a number of researchers who have published discursive articles about the impacts of COVID-19 on higher education, for the time being, there are just a few empirical studies on the subject (Bergdahl & Nouri, 2020; Aguilera-Hermida, 2020; Gonzalez, de la Rubia, Hincz, Comas-Lopez, Subirats, Fort & Sacha, 2020). This contribution addresses this gap in academia. Specifically, it investigates the facilitating conditions that can foster the students’ acceptance and usage of remote learning technologies. It examines the participants’ utilitarian motivations to utilize asynchronous learning resources to access course material, and sheds light on their willingness to engage with instructors and/or peers through synchronous, video conferencing software, to continue pursuing their educational programs from home, during an unexpected pandemic situation.

This study builds on previous theoretical underpinnings on technology adoption (Cheng & Yuen, 2018; Al-Rahmi, Alias, Othman, Marin & Tur, 2018; Merhi, 2015; Schoonenboom, 2014; Lin, Zimmer & Lee, 2013; Chen, Chen & Kazman, 2007; Ngai, Poon & Chan, 2007; Davis, 1989). At the same time, it explores the students’ perceptions about the interactivity (McMillan & Jang-Sun Hwang, 2002) of LMS as well as video conferencing software, and sheds light on their HEI’s facilitating conditions (Hoi, 2020; Dečman, 2015; Venkatesh, Thong & Xu, 2012; Venkatesh, Morris, Davis & Davis, 2003). The rationale of this study is to better understand the research participants’ intentions to use remote technologies, to improve their learning journey. To the best of our knowledge, there are no other contributions that have integrated the same measures that have been used in this research. Therefore, this study differentiates itself from the previous literature, and puts forward a research model that is empirically tested.

The development of remote learning

According to the social constructivist theory, individuals necessitate social interactions (Fridin, 2014; Lambropoulos, Faulkner & Culwin, 2012; Ainsworth, 2006; Tam, 2000). They develop their abilities by interacting with others. Therefore, online learning environments ought to be designed to support and challenge the students’ reflective and critical skills, by including interactive learning and collaborative approaches (Rienties & Toetenel, 2016; Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012; Wang, 2009; Wang, Woo, & Zhao, 2009). Social constructivism and discovery-based learning techniques emphasize the importance of having students who are actively involved in their learning process. This is in stark contrast with previous educational viewpoints where the responsibility rested with the instructor to teach, and where the learner played a passive, receptive role (Lambropoulos et al., 2012).

Today’s students are increasingly using online technologies to learn, both in and out of their higher educational institutions (Al-Maroof, Al-Qaysi, & Salloum, 2021). They are using interactive media to acquire formal and informal skills (Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012), particularly when they take part in constructivist activities with their peers and course instructors (Fridin, 2014). This argumentation is consistent with the collaborative learning theory (Lambropoulos et al., 2012; Khalifa & Kwok, 1999). Students can use digital technologies to access recorded podcasts (Merhi, 2015; Lin et al., 2013), watch videos (Hung, 2016) and interact together through live streaming technologies in real time (Payne, Keith, Schuetzler & Giboney, 2017). Hence, online education has fostered collaborative learning approaches (Wang, 2009). Computer mediated education enables students to search for solutions, to share online information with their peers, to evaluate each other’s ideas, and to monitor one another’s work (Lambić, 2016; Sung et al., 2015; Soflano, et al., 2015). 

Course participants can use remote technologies, including their personal computers, smart phones and tablets to access their instructors’ asynchronous, online resources including course notes, power point presentations, videos clips, case studies, et cetera (Butler, Camilleri, Creed & Zutshi, 2021; Hung, 2016; Ifenthaler & Schweinbenz, 2013). Moreover, in this day and age, they are utilizing video conferencing technologies to attend virtual meetings, and to engage in one-to-one conversations, or in group discussions and debates with their course instructor and with other students. These virtual programs enable students to engage in synchronous communications with course instructors, to ask questions, and receive feedback, in real time.

A critical review of the relevant literature reported that university students were already using asynchronous technologies, in different contexts, before the outbreak of COVID-19 (Butler et al., 2021; Sánchez-Prieto et al., 2017; Hung, 2016; Liu et al., 2010; Sánchez & Hueros, 2010). Many authors held that online technologies were improving the students’ experiences (Crompton & Burke, 2018; Kurucay & Inan, 2017; Sánchez-Prieto et al., 2016). Before the outbreak of COVID-19, many practitioners blended traditional learning methodologies with digital and mobile applications to improve learning outcomes (Al-Maroof et al., 2021; Boelens et al., 2018; Furió et al., 2015). Course instructors can design and develop online learning environments to support their students with asynchronous resources (Wang et al., 2009). They may allow them to engage in collaborative learning activities through virtual environments (Rienties & Toetenel, 2016; Dabbagh & Kitsantas, 2012). These contemporary approaches are synonymous with the social constructivist theory (Fridin, 2014; Lambropoulos et al., 2012) and with discovery-based learning (Ifenthaler, 2012; Lambropoulos et al., 2012).

Theoretical implications

This contribution investigated the students’ perceived usefulness, perceived interactivity, attitudes toward use, facilitating conditions and behavioral intentions to utilize remote technologies. It posited that higher education students perceived the usefulness of remote learning technologies including LMS and video conferencing programs during COVID-19. The findings clearly indicated that they valued their interactive attributes. These factors have led them to embrace these programs during their learning journey. This study also confirmed that the universities’ facilitating conditions had a significant effect on their perceptions about the interactivity of these online learning resources and on their attitudes towards these technologies, as reported in Figure 1. This finding is consistent with previous research that reported that facilitating conditions is positively related to the students’ intentions to continue using digital and mobile learning resources (Gangwar et al., 2015; Teo, 2009).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is the-use-of-learning-management-systems-and-conferencing-technologies.png
Figure 1

This study has differentiated itself from previous contributions as it integrated facilitating conditions (Hoi, 2020; Dečman, 2015; Venkatesh et al. 2003; 2012) and perceived interactivity (Chattaraman et al., 2019; Chen et al., 2007; McMillan & Jang-Sun Hwang, 2002) with perceived usefulness (of technology) and attitudes (toward the use of technology) to better understand the students’ intentions to utilize remote learning technologies to improve their learning journey (Cheng & Yuen, 2018; Al-Rahmi et al., 2018; Merhi, 2015; Schoonenboom, 2014; Lin et al., 2013; Ngai et al., 2007; Davis, 1989) during an unexpected pandemic situation.

A bibliographic analysis revealed that there are a number of theoretical papers that have been published in the last eighteen months on this hot topic (Cesco et al., 2021; Fitter et al., 2020; Howley, 2020; Rahiem, 2020). Yet, to date, there are just a few rigorous studies, that examined the utilization of synchronous video conferencing technologies, in addition to conventional, asynchronous content, like LMS, in the context of higher education (Aguilera-Hermida, 2020; Gonzalez et al., 2020).

The findings from this research shed light on the utilitarian factors that were influencing the students’ engagement with interactive learning resources. According to the descriptive statistics, the students felt that remote technologies were useful to achieve their learning outcomes. They indicated that they were provided with appropriate facilitating conditions that enabled them to migrate to a fully virtual learning environment from face-to-face or blended learning approaches. During the pandemic’s lockdown or partial lockdown conditions, and even when the preventative measures were eased, many students were still using remote learning technologies to access online educational resources. They also kept using video conferencing technologies to attend to virtual classes, and to engage with their course instructor(s) and with their peers, in real time.

The confirmatory composite analysis reported that there were positive and highly significant effects that predicted the students’ intentions to use remote learning technologies. Evidently, educators have provided them with the necessary resources, knowledge and technical support to avail themselves of remote learning technologies. The respondents indicated that they accessed their course instructors’ online resources and regularly interacted with them through live conferencing facilities. The findings from SEM-PLS confirmed that the perceived usefulness and perceived interactivity with online technologies had a positive effect on their attitudes toward remote learning. This research implies that the students were confident with the utilization of interactive technologies to continue their educational programs. In fact, this research model proved that they were likely to use synchronous and asynchronous learning technologies in the foreseeable future, in a post COVID-19 context.

Implications of study for educators and policy makers

The COVID-19 pandemic and its preventative measures urged HEIs and other educational institutions to embrace video conferencing technologies to continue delivering student-centered education. This research suggests that educators ought to monitor their students’ engagement during their virtual sessions. It revealed that the students’ perceived interactivity as well as their higher education institutions’ facilitating conditions were having an effect on their perceptions about the usefulness of remote learning, on their attitudes as well as on their intentions to use them. These digital technologies were supporting the research participants in their learning journeys, whether they were at home or on campus. The students themselves perceived the usefulness of asynchronous LMS as well as of synchronous communications, including video conferencing software like Zoom or Microsoft Teams, among others.

These virtual technologies were already utilized in various contexts, before the outbreak of COVID-19. However, they turned out to be important learning resources in the realms of education. Course instructors are expected to support their students, by developing attractive digital learning resources (e.g. interactive presentations, online articles and recorded video clips) in appropriate formats that can be accessed with ease, through different media, including mobile technologies (Sablić et al., 2020). In this day and age, they can also use video conferencing technologies to interact with course participants in real time. When engaging with online resources, instructors should consider their students’ facilitating conditions, particularly if they are including high-res images, interactive media, including podcasts, videos, etc., in their LMSs. Their asynchronous content should be as clear and focused as possible, with links to relevant sources, including notes, case studies, quizzes, rubrics and formative assessments, among others.

COVID-19 has taught us that the individuals’ engagement with LMS and video conferencing software necessitate high‐quality wireless networks. There may be situations where students as well as their instructors may require online technical support, whether they are working from home of from university premises. Educational institutions including HEIs ought to regularly evaluate their students’ experiences with remote teaching in order to identify any issues that are affecting their academic performance (Camilleri, 2021b). HEI leaders are not always in a position to evaluate the quality and standards of their instructors’ online learning methods and to determine with absolute certainty whether their students have achieved their learning outcomes. During remote course delivery, students may not always have access to appropriate interactive technologies, learning materials or to adequate productive environments (Bao, 2020). There can be instances where course instructors and students could require facilitating conditions like technical support or training and development to enhance their competences and capabilities with the use of remote technologies.

A prepublication copy of this contribution can be downloaded through: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353859136_The_Acceptance_of_Learning_Management_Systems_and_Video_Conferencing_Technologies_Lessons_Learned_from_COVID-19

Leave a comment

Filed under Conferencing Technologies, Education, education technology, Learning management systems, Remote Learning

What was the employees’ state of mind during COVID-19?

This is an excerpt from my latest open-access research that was accepted for publication in Sustainability (IF: 2.576)

Citation: Camilleri, M.A. (2021). The Employees’ State of Mind during COVID-19: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective. Sustainability, 13, 3634. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13073634


Academic Implications

This empirical research has presented a critical review of the self-determination theory and its key constructs, as well as on other theoretical underpinnings that were drawn from business ethics and tourism literature. It shed light on the employees’ job security as well as on their extrinsic and intrinsic motivations in their workplace environment. Moreover, it explored their perceptions on their employers’ CSR practices during COVID-19. The study hypothesized that the employees’ identified motivations, introjected motivations, external motivations, job security and their firms’ socially responsible behaviors would have a positive and significant effect on their intrinsic motivations and organizational performance. The findings confirmed that the employees’ intrinsic motivations were predicting their productivity. This relationship was highly significant. Evidently, the employees were satisfied in their job, as they fulfilled their self-determination and intrinsic needs for competence, autonomy and relatedness [15,48,56]. Their high morale in their workplace environment has led to positive behavioral outcomes, including increased organizational performance.

The results reported that there were highly significant effects between the employees’ identified motivations and intrinsic motivations, and between their perceptions on their firms’ socially responsible practices and their intrinsic motivations. The mediation analysis indicated that these two constructs were indirectly affecting the employees’ job performance. These results suggest that although previous studies reported that extrinsic factors could undermine the intrinsic motivations of individuals [35–37], this study found that the research participants have internalized and identified themselves with their employers’ extrinsically motivated regulations, as they enabled them to achieve their self-defining goals. In this case, the respondents indicated that they were willing to perform certain tasks, as they perceived that their utilitarian values were also sustaining their psychological well-being and self-evaluations. The employees also identified motivations that led as an incentive to increase their organizational performance. The empirical results have proved that the employees were motivated to work for firms that reflected their own values [60,77]. This research is consistent with other contributions on CSR behaviors [32,78,88,90,91]. The respondents suggested that their employers had high CSR credentials. The findings revealed that the businesses’ CSR practices enhanced their employees’ intrinsic motivations and satisfied their psychological needs of belongingness and relatedness. Evidently, the firms’ socially responsible behaviors were enhancing their employees’ productivity and performance in their workplace environment.

The participants’ beliefs about their job security were also found to be a significant antecedent of their intrinsic motivations. Their perceptions on their job security were affecting their morale at work, in a positive manner [22,61]. During COVID-19, many employees could have experienced reduced business activities. As a result, many businesses could have pressurized their employees in their organizational restructuring and/or by implementing revised conditions of employment, including reduced working times, changes in sick leave policies, et cetera, particularly during the first wave of the pandemic. However, despite these contingent issues, the research participants indicated that they perceived that there will be job continuity for them in the foreseeable future. This study indicated that many employees were optimistic about their job prospects during the second wave.

The findings suggest that employees are attracted by and motivated to work for trustworthy, socially responsible employers [43,62,66,75]. On the other hand, they reported that the participants’ introjected and external motivations were not having a significant effect on their intrinsic motivations and did not entice them to engage in productive behaviors during the COVID-19 crisis. A plausible justification for this result is that the participants were well aware that their employers did not have adequate and sufficient resources during COVID-19. Their employers were not in a position to reward or incentivize their employees due to financial constraints that resulted from their reduced business activities or were never prepared to deal with such an unprecedented contingent situation. Hence, external motivations were not considered as stable forms of regulation [36]. Many researchers noted that extrinsic motivations will not necessarily influence the individuals’ behaviors, as their perceived locus of control is external to them. Therefore, their actions will not be autonomous and self-determined [35,52].

Managerial Implications
Businesses are continuously affected by ongoing challenges arising from their macro environment. The pandemic has exacerbated their transformation on behavioral, cultural and organizational levels. The first wave of COVID-19 was devastating for many businesses, in different contexts. The social-distancing procedures have led to changes in their working conditions and diminished communications. Many of the non-essential businesses were expected to follow their government’s preventative measures to slow the spread of the pandemic and to close the doors to their customers. Moreover, several employees have experienced their employers’ cost cutting exercises, as they reduced salaries and wages. These uncertainties have affected their employees’ psychological capital and caused them anxiety and frustration [99]. Notwithstanding, many employees were concerned about their job security and long-term prospects. During the work-from-home scenario, employers had to finds new ways to manage their employees’ performance. The change in their working environment allowed them to do their work, whilst also attending to personal needs. Very often, employees found themselves taking other responsibilities including parenting/schooling their children.

Remote working has served as a reminder to managers that there are a number of non-work-related factors that can affect their employees’ mindsets and engagement levels. Hence, many employers set virtual meetings with their human resources to inject a sense of purpose in them. During the first wave of the pandemic, the employees’ intrinsic motivations have declined with the decreasing visibility of their management or colleagues. The lack of motivation could have led to a decrease in their productivity levels [3]. Therefore, employers were expected to look after their employees and to foster a culture of trust and recognition to improve their motivations and performance at work [64]. This study was carried out during the second wave, when many governments had eased their preventative restrictions to restart their economy. As a result, many employees were returning to work. They were encouraged to work in a new normal, where they were instructed to follow their employers’ health and safety policies as well as hygienic and sanitizing practices in their premises. They introduced hygienic practices, temperature checks and expected visitors to wear masks to reduce the spread of the virus.

Many businesses, including SMEs and startups, were benefiting of their governments’ financial assistance. Resources were allocated to support them in their cashflow requirements, to minimize layoffs and to secure the employment of many employees. These measures instilled confidence in employers, as they provided their employees with a sense of relatedness, competence and autonomy in their workplace environments. Evidently, employers were successful in fostering a cohesive culture where they identified their employees’ values and their self-determined goals [45]. In sum, this contribution revealed that employees felt a sense of belonging in their workplace environment. The results confirmed that their intrinsic motivations were enhancing their productivity levels and organizational performance.

References (This section presents all the references that were featured in the full paper)

  1. Han, E.; Tan, M.M.J.; Turk, E.; Sridhar, D.; Leung, G.M.; Shibuya, K.; Asgari, N.; Oh, J.; García-Basteiro, A.L.; Hanefeld, J.; et al. Lessons learnt from easing COVID-19 restrictions: An analysis of countries and regions in Asia Pacific and Europe. Lancet 2020, 396, 1525–1534. [CrossRef]
  2. He, H.; Harris, L. The Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic on Corporate Social Responsibility and Marketing Philosophy. J. Bus. Res. [CrossRef]
  3. McGregor, L.; Doshi, N. How to keep your team motivated, remotely. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2020. Available online: https://hbr.org/2020/04/how-to-keep-your-teammotivated-remotely (accessed on 24 March 2021).
  4. Sull, D.; Sull, C. How Companies Are Winning on Culture during COVID-19. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2020. Available online: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/how-companies-are-winning-on-culture-during-covid-19/ (accessed on 24 March 2021).
  5. Camilleri, M.A. Evaluating service quality and performance of higher education institutions: A systematic review and a post COVID-19 outlook. Int. J. Qual. Serv. Sci. 2021. [CrossRef]
  6. Kohll, A. How One Company Is Taking Care of Employees during COVID-19? Forbes 2020. Available online: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alankohll/2020/04/06/how-one-company-is-taking-care-of-employees-during-covid-19/?sh=733f0c5b488d (accessed on 24 March 2021).
  7. Moè, A.; Katz, I. Emotion regulation and need satisfaction shape a motivating teaching style. Teach. Teach. 2020, 1–18. [CrossRef]
  8. OECD Coronavirus (COVID-19): SME Policy Responses, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris, France. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/coronavirus-covid-19-sme-policy-responses-04440101/ (accessed on 24 March 2021).
  9. An, M.A.; Han, S.L. Effects of experiential motivation and customer engagement on customer value creation: Analysis of
    psychological process in the experience-based retail environment. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 120, 389–397. [CrossRef]
  10. Van den Broeck, A.; Ferris, D.L.; Chang, C.H.; Rosen, C.C. A review of self-determination theory’s basic psychological needs at work. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 1195–1229. [CrossRef]
  11. Vansteenkiste, M.; Simons, J.; Lens, W.; Sheldon, K.M.; Deci, E.L. Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The
    synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 87, 246–260. [CrossRef]
  12. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychol. Inq. 2000, 11, 227–268. [CrossRef]
  13. Mitchell, R.; Schuster, L.; Jin, H.S. Gamification and the impact of extrinsic motivation on needs satisfaction: Making work fun? J.Bus. Res. 2020, 106, 323–330. [CrossRef]
  14. Vansteenkiste, M.; Neyrinck, B.; Niemiec, C.P.; Soenens, B.; De Witte, H.; Van den Broeck, A. On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. J. Occup. Org. Psychol. 2007, 80, 251–277. [CrossRef]
  15. Gagné, M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and work motivation. J. Org. Behav. 2005, 26, 331–362. [CrossRef]
  16. Leroy, H.; Anseel, F.; Gardner, W.L.; Sels, L. Authentic leadership, authentic followership, basic need satisfaction, and work role performance: A cross-level study. J. Manag. 2015, 41, 1677–1697. [CrossRef]
  17. Vansteenkiste, M.; Ryan, R.M. On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. J. Psychother. Integr. 2013, 23, 263. [CrossRef]
  18. Berezan, O.; Krishen, A.S.; Agarwal, S.; Kachroo, P. Exploring loneliness and social networking: Recipes for hedonic well-being on Facebook. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 115, 258–265. [CrossRef]
  19. Raub, S.; Robert, C. Differential effects of empowering leadership on in-role and extra-role employee behaviors: Exploring the role of psychological empowerment and power values. Hum. Relat. 2010, 63, 1743–1770. [CrossRef]
  20. Guo, Y.; Liao, J.; Liao, S.; Zhang, Y. The mediating role of intrinsic motivation on the relationship between developmental feedback and employee job performance. Soc. Behav. Pers. Int. J. 2014, 42, 731–741. [CrossRef]
  21. Quinn, R.W.; Spreitzer, G.M.; Lam, C.F. Building a sustainable model of human energy in organizations: Exploring the critical role of resources. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2012, 6, 337–396. [CrossRef]
  22. Mahmoud, A.B.; Reisel, W.D.; Fuxman, L.; Mohr, I. A motivational standpoint of job insecurity effects on organizational citizenship behaviors: A generational study. Scand. J. Psychol. 2020. [CrossRef]
  23. Baard, P.P.; Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. J. App. Soc. Psychol. 2004, 34, 2045–2068. [CrossRef]
  24. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Org. Behav. Hum. Dec. Proc. 1991, 50, 179–211. [CrossRef]
  25. Moon, T.W.; Hur, W.M.; Hyun, S.S. How service employees’ work motivations lead to job performance: The role of service employees’ job creativity and customer orientation. Curr. Psychol. 2019, 38, 517–532. [CrossRef]
  26. Deci, E.L.; Olafsen, A.H.; Ryan, R.M. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Ann. Rev. Org. Psychol. Org. Behav. 2017, 4, 19–43. [CrossRef]
  27. Chang, J.H.; Teng, C.C. Intrinsic or extrinsic motivations for hospitality employees’ creativity: The moderating role of organizationlevel regulatory focus. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2017, 60, 133–141. [CrossRef]
  28. Wang, W.T.; Hou, Y.P. Motivations of employees’ knowledge sharing behaviors: A self-determination perspective. Inf. Org. 2015, 25, 1–26. [CrossRef]
  29. Hau, Y.S.; Kim, B.; Lee, H.; Kim, Y.G. The effects of individual motivations and social capital on employees’ tacit and explicit knowledge sharing intentions. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2013, 33, 356–366. [CrossRef]
  30. Ryan, R.M.; Deci, E.L. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. Amer. Psychol. 2000, 55, 68–79. [CrossRef]
  31. Amabile, T.M. Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 1993, 3, 185–201. [CrossRef]
  32. Asante Boadi, E.; He, Z.; Bosompem, J.; Opata, C.N.; Boadi, E.K. Employees’ perception of corporate social responsibility (CSR) and its effects on internal outcomes. Serv. Ind. J. 2020, 40, 611–632. [CrossRef]
  33. Diamantidis, A.D.; Chatzoglou, P. Factors affecting employee performance: An empirical approach. Int. J. Prod. Perf. Manag. 2019, 68, 171–193. [CrossRef]
  34. Millette, V.; Gagné, M. Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motiv. Emot. 2008, 32, 11–22. [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, J.; Zhang, Y.; Song, Y.; Gong, Z. The different relations of extrinsic, introjected, identified regulation and intrinsic
    motivation on employees’ performance: Empirical studies following self-determination theory. Manag. Dec. 2016, 54, 2393–2412. [CrossRef]
  36. Li, Y.; Sheldon, K.M.; Liu, R. Dialectical thinking moderates the effect of extrinsic motivation on intrinsic motivation. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2015, 39, 89–95. [CrossRef]
  37. Nijhof, A.H.J.; Jeurissen, R.J.M. The glass ceiling of corporate social responsibility: Consequences of a business case approach towards CSR. Int. J. Soc. Soc. Policy 2010, 30, 618–631. [CrossRef]
  38. Kuvaas, B.; Dysvik, A. Perceived investment in employee development, intrinsic motivation and work performance. Hum. Res. Manag. J. 2009, 19, 217–236. [CrossRef]
  39. Yakhlef, A.; Nordin, F. Effects of firm presence in customer-owned touch points: A self-determination perspective. J. Bus. Res. [CrossRef]
  40. Ryan, R.M. Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1982, 43, 450–461. [CrossRef]
  41. Allison, T.H.; Davis, B.C.; Short, J.C.; Webb, J.W. Crowdfunding in a prosocial microlending environment: Examining the role of intrinsic versus extrinsic cues. Entrep. Theory Pr. 2015, 39, 53–73. [CrossRef]
  42. Malik, M.A.R.; Butt, A.N.; Choi, J.N. Rewards and employee creative performance: Moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control. J. Organ. Behav. 2015, 36, 59–74. [CrossRef]
  43. Buil, I.; Catalán, S.; Martínez, E. Understanding applicants’ reactions to gamified recruitment. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 110, 41–50. [CrossRef]
  44. Gomez-Baya, D.; Lucia-Casademunt, A.M. A self-determination theory approach to health and well-being in the workplace: Results from the sixth European working conditions survey in Spain. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2018, 48, 269–283. [CrossRef]
  45. Wallace, J.C.; Butts, M.M.; Johnson, P.D.; Stevens, F.G.; Smith, M.B. A multilevel model of employee innovation: Understanding the effects of regulatory focus, thriving, and employee involvement climate. J. Manag. 2016, 42, 982–1004. [CrossRef]
  46. Camilleri, M.A. The SMEs’ Technology Acceptance of Digital Media for Stakeholder Engagement. J. Small Bus. Enterp. Dev. 2018, 26, 504–521. [CrossRef]
  47. Dicke, T.; Marsh, H.W.; Parker, P.D.; Guo, J.; Riley, P.; Waldeyer, J. Job satisfaction of teachers and their principals in relation to climate and student achievement. J. Educ. Psychol. 2020, 112, 1061–1073. [CrossRef]
  48. Harris, K.; Hinds, L.; Manansingh, S.; Rubino, M.; Morote, E.S. What Type of Leadership in Higher Education Promotes Job Satisfaction and Increases Retention? J. Leadership Instr. 2016, 15, 27–32.
  49. Camilleri, M.A.; Falzon, L. Understanding motivations to use online streaming services: Integrating the technology acceptance model (TAM) and the uses and gratifications theory (UGT). Span. J. Mark. ESIC 2021. [CrossRef]
  50. Kovjanic, S.; Schuh, S.C.; Jonas, K.; Quaquebeke, N.V.; Van Dick, R. How do transformational leaders foster positive employee outcomes? A self-determination-based analysis of employees’ needs as mediating links. J. Org. Behav. 2012, 33, 1031–1052. [CrossRef] Sustainability 2021, 13, 3634 16 of 17
  51. Lemos, M.S.; Veríssimo, L. The relationships between intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and achievement, along
    elementary school. Proc. Soc. Behav. Sci. 2014, 112, 930–938. [CrossRef]
  52. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. J. Res. Pers. 1985, 19, 109–134. [CrossRef]
  53. Lee, S.; Pounders, K.R. Intrinsic versus extrinsic goals: The role of self-construal in understanding consumer response to goal framing in social marketing. J. Bus. Res. 2019, 94, 99–112. [CrossRef]
  54. Burton, K.D.; Lydon, J.E.; D’Alessandro, D.U.; Koestner, R. The differential effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on
    well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2006, 91, 750–762. [CrossRef]
  55. Wolf, T.; Weiger, W.H.; Hammerschmidt, M. Experiences that matter? The motivational experiences and business outcomes of gamified services. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 106, 353–364. [CrossRef]
  56. Gagné, M.; Forest, J.; Gilbert, M.H.; Aubé, C.; Morin, E.; Malorni, A. The motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 2010, 70, 628–646. [CrossRef]
  57. Greguras, G.J.; Diefendorff, J.M. Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 465–477. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Giri, V.N.; Kumar, B.P. Assessing the impact of organizational communication on job satisfaction and job performance. Psychol. Stud. 2010, 55, 137–143. [CrossRef]
  59. Grant, A.M. Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. J. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 93, 48–58. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Meyer, J.P.; Stanley, L.J.; Parfyonova, N.M. Employee commitment in context: The nature and implication of commitment profiles. J. Vocat. Behav. 2012, 80, 1–16. [CrossRef]
  61. Kraimer, M.L.; Wayne, S.J.; Liden, R.C.; Sparrowe, R.T. The role of job security in understanding the relationship between
    employees’ perceptions of temporary workers and employees’ performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 389–398. [CrossRef]
  62. Loi, R.; Ngo, H.Y.; Zhang, L.; Lau, V.P. The interaction between leader–member exchange and perceived job security in predicting employee altruism and work performance. J. Occup. Org. Psychol. 2011, 84, 669–685. [CrossRef]
  63. Cheng, G.H.L.; Chan, D.K.S. Who suffers more from job insecurity? A meta-analytic review. Appl. Psychol. 2008, 57, 272–303. [CrossRef]
  64. Yidong, T.; Xinxin, L. How ethical leadership influence employees’ innovative work behavior: A perspective of intrinsic
    motivation. J. Bus. Eth. 2013, 116, 441–455. [CrossRef]
  65. Sverke, M.; Hellgren, J.; Näswall, K. No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2002, 7, 242–264. [CrossRef]
  66. Shin, Y.; Hur, W.M.; Moon, T.W.; Lee, S. A motivational perspective on job insecurity: Relationships between job insecurity, intrinsic motivation, and performance and behavioral outcomes. Int. J. Environ. Res. Pub. Health 2019, 16, 1812. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Brammer, S.; Millington, A.; Rayton, B. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to organizational commitment. Int. J. Hum. Res. Manag. 2007, 18, 1701–1719. [CrossRef]
  68. Friedman, M. A Friedman doctrine: The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. N. Y. Times Mag. 1970. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html (accessed on 24 March 2021).
  69. Drucker, P.F. Converting social problems into business opportunities: The new meaning of corporate social responsibility. Calif. Manag. Rev. 1984, 26, 53–63. [CrossRef]
  70. Carroll, A.B. A three-dimensional conceptual model of corporate performance. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1979, 4, 497–505. [CrossRef]
  71. Windsor, D. Corporate social responsibility: Three key approaches. J. Manag. Stud. 2006, 43, 93–114. [CrossRef]
  72. Carroll, A.B. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Bus. Horiz. 1991, 34, 39–48. [CrossRef]
  73. Camilleri, M.A. Corporate Sustainability, Social Responsibility and Environmental Management: An Introduction to Theory and Practice with Case Studies; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; ISBN 978-3-319-46849-5.
  74. Camilleri, M.A. Theoretical Insights on Integrated Reporting: The Inclusion of Non-Financial Capitals in Corporate Disclosures. Corp. Comm. Int. J. 2018, 23, 567–581. [CrossRef]
  75. Hao, Y.; Farooq, Q.; Zhang, Y. Unattended social wants and corporate social responsibility of leading firms: Relationship of intrinsic motivation of volunteering in proposed welfare programs and employee attributes. Corp. Soc. Resp. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 1029–1038. [CrossRef]
  76. Ashforth, B.E.; Mael, F. Social identity theory and the organization. Acad. Manag. Rev. 1989, 14, 20–39. [CrossRef]
  77. Tajfel, H. Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Soc. Sci. Inf. 1974, 13, 65–93. [CrossRef]
  78. Hur, W.M.; Moon, T.W.; Ko, S.H. How employees’ perceptions of CSR increase employee creativity: Mediating mechanisms of compassion at work and intrinsic motivation. J. Bus. Eth. 2018, 153, 629–644. [CrossRef]
  79. Skudiene, V.; Auruskeviciene, V. The contribution of corporate social responsibility to internal employee motivation. Balt. J. Manag. 2012, 7, 49–67. [CrossRef]
  80. Vlachos, P.A.; Panagopoulos, N.G.; Rapp, A.A. Feeling good by doing good: Employee CSR-induced attributions, job satisfaction, and the role of charismatic leadership. J. Bus. Eth. 2013, 118, 577–588. [CrossRef]
  81. Valentine, S.; Fleischman, G. Ethics programs, perceived corporate social responsibility and job satisfaction. J. Bus. Eth. 2008, 77, 159–172. [CrossRef]
  82. Archimi, C.S.; Reynaud, E.; Yasin, H.M.; Bhatti, Z.A. How perceived corporate social responsibility affects employee cynicism: The mediating role of organizational trust. J. Bus. Eth. 2018, 151, 907–921. [CrossRef]
  83. Hansen, S.D.; Dunford, B.B.; Boss, A.D.; Boss, R.W.; Angermeier, I. Corporate social responsibility and the benefits of employee trust: A cross-disciplinary perspective. J. Bus. Eth. 2011, 102, 29–45. [CrossRef]
  84. Kim, J.S.; Milliman, J.; Lucas, A. Effects of CSR on employee retention via identification and quality-of-work-life. Int. J. Cont. Hosp. Manag. 2020, 32, 1163–1179. [CrossRef]
  85. Lee, L.; Chen, L.F. Boosting employee retention through CSR: A configurational analysis. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 948–960. [CrossRef]
  86. Zhu, Q.; Yin, H.; Liu, J.; Lai, K.H. How is employee perception of organizational efforts in corporate social responsibility related to their satisfaction and loyalty towards developing harmonious society in Chinese enterprises? Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2014, 21, 28–40. [CrossRef]
  87. Lee, E.M.; Park, S.Y.; Lee, H.J. Employee perception of CSR activities: Its antecedents and consequences. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 1716–1724. [CrossRef]
  88. Petrenko, O.V.; Aime, F.; Ridge, J.; Hill, A. Corporate social responsibility or CEO narcissism? CSR motivations and organizational performance. Strat. Manag. J. 2016, 37, 262–279. [CrossRef]
  89. Camilleri, M.A. Measuring the corporate managers’ attitudes toward ISO’s social responsibility standard. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excel. 2019, 30, 1549–1561. [CrossRef]
  90. Nazir, O.; Islam, J.U. Influence of CSR-specific activities on work engagement and employees’ innovative work behaviour: An empirical investigation. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 23, 3054–3072. [CrossRef]
  91. Gond, J.P.; El Akremi, A.; Swaen, V.; Babu, N. The psychological microfoundations of corporate social responsibility: A personcentric systematic review. J. Org. Behav. 2017, 38, 225–246. [CrossRef]
  92. MacKenzie, S.B.; Podsakoff, P.M. Common method bias in marketing: Causes, mechanisms, and procedural remedies. J. Retail. 2012, 88, 542–555. [CrossRef]
  93. Deal, J.J.; Stawiski, S.; Graves, L.; Gentry, W.A.; Weber, T.J.; Ruderman, M. Motivation at work: Which matters more, generation or managerial level? Consult. Psychol. J. Pr. Res. 2013, 65, 1–16. [CrossRef]
  94. Camilleri, M.A. The promotion of responsible tourism management through digital media. Tour. Plan. Dev. 2018, 15, 653–671. [CrossRef]
  95. Singh, J.; Del Bosque, I.R. Understanding corporate social responsibility and product perceptions in consumer markets: A cross-cultural evaluation. J. Bus. Eth. 2008, 80, 597–611. [CrossRef]
  96. Ringle, C.M.; Wende, S.; Becker, J.M. SmartPLS 3. Hamburg: SmartPLS. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2014, 9, 419–445.
  97. Hair, J.F.; Sarstedt, M.; Ringle, C.M.; Mena, J.A. An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2012, 40, 414–433. [CrossRef]
  98. Fornell, C.; Larcker, D.F. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981, 18, 39–50. [CrossRef]
  99. Mao, Y.; He, J.; Morrison, A.M.; Andres Coca-Stefaniak, J. Effects of tourism CSR on employee psychological capital in the COVID-19 crisis: From the perspective of conservation of resources theory. Curr. Issues Tour. 2020, 1–19. [CrossRef]

Leave a comment

Filed under business, COVID19, Motivation