In the context of Malaysia’s rapidly digitalizing higher education sector, this study investigates the paradoxical role of AI literacy by examining its influence on Service-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior (SO-OCB) through competing parallel mediating pathways of work stressors and work engagement.
Methods
A quantitative, cross-sectional design was employed. Data were collected from 300 Malaysian academics and analyzed using Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) in SmartPLS 4.
Results
The findings show that AI literacy has a strong negative relationship with work stressors and a strong positive relationship with work engagement. Both work stressors and work engagement significantly mediate the relationship between AI literacy and SO-OCB, confirming that the primary influence of AI literacy is indirect.
Conclusion
This study extends Conservation of Resources (COR) theory by establishing AI literacy as a critical personal resource in the digital era and offers practical insights for fostering a resilient academic workforce.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. Way forward for private higher education institutions: education as an industry (2020 - 2025). Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2020.
2.
Ministry of Education Malaysia. Malaysia education blueprint 2015 - 2025 (higher education). Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2015.
3.
Ministry of Higher Education M. Statistik pendidikan tinggi 2022, Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2022.
4.
ChoudhuryP. Our work from anywhere. Harvard Business Review2020.
5.
KhaliliNNMHashimH. Technostress among Malaysian English instructors: impact on job performance. Int J Acad Res Bus Soc Sci2025; 15: 24816. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v15-i2/24816
6.
IsmailSBHaixuS. Evaluating the impact of technostress on teachers' well-being and academic productivity in technology-enhanced higher education. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH)2025; 10: e003543. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v10i9.3543
7.
EshetY. Thinking in the digital era: a revised model for digital literacy. Issues Inf Sci Inf Technol2012; 9: 267–276. https://doi.org/10.28945/1621
8.
WangSAlamGMSkrbinjekV, et al.Managing digital bridges: how online social capital translates digital literacy into higher education access. Hum Syst Manag2025; 45: 139–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/01672533251359152
9.
WangSAlamGMBashirK, et al.Investigating sustainable development in education: does digital literacy infused by SES‐Driven social capital make a difference in secondary school graduates’ access to higher education?Sustain Dev2025; 2: 70513. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.70513
10.
AlamGMRahmanMMSkrbinjekV, et al.Does the digitalised era adjust the mismatch as match? A comparison of graduates from different streams to align HE and industry in Bangladesh. Int J Innovat Learn2025; 38: 92–115. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijil.2025.147981
11.
WangBRauP-LPYuanT. Measuring user competence in using artificial intelligence: validity and reliability of artificial intelligence literacy scale. Behav Inf Technol2023; 42: 1324–1337. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2022.2072768
12.
BoscardinCKGinBGoldePB, et al.ChatGPT and generative artificial intelligence for medical education: potential impact and opportunity. Acad Med2024; 99: 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000005439
13.
LitanDE. Mental health in the “era” of artificial intelligence: technostress and the perceived impact on anxiety and depressive disorders-an SEM analysis. Front Psychol2025; 16: 1600013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1600013
14.
DavaE. Teachers learning to deal with work-from-home stress. PMC, 2021.
15.
MacnamaraBNBerberICavusogluMC, et al.Does using artificial intelligence assistance accelerate skill decay and hinder skill development without performers’ awareness?Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications2024; 9: 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00572-8
16.
GerlichM. AI tools in society: impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies2025; 15: 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006
17.
LiCZhangYNiuX, et al.Does artificial intelligence promote or inhibit on-the-job learning? Human reactions to AI at work. Systems2023; 11: 114. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems11030114
18.
HogemannMHeinLBritscheJO, et al.Technostress and generative AI in the workplace: a qualitative analysis of young professionals. Front Artif Intell2025; 8: 1728881. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2025.1728881
19.
LestariDMargarethaM. Work life balance, job engagement and turnover intention: experience from Y generation employees. Manag Sci Lett2021; 11: 165–170. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2020.8.019
20.
BettencourtLAGwinnerKPMeuterML. A comparison of attitude, personality, and knowledge predictors of service-oriented organizational citizenship behaviors. J Appl Psychol2001; 86: 29–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.1.29
21.
KangJJangJ. Fostering service-oriented organizational citizenship behavior through reducing role stressors. An examination of the role of social capital. Int J Contemp Hospit Manag2019; 31: 3567–3582. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-12-2018-1018
NagatomoKNAbeHYadaH, et al.Development of the school teachers job stressor scale (STJSS). Neuropsychopharmacology Reports2019; 39: 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/npr2.12065
DemeroutiE. Job demands-resources and conservation of resources theories: how do they help to explain employee well-being and future job design?J Bus Res2025; 192: 115296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115296
26.
SchaufeliWBBakkerAB. Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. J Organ Behav2004; 25: 293–315. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.248
27.
Na-NanKKanthongSJoungtrakulJ. An empirical study on the model of self-efficacy and organizational citizenship behavior transmitted through employee engagement, organizational commitment and job satisfaction in the Thai automobile parts manufacturing industry. J Open Innov Technol Mark Complex2021; 7: 170. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc7030170
28.
SchaufeliWBBakkerABSalanovaM. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas2006; 66: 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282471
29.
ButsonRSpronken-SmithR. AI and its implications for research in higher education: a critical dialogue. High Educ Res Dev2024; 43: 563–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2023.2280200
McCarthySPalmerEFalknerN. Personalising with AI in higher education: exploring educator characteristics and their role in shaping blended learning. High Educ Res Dev2025; 44: 2030–2046. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2025.2510660
32.
MazzolaJJDisselhorstR. Should we be “challenging” employees? a critical review and meta-analysis of the challenge-hindrance model of stress. J Organ Behav2019; 40: 949–961. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2412
33.
Sanjeeva KumarP. Technostress: a comprehensive literature review on dimensions, impacts, and management strategies. Computers in Human Behavior Reports2024; 16: 100475. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2024.100475
34.
ZhangHT. Academic self-efficacy, and resistance to innovation: buffering roles of knowledge sharing culture and constructive deviant behavior. Psychol Res Behav Manag2023; 16: 3867–3881. https://doi.org/10.2147/PRBM.S424396
35.
SlimiZ. The impact of artificial intelligence on higher education: an empirical Study. European Journal of Educational Sciences2023; 10: 1a17. https://doi.org/10.19044/ejes.v10no1a17
36.
ZhaoYPinto LlorenteAMSanchez GomezMC. Digital competence in higher education research: a systematic literature review. Comput Educ2021; 168: 104212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104212
37.
De ClercqDBelausteguigoitiaI. When does job stress limit organizational citizenship behavior, or not? Personal and contextual resources as buffers. J Manag Organ2020; 30: 792–816. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2020.7
38.
BondaniniGGiorgiGAriza-MontesA, et al.Technostress dark side of technology in the workplace: a scientometric analysis. Int J Environ Res Publ Health2020; 17: 8013. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17218013
39.
ZhanXXieS. Linking workplace digitalization to work engagement: evidence from China public sector organizations. Front Psychol2025; 16: 1455250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1455250
40.
BakkerABHakanenJJDemeroutiE, et al.Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. J Educ Psychol2007; 99: 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.274
41.
XanthopoulouDBakkerABDemeroutiE, et al.Reciprocal relationships between job resources, personal resources, and work engagement. J Vocat Behav2009; 74: 235–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.11.003
42.
LeiMAlamGMBashirK. The job performance and job burnout relationship: a panel data comparison of four groups of academics' job performance. Front Public Health2024; 12: 1460724. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1460724
43.
LeiMAlamGMBashirK. The influence of academic staff job performance on job burnout: the moderating effect of psychological counselling. Humanit Soc Sci Commun2025; 12: 749. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05043-z
44.
ShiJLiuWHuK. Exploring how AI literacy and self-regulated learning relate to student writing performance and well-being in generative AI-Supported higher education. Behav Sci2025; 15: 20250520. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050705
ChristianMSGarzaASSalughterJE. Work engagement: a quantitative review and test of its relations with task and COntextual performance. Pers Psychol2011; 64: 89–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x
MilesDEBormanWESpectorPE, et al.Building an integrative model of extra role work behaviors: a comparison of counterproductive work behavior with organizational citizenship behavior. Int J Sel Assess2002; 10: 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00193
SridadiAREliyanaAGunawanDR, et al.The mediating role of work engagement: a survey data on organizational citizenship behavior. Data Brief2022; 42: 108243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2022.108243
51.
CreswellJWCreswellJD. Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 6th ed.Sage Publications, Inc., 2023.
52.
SchaufeliWBSalanovaMGonzalez-RomaV, et al.The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic. J Happiness Stud2002; 3: 71–92. https://doi.org/10.9790/487x-1810041925
MemonMAThurasamyRCheahJH, et al.Addressing common method bias, operationalization, sampling, and data collection issues in quantitative research: review and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling2023; 7: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.47263/JASEM.7(2)01
60.
PodsakoffPMPodsakoffNPWilliamsLJ, et al.Common method bias: it’s bad, it’s complex, it’s widespread, and it’s not easy to fix. Ann Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav2024; 11: 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-110721-040030
FornellCLarckerDF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res1981; 18: 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
63.
HenselerJRingleCMSarstedtM. A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Market Sci2015; 43: 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
64.
CohenJ. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Routledge, 1988.
65.
ShmueliGSarstedtMHairJF, et al.Predictive model assessment in PLS-SEM: guidelines for using PLSpredict. Eur J Market2019; 53: 2322–2347. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2019-0189
66.
HobfollSEHalbeslebenJNeveuJ-P, et al.Conservation of resources in the organizational context: the reality of resources and their consequences. Ann Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav2018; 5: 103–128.
67.
HobfollSEFreedyJLaneC, et al.Conservation of social resources: social support resource theory. J Soc Pers Relat1990; 7: 465–478. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407590074004
68.
ChoongYONgLP. Shaping teachers' organizational citizenship behavior through self-efficacy and trust in colleagues: moderating role of collective efficacy. BMC Psychol2024; 12: 532. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-024-02050-8
69.
WeiLJiaoY. Relations of challenge-hindrance stressors with organizational citizenship behavior: the role of positive emotion and power distance. International Conference on Strategic Management2019; 3: 502–511. https://doi.org/10.25236/icsm.2019.048
70.
Bahamondes-RosadoMECerdá-SuárezLMDodero Ortiz de ZevallosGF, et al.Technostress at work during the COVID-19 lockdown phase (2020–2021): a systematic review of the literature. Front Psychol2023; 14: 1173425. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1173425
71.
CaliffCBBrooksS. An empirical study of techno-stressors, literacy facilitation, burnout, and turnover intention as experienced by K-12 teachers. Comput Educ2020; 157: 103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2020.103971
72.
MalikNTripathiSNKarAK, et al.Impact of artificial intelligence on employees working in industry 4.0 led organizations. Int J Manpow2021; 43: 334–354. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijm-03-2021-0173
