Based on the Social Exchange Theory (SET) and the Job-Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, this study examines how supervisory trust and workload influence the work engagement and learning goal orientation (LGO) of academic staff. Survey data collected from 265 full-time academic staff in Malaysian public universities were analysed using structural equation modelling. The results suggest that both supervisory trust and workload have a significant positive influence on the work engagement of academic staff. This, in turn, indirectly enhances their LGO. This study provides empirical evidence that supervisory trust is not the only important predictor of academic staff’s work engagement, as workload also significantly boosts their engagement. Therefore, it is essential to consider these factors when cultivating work engagement and LGO, which are prerequisites for a true learning culture and key to developing a cutting-edge university. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are also highlighted.
AdnanMKhanAUHayeeR (2021) Self-efficacy as a function of work engagement with the mediating role of organizational trust in higher educational institutions. iRASD Journal of Management3(2): 185–199.
2.
PourahmadiGAhmadizadA (2015) The relationship between internal organizational trust and job engagement in higher education. International Letters of Social and Humanistic Sciences64: 94–101.
3.
ArokiasamyLIsmailMAhmadA, et al. (2011) Predictors of academics’ career advancement at Malaysian private universities. Journal of European Industrial Training35(6): 589–605.
4.
BakkerABAlbrechtS (2018) Work engagement: current trends. Career Development International23(1): 4–11.
5.
BakkerABDemeroutiE (2007) The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology22: 309–328.
6.
BakkerABDemeroutiE (2017) Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology22(3): 273–285.
7.
BreevaartKBakkerAB (2018) Daily job demands and employee work engagement: the role of daily transformational leadership behavior. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology23(3): 338–349.
8.
ButtonSBMathieuJEZajacDM (1996) Goal orientation in organizational research: a conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes67(1): 26–48.
9.
ByrneOMacDonaghJ (2017) What’s love got to do with it? Employee engagement amongst higher education workers. Irish Journal of Management36(3): 189–205.
10.
Che-HaNMavondoFTMohd-SaidS (2014) Performance or learning goal orientation: implications for business performance. Journal of Business Research67(1): 2811–2820.
11.
ChenIS (2017) Work engagement and its antecedents and consequences: a case of lecturers teaching synchronous distance education courses. Computers in Human Behavior72: 655–663.
12.
ChughtaiAABuckleyF (2011) Work engagement: antecedents, the mediating role of learning goal orientation and job performance. Career Development International16(7): 684–705.
13.
CohenJ (1988) Statistical Power Analysis for Behavioral Sciences. New York: Routledge Academic.
14.
CropanzanoRWrightTA (2001) When a ‘happy’ worker is really a ‘productive’ worker: a review and further refinement of the happy-productive worker thesis. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research53(3): 182–199.
15.
DannaKGriffinRW (1999) Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of the literature. Journal of Management25(3): 357–384.
16.
AlvesMGMChorDFaersteinE, et al. (2004) Short version of the job stress scale: a Portuguese-language adaptation. Revista de Saúde Pública38(2): 164–171.
17.
DemeroutiEBakkerABNachreinerF, et al. (2001) The job demands resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology86(3): 499–512.
18.
DirksKTFerrinDL (2002) Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psychology87(4): 611–628.
19.
DweckCS (1986) Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist41(10): 1040–1048.
20.
EmersonRM (1976) Social exchange theory. Annual Review of Sociology2: 335–362.
21.
EngelbrechtASHeineGMahembeB (2017) Integrity, ethical leadership, trust and work engagement. The Leadership & Organization Development Journal38(3): 368–379.
22.
ErlyaniNSuhariadiF (2021) Literature review: readiness to change at the university. Open Access Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences9(F): 464–469.
23.
FaulFErdfelderELangAG, et al. (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods39(2): 175–191.
24.
FornellCChaJ (1994) Partial least squares. In: BagozziRP (ed) Advanced Methods of Marketing Research. Cambridge: Blackwell, 52–78.
25.
FornellCLarckerDF (1981) Evaluating structural equation model with observable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research18(1): 39–50.
26.
FoxMLDwyerDJGansterDC (1993) Effects of stressful job demands and control on physiological and attitudinal outcomes in a hospital setting. Academy of Management Journal36(2): 289–318.
27.
FredricksonBLBraniganC (2005) Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought-action repertoires. Cognition & Emotion19(3): 313–332.
28.
GouldE (2006) Professor or knowledge worker? The politics of defining faculty work. Higher Education in Europe31(3): 241–249.
29.
GrantHDweckCS (2003) Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology85(3): 541–553.
30.
GuptaMShuklaK (2018) An empirical clarification on the assessment of engagement at work. Advances in Developing Human Resources20(1): 44–57.
31.
HairJFHultGTMRingleCM, et al. (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
32.
HenselerJRingleCMSarstedtM (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science43(1): 115–135.
33.
HeynsMRothmannS (2018) Volitional trust, autonomy satisfaction and engagement at work. Psychological Reports121(1): 112–134.
34.
HoAPCWoodsPCAzizAA, et al. (2013) Lecturers as knowledge workers and the self-management of their intellectual capital growth and development from a teaching to a research-teaching fusion – a Malaysian case study. International Journal of Learning and Intellectual Capital10(1): 88–105.
35.
HoqKAkterR (2012) Knowledge management in universities: role of knowledge workers. Bangladesh Journal of Library and Information Science2: 92–102.
36.
HoustonDMeyerLHPaewaiS (2006) Academic staff workloads and job satisfaction: expectations and values in academe. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management28(1): 17–30.
37.
JiangQLiuYYuH, et al. (2020) A multicenter, comparative study of two pressure-redistribution mattresses with repositioning intervals for critical care patients. Advances in Skin & Wound Care33(4): 1–9.
38.
KunteMRungruangP (2019) Test of the job demand resources model in Thailand. International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior22(1): 2–21.
39.
KutsyurubaBWalkerK (2014) The life cycle of trust in educational leadership: an ecological perspective. International Journal of Leadership in Education18(1): 106–121.
40.
LiDCTsaiCY (2020) Antecedents of employees’ goal orientation and the effects of goal orientation on e-learning outcomes: the roles of intra-organizational environment. Sustainability12(11): 1–27.
41.
LiljaJFladmarkSNuutinenS, et al. (2022) COVID-19 job related demands and resources, organizational support, and employee well-being: a study of two Nordic countries. Challenges13(10): 1–20.
42.
MadenC (2015) Linking high involvement human resource practices to employee proactivity: the role of work engagement and learning goal orientation. Personnel Review44(5): 720–738.
43.
McCauleyDPKuhnertKW (1992) A theoretical review and empirical investigation of employee trust in management. Public Administration Quarterly16(2): 265–284.
44.
MeyerLHEvansIM (2005) Supporting academic staff: meeting new expectations in higher education without compromising traditional faculty values. Higher Education Policy18: 243–255.
45.
MishraAK (1996) Organizational responses to crisis: the centrality of trust. In: KramerRMTylerTR (eds) Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 261–287.
46.
MishraAKMishraKE (1994) The role of mutual trust in effective downsizing strategies. Human Resource Management33(2): 261–279.
47.
MustosmäkiAAnttilaTOinasT (2013) Engaged or not? A comparative study on factors inducing work engagement in call center and service sector work. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies3(1): 49–67.
48.
MutaharYFareaMMAbdulrabM, et al. (2022) The contribution of trust to academic knowledge sharing among academics in the Malaysian research institutions. Cogent Business & Management9(1): 1–16.
49.
Naidoo-ChettyMdu PlessisM (2021) Job demands and job resources of academics in higher education. Frontiers in Psychology12: 1–13.
50.
NienaberAMRomeikePDSearleR, et al. (2015) A qualitative meta-analysis of trust in supervisor-subordinate relationships. Journal of Managerial Psychology30(5): 507–534.
51.
O’ReillyCACaldwellDF (1981) The commitment and job tenure of new employees: some evidence of postdecisional justification. Administrative Science Quarterly26(4): 597–616.
52.
PengDXLaiF (2012) Using partial least squares in operations management research: a practical guideline and summary of past research. Journal of Operations Management30(6): 467–480.
53.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
54.
PodsakoffPMMackenzieSBPodsakoffNP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology63: 539–569.
55.
RazaIAwangZ (2020) Knowledge sharing in multicultural organizations: evidence from Pakistan. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning10(3): 497–517.
56.
ReinaDSReinaML (2006) Trust and Betrayal in the Workplace: Building Effective Relationships in Your Organization. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
SchaufeliWB (2017) Applying the job demands-resources model: a how ‘to guide’ to measuring and tackling work engagement and burnout. Organizational Dynamics46(2): 120–132.
59.
SchaufeliWBBakkerAB (2004) Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior25: 293–315.
60.
SchaufeliWBBakkerABSalanovaM (2006) The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement66(4): 701–716.
61.
SchaufeliWBTarisTW (2014) A critical review of the job demands-resources model: implications for improving work and health. In: BauerGFHämmigO (eds) Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach. Berlin: Springer Science + Business Media, 43–68. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-5640-3_4.
62.
SchaufeliWBSalanovaMGonzález-romáV, et al. (2002) The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies3(1): 71–92.
63.
ShahidSAMJaniSHMThomasTTO, et al. (2014) Relationship between knowledge workers and teaching effectiveness among Malaysian university lecturers. International Journal of Business and Management Invention3(4): 59–64.
64.
SittarKMunawarS (2020) Relationship of achievement goal orientation of university teachers designation at work engagement and organizational commitment. Responsible Education, Learning and Teaching in Emerging Economies2(1): 23–28.
65.
SkaalvikEMSkaalvikS (2018) Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher motivation and well-being. Social Psychology of Education21(5): 1251–1275.
66.
SonnentagS (2003) Recovery, work engagement, and proactive behavior: a new look at the interface between nonwork and work. Journal of Applied Psychology88(3): 518–528.
67.
SunLBunchapattanasakdaC (2019) Employee engagement: a literature review. International Journal of Human Resource Studies9(1): 63–80.
68.
TadicMBakkerABOerlemansWGM (2015) Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well-being: a diary study on the moderating role of job resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology88(4): 702–725.
69.
TaipaleSSelanderKAnttilaT, et al. (2011) Work engagement in eight European countries: the role of job demands, autonomy, and social support. International Journal of Sociology & Social Policy31(7/8): 486–504.
70.
TomicMTomicE (2010) Existential fulfilment, workload and work engagement among nurses. Journal of Research in Nursing16(5): 468–479.
71.
VandeWalleD (2003) A goal orientation model of feedback-seeking behavior. Human Resource Management Review13(4): 581–604.
YeanTFJohariJKhulidaKY (2016) The mediating role of learning goal orientation in the relationship between work engagement and innovative work behavior. International Review of Management and Marketing6(S7): 169–174.
