Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The factors influencing job burnout and job satisfaction among general education lecturers (e.g., English lecturers) in Chinese higher education have been understudied. This research utilized a cross-sectional survey design to examine how self-efficacy mediates the relationship between instructional leadership and English lecturers’ job burnout and satisfaction. A total of 507 valid responses were collected from English lecturers in Chinese universities through an online survey. Data were analyzed using covariance-based structural equation modeling with validated scales. The results revealed that instructional leadership significantly enhanced lecturers’ self-efficacy, reduced job burnout, and improved job satisfaction. The study employed the bootstrap method to test mediation effects. The results suggested that self-efficacy partially mediates the effects of instructional leadership on job satisfaction and job burnout. Notably, the study identified self-efficacy as a critical buffer against burnout for general education faculty, who face unique challenges such as weaker professional identity and lower student engagement in compulsory courses. The study advances theoretical understanding by validating self-efficacy’s mediating role in the leadership–well-being nexus and offers practical strategies for reducing burnout in underrepresented general education contexts.

Keywords

instructional leadership university lecturers lecturers’ self-efficacy job burnout job satisfaction mediation effect

Introduction

The modern university environment presents lecturers with a diverse array of challenges (Hammoudi Halat et al., 2023), resulting in increased pressure that often contributes to job burnout and diminished job satisfaction (Dube & Ndofirepi, 2024; Si, 2024). Chinese university lecturers, who, facing the dual pressures of work and personal life, are increasingly grappling with career dissatisfaction and an erosion of professional well-being (Huang, 2024). A 2018 Mycos survey on the well-being of Chinese university lecturers reveals that 88% experience moderate to severe work-related stress (Tian & Lu, 2017). Among the top sources of this stress are the demands for scientific research and publication (70%), followed by bureaucratic challenges within institutions (60%) and heavy workloads (57%). Prolonged exposure to such pressures without relief often leads to job burnout (Si, 2024). This negative cycle ultimately threatens the development of students, faculty, and the entire institution.

Within educational institutions, leadership is widely regarded as a crucial factor influencing the work experiences of lecturers (Basham, 2012; Leithwood et al., 2020). The role of university leaders, particularly in organizing and managing human resources, is critical in minimizing burnout and enhancing job satisfaction (Susar et al., 2023). Research indicates that lecturers’ perceptions of leadership significantly influence their stress levels and professional commitment, underscoring the importance of effective leadership in mitigating burnout (Zhan et al., 2023). Various leadership styles in higher education have been explored (Azeem & Mataruna, 2019; Jamali et al., 2022) including transformational leadership (Basham, 2012; Howell et al., 2022), instructional leadership (Bada et al., 2020; Liu et al., 2022; Zheng et al., 2019), and sustainability leadership (Leal Filho et al., 2020), each with its unique implications for fostering a supportive academic environment. Among which, instructional leadership refers to a leadership style that involves articulating the university’s vision and academic goals, setting performance standards, and promoting the professional development of lecturers (Leithwood et al., 2020). This form of leadership deserves greater attention, especially within Chinese higher education, where faculty often experience significant pressure to prioritize research at the expense of teaching (Tian & Lu, 2017). Previous findings reveal practical ways for instructional leaders to use individual characteristics to support lecturer well-being (Bellibas & Liu, 2017; Liu et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2019).

Moreover, personal factors significantly influence job satisfaction and burnout levels among lecturers (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2010). Grounded in Bandura (1977) social cognitive theory (SCT), extensive research indicates that educators’ work experiences are shaped by their self-perception. Among these factors, self-efficacy has been consistently recognized as a critical determinant of lecturers’ professional effectiveness (J. Chen et al., 2024). Prior research demonstrates that self-efficacy directly increases job satisfaction by fulfilling innate psychological needs (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017, 2020; Yang & Du, 2024), and lecturers with higher self-efficacy show stronger professional commitment and satisfaction (Baroudi et al., 2022; Ma, 2022).

Research confirmed that instructional leadership and self-efficacy affected burnout and satisfaction (Liu et al., 2021), yet a key gap remained. Few studies had treated self-efficacy as a mediator between leadership and job outcomes, and most focused on K–12 education rather than higher education (Matos, Iaochite, et al., 2022; Shoji et al., 2016). This oversight was especially relevant in China, where general education lecturers (e.g., English instructors) faced distinct challenges—such as weaker professional identity and lower student engagement—which made them more dependent on instructional leadership for developing self-efficacy.

To address this, our study examines how self-efficacy mediates the effects of instructional leadership on burnout and job satisfaction among Chinese university English lecturers. This study specifically examines university English instructors as a representative general education faculty population, based on three key considerations: (1) Existing literature demonstrates a significant research gap regarding general education faculty (e.g., English and ideological-political instructors), whose burnout mechanisms systematically differ from discipline-specific faculty (Land, 2021); (2) The disciplinary characteristics of English instruction—including standardized curricula and students’ instrumental learning motivation—offer clearer observation of the interplay between instructional leadership and self-efficacy; (3) China’s ongoing English curriculum reforms (e.g., the ESP transition) present an ideal context to examine how institutional changes impact faculty well-being. By exploring how instructional leadership influences job outcomes through self-efficacy, this research advances theoretical understanding and offers practical insights for leaders to enhance lecturer well-being by leveraging individual psychological factors.

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

General Education in Chinese High Education

Chinese higher education has undergone rapid expansion and reform in recent decades, becoming the largest system in the world by enrollment (Cheng & Zhu, 2021). Notably, Chinese high education is highly influenced by national policies, such as the “Double First-Class” initiative and the recent Discipline Optimization Action Plan (2025–2027), which prioritizes resources for fields aligned with strategic emerging industries (e.g., AI, integrated circuits; Han et al., 2023). This often marginalizes general education disciplines (e.g., English, ideological-political education) in resource allocation. In recent years, a growing body of research from Chinese scholars has focused on general education. For example, Xue et al. (2023) investigated nine first-class research universities, seven key provincial teaching–research universities, and seven teaching universities in China regarding the integration of major and general education. They found a widespread issue of “strong majors and weak general education.”Yan and Zhang (2024) conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 university students, revealing various tensions in current general education practices, such as “tao of universities” versus the “use of universities.”Shi et al. (2024) compared general education in China with Western models, highlighting reform strategies adopted by Chinese universities to address globalization challenges and holistic education needs. Notably, most existing studies focus on macro-level institutional reforms, while research from micro-level, individual teacher/work-related perspectives remains scarce.

Lecturers’ Job Burnout and Job Satisfaction as Job-Related Outcomes

Job burnout is a widespread problem affecting educators, marked by three key symptoms: emotional exhaustion, a sense of detachment (depersonalization), and diminished feelings of personal achievement (Chirico et al., 2021). This state arises from chronic stress, leading to emotional and bodily depletion (Maslach & Leiter, 2000), and as the gradual erosion of engagement in work (Maslach, Jackson, et al., 1997; Maslach, Schaufeli, et al., 2001). Emotional exhaustion, considered the core element of burnout, is marked by a loss of energy and chronic fatigue (Lee et al., 2019). In the teaching profession, cynicism manifests as negative attitudes toward students, and a diminished capacity to meet their needs (Maslach, Schaufeli, et al., 2001). Reduced personal accomplishment, another critical aspect of burnout, involves negative self-evaluation and the feeling of failing to perform well in one’s job (Maslach, Schaufeli, et al., 2001).

As noted by Llorens-Gumbau and Salanova-Soria (2014), prolonged exposure to occupational pressures can exhaust an individual’s coping resources, leading to burnout. University lecturers frequently encounter stressors such as excessive workloads, rigorous performance expectations, and the emotional labor inherent in teaching. The consequences of burnout in this profession are significant, often manifesting as decreased work engagement, impaired instructional quality, and lower research output. Prior research has extensively analyzed burnout antecedents in academia (Olorunsola, 2013; Salami, 2011; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2020). For example, Skaalvik and Skaalvik (2020) assessed how Norwegian secondary teachers’ burnout levels were influenced by three occupational demands—time constraints, student disengagement, and value conflicts—and two mitigating resources—professional autonomy and administrative support. Similarly, in another work conducted by Salami (2011) explored how job stress, personality factors, and social support systems jointly and independently predicted burnout dimensions among college lecturers, noting that personality and social support moderated stress effects on personal accomplishment. In contrast, Mohammed (2017) emphasized socioeconomic triggers, demonstrating that delayed salary payments in Iraqi Kurdistan’s universities exacerbated burnout, with emotional exhaustion frequently precipitating depersonalization.

Conversely, job satisfaction describes an employee’s overall sense of fulfillment and positive appraisal of their occupational role (Chirico et al., 2021). This multifaceted construct is shaped by numerous elements, including intrinsic job characteristics, interpersonal dynamics in the workplace, and career development prospects. Research consistently demonstrates that elevated job satisfaction correlates with enhanced work motivation, organizational loyalty, and improved psychological health (Faragher et al., 2005; Lee & Kim, 2023). Within academic settings, faculty members reporting greater job satisfaction tend to exhibit higher levels of professional output, teaching engagement, and scholarly creativity (Huang, 2024).

Understanding lectures’ job burnout and satisfaction is essential because the two constructs are often intertwined (Ersozlu & Saklan, 2016). An inverse relationship exists between burnout and job satisfaction among lecturers, with affected lecturers reporting diminished work satisfaction while satisfied lecturers exhibit lower burnout vulnerability. Therefore, exploring the factors that mitigate burnout and enhance job satisfaction is a critical area of research, particularly in the demanding university environment. They have found that, time pressure was the strongest predictor of emotional exhaustion whereas low student motivation and working in a dissonant value context were the strongest predictors of cynicism.

Instructional Leadership as an Antecedent

Over the years, extensive research has examined instructional leadership within the field of education (Leithwood et al., 2020). For example, Park and Ham (2016) explores teacher collaboration in three Asia-Pacific countries—Australia, Malaysia, and South Korea—by investigating whether differing perceptions between principals and teachers about principal instructional leadership could hinder the development of a school environment that fosters collaborative interactions among teachers. Cansoy (2019) conducted a systematic review examining how school principals’ leadership behaviors influence teachers’ job satisfaction. The studies primarily explored the impact of principals’ transformational and interactive leadership styles on teachers’ instructional practices. Grissom et al. (2013) examined the connection between leadership behaviors and student achievement, highlighting the critical role of effective time management for school leaders. Neumerski (2013) called for a reevaluation of instructional leadership, aiming to identify gaps in existing knowledge and explore ways in which leaders can enhance instructional practices.

In higher education, instructional leadership is typically exercised by department heads, deans, and other administrators responsible for overseeing academic programs and supporting faculty members (Ersozlu & Saklan, 2016). Lecturers’ perceptions of instructional leadership have been shown to positively influence their teaching motivation and overall job satisfaction (Ersozlu & Saklan, 2016). By fostering a supportive and growth-oriented environment, instructional leaders can help lecturers manage their workloads, reduce stress, and enhance their sense of professional accomplishment (Hallinger et al., 2017). In a related study, Khan and Gupta (2024) found that instructional leadership boosts teacher self-efficacy, enhancing job satisfaction in Indian elementary schools. Moreover, the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model (Bakker et al., 2023) offers a theoretical basis for understanding the relationship between instructional leadership and lecturers’ job burnout and satisfaction. According to JD-R, instructional leadership can serve as a key job resource that mitigates demands and enhances lecturers’ well-being. Gillet et al. (2015) found that instructional leadership can foster job satisfaction by fulfilling psychological needs for competence and recognition. Thus, this study proposed that:

H1: Instructional leadership has a positive influence on lecturers’ job satisfaction.

According to JD-R, as a resources, Instructional leaders help reduce emotional exhaustion (a core dimension of burnout) by mitigating the impact of excessive workloads or challenging teaching contexts by providing support, autonomy, and professional development. X.-M. Chen et al. (2024) found lecturers’ perceived instructional leadership negatively influenced their job burnout during COVID-19. Thus, this study proposed that:

H2: Instructional leadership has a negative influence on lecturers’ job burnout.

Lectures’ Self-Efficacy as a Mediator

Self-efficacy, as conceptualized by Bandura (1977), refers to an individual’s belief in their capability to execute the actions necessary to achieve specific goals. Rooted in SCT, self-efficacy highlights the role of human agency, asserting that individuals have the ability to exert control over their actions (Bandura, 1977; Bandura et al., 1999). Bandura et al. (1999) further elaborates that self-efficacious individuals are self-organizing, proactive, self-regulating, and self-reflective. Self-efficacy shapes how individuals perceive environmental opportunities and obstacles, influencing whether they adopt an optimistic or pessimistic outlook (Bandura & Hall, 2018). These beliefs also affect susceptibility to stress, worry, and depression, shaping how individuals respond to challenges (Bandura & Hall, 2018). Furthermore, self-efficacy determines activity choices, the effort exerted, and the persistence individuals demonstrate in the face of adversity (Pajares et al., 2007). Individuals with high self-efficacy tend to set ambitious goals and remain resilient, whereas those with low self-efficacy may focus on their limitations (Bandura & Hall, 2018). Thus, this study proposed that:

H3: Instructional leadership has a positive influence on lecturers’ self-efficacy.

Self-efficacy significantly influences lecturers’ job satisfaction and burnout levels. Those with strong self-efficacy perceive challenges as growth opportunities, while low self-efficacy contributes to overwhelm and burnout. Research consistently links higher self-efficacy with greater job satisfaction and lower burnout rates (J. Chen et al., 2024; Yang & Du, 2024). Confident lecturers typically experience better job satisfaction due to enhanced coping abilities. Research consistently links teachers’ professional identity with job satisfaction and well-being (Canrinus et al., 2012; Zakariya, 2020). For example, Canrinus et al. (2012) found that job satisfaction, commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation were interconnected among 1,214 Dutch secondary teachers, reinforcing prior professional identity research. Similarly, Ortan et al. (2021) identified self-efficacy, positive student behavior, career growth, and supportive work conditions as key job satisfaction drivers for 658 Romanian pre-university teachers. These factors enhance well-being, reduce burnout, and improve retention. Zakariya (2020) further confirms that self-efficacy boosts job satisfaction and helps teachers manage stress. Thus, this study proposed that:

H4: Lecturers’ self-efficacy positively influences their job satisfaction.

In previous study, Matos, Sharp, et al. (2022) demonstrated that self-efficacy reduces emotional exhaustion and depersonalization by improving quality of life, which in turn mitigates burnout. To further explore the relationship between lecturers’ self-efficacy and their job burnout in higher education, we propose the following hypotheses:

H5: Lecturers’ self-efficacy negatively influences their job burnout.

Given its significance, self-efficacy may mediate how instructional leadership influences lecturer’s satisfaction on their jobs. Effective instructional leadership enhances lecturers’ self-efficacy by offering essential resources, support, and constructive feedback aimed at improving their teaching practices. In turn, heightened self-efficacy can lead to reduced burnout and increased job satisfaction. This suggests that instructional leadership may not directly impact burnout and satisfaction but instead exerts its influence through its effect on self-efficacy (Ortan et al., 2021). Thus, this study proposed that:

H6: Lecturers’ self-efficacy mediates the relationship between instructional leadership and job satisfaction.

Given burnout’s established link to occupational stressors (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2020), an inverse correlation between self-efficacy and burnout is theoretically anticipated. The particularly strenuous environment of academia heightens the relevance of institutional working conditions. Nevertheless, the potential mediating function of faculty self-efficacy in connecting instructional leadership with burnout remains insufficiently examined in higher education settings, prompting the following research hypotheses:

H7: Lecturers’ self-efficacy mediates the relationship between instructional leadership and job burnout.

The research framework is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Methods

Samples and Data Collection

This study utilized a cross-sectional research design, employing an online survey distributed via Wenjuanxing, China’s predominant digital survey platform, during June to July 2024. This study employed a non-probability sampling technique (i.e., simple random sampling) due to the impracticality of obtaining a complete sampling frame given the large population of university lecturers across China.

The web-based data collection strategy enabled efficient nationwide sampling of the target population while ensuring standardized administration procedures. The online survey was mainly disseminated through various social media platforms (Xiaohongshu, QQ groups, WeChat groups, Weibo, and Douyin). Participants were screened based on their academic discipline, with only English-major lecturers included in the final analysis. The survey incorporated an informed consent form emphasizing its purely academic nature and guaranteeing strict confidentiality. Participants must click “Agree to participate in the survey” after reading the informed consent statement before proceeding to the subsequent questionnaire process. The questionnaire title explicitly specified the target population as full-time English faculty in higher education institutions, thereby excluding administrative staff.

The study received 538 responses in total, with 507 valid responses retained after excluding 31 invalid questionnaires, characterized by uniform or systematically patterned selections throughout the entire survey. The responses represent various ages, genders, educational backgrounds, and types of colleges, including both public and private institutions (Table 1). The respondent demographics closely mirror the national profile of Chinese university English instructors documented in the Ministry of Education (2010)’s statistics, showing predominant female representation (approximating the 3:1 national ratio), a majority of mid-career faculty aged 30 to 50, and near-universal attainment of graduate-level degrees. Moreover, the surveyed lecturers are distributed across various regions in China suggesting that the location is highly representative. Thus, the sample is demographically representative of China’s higher education context.

Table 1.

The Portfolio of Samples.

Items	Num	%
Gender
Female	391	77.10%
Male	116	22.90%
Age
26–30eyears	52	10.30%
31–40.30%rs	370	73.00%
41–50.00%rs	85	16.80%
Education
Possess a college degree	89	17.60%
Possess a bachelor degree	106	20.90%
Possess a master’s or doctoral degree	312	61.50%
Type of the institution
Public college	56	11.00%
Private college	103	20.30%
Public university	286	56.40%
Private university	61	12.00%
Locations of the institution
Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region	8	1.60%
Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shanghai	64	12.60%
Pearl river delta	82	16.20%
Chengdu-Chongqing area	103	20.30%
Central region (Wuhan, Changsha, etc.)	51	10.10%
Western region	118	23.30%
Northeast region	73	14.40%
Other	8	1.60%

Measurements

This research employs a questionnaire, utilizing a scale derived from prior studies that has been validated by extensive research. This study assessed these factors via a 7-point Likert scale, wherein participants rated their level of agreement with the questionnaire items. The following is the source of the scale for each variable. The translation accuracy was ensured through authorial cross-verification, supported by a bilingual (Chinese–English) questionnaire to facilitate participants’ comprehension.

Instructional Leadership

Instructional leadership was specifically referenced from the study by Lai and Lien (2023), which has 12 items and originally evaluated via a 7-point Likert scale.

Self-Efficacy

The self-efficacy of lecturers was assessed using 12 items derived from Klassen et al. (2009), originally rated on a 7-point Likert scale.

Job Burnout

A condensed version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey (MBI-GS), comprising 10 questions, was utilized to assess job burnout (De Beer et al., 2024; Merino-Soto et al., 2023), originally rated on a 7-point Likert scale.

Job Satisfaction

Job satisfaction was assessed using four questions derived from the study by Malinen and Savolainen (2016), originally based on a 7-point Likert scale.

Data Analysis

The data analysis followed a multi-step procedure using SPSS 26.0 and AMOS 24. First, descriptive statistics (e.g., means, standard deviations) were computed for all demographic variables and study constructs to summarize the sample characteristics. Subsequently, variance inflation factors (VIFs) were analyzed though SPSS 26.0 to check the common method bias. The results revealed that multicollinearity was not a significant concern in our study, with all VIF values below 5.0 and tolerance values exceeding .4.

Subsequently, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted using AMOS 24 to evaluate the measurement model. The internal consistency of the scales was assessed by Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability (CR). Convergent validity was examined through average variance extracted (AVE) and factor loadings, while discriminant validity was verified by comparing the square root of the AVE with inter-construct correlations.

Finally, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was employed to test the hypothesized relationships (Thompson, 2000). The model fit was evaluated using multiple indices: χ²/df, RMSEA, GFI, CFI, NFI, TLI, and IFI. The significance of direct and indirect effects was examined. Specifically, the mediation effect of self-efficacy was tested using a bootstrap procedure with 5,000 resamples and a 95% bias-corrected confidence interval (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). An indirect effect is considered statistically significant if the confidence interval does not include zero.

Results

Measurement Model

This study evaluated the relationships between the latent variables through AMOS 24.0, which required a multivariate normal distribution of the data (Table 2). The investigation indicates that the skewness of all the observed variables in this sample ranges from 1.625 to 0.847, while the kurtosis ranges from −1.201 to .842. Exhibiting kurtosis and skewness values below 3, and indicating that the variables conform to a normal distribution and meet the prerequisites for structural equation analysis (Kline, 2023).

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variables	N	Min	Max	Mean	SD	Kurtosis	Skewness
IL	507	1.750	6.667	5.183	1.51	−.32	−1.245
LSE	507	1.727	6.636	5.377	1.373	.842	−1.625
JB	507	1.467	6.2	3.069	1.622	−1.201	.847
JS	507	1.5	7	4.986	1.622	−.887	−.910

Note. IL = instructional leadership; LSE = lecturers’ self-efficacy; JB = job burnout; JS = job satisfaction; SD = standard deviations.

The results indicate that the overall fit index of the model shows χ²/df = 1.077, which is below 3; RMSEA = .012, below .08; GFI = .927, greater than .8; CFI = .993; NFI = .965; TLI = .997; IFI = .997, all beyond .9, indicating a favorable model fit (Hair et al., 2017). Moreover, the item factor loading for each variable exceeds .6 and is statistically significant, demonstrating a strong measurement correlation between each item and its corresponding variable (Table 3). The Cronbach’s α for instructional leadership is .975, for lecturers’ self-efficacy is .967, for job burnout is .982, and for job satisfaction is .933. Generally, a Cronbach α score above .7 implies strong internal consistency of the scale variables.

Table 3.

CFA Results.

Factor	Items	Factor loading	AVE	CR
IL	IL12	.878***	.763	.975
	IL11	.88***
	IL10	.865***
	IL9	.883***
	IL8	.868***
	IL7	.872***
	IL6	.871***
	IL5	.869***
	IL4	.878***
	IL3	.869***
	IL2	.875***
	IL1	.873***
LSE	LSE11	.858***	.728	.967
	LSE10	.847***
	LSE9	.842***
	LSE8	.849***
	LSE7	.856***
	LSE6	.862***
	LSE5	.85***
	LSE4	.851***
	LSE3	.868***
	LSE2	.849***
	LSE1	.854***
JB	JB15	.88***	.782	.982
	JB14	.881***
	JB13	.895***
	JB12	.883***
	JB11	.873
	JB10	.892***
	JB9	.88***
	JB8	.893***
	JB7	.89***
	JB6	.897***
	JB5	.867***
	JB4	.889***
	JB3	.877***
	JB2	.883***
	JB1	.887***
JS	JS4	.894***	.777	.933
	JS3	.897***
	JS2	.883***
	JS1	.852***

Note. IL = instructional leadership; LSE = lecturers’ self-efficacy; JB = job burnout; JS = job satisfaction; AVE = average variance extracted; CR = composite reliability.

***

p < .001.

The results of convergence validity demonstrated that the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) for each scale variable exceeded .5, and the Composite Reliability (CR) value beyond .7. The results of discriminant validity (Table 4) used Fornell–Larcker criterion, and revealed that the square root of the AVE for all variables surpassed the correlation coefficients among the variables, signifying that the model’s variables displayed robust discriminant validity. Thus, the results suggest that the measurements were reliable and the variables were acceptable (Hair et al., 2017).

Table 4.

Discriminant Validity Results.

Variables	IL	LSE	JB	JS
IL	.873
LSE	.332	.853
JB	−.301	−.235	.885
JS	.383	.31	−.572	.882

Note. IL = instructional leadership; LSE = lecturers’ self-efficacy; JB = job burnout; JS = job satisfaction.

Structural Model Assessment

The results of the model indicated a good fit (χ²/df = 1.236, less than 3, RMSEA = .022, less than .08, GFI = .992, greater than .8, RFI = .957, CFI = .992, NFI = .960, TLI = .992, IFI = .992, all greater than .9; Hairet al., 2017).

Direct Effects

The SEM analysis results (Table 5, Figure 2) revealed that instructional leadership had a significant and positive effect on lecturers’ self-efficacy (β = .332, p < .001), thereby supporting hypothesis H1. This study presents a model where two factors directly impact job burnout: instructional leadership and lecturer self-efficacy. The effect of instructional leadership on lecturer job burnout was found to be both statistically significant and negative (β = −.254, p < .001), confirming hypothesis H2. Moreover, lecturers’ self-efficacy showed a significantly negative effect on their job burnout (β = −.154, p < .001), supporting hypothesis H4. The findings suggest that instructional leadership has the most substantial influence on job burnout and is the key factor. A higher perception of instructional leadership among lecturers is associated with lower levels of job burnout. Lecturer self-efficacy is the second factor influencing job burnout, with higher self-efficacy leading to reduced burnout.

Table 5.

Direct effects of the model.

Hypothesis		β	CR (t-value)	Hypothesis
H1	IL → LSE	.332	7.381	Supported
H2	IL → JB	−.254	−5.479	Supported
H3	IL → JS	.318	6.831	Supported
H4	LSE → JB	−.154	−3.342	Supported
H5	LSE → JS	.207	4.509	Supported

Note.β = standardized path coefficient; IL = instructional leadership; LSE = lecturers’ self-efficacy; JB = job burnout; JS = job satisfaction.

Figure 2.

SEM results.

Additionally, the study identified two factors that directly affect job satisfaction: instructional leadership and lecturer’s self-efficacy. The analysis showed that instructional leadership significantly and positively impacted lecturer job satisfaction (β = .318, p < .001), thus confirming hypothesis H3. Lecturer self-efficacy also significantly and positively influenced job satisfaction (β = .207, p < .001), validating hypothesis H5. These results suggest that instructional leadership, as perceived by lecturers, is the most critical factor affecting job satisfaction, with stronger instructional leadership associated with greater satisfaction. Self-efficacy is the second most important factor, where higher self-efficacy leads to increased job satisfaction.

Mediating Effects

This study utilizes the bootstrap method to examine the mediating role of lecturers’ self-efficacy in the relationship between instructional leadership, job burnout, and job satisfaction. A bootstrap sampling procedure with 5,000 iterations was employed, surpassing the recommended minimum of 1,000, with a 95% confidence interval—commonly set at 90%, 95%, or 99%—used to assess the significance of indirect effects (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). The bias-corrected confidence interval’s upper and lower limits were observed, and when these intervals did not contain zero, it indicated a significant mediation effect. The results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6.

Mediating Effects.

Indirect path	Effect type	Value	LCIL	UCIL	p
H6: IL → LSE → JS	Indirect effect 1	.069	.039	.108	.000
	Direct effect 1	.318	.228	.410	.000
	Total effect 1	.386	.298	.472	.000
H7: IL → LSE → JB	Indirect effect 4	−.051	−.090	−.023	.001
	Direct effect 4	−.254	−.348	−.159	.000
	Total effect 4	−.305	−.392	−.215	.000

Note. IL = instructional leadership; LSE = lecturers’ self-efficacy; JB = job burnout; JS = job satisfaction; LCIL = lower confidence interval level; UCIL = upper confidence interval level.

In the pathway instructional leadership → lecturers’ self-efficacy → job satisfaction, the direct effect size was .318 (p < .05), indicating a significant positive direct effect of instructional leadership on job satisfaction. The indirect effect size was .069 (p < .05), and the total effect size was .386 (p < .05). As with job burnout, the confidence intervals did not include zero, confirming that lecturers’ self-efficacy partially mediate the relationship between instructional leadership and job satisfaction. Thus, H6 is supported.

In the mediation pathway of instructional leadership → lecturers’ self-efficacy → job burnout, the direct effect size was −.254 (p < .05), demonstrating a significant direct negative effect of instructional leadership on job burnout. The indirect effect size was −.051 (p < .05), while the total effect size was −.305 (p < .05). Importantly, none of the confidence intervals for these effects included zero, signifying that lecturers’ self-efficacy plays a negative and partial mediating role in the relationship between instructional leadership and job burnout. Thus, H7 is supported.

Discussion

This study examined the interrelationships among instructional leadership, university lecturers’ self-efficacy, and their subsequent effects on job burnout and satisfaction, with particular attention to general education faculty exemplified by English lecturers. The results demonstrated significant direct and indirect impacts, advancing our understanding of how instructional leadership and self-efficacy collectively shape the distinct professional experiences of lecturers in non-specialized teaching contexts.

Our findings provided insights on the unique challenges faced by general education lecturers, who often operate outside formal academic departments and consequently develop weaker professional identities (Hanstedt, 2024). For English lecturers specifically—who frequently contend with student disengagement toward required language courses—self-efficacy was found to derive more substantially from institutional leadership than observed in prior studies of discipline-specific faculty (Demirdag & Reviews, 2015; Harris et al., 2015; Leithwood et al., 2020). Our results contributed to the theoretical claim that instructional leadership plays a crucial role in shaping job-related outcomes for this understudied population (Ejjebli, 2023; Khan & Gupta, 2024). Specifically, instructional leadership positively influences lecturers’ self-efficacy (H1), with particularly strong effects observed among general education staff who lack disciplinary support networks. This aligns with Leithwood et al. (2020)‘s framework on leadership efficacy in marginalized teaching contexts. The leadership-to-efficacy pathway proved vital for English lecturers, as institutional guidance compensated for the professional isolation characteristic of general education positions.

The study also found that instructional leadership can significantly reduce job burnout (H2). This effect is particularly significant among general education faculty, who face unique stressors such as teaching students with widely varying proficiency levels. From the perspective of the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model (Bakker et al., 2023), this study extends the theoretical framework by empirically validating instructional leadership as a significant job resource within the Chinese higher education context. Specifically, H2 and H3 demonstrate that instructional leadership not only directly reduces job burnout (H2) but also enhances job satisfaction (H3), highlighting its dual role in mitigating the negative impact of job demands while simultaneously promoting positive psychological outcomes. These findings enrich the JD-R model by identifying instructional leadership as a contextual resource that actively shapes both health impairment and motivational pathways. Moreover, this finding supports Hallinger et al.’s (2018) study that leadership interventions yield disproportionate benefits for vulnerable educator groups. Practically, the observed reduction in burnout proved critical for general education lecturers, validating Maslach and Leiter’s (2000) finding that targeted support systems can reduce the “emotional labor” of being a lecturer of public courses.

Additionally, our study confirms that instructional leadership positively affects job satisfaction (H3). This is consistent with existing literature suggesting that effective leadership enhances job satisfaction by improving the work environment and support structures (Ersozlu & Saklan, 2016). Lecturers who perceive strong instructional leadership experience higher job satisfaction, which is crucial for their career fulfillment and motivation.

The results substantiate Bandura (1978)’s self-efficacy theory, demonstrating its dual predictive capacity for occupational outcomes. Consistent with H4 and H5, improved self-efficacy levels corresponded with both reduced burnout symptoms and enhanced job satisfaction. This empirical validation extends prior evidence that high self-efficacy lecturers exhibit superior stress modulation capacities and derive heightened professional gratification from pedagogical activities.

A key contribution of our study is the examination of self-efficacy as a mediating factor in the relationship between instructional leadership and job-related outcomes. The results indicate that self-efficacy partially mediates the relationship between instructional leadership and both job burnout and job satisfaction, supporting H6 and H7. This finding aligns with the theoretical expectation that self-efficacy serves as a crucial mediator in the impact of instructional leadership on job-related outcomes (Ortan et al., 2021). Specifically, self-efficacy serves as a partial negative mediator between instructional leadership and burnout, indicating that instructional leadership both directly and indirectly (via enhanced self-efficacy) reduces burnout (Matos, Sharp, et al., 2022). Similarly, it partially mediates the leadership-satisfaction relationship, where leadership boosts satisfaction primarily by strengthening self-efficacy (Zakariya, 2020). These dual pathways emphasis self-efficacy’s pivotal role in translating leadership into improved occupational outcomes.

Although this study is situated within the specific context of Chinese higher education, the findings offer valuable insights for other systems experiencing comparable challenges, such as heavy research pressure, high teaching loads, and the marginalization of general education faculty. The demonstrated role of instructional leadership and self-efficacy in mitigating burnout and enhancing job satisfaction may resonate particularly in developing countries and mass higher education systems undergoing rapid expansion and reform. Thus, while contextual particularities must be considered, the mechanisms identified in this study contribute to a broader international discourse on supporting lecturer well-being through academic leadership and psychological resource development.

Implications for Practice

First, university administrators should develop instructional leadership practices that account for general education contexts. This includes providing discipline-specific resources (e.g., language teaching tools), clear pedagogical expectations for heterogeneous classes, and feedback mechanisms addressing the emotional labor of teaching general education-related courses. Such support can directly enhance lecturers’ self-efficacy by improving their professional identity at the university administrative level rather than at traditional departmental levels. Moreover, it is also recommended to recognize teaching excellence by creating formal awards and recognition systems for innovation and effectiveness in general education courses. This would signal that pedagogical skill is valued equally alongside scholarly publication, thereby boosting instructional leadership.

Second, higher education institutions should invest in self-efficacy-building programs designed for general education demands. For example, training could focus on strategies for engaging disinterested students or managing mixed-proficiency classrooms. Since self-efficacy mediates burnout and satisfaction, these initiatives would disproportionately benefit general education lecturers by helping them handle distinct institutional and student-related pressures. Furthermore, mastery-based training and mentorship for early-career faculty can also be beneficial. Pair less experienced novice lecturers with senior lecturers who can offer not only verbal persuasion and encouragement but also concrete advice on navigating the unique pressures of general education teaching, thereby reducing anxiety and building confidence.

Implications for Policy

The findings offers several policy implications. First, policymakers should implement policies that ensure university leaders receive adequate training in instructional leadership. This includes fostering skills to provide constructive feedback, facilitate professional development, and support lecturers’ teaching and research activities. Second, universities should allocate resources to professional development programs that focus on boosting self-efficacy among lecturers. These programs could include mentorship, peer collaboration, and training on stress management techniques. Third, policies should address reducing administrative burdens and bureaucratic obstacles that contribute to job burnout, creating an academic environment that promotes lecturer well-being. Institutions should also establish regular assessments of job satisfaction and burnout, enabling targeted interventions that enhance lecturer performance and retention.

Implications for Theory

This study contributes to the theoretical understanding of how instructional leadership influences job outcomes through the mediating role of self-efficacy. First, it extends social cognitive theory by demonstrating that self-efficacy not only affects individual performance but also serves as a critical link between leadership practices and workplace well-being. The findings highlight the need for theoretical frameworks that integrate organizational and individual factors to understand job satisfaction and burnout more comprehensively. Second, this study contributes empirical evidence from general education faculty, expanding higher education research on occupational outcomes through a liberal arts education perspective. These findings are critical for developing a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing university faculty well-being (i.e., job satisfaction and burnout)—across diverse academic contexts.

Limitations and Future Research

While this study offers valuable insights, it has limitations. First, its exclusive focus on English lecturers in Chinese higher education may restrict the applicability of findings to faculty in specialized disciplines. The unique nature of language instruction—with its emphasis on cultural pedagogy and general education delivery—likely shapes self-efficacy perceptions and leadership interactions differently than in fields like engineering or the sciences, where technical expertise dominates. Future investigations should incorporate comparative analyses across disciplines (e.g., humanities, STEM) to examine potential field-specific variations.

Second, the cross-sectional design constrains causal inference regarding the relationships between instructional leadership, self-efficacy, and occupational outcomes. Longitudinal approaches would better establish temporal precedence and causal pathways. Additionally, the Chinese institutional context may limit cross-cultural generalizability. Subsequent research should test these associations in diverse national and educational systems to determine their broader validity.

Thirdly, as the majority of samples were from eastern China, which is a more developed region, the findings may be influenced by regional biases. Factors such as higher resource availability, institutional support, and salary structures in eastern provinces may elevate perceptions of instructional leadership and self-efficacy, potentially limiting the generalizability of results to less developed regions in central and western China, where academic resources and policy support might differ considerably.

Conclusion

In summary, this study confirms the significant roles of instructional leadership and lecturers’ self-efficacy in shaping job burnout and job satisfaction. Effective instructional leadership enhances lecturers’ self-efficacy, which, in turn, positively impacts job satisfaction and reduces burnout. These findings align with and extend existing theoretical frameworks, emphasizing the importance of both leadership and self-efficacy in improving lecturers’ work experiences and highlighting the need for continued research and practical efforts to foster supportive academic environments.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Qin Lai

Bity Salwana Alias

Ethical Considerations

This study was approved by City University of Dongguan Research Ethics Committee (approval no. DGC -2024-011) on April, 2nd 2024.

Consent to Participate

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability Statement

All data is contained within this article.

References

Azeem

Mataruna

(2019). Identifying factor measuring collective leadership at academic workplaces. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(6), 1316–1335.

Bada

H. A.

Ariffin

T. F. T.

Nordin

(2020). Teachers’ perception of principals’ instructional leadership practices in Nigeria. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(10), 4459–4469.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

Sanz-Vergel

(2023). Job demands–resources theory: Ten years later. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 25–53.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), Article 191.

Bandura

Freeman

W. H.

Lightsey

(1999). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Springer.

Bandura

Hall

(2018). Albert bandura and social learning theory. In MacBlain

(Ed.), Learning theories for early years (p. 78). SAGE Publications Ltd.

Bandura

(1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 139–161.

Baroudi

Hojeij

Meda

Lottin

(2022). Examining elementary preservice teachers’ self-efficacy and satisfaction in online teaching during virtual field experience. Cogent Education, 9(1), Article 2133497.

Basham

L. M.

(2012). Transformational leadership characteristics necessary for today’s leaders in higher education. Journal of International Education Research, 8(4), Article 343.

10.

Bellibas

M. S.

Liu

(2017). Multilevel analysis of the relationship between principals’ perceived practices of instructional leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(1), 49–69.

11.

Canrinus

E. T.

Helms-Lorenz

Beijaard

Buitink

Hofman

(2012). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27, 115–132.

12.

Cansoy

(2019). The relationship between school principals’ leadership behaviours and teachers’ job satisfaction: A systematic review. International Education Studies, 12(1), 37–52.

13.

Chen

Lin

(2024). The interplay among EFL teachers’ emotional intelligence and self-efficacy and burnout. Acta Psychologica, 248, Article 104364.

14.

Chen

X.-M.

Liao

X. L.

Chen

I.-H.

Gamble

J. H.

Jiang

X.-Y.

X.-D.

C.-X.

(2024). The long-term effects of perceived instructional leadership on teachers’ psychological well-being during COVID-19. PLoS One, 19(8), Article e0305494.

15.

Cheng

Zhu

(2021). Academic members’ perceptions of educational leadership and perceived need for leadership capacity building in Chinese higher education institutions. Chinese Education & Society, 54(5–6), 171–189.

16.

Chirico

Capitanelli

Bollo

Ferrari

Acquadro Maran

(2021). Association between workplace violence and burnout syndrome among schoolteachers: A systematic review. Journal of Health and Social Sciences, 6(2), 187–208.

17.

De Beer

L. T.

van der Vaart

Escaffi-Schwarz

De Witte

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2024). Maslach Burnout Inventory—General survey: A systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 40(5), 360–375. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000797

18.

Demirdag

(2015). The relationship between critical thinking abilities and classroom management skills of high school teachers. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(7), 850–855.

19.

Dube

Ndofirepi

T. M.

(2024). Academic staff commitment in the face of a role (im)balance between work and personal life: Can job satisfaction help? European Journal of Management Studies, 29(1), 31–50.

20.

Ejjebli

(2023). Leadership identity in higher education: Exploring its impact on pedagogical decisions and faculty development. In Egitim

Umemiya

(Eds.), Leaderful classroom pedagogy through an interdisciplinary lens: Merging theory with practice (pp. 289–308). Springer.

21.

Ersozlu

Saklan

(2016). Instructional leadership in higher education: How does it work. British Journal of Education, 4(5), 1–15.

22.

Faragher

E. B.

Cass

Cooper

C. L.

(2005). The relationship between job satisfaction and health: A meta-analysis. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 62(2), 105–112.

23.

Gillet

Fouquereau

Huyghebaert

Colombat

(2015). The effects of job demands and organizational resources through psychological need satisfaction and thwarting. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, Article E28.

24.

Grissom

J. A.

Loeb

Master

(2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational Researcher, 42(8), 433–444.

25.

Hair

J. F.

Jr. Matthews

L. M.

Matthews

R. L.

Sarstedt

(2017). PLS-SEM or CB-SEM: Updated guidelines on which method to use. International Journal of Multivariate Data Analysis, 1(2), 107–123.

26.

Hallinger

Adams

Harris

Jones

M. S.

(2017). Review of conceptual models and methodologies in research on principal instructional leadership in Malaysia: A case of knowledge construction in a developing society. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(1), 104–126.

27.

Hallinger

Adams

Harris

Suzette Jones

(2018). Review of conceptual models and methodologies in research on principal instructional leadership in Malaysia: A case of knowledge construction in a developing society. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(1), 104–126.

28.

Hammoudi Halat

Soltani

Dalli

Alsarraj

Malki

(2023). Understanding and fostering mental health and well-being among university faculty: A narrative review. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(13), Article 4425.

29.

Han

Zha

Xie

(2023). Understanding Chinese universities’ strategic responses to the ‘Double First-class’ initiative and the potential outcome on higher education diversity: An exploratory study. Studies in Higher education, 48(11), 1624–1638.

30.

Hanstedt

(2024). General education essentials: A guide for college faculty. Routledge.

31.

Harris

B. D.

Nilsson

Poole

C. M.

(2015). A feasibility study for using ABS plastic and a low-cost 3D printer for patient-specific brachytherapy mould design. Australasian Physical & Engineering Sciences in Medicine, 38(3), 399–412.

32.

Howell

J. L.

Bullington

K. E.

Gregory

D. E.

Williams

M. R.

Nuckols

W. L.

(2022). Transformational leadership in higher education programs. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Leadership Studies, 3(1), 51–66.

33.

Huang

(2024). From ivory towers to corporate ladders: The impact of managerialism on academic profession. Adult and Higher Education, 6(1), 159–165.

34.

Jamali

Bhutto

Khaskhely

Sethar

(2022). Impact of leadership styles on faculty performance: Moderating role of organizational culture in higher education. Management Science Letters, 12(1), 1–20.

35.

Khan

Gupta

(2024). Examining the relationships between instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: A study of primary schools in India. Journal of Educational Administration, 62(2), 223–238.

36.

Klassen

R. M.

Bong

Usher

E. L.

Chong

W. H.

Huan

V. S.

Wong

I. Y.

Georgiou

(2009). Exploring the validity of a teachers’ self-efficacy scale in five countries. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(1), 67–76.

37.

Kline

R. B.

(2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.

38.

Lai

H.-C.

Lien

H.-Y.

(2023). Instructional leadership scale for high school principals: Development and validation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 53(3), 484–498.

39.

Land

(2021). Discipline-based teaching. In Chalmers

Hunt

(Eds.), University teaching in focus (pp. 81–109). Routledge.

40.

Leal Filho

Eustachio

J. H. P. P.

Caldana

A. C. F.

Will

Lange Salvia

Rampasso

I. S.

Anholon

Platje

Kovaleva

(2020). Sustainability leadership in higher education institutions: An overview of challenges. Sustainability, 12(9), Article 3761.

41.

Lee

Kim

(2023). Effect of the employees’ mental toughness on organizational commitment and job satisfaction: Mediating psychological well-being. Administrative Sciences, 13(5), Article 133.

42.

Lee

Y. H.

Kwon

H. H.

Richards

K. A. R.

(2019). Emotional intelligence, unpleasant emotions, emotional exhaustion, and job satisfaction in physical education teaching. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 38(3), 262–270.

43.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22.

44.

Liu

Bellibaş

M. Ş.

Gümüş

(2021). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 430–453.

45.

Liu

Huang

(2022). To what extent is shared instructional leadership related to teacher self-efficacy and student academic performance in China? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 33(3), 381–402.

46.

Llorens-Gumbau

Salanova-Soria

(2014). Loss and gain cycles? A longitudinal study about burnout, engagement and self-efficacy. Burnout Research, 1(1), 3–11.

47.

(2022). The effect of teachers’ self-efficacy and creativity on English as a foreign language learners’ academic achievement. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 872147.

48.

Malinen

O.-P.

Savolainen

(2016). The effect of perceived school climate and teacher efficacy in behavior management on job satisfaction and burnout: A longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 144–152.

49.

Maslach

Jackson

S. E.

Leiter

M. P.

(1997). Maslach burnout inventory. Scarecrow Education.

50.

Maslach

Leiter

M. P.

(2000). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. John Wiley & Sons.

51.

Maslach

Schaufeli

W. B.

Leiter

M. P.

(2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422.

52.

Matos

M. M.

Iaochite

R. T.

Sharp

J. G.

(2022). Lecturer self-efficacy beliefs: An integrative review and synthesis of relevant literature. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 46(2), 225–245.

53.

Matos

M. M.

Sharp

J. G.

Iaochite

R. T.

(2022). Self-efficacy beliefs as a predictor of quality of life and burnout among university lecturers. Frontiers in Education, 7, Article 887435.

54.

Merino-Soto

Calderón-De

Cruz

Fernández-Arata

(2023). Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey’s abbreviated measurement: Validation in Peruvian teachers. Occupational Health Science, 7(3), 631–644.

55.

Ministry of Education. (2010). Number of private higher education institutions 2009. Retrieved July 5, from https://www.moe.edu.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s4960/201012/113595.ht

56.

Mohammed

A. R.

(2017). Perceived teaching self-efficacy for training-teachers in biological departments and its relationship with their achievement. Basic Education College Magazine For Educational and Humanities Sciences, (35), 571–583.

57.

Neumerski

C. M.

(2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347.

58.

Olorunsola

E. O.

(2013). An appraisal of burnout among the University Lecturers in Ekiti State, Nigeria. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 3(2), Article 133.

59.

Ortan

Simut

(2021). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction and teacher well-being in the K-12 educational system. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(23), Article 12763.

60.

Pajares

Johnson

M. J.

Usher

E. L.

(2007). Sources of writing self-efficacy beliefs of elementary, middle, and high school students. Research in the Teaching of English, 42(1), 104–120.

61.

Park

J.-H.

Ham

S.-H.

(2016). Whose perception of principal instructional leadership? Principal-teacher perceptual (dis) agreement and its influence on teacher collaboration. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(3), 450–469.

62.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

63.

Salami

S. O.

(2011). Job stress and burnout among lecturers: Personality and social support as moderators. Asian Social Science, 7(5), Article 110.

64.

Shi

Zhang

(2024). A debate on general education reform in Mainland China: A qualitative case study of two universities. SN Social Sciences, 4(7), Article 129.

65.

Shoji

Cieslak

Smoktunowicz

Rogala

Benight

C. C.

Luszczynska

(2016). Associations between job burnout and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 29(4), 367–386.

66.

(2024). Higher education teachers’ professional well-being in the rise of managerialism: Insights from China. Higher Education, 87(4), 1121–1138.

67.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–1069.

68.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2017). Motivated for teaching? Associations with school goal structure, teacher self-efficacy, job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67, 152–160.

69.

Skaalvik

E. M.

Skaalvik

(2020). Teacher burnout: Relations between dimensions of burnout, perceived school context, job satisfaction and motivation for teaching. A longitudinal study. Teachers and Teaching, 26(7–8), 602–616.

70.

Susar

Arifin

Imron

Mustiningsih

(2023). Impact of principal leadership on private teacher burnout in Indonesia. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 105(105), 37–51.

71.

Thompson

(2000). Ten commandments of structural equation modeling. US Dept of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Project Directors’ Conference, 1998; A previous version of this chapter was presented at the aforementioned conference and at the same annual conference held in 1999.

72.

Tian

(2017). What price the building of world-class universities? Academic pressure faced by young lecturers at a research-centered University in China. Teaching in Higher Education, 22(8), 957–974.

73.

Xue

Yang

Umair

(2023). Approaches and reforms in undergraduate education for integration of major and general education: A comparative study among teaching, teaching—research, and research universities in China. Sustainability, 15(2), Article 1251.

74.

Yan

Zhang

(2024). The tensions of general education reform in China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 25(1), 131–142.

75.

Yang

(2024). The effect of teacher self-efficacy, online pedagogical and content knowledge, and emotion regulation on teacher digital burnout: a mediation model. BMC Psychology, 12(1), Article 51.

76.

Zakariya

Y. F.

(2020). Effects of school climate and teacher self-efficacy on job satisfaction of mostly STEM teachers: A structural multigroup invariance approach. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1–12.

77.

Zhan

Wang

Song

(2023). The relationship between principals’ instructional leadership and teacher retention in the undeveloped regions of central and western China: The chain-mediating role of role stress and affective commitment. Behavioral Sciences, 13(9), Article 738.

78.

Zheng

Yin

(2019). Exploring the relationships among instructional leadership, professional learning communities and teacher self-efficacy in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(6), 843–859.

The Effect of Instructional Leadership on Job Satisfaction and Burnout in English Lecturers: The Mediating Role of Self-Efficacy

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Theoretical Background and Hypothesis Development

General Education in Chinese High Education

Lecturers’ Job Burnout and Job Satisfaction as Job-Related Outcomes

Instructional Leadership as an Antecedent

Lectures’ Self-Efficacy as a Mediator

Methods

Samples and Data Collection

Measurements

Instructional Leadership

Self-Efficacy

Job Burnout

Job Satisfaction

Data Analysis

Results

Measurement Model

Structural Model Assessment

Direct Effects

Mediating Effects

Discussion

Implications for Practice

Implications for Policy

Implications for Theory

Limitations and Future Research

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ethical Considerations

Consent to Participate

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Data Availability Statement

References