The Relationship between Workload and Performance of Research
University Academics: The Mediating Effects of Career
Commitment and Job Satisfaction
Abstract: The purpose of this study is to test the relationship between job workload and academic
performance among university academic staff in Malaysia. The paper also attempts to discuss and
then seek empirical evidence to the two mediational paths (namely, career commitment and job
satisfaction) that explain the focal relationship between job workload and academic performance. To
test the three proposed hypotheses, the study used cross-sectional data collected from academic staff
serving in Malaysian Research Universities (MRUs). The final sample of 191 valid and complete
responses was analysed using SmartPLS 3.3.3 to test the hypotheses. Results showed that workload is
negatively related to academic staff performance. In addition, job satisfaction mediates workload and
academic staff performance linkage. These findings reinforce the importance of job satisfaction as an
influencing factor against the deleterious effect of job workload and academic staff performance. The
study has shown that, contrary to our expectations, career commitment does not mediate the
relation between job workload and academic staff performance. Going forward, this study provides
new insights about the effect of job workload on the performance of university academic staff through
intervening variables.
Introduction
Universities are part of the larger academia delivery system that serves the fundamentals of
research and education. In the two-way legacy process of knowledge exchange, research is the inception of
lessons. Upholding this fundamental practice of research and teaching, Malaysian universities focus on the
dual-core functions, namely knowledge creation and knowledge transmission (Yousefi & Abdullah, 2019).
As the delivery standard of Malaysian higher education changes according to the needs of globalization,
so, it goes parallel with the responsibilities of academic staff (Basarudin et al., 2016). University academic
staff are required to perform complex work, such as conducting competitive research, publications,
fulfilling teaching and supervision duties, executing research funding applications, and attending to
administrative tasks - juggling all these while working in an increasingly demanding environment. In
this atmosphere of increased demands and loads, academic staff have professed concerns regarding
declining career commitment on the back of management-centric universities (Dorenkamp & Ruhle,
2019).
With mounting load and pressure, academic staff finds that their satisfaction at work has
dipped (Jameel & Ahmad, 2020). An increased workload has been reported as a major stressor
especially when earnest work is not given due recognition (Chin & Rasdi, 2014). Consequently,
demotivation and diminishing work performance set in (Kenny, 2018). In the research and teaching
literature, several studies have focused on academic staff’s search for meaning, and the effects were
reported to be positively related to work performance (Han et al., 2020; Mehrad, 2020). Nevertheless,
these studies had a restricted scope - the comparison between the value of the educational system with
job tasks, in general, and the quantity and quality of academic staffs’ capabilities. Without scrutinizing
staff performance, important variables such as workload types and consequences were not considered.
Among the literature on university academic staff, insufficient studies have explored the cohort’s
experience of job constriction and vulnerability to stress that were contributed by work overload (Zaidan &
Juariyah, 2020) . Some studies focused on how excessive workload perceptions led to stress and general
apprehension (Nugraha et al., 2018). Other researchers observed that academic staff who report excessive
workloads have difficulty in performing problem-solving skills and personal motivation (Melin et al.,
2014). Yet, there is a research gap in the testing of complex models that deepens the understanding of
university academic staff’s perceived workload and performance effects. Finally, the general literature also
highlighted the fact that although the larger society acknowledges the important role of university
academic staff’s in knowledge transmission, little attention and concern have been given to the
consequences of this cohort’s vulnerability to workload impacts, in terms of job satisfaction, career
commitment, and academic performance (Mukhtar & Fook, 2020). Houston et al. (2006) stated that level
of performance remains high with academic staff attributing this to academic staff commitment and
satisfaction rather than salary and working conditions.
Thus, the present study was designed to examine the effect of workload on performance
among academic staff in Malaysian universities. In management theory and research, academic staff
performance has been a robust variable examined in recent decades (Khairina et al., 2020). Hence, this
study specifically examined job satisfaction and career commitment as mediators towards
performance. Both job satisfaction (Yee, 2018) and career commitment (Fu & Deshpande, 2014) have
been investigated thoroughly and separately as antecedents of performance while the workload was
confirmed as an antecedent to both variables. Thus, we also propound on the possibility of their
mediating effects on the workload–performance relationship, which calls for a thorough investigation.
In particular, we study the mediating effects of job satisfaction of academic staff and career
commitment (the degree to which academic staffs are loyal to their profession) on the relationship
between the workload and academic performance (the degree to which academic staff or institutions
have achieved their short-or long-term academic goals). With this in mind, this research may add to
the extant literature on the stressor-attitude-outcome dynamics in the academic workplace.
References
Abubakar, A., Hilman, H., & Kaliappen, N. (2018). New tools for measuring global academic
performance. Sage Open, 8(3), 1–10.doi: 10.1177/2158244018790787
Ahsan, N., Abdullah, Z., Fie, D. Y. G., & Alam, S. S. (2009). A study of job stress on job satisfaction
among university staff in Malaysia: Empirical study. European Journal of Social Science,
8(1), 121–131.
Aksoy, C., Sengül, H. İ., & Yilmaz, Y. (2018). Examination of the relationship between job
satisfaction levels and organizational commitments of tourism sector employees: A research
in the Southeastern Anatolia region of Turkey. Elektronik Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 17(65),
356–365. doi: 10.17755/esosder.343032
Andrade, C. (2019). Describing research design. Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine, 41(2),
201– 202. doi: 10.4103/ijpsym.ijpsym_66_19
Aruldoss, A., Kowalski, K. B., & Parayitam, S. (2020). The relationship between quality of work life
and work life balancemediating role of job stress, job satisfaction and job commitment:
Evidence from India. Journal of Advances in Management Research, 18(1), 36–62. doi:
10.1108/jamr-05-2020-0082
Aziri, B. (2011). Job satisfaction: A literature review. Management Research & Practice, 3(4), 77–86.
Basarudin, N. A., Yeon, A. L., Yaacob, N., & Yusof, R. (2016). Faculty workload and employment
benefits in public universities. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(S7), 73–
82.
Blau, G. J. (1985). The measurement and prediction of career commitment. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 58(4), 277–288. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1985.tb00201.x
Cao, J., Liu, C., Wu, G., Zhao, X., & Jiang, Z. (2020). Work–family conflict and job outcomes for
construction professionals: The mediating role of affective organizational commitment.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(4), 1–24. doi:
10.3390/ijerph17041443
Chang, E. (1999). Career commitment as a complex moderator of organizational commitment and
turnover intention. Human Relations, 52, 1257–1278. doi: 10.1177/001872679905201002
Chhabra, B. (2015). Person–job fit: Mediating role of job satisfaction & organizational commitment.
The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 50(4), 638–651.
Chin, W. S., & Mohd. Rasdi, R. (2014). Protean career development: Exploring the individuals,
organizational and job-related factors. Asian Social Science, 10(21), 203–215. doi:
10.5539/ass.v10n21p203
Colarelli, S. M., & Bishop, R. C. (1990). Career commitment: Functions, correlates, and management.
Group & Organization Studies, 15(2), 158–176. doi: 10.5539/ass.v10n21p203
Crede, M., Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., Dalal, R. S., & Bashshur, M. (2007). Job satisfaction as
mediator: An assessment of job satisfaction’s position within the nomological network.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80(3), 515–538. doi:
10.1348/096317906x136180
Diamantidis, A. D., & Chatzoglou, P. (2019). Factors affecting employee performance: An empirical
approach. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 68(1), 171–
193. doi: 10.1108/ijppm-01-2018-0012
Dorenkamp, I., & Ruhle, S. (2019). Work–life conflict, professional commitment, and job satisfaction
among academics. The Journal of Higher Education, 90(1), 56–84. doi:
10.1080/00221546.2018.1484644
Fernandez, J.L. (2010). An exploratory study of factors influencing the decision of students to study
at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Kajian Malaysia, 28(2), 107-136.
Fu, W., & Deshpande, S. P. (2014). The impact of caring climate, job satisfaction, and organizational
commitment on job performance of employees in a China’s insurance company. Journal of
Business Ethics, 124, 339–349. doi: 10.1007/s10551-013-1876-y
Gaither, C. A. (1999). Career commitment: A mediator of the effects of job stress on pharmacists’
work-related attitudes. Journal of the American Pharmaceutical Association (1996), 39(3),
353–361. doi: 10.1016/s1086-5802(16)30437-5
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (2nd ed.). Sage.
Han, J., Yin, H., Wang, J., & Zhang, J. (2020). Job demands and resources as antecedents of
university teachers’ exhaustion, engagement and job satisfaction. Educational Psychology,
40(3), 318– 335. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2019.1674249
Haegele, J. A., & Hodge, S. R. (2015) . Quantitative methodology: A guide for emerging physical
education and adapted physical education researchers. The Physical Educator, 72(5), 59–75.
doi: 10.18666/TPE-2015-V72-I5-6133
