IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Occupational Well-being Among University Faculty: A Job Demands-Resources Model


  • Jiri Mudrak

    (The Czech Academy of Sciences)

  • Katerina Zabrodska

    () (The Czech Academy of Sciences)

  • Petr Kveton

    (The Czech Academy of Sciences)

  • Martin Jelinek

    (The Czech Academy of Sciences)

  • Marek Blatny

    (The Czech Academy of Sciences)

  • Iva Solcova

    (The Czech Academy of Sciences)

  • Katerina Machovcova

    (The Czech Academy of Sciences)


Abstract The effects of changing academic environments on faculty well-being have attracted considerable research attention. However, few studies have examined the multifaceted relationships between the academic work environment and the multiple dimensions of faculty well-being using a comprehensive theoretical framework. To address this gap, this study implemented the Job Demands-Resources (JDR) model to investigate how job demands/resources in the academic environment interact with multiple dimensions of faculty well-being. The study participants were 1389 full-time faculty members employed in public universities in the Czech Republic. The participants completed a questionnaire assessing perceived job resources (influence over work, support from supervisor and colleagues), job demands (quantitative demands, work-family conflicts and job insecurity) and three dimensions of faculty well-being (job satisfaction, stress and work engagement). A structural equation model was used to test the effects of “dual processes” hypothesized by the JDR theory, i.e., the existence of two relatively independent paths between job demands/resources and positive/negative aspects of faculty well-being. The model showed a very good fit to our data and explained 60% of the variance in faculty job satisfaction, 46%, in stress and 20% in work engagement. The results provide evidence for the dual processes, including the “motivational process” (i.e., job resources were related predominantly to work engagement and job satisfaction) and the “health impairment process” (i.e., job demands were predominantly associated with stress, mostly through work-family conflict). The study expands current research on faculty well-being by demonstrating the complex, non-linear relationships between academic work environments and different dimensions of faculty well-being.

Suggested Citation

  • Jiri Mudrak & Katerina Zabrodska & Petr Kveton & Martin Jelinek & Marek Blatny & Iva Solcova & Katerina Machovcova, 2018. "Occupational Well-being Among University Faculty: A Job Demands-Resources Model," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 59(3), pages 325-348, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:reihed:v:59:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11162-017-9467-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s11162-017-9467-x

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Martin Machacek & Eva Kolcunova, 2009. "Is Czech Economic Academia Pretending To Be Competitive?," Journal of Academic Research in Economics, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Accounting and Financial Management Constanta, vol. 1(3 (Decemb), pages 319-333.
    2. Wilmar Schaufeli & Marisa Salanova & Vicente González-romá & Arnold Bakker, 2002. "The Measurement of Engagement and Burnout: A Two Sample Confirmatory Factor Analytic Approach," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 71-92, March.
    3. Amanda H Goodall, 2005. "Should top universities be led by top researchers, and are they?," General Economics and Teaching 0510003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:reihed:v:59:y:2018:i:3:d:10.1007_s11162-017-9467-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla) or (Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.