Workforce Resilience: Strengthening Malaysian Educators for Future Challenges in Higher Education

Workforce Resilience: Strengthening Malaysian Educators for Future Challenges in Higher Education

Nor Bazlinda binti Kamaruddin, Nurulhafizah binti Jusoh, Nor Diyana binti Abd. Rahman, Abdul Rahim bin Razalli

Kolej Profesional MARA Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.909000233

Received: 27 August 2025; Accepted: 02 September 2025; Published: 07 October 2025

ABSTRACT

This study examines how Malaysian higher education educators develop resilience to adapt to various challenges. Resilience becomes a vital quality to survive in a rapidly changing ecosystem characterised by technological innovations, student demographics, and dynamic market demands. This research employs a mixed-methods approach, with a thorough literature review and quantitative data from Malaysian educators, collected through questionnaires, to determine their perceptions of resilience. It identifies key factors that enhance workforce resilience, which include self-efficacy, relationships, workplace environments, and professional development opportunities. The methodology consists of a broad literature review from academic sources and empirical studies on workforce resilience, both locally and globally. Thematic and statistical analysis techniques were used to analyse data, emphasizing their importance in protective strategies and supportive networks for resilience. The findings show that the resilience demonstrated by educators is mainly drawn from strong relationships with students, colleagues, and supervisors, with other factors such as adaptability and self-regulation. This paper contributes to the literature on organizational resilience by investigating specific challenges in Malaysian higher education institutions and proposing ways to develop the workforce’s resilience. The findings of this study have important implications for policymakers and educational leaders aiming to foster resilient and sustainable learning environments in an era of dynamic progression.

Keywords: resilience, educators, self-efficacy, relationship, professional development, work environment

INTRODUCTION

The resilience of educators is increasingly acknowledged as an essential element in sustaining quality in higher education, particularly in Malaysia, where the sector is undergoing rapid transformation. As part of its vision, Malaysia aims to establish itself as a global higher education hub by 2025, responding to both local and international demands. As of 31st December 2021, Malaysia is home to 161 public and 435 private institutions of higher education (KPT, 2022), each playing a pivotal role in shaping the nation’s educational landscape. However, these aspirations are accompanied by substantial challenges, including increasing job demands, evolving expectations, and added administrative responsibilities, which place significant pressure on educators to adapt while still upholding excellence in teaching, research, and student engagement (Manaf et al., 2021). To address these challenges, it is essential to understand and enhance resilience among Malaysian academics, enabling them to thrive in a demanding landscape.

The primary objective of this research is to explore factors that foster resilience among Malaysian academics and determine actionable strategies to strengthen it. Specifically, the study seeks to determine how resilience factors interact to influence educators’ capacity to adapt and perform effectively within higher education institutions in Malaysia.

The guiding research question for this study is: What are the key factors that contribute to resilience among academic staff in Malaysian higher education institutions?

To answer this question, a mixed-methods approach was employed, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data. The study involves a sample of 100 academicians across various Malaysian higher education institutions, aiming to capture a diverse range of perspectives and experiences. The quantitative data provided measurable insights into the extent and impact of resilience factors, while the qualitative data offered an in-depth understanding of academics’ personal resilience strategies.

The research identifies four primary factors that contribute to educator resilience in Malaysia: (1) Self-Efficacy, which supports effective coping mechanisms and emotional control; (2) Relationship, as pillars for building and maintaining healthy relationship, both personally and in the workplace; (3) Work Environment, which fosters collaboration and mutual support among students, colleagues and top management; (4) Professional Development, which boosts job satisfaction and career development, as well as supports wellness programs that promote both mental and physical health. These factors are anticipated to provide valuable insights into resilience-building within Malaysia’s academic workforce and guide institutional strategies for strengthening educators’ capacities.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The resilience of educators has become a significant focus of research in global higher education, identified as an essential quality for managing rapid technological advancements, changing student demographics, and rising administrative pressures (Beltman, 2021; Zhang & Luo, 2023).  This emphasis is especially pressing within the Malaysian context. The Malaysian higher education sector aspires to position itself as a global educational hub by 2025, comprising over 590 public and private institutions (KPT, 2022), each facing unique challenges. Educators need to be able to change their expectations while still meeting standards in teaching, research, and service. Nevertheless, this fosters their resilience in effectively driving the institution’s sustainability (Manaf et al., 2021; Hui & Abdullah, 2020).

Contemporary study has considerably improved this understanding as the recent literature increasingly found that resilience should be viewed not as a static trait but as a dynamic, developmental process influenced by the complex interaction between individual agency and contextual circumstances (Larasati & Kuswandono, 2023; Moghal et al., 2018). Moreover, this change in point of view is significant because it shifts the focus from just finding “resilient individuals” to developing environments that enable educators become more resilient.

In this contemporary perspective, research has converged on numerous essential characteristics that enhance educator resilience.  This review will critically analyse these aspects, emphasizing both consistencies and tensions in the literature to build the conceptual framework for the current study.

The Importance of Self-Efficacy and Professional Identity

The literature highlights the essential role of individual psychological resources. Self-efficacy, characterized as an educator’s belief in their ability to address future challenges, is consistently recognized as an essential element of resilience (Zhang & Luo, 2023; Parker & Martin, 2020). Educators with self-confidence are more inclined to perceive challenges as manageable, persist in the face of adversity, and utilize various strategies to cope with stress. A strong sense of self-efficacy is closely associated with a well-defined professional identity and a deep commitment to teaching. Moghal et al. (2018) found out that a sense of purpose serves as a crucial motivational anchor, sustaining educators’ engagement and commitment in the face of significant stress and change. There are limitations discover in understanding these characteristics within Malaysia higher education system context due to the uniqueness social, cultural, and institutional obstacles.

The Importance of Relationships and Work Environment

Self-efficacy enhances internal resilience, whereas research demonstrates that contextual factors provide crucial external support. A positive work environment, marked by supportive leadership, collegial relationships, and equitable institutional policies, functions as both a context and a contributing factor to resilience (Collie & Mansfield, 2022; Subaedah et al., 2024). A supportive environment is established through positive relationships with co-workers, supervisors, and students, providing emotional support, practical assistance, and a sense of belonging (Kenney & Muller, 2024). These collaborations assist individuals experiencing burnout and isolation.

The importance of these characteristics is acknowledged in Western contexts; however, their specific manifestation and relative significance within the hierarchical and collectivist cultural dynamics of Malaysian workplaces have not been thoroughly examined. This study aims to determine whether these established elements hold equal significance in Malaysia or manifest in distinct forms.

Professional Development: Empowerment Regarding Bureaucratic Obligation

Professional development (PD) is often regarded as an effective approach for enhancing resilience through skill enhancement, confidence building, and increased flexibility (Axe, 2024; Larasati & Kuswandono, 2023).  Therefore, educators can improve their technological skills, optimize instructional methods, and overcome stress. This directly enhances their self-efficacy. A significant issue exists in the literature as the discussion on PD regularly focused on its benefits, it can also contribute to the complications of bureaucratic obligations.  The existing literature on educators’ perceptions regarding the significance and impact of professional development (PD) initiatives on their resilience is limited, especially in Malaysia, where PD programs may not consistently align with local needs. This led to critical inquiry whether professional development genuinely foster resilience or is it merely an additional burden to be face by the educators.

Identifying and articulating the research gap.

The existing literature provides a substantial but fragmented understanding of educator resilience. Self-efficacy, relationships, the work environment, and professional development are frequently discussed; however, the interconnections among these factors and their relative significance remain ambiguous. Furthermore, there exists a considerable reliance on theoretical frameworks and research derived from Western contexts (Zhang & Luo, 2023).   Research in Malaysian literature frequently focuses on singular aspects, as demonstrated by Hui and Abdullah (2020) regarding strategies, or Mokhtar et al. (2020) concerning built environment students, often lacking a comprehensive theoretical framework.

A significant gap remains for a comprehensive empirical study that simultaneously investigates these four critical factors to determine their individual contributions to resilience in the Malaysian higher education system. This study utilizes tools that have been modified and validated for the Malaysian academic workforce to evaluate established theoretical models in practical contexts. Furthermore, this study employs a mixed-methods approach to quantify the relationships among these factors and to capture the qualitative experiences of educators, thereby enhancing the statistical findings. This research seeks to address this gap and aims to provide a thorough understanding of the factors that promote and sustain resilience among Malaysian educators, offering evidence-based insights for institutional policy and leadership through a critical review of the literature and a collective analysis of these elements.

METHODOLOGY

This study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). The primary phase was a quantitative, cross-sectional survey designed to investigate the factors influencing educator resilience and measure their relative importance. A structured questionnaire was distributed to academic staff in higher education institutions to collect data related to variable such as work environment, self-efficacy, relationship, and professional development. This was followed by a qualitative phase that collected open-ended responses to provide deeper context and explanation for the quantitative findings. This design was chosen to ensure the research captured both the breadth of relationships between variables and the depth of individual educator experiences.

A total of 100 participants were invited to respond to the questionnaire. Participants were academic staff members from both public (IPTA) and private (IPTS) institutions, sampled using a purposive sampling method to ensure relevance to the academic work environment. The responses were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

In this research, four measurement scales of Self-Efficacy, Professional Development, Work Environment, and Relationship variables were used. Commonly, five items adapted from (Gong, 2019; Lestari, 2025; Van Wingerden, 2019; Axe, 2024) were used to measure the Self-Efficacy construct. In addition, five items adapted from (Kudaibergonov, 2024; Nuryakin, 2023; Firdaus, 2023; Badaruddin, 2024) were used to measure the Professional Development construct. Similarly, this study adopted five items from (Irfan, 2024; Subaedah, 2024) to measure the Work Environment of educators. Lastly, the Relationship construct was measured with five items adapted from (Kenney, 2024; Young, 2024). Partial least squares (PLS) technique was employed to evaluate the measurement and structural models. The PLS structural equation modeling technique is a variance-based method, which is apt for predicting exogenous variables when using revised measures (Hair et al., 2021). Thus, with the aid of SmartPLS 4, the two-stage approach was employed in the evaluation of the model (Hair et al., 2021).

FINDINGS

Respondent Information

Table 1 summarises the respondent demography and information. Most of the respondents were between the ages of 36 to 40 (25%), followed by those aged 41–45 (19%), and 46–50 (15%), suggesting that most respondents were in their prime working years. Respondents aged 20–25 constituted 18%, whereas those aged 56–60 represented merely 2%. The gender distribution of the sample was notably uneven, with 67% respondents being female and 33% male, indicating a female-dominant professional milieu at the surveyed institutions.

In terms of work experience, 25% of respondents had served between 1–5 years, while a notable proportion had 16–20 years (24%) and 11–15 years (21%) of experience, suggesting a fair distribution throughout various career phases. A significant majority of participants (81%) were associated with public higher education institutions (IPTA), whereas only 19% were from private colleges (IPTS).

Table I: Respondent Information

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed to validate the proposed factor structure and assess the need for any modifications. The analysis was conducted in two stages, as per the two-step approach proposed by Anderson et al. (2023). Initially, each construct was evaluated individually, followed by an assessment of the overall measurement model. The measurement model was analysed using SmartPLS 4, employing Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) to assess key validity and reliability criteria. Following the methodology established by Henseler et al. (2015), a systematic evaluation of both the measurement and structural models was conducted to confirm the robustness of the analysis.

Figure 1 illustrates the PLS output for the measurement model. In addition to evaluating Cronbach’s alpha, the internal consistency of each construct was examined through composite reliability (CR) values. As shown in Table 2, all constructs exhibit satisfactory levels of internal consistency, with CR values ranging from 0.89 to 0.93. Each construct also met the convergent validity criteria, with average variance extracted (AVE) values ranging from 0.67 to 0.78, surpassing the minimum benchmark of 0.50.

Factor loadings across all measurement aspects were found to exceed the accepted cut-off of 0.70, indicating high individual item reliability. Therefore, no items were excluded during the measurement evaluation process. The Self-Efficacy construct displayed particularly strong loadings, ranging from 0.86 to 0.91, while the Relationship and Work Environment constructs also reflected acceptable loadings, with the lowest at 0.70. These findings confirm that the measurement model meets the necessary standards for reliability and convergent validity, supporting its suitability for structural modelling.

Figure I: Measurement Model

Table II: Reliability and Validity Analysis

Discriminant validity was assessed using two parameters: the Fornell and Larcker criterion and a heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). The results in Table 3 confirmed that the bolded diagonal value for each variable (Self-efficacy, professional development, relationship and work environment) were higher than the correlation values between constructs (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Concerning the second criterion of discriminant validity, the HTMT ratio in Tables 3 and 4 demonstrates that all variables’ HTMT ratios were below the acceptable threshold of 0.85 and 0.90 (Ghasemy et al., 2020; Hair et al., 2021), indicating no discriminant validity issues.

Table III: Fornell and Larcker criterion

Table IV: Heterotrait-monotrait ratio–HTMT

The ranking analysis of workforce resilience highlights clear trends in how respondents prioritize different factors, as outlined in Table 4. Of the 67 valid responses, Work Environment emerged as the most highly ranked factor, accounting for 41.8% of valid responses. This suggests that participants perceive the physical and organizational conditions of their workplace as the most significant factor affecting their performance or attitudes. The prominence of the work environment aligns with existing literature emphasizing its critical role in fostering motivation, engagement, and job satisfaction (Davis et al., 2011).

Self-efficacy was the second most prioritized factor, accounting for 28.4% of the valid responses. This suggests that a notable number of respondents recognize the value of their perceived competence and capability in achieving work-related outcomes, supporting Bandura’s (1997) theory on self-efficacy as a key predictor of performance and persistence.

Relationship factors—such as interactions with colleagues or supervisors—were ranked third, garnering 17.9% of responses. This reflects a moderate yet meaningful emphasis on the social and collaborative elements of the workplace. Lastly, Professional Development ranked lowest, with just 11.9% of responses, indicating that while it is acknowledged, it may be viewed as a less pressing concern compared to more immediate structural and psychological factors.

Table V: Ranking Analysis

The Self-Efficacy opinion from respondents

Figure II: Self-Efficacy opinion from respondents

Among the Self-efficacy themes, Figure 2 clearly illustrates that Emotional Intelligence & Self-Regulation is the most prominent, accounting for 20% of the responses, followed by Teaching Experience & Instructional Ability (14.5%) and Digital Literacy & Tech Adaptation (12.7%).

The responses shared offer a rich and multifaceted understanding of self-efficacy among educators, highlighting both internal attributes and external competencies that strengthen their confidence in fulfilling their professional roles effectively. The analysis shows that educators’ self-efficacy is deeply rooted in a combination of emotional resilience, digital literacy, hands-on teaching experience, and a clear sense of purpose. Institutions should consider these factors in designing training and support initiatives to better equip educators, particularly in adapting to rapid changes and sustaining high levels of performance and engagement.

The opinion of respondents about the role of relationship in supporting educator resilience and motivation

The analysis of qualitative responses from educators reveals a strong consensus on the vital role of personal and work relationships in fostering resilience and sustaining motivation within the teaching profession. This theme stood out as a major contributor to emotional well-being, job satisfaction, and the capacity to navigate work-related challenges effectively.

1. Strong Consensus on Importance: Most respondents emphasized that maintaining positive personal and work relationships is very important or essential to their ability to remain motivated and resilient. These relationships—particularly with family, close friends, colleagues, and administrative leaders—were viewed as foundational to a supportive work environment. Respondents used phrases such as “most important,” “supportive,” and “give motivation” to describe the intrinsic value of this emotional and professional support.
2. Emotional Support Enhances Motivation: Respondents consistently reported that emotional support from personal and professional relationships plays a key role in alleviating burnout and stress, boosting morale and sense of purpose, and maintaining long-term motivation amidst workplace demands. As one respondent noted, “support from colleagues, students and family can give motivation, reduce stress, and help me become stronger to face any challenges”.
3. The Role of Work-Life Balance: Educators also highlighted the importance of maintaining a healthy work-life balance to retain motivation. Spending time with loved ones and engaging in personal activities helps replenish emotional energy, contributing to improved classroom presence and focus. This suggests that institutions should promote practices that support a balanced lifestyle for their staff. For example, one respondent expressed, “spending time with our beloved person helps me to release stress and I feel recharged and refreshed when entering the classroom, the next day”.
4. Building a Positive Work Culture: Positive workplace relationships were associated with collaborative teamwork, collective problem-solving, and transparent communication. These aspects were seen as crucial in nurturing a professional culture where educators feel appreciated, less isolated, and empowered when facing challenges.
5. Boundaries and Professionalism: While most responses emphasized the benefits of personal and professional connections, a smaller portion (approximately 10%) highlighted the need to distinguish between the two. This group advocated for maintaining professional boundaries to avoid interpersonal conflicts, preserve productivity, and uphold reputational standards. As one respondent stated, “Personal relationships should not influence our work performance”.

The Influence of Work Environment on Educator Resilience

Analysis of respondents’ reflections reveals that a positive, supportive, and well-structured work environment plays a critical role in enhancing educators’ resilience. The following emerged as key themes, identified through the frequency and richness of the responses:

1. Strong consensus on Importance: Most respondents explicitly stated that a positive work environment is critical in maintaining their motivation, mental well-being, and dedication to their teaching roles. As one respondent shared,” A positive working environment is crucial in building my resilience. It helps me to become more enthusiastic, persevere, and able to face challenges in a calm way.
2. Elements of a Positive Work Environment: Several factors were identified to be essential in fostering resilience in the work environment. These include Empathetic and Supportive Leadership, as most of the respondents emphasized that leaders who have empathy and understanding of their staff challenges, offer emotional support, and acknowledge their efforts, help to foster educator resilience, as well as encourage professional growth. However, there were concerns on fairness, equity, and non-toxic culture at the workplace as several respondents voiced concern about favouritism, office politics, and bureaucracy, which can reduce morale and increase stress. Access to clean, safe, and well-equipped workspaces, along with wellness initiatives, was regarded as crucial to sustaining long-term performance and resilience.
3. Impact on Motivation, Productivity, and Emotional Health: Positive Impact: Respondents noted that a supportive work environment enhances job satisfaction, boosts energy, and helps maintain emotional stability. One shared, “A good work environment gives us space to learn, to grow and even if we fail, they will support us until we rise again.” In contrast, for Negative Impact: Toxic or unsupportive work settings were linked to burnout, intentions to resign or early retirement, and diminished teaching effectiveness. As one respondent put it, “A hostile/negative work environment can affect an educator’s resilience negatively.”
4. Work Environment as a Resilience-Building Ecosystem: Respondents described the workplace as a “systemic support structure”, encompassing leadership, peer support, facilities, emotional encouragement, and policy. These aspects collectively shape how educators cope with professional challenges. One respondent explained, “A Positive work environment builds resilience by fostering a sense of belonging, support, and motivation, which helps me stay engaged and overcome challenges more effectively.”
5. Calls for Improvement: While many appreciated positive aspects in their current institutions, several expressed urgent needs for more autonomy and reduced micromanagement, as well as more attainable expectations from higher management. They emphasized the importance of timely access to resources and infrastructure, as well as a desire for leaders to show more empathy and involve educators in decision-making processes.

The Role of Professional Development in Building Educator Resilience

The data confirms that professional development is essential for enhancing resilience among educators, enabling them to address evolving challenges in pedagogy, technology, emotional well-being, and institutional expectations. Participants expressed this through themes of skill enhancement, emotional support, motivation, spiritual purpose, and recognition.

1. Knowledge and Skill Empowerment: Educators associate professional development with strengthening their expertise, particularly in areas such as digital tools, pedagogical strategies, and classroom management. This upskilling increases their confidence and readiness to handle dynamic teaching environments.
2. Resilience Through Emotional and Mental Well-being: Numerous educators noted that professional development helps them develop coping strategies, manage stress, and adapt to change, particularly when integrated with reflective practices and peer support.
3. Spiritual and Ethical Motivation: Several respondents cited spiritual beliefs and ethical commitments as key motivators for engaging in professional development. For them, growth is not merely about external achievements but also about fulfilling personal values and seeking spiritual enrichment.
4. Support Systems and Collaboration: Educators regarded professional development as a vital avenue for promoting collaboration, fostering peer-to-peer engagement, and exchanging best practices across institutions. These shared learning experiences help mitigate isolation and foster a sense of belonging.
5. Recognition, Equity, and Reward: Numerous respondents expressed concerns regarding unequal opportunities to professional development and delayed career advancement, particularly in contrast to their private sector counterparts. They argued that unfair reward systems can demotivate staff and limit the long-term benefits of such programs.
6. Personal Growth & Career Trajectory: Professional development is seen as both a tool for upgrading competencies and a steppingstone toward career advancement and personal growth. They also highlighted the importance of well-defined and transparent promotion pathways.
7. Adaptability to Change: Educators who can effectively manage technological advancements in education are well-prepared to meet the current needs of the education system. Some have expressed feelings of being overwhelmed by the rapid pace of technological changes and shifts in curriculum. Continuous professional development is identified as the key factor for staying up to date, adaptability, and confidence in a rapidly evolving academic landscape.

CONCLUSION

The resilience of educators is significantly influenced by four interrelated factors: self-efficacy, positive relationships, a supportive work environment, and continuous professional development. Self-efficacy boosts educators’ confidence in managing challenges and staying motivated. Strong positive relationships offer emotional and social support that enhances coping mechanisms. A nurturing work atmosphere enhances well-being, productivity, and job fulfilment, while continuous professional growth ensures that educators remain skilled, flexible, and creative. The combined support of these aspects creates a solid foundation that allows educators to sustain their commitment, motivation, and resilience amidst the evolving demands of the education sector.

Organizations aiming to improve workforce resilience should focus on optimizing the work environment by cultivating supportive frameworks, allocating adequate resources, and designing a positive organizational culture. Simultaneously, improving employee self-efficacy through initiatives that build confidence and promote positive working relationships can further enhance resilience. While professional development may not always be in the spotlight, it is essential and should not be overlooked, as ongoing skill improvement is crucial to sustaining adaptability.

This study, however, must be viewed considering its limitations. The findings are influenced by a sample skewed towards female educators (67%) and those from public universities (81%), which may limit the generalizability of the results to male academics and private institution contexts. Furthermore, the cross-sectional design provides a snapshot in time, not a longitudinal view of resilience development. Future research could explore contextual differences, with a more balanced sample and employ longitudinal methods to trace how resilience evolves such as changes specific to various industries, to enhance these findings further. Nonetheless, this outcome strengthens the study’s contributions and offers practical recommendations, ensuring relevance in both academic and real-world contexts.

Recommendations for institutions and policymakers include several key strategies. Firstly, professional development should be integrated into institutional Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), making it a measurable and ongoing aspect of performance rather than a one-time effort. Secondly, higher management must strike a balance between external & intrinsic motivation by offering not only certificates, but also meaningful growth opportunities that align with educators’ values. Moreover, establishing Peer-Led Learning Communities can harness internal expertise across departments to promote mentoring and coaching. Professional development programs should also be tailored to the specific, timely, and contextual needs of educators, considering their experience levels and subject areas. Finally, to build a resilient workforce among educators, higher management should establish transparent reward and progression frameworks directly linked to participation in professional development and its demonstrated impact.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As we reflect on the successful completion of this research, we are reminded that its true value lies not just in the findings but in the resilience, collaboration, and unwavering determination that brought us here. This journey has been a testament to the power of perseverance, adaptability, and the support of those who stood by us. First and foremost, we extend our deepest gratitude to Allah SWT for giving us inspiration, intelligence, guidance, and patience to help us go through this research journey successfully. From the bottom of our hearts, thank you to our spouses and families—your patience, sacrifices, and emotional support were our anchor during moments of stress and uncertainty. You reminded us that resilience is not just an individual trait, but a shared strength nurtured by love and understanding.

To our incredible head of department, colleagues, and peers, thank you for your support, insightful discussions, and willingness to be part of this research journey. Your collaborative spirit and problem-solving mindset turned challenges into opportunities, proving that a resilient workforce thrives on collective effort. We are profoundly grateful to the management and leadership of Kolej Profesional MARA Seri Iskandar, especially our Director, for fostering an environment that values resilience, innovation, and continuous learning. Your trust in our abilities, provision of resources, and flexibility during obstacles empowered us to push forward with confidence.

Finally, we recognize the silent contributors—our best friends, well-wishers, and every individual who offered a word of encouragement or a helping hand. Your support reinforced the belief that resilience is sustained by community. This research stands as a symbol of what can be achieved when determination meets support, and challenges are met with adaptability. Thank you all for being the foundation of our resilience.

REFERENCES

1. Abdul Manaf MR, Mohammed Nawi A, Mohd Tauhid N, Othman H, Abdul Rahman MR, Mohd Yusoff H, Safian N, Ng PY, Abdul Manaf Z, Abdul Kadir NB, et al. Factors Associated with Health-Related Quality of Life amongst Employees in a Malaysian Public University. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(20):10903. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph182010903
2. Amin, Muhammad & Nuriadi, Nuriadi & Soepriyanti, Henny & Thohir, Lalu. (2022). Teacher Resilience in Facing Changes in Education Policy due to Covid-19 Pandemic. Indonesian TESOL Journal. 4. 71-84. 10.24256/itj.v4i1.2537.
3. Anderson, J., Bernstein, D. S., Kim, G., Recanatini, F., & Schuster, C. (2023). Understanding Corruption through Government Analytics. The Government Analytics Handbook: Leveraging Data to Strengthen Public Administration.
4. Axe, J. (2024, November 6). Digital literacy and resilience: How can professional development prepare instructors to succeed in changing times? BCcampus. Retrieved from https://bccampus.ca/2024/11/06/digital-literacy-and-resilience-how-can-professional-development-prepare-instructors-to-succeed-in-changing-times/
5. Badaruddin, B., Surianto, S., & Fatmasari, F. (2024). Work-life balance and professional development: Their impact on employee performance. PARADOKS Jurnal Ilmu Ekonomi, 7(4), 409–424. https://doi.org/10.57178/paradoks.v7i4.986
6. Beltman, S. (2021). Teacher resilience during disruptive change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, 103427.10.1016/j.tate.2021.103427
7. Collie, Rebecca & Mansfield, Caroline. (2022). Teacher and school stress profiles: A multilevel examination and associations with work-related outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education. 116. 103759. 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103759.
8. Firdaus, M. A., Abadiyah, R., & Adji, K. (2024). Leadership, career growth, and motivation significantly boost job satisfaction in Indonesia. Indonesian Journal of Law and Economics Review. https://doi.org/10.21070/ijler.v19i2.1071
9. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of marketing research, 18(1), 39-50.
10. Ghasemy, M., Mohajer, L., Cepeda-Carrión, G., & Roldán, J. L. (2020). Job performance as a mediator between affective states and job satisfaction: A multigroup analysis based on gender in an academic environment. Current Psychology, 1-16.
11. Gong, Z., Chen, Y., & Wang, Y. (2019). The influence of emotional intelligence on job burnout and job performance: Mediating effect of psychological capital. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2707. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02707
12. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., Sarstedt, M., Danks, N. P., Ray, S., Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). Evaluation of reflective measurement models. Partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) using R: A workbook, 75-90.
13. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the academy of marketing science, 43, 115-135.
14. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sinkovics, R. R. (2009). The use of partial least squares path modeling in international marketing. In New challenges to international marketing (pp. 277-319). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
15. Hui, L. H., & Abdullah, A. N. (2020). Malaysian lecturer resilience strategies. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(2), 245-260.10.1007/s12564-019-09622-z
16. Irfan, S., & Shetty, J. G. (2024). Promoting employee well-being and mental health: An analysis of initiatives at Flipkart, Bommanahalli, Bangalore. Indian Scientific Journal of Research in Engineering and Management, 08(12), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsrem40213
17. Kenney, M., & Müller, R. (2024). Relations as immunity: Building community resilience. Medicine Anthropology Theory. https://doi.org/10.17157/mat.11.1.7266
18. Kudaibergenov, Z., Kurmanalina, A., Дуйсенбаева, Б. Б., & Тайжанов, Л. Т. (2024). Analysis of the influence of the enterprise motivation system on the career growth of employees. Gosudarstvennoe Upravlenie i Gosudarstvennaâ Služba, 91(4), 128–138. https://doi.org/10.52123/1994-2370-2024-1263
19. Larasati, Rachelina & Kuswandono, Paulus. (2023). Enhancing Teachers’ Resilience through Teacher Professional Development. Language Circle: Journal of Language and Literature. 17. 391-402. 10.15294/lc.v17i2.42673.
20. Lestari, R., Windarwati, H. D., & Hariyanti, T. (2025). Building resilience in organizations. In Advances in Human Resources Management and Organizational Development Book Series (pp. 151–168). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-8457-2.ch006
21. MOHE Malaysia. (2022). National educator resilience framework.
    https://www.mohe.gov.my/en/download
22. Moghal, S., Kazi, A. S., & Kalsoom, T. Studying Teacher Resilience: Nature and Conditions of Development of Resilience in Tertiary Teachers of Pakistan.
23. Mokhtar, N & Azizi, Z & Baharuddin, H & Abu Shamsi, Nurulaini & Razak, F & Mokhtar Azizi, Nurul Sakina. (2020). Examining Factors of Resilience in Built Environment Students: Malaysia Case Study. International Journal Of Advanced Research In Engineering & Technology. 11. 305-314. 10.34218/IJARET.11.9.2020.031.
24. Nuryakin, N. (2023). The effect of reward, career development and task-oriented leadership style on employee performance with job satisfaction as intervening variables. Jurnal Aisyah: Jurnal Ilmu Kesehatan, 8(2). https://doi.org/10.30604/jika.v8i2.1796
25. Parker, P. D., & Martin, A. J. (2020). Educator self-efficacy. JEP, 112(7), 1447-1462.
    10.1037/edu0000421
26. Subaedah, St., Badawi, A. M., & Rizal, S. (2024). The influence of workload, work environment, and facilities on the performance of healthcare workers at the Bintuni Public Health Center in Bintuni District, Teluk Bintuni. Eduvest, 4(8), 7434–7445. https://doi.org/10.59188/eduvest.v4i8.1791
27. Van Wingerden, J., & Poell, R. F. (2019). Meaningful work and resilience among teachers: The mediating role of work engagement and job crafting. PLOS ONE, 14(9), e0222518. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222518
28. Young, S., & Zainol Abidin, Z. (2024). The impact of superior support on building motivation and work commitment: The Malaysian experience. International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Management Practices, 7(28), 344–353. https://doi.org/10.35631/ijemp.728023
29. Zhang, S., & Luo, Y. (2023). Review on the conceptual framework of teacher resilience. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 001-007. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1179984
30. Zin, N. I. M., Sulong, R. M., & Zainudin, Z. N. (2023). Psychological Wellbeing Among Teachers In Malaysia: The Relationship Between Burnout, Resilience And School Factor. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 13, 12.