Achieving sustainable education (SDG 4) relies heavily on the well-being, innovation, and performance of educators. Rooted in the context of decent work (SDG 8), this study aims to investigate how job demands and job resources jointly influence lecturers’ innovative work behavior and job performance in the higher education sector. Using the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model as a theoretical foundation, the research explores the mediating role of innovative work behavior in linking daily work conditions to sustainable performance outcomes. A quantitative research design was employed using survey data collected from 432 lecturers in higher education in Vietnam, analyzed via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). Results indicate that well-balanced job demands and resources significantly predict innovative work behavior, which in turn positively influences job performance. The findings suggest that educational institutions aiming for sustainable development must provide decent working conditions, featuring manageable demands and adequate resources, to cultivate an innovation-supportive culture. This paper contributes to the literature on sustainable education management by bridging the motivational mechanisms of the JD-R model with sustainable performance, offering practical insights for policymakers and university administrators to build resilient and innovative academic environments.

1.       Tomlinson A, Simpson A, Killingback C. Student expectations of teaching and learning when starting university: A systematic review. Journal of Further and Higher Education. 2023; 47(8): 1054–1073. doi: 10.1080/0309877x.2023.2212242

2.       Macfarlane B. The spirit of research. Oxford Review of Education. 2021; 47(6): 737–751. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2021.1884058

3.       Planells-Aleixandre E, García-Aracil A, Isusi-Fagoaga R. University’s Contribution to Society: Benchmarking of Social Innovation. Sustainability. 2025; 17(8): 3427. doi: 10.3390/su17083427

4.       Mok KH, Sawn Khai T. Transnationalization of higher education in China and Asia: Quality assurance and students’ learning experiences. AEDS. 2024; 13(3): 208–226. doi: 10.1108/AEDS-01-2024-0004

5.       Drissi M, Meftah S, Skalli L. The role of universities in implementing the sustainable development goals (SDGs) a case study of Hassan first university 2018–2023. Discover Sustainability. 2025; 6(1): 926. doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-01547-5

6.       Meftah S, Meftah K, Babassa N, et al. The versatility and effectiveness of bio-adsorbents in the removal of chemical pollutants from water: adsorption mechanisms, optimization by ANN and RSM, SWOT analysis, and contribution to the 3rd and 6 th Sustainable Development Goals. Discover Sustainability. 2025; 6(1): 971. doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-01359-7

7.       Meftah S, Meftah K, Drissi M, et al. Heavy metal polluted water: Effects and sustainable treatment solutions using bio-adsorbents aligned with the SDGs. Discover Sustainability. 2025; 6(1): 137. doi: 10.1007/s43621-025-00895-6

8.       Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2017; 22(3): 273–285. doi: 10.1037/ocp0000056

9.       Fernandez De Henestrosa M, Sischka PE, Steffgen G. Examining the challenge-hindrance-threat distinction of job demands alongside job resources. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023; 14: 1011815. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1011815

10.    Tadić M, Bakker AB, Oerlemans WGM. Challenge versus hindrance job demands and well‐being: A diary study on the moderating role of job resources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2015; 88(4): 702–725. doi: 10.1111/joop.12094

11.    Janssen O. Job demands, perceptions of effort‐reward fairness and innovative work behaviourJournal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 2000; 73(3): 287–302. doi: 10.1348/096317900167038

12.    Hai Yen T, Tien Minh C, Ngoc Diep N, Dai Long K. The impact of individual and organizational factors on employee innovative work behavior: Empirical evidence from private companies in Vietnam. Problems and Perspectives in Management. 2025; 23(1): 193–208. doi: 10.21511/ppm.23(1).2025.15

13.    Kim J, Prempeh AA, Addai EK, Wargo E. The Effect of Knowledge Sharing on Innovative Work Behaviour at Higher Education Institutions. Higher Education Quarterly. 2025; 79(1): e12574. doi: 10.1111/hequ.12574

14.    Hassan RS, Amin HMG, Ghoneim H. Decent work and innovative work behavior of academic staff in higher education institutions: the mediating role of work engagement and job self-efficacy. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2024; 11(1): 702. doi: 10.1057/s41599-024-03177-0

15.    Riza S, Syarif M, Mardatillah F, et al. Improving lecturer competence to encourage innovation and creativity in learning. Jurnal Ilmiah Peuradeun. 2024; 12(1): 249–272.

16.    Do QH, Tran VT, Tran TT. Evaluating lecturer performance in Vietnam: An application of fuzzy AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS methods. Heliyon. 2024; 10(11): e30772. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e30772

17.    Bakker AB. An Evidence-Based Model of Work Engagement. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2011; 20(4): 265–269. doi: 10.1177/0963721411414534

18.    Bakker AB, Demerouti E. The Job Demands‐Resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology. 2007; 22(3): 309–328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115

19.    Pham ThaoPT, Van Nguyen T, Van Nguyen P, Ahmed ZU. The pathways to innovative work behavior and job performance: Exploring the role of public service motivation, transformational leadership, and person-organization fit in Vietnam’s public sector. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2024; 10(3): 100315. doi: 10.1016/j.joitmc.2024.100315

20.    Jang E, Kim YC. Autonomy Constrained: The Dynamic Interplay Among Job Autonomy, Work Engagement, and Innovative Behavior Under Performance Pressure. Administrative Sciences. 2025; 15(3): 97. doi: 10.3390/admsci15030097

21.    Zia A, Memon MA, Mirza MZ, et al. Digital job resources, digital engagement, digital leadership, and innovative work behaviour: A serial mediation model. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2025; 28(8): 3192–3216. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-04-2023-0311

22.    De Jong J, Den Hartog D. Measuring Innovative Work Behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management. 2010; 19(1): 23–36. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8691.2010.00547.x

23.    Schaufeli WB, Salanova M, González-romá V, Bakker AB. The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2002; 3(1): 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A: 1015630930326

24.    Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001; 86(3): 499–512. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

25.    Kunzelmann A, Rigotti T, Crane MF. Latent profiles of challenge, hindrance, and threat appraisals on time pressure and job complexity: Antecedents and outcomes. Australian Journal of Management. 2025; 50(2): 431–458. doi: 10.1177/03128962231222825

26.    Xu Y, Liao C, Huang L, et al. The positive side of stress: Investigating the impact of challenge stressors on innovative behavior in higher education. Acta Psychologica. 2024; 246: 104255. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2024.104255

27.    Dixit A, Upadhyay Y. Role of JD-R model in upticking innovative work behaviour among higher education faculty. RAUSP Management Journal. 2021; 56(2): 156–169. doi: 10.1108/RAUSP-03-2020-0060

28.    Gkontelos A, Vaiopoulou J, Stamovlasis D. Teachers’ innovative work behavior as a function of self-efficacy, burnout, and irrational beliefs: A structural equation model. European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education. 2023; 13(2): 403–418. doi: 10.3390/ejihpe13020030

29.    Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: An interdisciplinary review. Journal of Management. 2005; 31(6): 874–900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602

30.    Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress. American Psychologist. 1989; 44(3): 513–524. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.44.3.513

31.    Tajfel H, Turner JC. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Political psychology. Psychology Press; 2004. pp. 276–293.

32.    Chaiyapruksayanonde C, Ponchaitiwat K. Supportive work environments, innovative work behavior, and job performance in the hospitality industry: empirical evidence from Thailand. Tourism and Hospitality. 2025; 6(1): 20. doi: 10.3390/tourhosp6010020

33.    Benner MJ, Tushman ML. Exploitation, exploration, and process management: The productivity dilemma revisited. Academy of Management Review. 2003; 28(2): 238–256. doi: 10.5465/amr.2003.9416096

34.    Bakker AB, De Vries JD. Job Demands–Resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping. 2021; 34(1): 1–21. doi: 10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695

35.    Wang K, Zhang S, Fan Y. Relationship between daily job resources and job performance: The mediating role of emotions from within-perspective. Sage Open. 2024; 14(4): 21582440241293549. doi: 10.1177/21582440241293549

36.    Abukhalifa AMS, Kamil NLM, Yong CC. Strategic human resource management bundles and job performance in the nonprofit sector: A multilevel longitudinal study. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2025; 36(1): 39–56. doi: 10.1002/nml.21648

37.    Acharya V, Rajendran A, Prabhu N, Acharya KA. Institutional, supervisory, and personal demands: Unravelling the challenge-hindrance demands in doctoral programs. Cogent Education. 2024; 11(1): 2375052. doi: 10.1080/2331186X.2024.2375052

38.    Gilboa S, Shirom A, Fried Y, Cooper C. A meta‐analysis of work demand stressors and job performance: Examining main and moderating effects. Personnel Psychology. 2008; 61(2): 227–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00113.x

39.    Van Laethem M, Beckers DGJ, De Bloom J, et al. Challenge and hindrance demands in relation to self‐reported job performance and the role of restoration, sleep quality, and affective rumination. J Occupat & Organ Psyc. 2019; 92(2): 225–254. doi: 10.1111/joop.12239

40.    Kayar S, Yeşilada T. Quartet of Sustainable Job Security, Job Performance, Organizational Commitment, and Motivation in an Emerging Economy: Focusing on Northern Cyprus. Sustainability. 2024; 16(16): 6764. doi: 10.3390/su16166764

41.    Demerouti E, Bakker AB. Job demands-resources theory in times of crises: New propositions. Organizational Psychology Review. 2023; 13(3): 209–236. doi: 10.1177/20413866221135022

42.    Hoang Dang L, Nhat Vuong B, Duy Huan D. How human resource management practices promote job performance through innovative work behavior: Does innovative climate matter? Cogent Psychology. 2025; 12(1): 2498245. doi: 10.1080/23311908.2025.2498245

43.    Gkontelos A, Vaiopoulou J, Stamovlasis D. Applying job demands resources theory to innovative work behavior in early childhood education via structural equation modeling. Discover Education. 2025; 4(1): 444. doi: 10.1007/s44217-025-00937-1

44.    Mehmood K, Zaheer MA, Latif MS, Anjum T. A job demands-resources approach to proactive work behavior in higher education institutions (HEIs) of a developing country with the moderating role of perceived organizational support. Journal of Asian Development Studies. 2025; 14(3): 1724–1741. doi: 10.62345/jads.2025.14.3.137

45.    Bao X, Dong J, Guo J. Family-to-work conflict and innovative work behavior among university teachers: The mediating effect of work stress and the moderating effect of gender. Behavioral Sciences. 2025; 15(10): 1309. doi: 10.3390/bs15101309

46.    Zhou Y, Zhang J, Zheng W, Fu M. Promoting or prohibiting? Investigating how time pressure influences innovative behavior under stress-mindset conditions. Behavioral Sciences. 2024; 14(2): 143. doi: 10.3390/bs14020143

47.    Alwali J. Innovative work behavior and psychological empowerment: the importance of inclusive leadership on faculty members in Iraqi higher education institutions. Journal of Organizational Change Management. 2024; 37(2): 374–390. doi: 10.1108/JOCM-03-2023-0084

48.    Niesen W, Hootegem A, Elst TV, et al. Job insecurity and innovative work behaviour: A psychological contract perspective. Psychologica Belgica. 2018; 57(4): 381–402. doi: 10.5334/pb.381

49.    Zargar P, Daouk A, Chahine S. Driving innovative work behavior among university teachers through work engagement and perceived organizational support. Administrative Sciences. 2025; 15(7): 246. doi: 10.3390/admsci15070246

50.    Chang TS, McKeachie W, Lin YG. Faculty perceptions of teaching support and teaching efficacy in Taiwan. Higher Education. 2010; 59(2): 207–220. doi: 10.1007/s10734-009-9243-8

51.    Collie RJ. Teacher well‐being and turnover intentions: Investigating the roles of job resources and job demands. British Journal of Educational Psychology. 2023; 93(3): 712–726. doi: 10.1111/bjep.12587

52.    Skaalvik EM, Skaalvik S. Job demands and job resources as predictors of teacher motivation and well-being. Social Psychology of Education. 2018; 21(5): 1251–1275. doi: 10.1007/s11218-018-9464-8

53.    Han J, Yin H, Wang J, Zhang J. Job demands and resources as antecedents of university teachers’ exhaustion, engagement and job satisfaction. Educational Psychology. 2020; 40(3): 318–335. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2019.1674249

54.    Dhar RL. Ethical leadership and its impact on service innovative behavior: The role of LMX and job autonomy. Tourism Management. 2016; 57: 139–148. doi: 10.1016/j.tourman.2016.05.011

55.    Koopmans L, Bernaards C, Hildebrandt V, et al. Development of an individual work performance questionnaire. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management. 2012; 62(1): 6–28. doi: 10.1108/17410401311285273

56.    Barclay D, Higgins C, Thompson R. The partial least squares (PLS) approach to casual modeling: Personal computer adoption ans use as an Illustration. Technology Studies. 1995; 2: 285–309.

57.    Kock N, Hadaya P. Minimum sample size estimation in PLS‐SEM: The inverse square root and gamma‐exponential methods. Information Systems Journal. 2018; 28(1): 227–261. doi: 10.1111/isj.12131

58.    Hair JF, Risher JJ, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM. When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review. 2019; 31(1): 2–24. doi: 10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203

59.    Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2003; 88(5): 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

60.    Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research. 1981; 18(1): 39–50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104

61.    Wahab FA, Subramaniam A, Ho JA, Bali Mahomed AS. Augmenting effect of inclusive and ambidextrous leadership on public university academic staffs’ innovative performance: The mediating role of innovative work behavior. Sage Open. 2024; 14(1): 21582440241232761. doi: 10.1177/21582440241232761

62.    Scott SG, Bruce RA. Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal. 1994; 37(3): 580–607. doi: 10.2307/256701

63.    Messmann G, Mulder RH. Development of a measurement instrument for innovative work behaviour as a dynamic and context-bound construct. Human Resource Development International. 2012; 15(1): 43–59. doi: 10.1080/13678868.2011.646894

64.    Afsar B, Umrani WA. Transformational leadership and innovative work behavior: The role of motivation to learn, task complexity and innovation climate. European Journal of Innovation Management. 2019; 23(3): 402–428. doi: 10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0257

65.    Taris T, Beek I van, Schaufeli W. The beauty versus the beast: On the motives of engaged and workaholic employees. In: Heavy Work Investment. Routledge; 2014.

66.    Cavanaugh MA, Boswell WR, Roehling MV, Boudreau JW. An empirical examination of self-reported work stress among US managers. Journal of applied psychology. 2000; 85(1): 65. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.65

67.    Tims M, Bakker AB, Derks D. The impact of job crafting on job demands, job resources, and well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. 2013; 18(2): 230–240. doi: 10.1037/a0032141

68.    Kärner T, Höning J. Teachers’ experienced classroom demands and autonomic stress reactions: results of a pilot study and implications for process-oriented research in vocational education and training. Empirical Research in Vocational Education and Training. 2021; 13(1): 8. doi: 10.1186/s40461-021-00113-3

69.    Pindek S, Meyer K, Valvo A, Arvan M. A dynamic view of the challenge-hindrance stressor framework: A meta-analysis of daily diary studies. Journal of Business and Psychology. 2024; 39(5): 1107–1125. doi: 10.1007/s10869-024-09933-y

70.    Zhang J, Zhang Q, Wang Y, et al. Daily challenge-hindrance stress and work engagement in preschool teacher: The role of affect and mindfulness. BMC Public Health. 2024; 24(1): 2779. doi: 10.1186/s12889-024-20255-9