Job Burnout amongst University Administrative Staff Members in China—A Perspective on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Abstract

It is widely accepted that administrative staff, as important components of a university’s workforce, play a critical role in realizing the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The worth of administrative staff is based on their productivity, and this has a significant impact on the viability of universities. Based on the job demands–resources model, this study investigates the antecedents of job burnout among administrative staff from both emotional and interpersonal perspectives, taking into account SDGs 3, 4, and 8. In this paper, a quantitative research method using descriptive and inferential analyses explores the complex interplay between job autonomy, emotional job demands, colleague support, and job burnout, with a particular emphasis on the role of emotion regulation. A questionnaire was answered anonymously by 1009 administrative staff members in China, and the results conclude that job autonomy was negatively associated with job burnout, while emotional job demands were positively linked to burnout. Moreover, leader support emerged as more beneficial to workers than colleague support. Emotion regulation strategies such as reappraisal function as an important personal resource that buffers the negative effects of job demands and enhances job resources, leading to lower levels of burnout. Furthermore, this study examines how the SDGs can be achieved through reducing job burnout. The important implications for university administrative staff and policymakers, as well as the sustainable development of universities, are discussed.

1. Introduction

Research has shown that education has always been an important driving force for sustainable and enlightened economic progress [1], and efforts have been made to implement sustainability at the university level [2]. Several scholars have suggested expanding the scope of sustainable development research in universities not only through research and teaching but also through policy actions, staff participation, and the co-management of the university environment itself [3]. In recent times, studies have discussed the contribution of staff to the sustainable development of universities [4].

It is indeed crucial to understand the workplace environment of university personnel in order to evaluate their ability to help achieve the SDGs, given that universities have certain policies and environmental, personnel, or development goals to adhere to [5]. Although many antecedents (such as individual personality, stress, emotions, and policies) affect the work environment of academic and administrative staff at universities, the significant indicators for staff to evaluate their workplace state are learning opportunities, health status, well-being, and decent employment conditions [6,7].

Generally, the core agenda of the SDGs, such as targets 3, 4, and 8, aim to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being, quality education, and decent work for all, respectively [8]. Although one might expect to find positive correlations between the SDGs and healthy lives, well-being, quality education, and decent work, studies show that job burnout, as an occupational problem (World Health Organization, 2019), has negative associations with personal health, well-being, and decent work [9], Consequently, these negative outcomes of burnout affect the teaching and research processes of academic staff members, while the administrative staff carry out their clerical, bureaucratic, and managerial work properly. Otherwise, the achievement of the United Nations’ SDGs is not possible.

In China, higher education has expanded rapidly since 1999 (China Statistical Yearbook, various years). This surge in student enrollment, coupled with deteriorating teaching conditions and broad variations in education quality [10], have caused the duties of university staff to be more onerous and challenging. Survey data from Chinese university teachers from 2013 reveal that more than 36% of them experienced increasing pressures [11], with job stress emerging as a critical factor contributing to job burnout [12].

Much of the prior research in higher education has concentrated on academic staff, who primarily engage in teaching and research duties [13]. However, according to the China Education Statistics Yearbook, university administrative staff (UAS), who constituted nearly 15% of university staff at the end of 2019, have often been overlooked. Unlike academic staff, the gravity and density of the work of UAS are more intense. Repetitive and tedious work, complex interpersonal relationships, unexpected work content, and limitations due to managerial policies are more likely to cause UAS to work in the “white + black” and “5 + 2” working modes. To be specific, the former means working both days and nights, while the latter means working five days per week (Monday to Friday), with two days off (Saturday and Sunday), implying a seven-day work week. For example, UAS must deal with increasing workloads and novel challenges when providing services and advice to other staff, colleagues, teachers, and students [14]; these factors cause emotional and interpersonal issues since they deal with emotionally charged interactions between coworkers, the working environment, and the work practices themselves. These multifaceted demands contribute to a high incidence of job burnout among UAS.

In addition, job burnout issues should not be ignored. In the higher education context, job burnout has many costs for the university and the staff themselves which are associated with a loss of job satisfaction [15], poor career identity [16], low organizational commitment [17], and poor well-being [18]. These results hinder the development and implementation of SDGs. Hence, the burnout of administrative staff also requires attention in order to improve their well-being, job performance, health status, etc., to promote the implementation of the SDGs.

Based on the job demands–resources model [9], the current study first aims to treat job burnout as an individual symptom [19] in order to investigate how job demands and job resources shape UAS job burnout. Given that individuals’ emotional abilities—if they remain at a high level—can help people manage their job demands and communicate well with students, this study hypothesizes that the emotion regulation abilities of UAS can in fact function as a personal resource [20,21]. This study examines whether emotion regulation plays a mediating role between job characteristics and job burnout, and its significance helps us not only to understand the job burnout experienced by UAS but also analyzes what this means for the sustainable development of higher-education institutions and identifies strategies for addressing this issue. The important questions asked herein are as follows:

(1)

What is the correlation between colleague support, job autonomy, emotional job demands, emotion regulation strategies, and burnout in UAS?

(2)

How does UAS job burnout affect the sustainable workplace conditions in higher education?

(3)

Do emotion regulation strategies mediate the correlation between colleague support, job autonomy, emotional job demands, and job burnout?

2. Literature Review

Before exploring the relationship between the variables and job burnout, this literature review first explains the relationship between the SDGs and UAS.

2.1. SDGs and Administrative Staff (UAS)

The United Nations devised the Sustainable Development Goals in 2015 through the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This document proposes one framework for a 15-year plan aimed at protecting the Earth, empowering people, and ensuring prosperity, peace, and partnership. This ambitious agenda proposes that the sustainable development goals cannot be achieved without everyone’s cooperation [22]. It is acknowledged that university staff are important contributors to promoting the sustainable development of higher education [23].

In this increasingly globalized world, universities have the obligation and responsibility to provide quality education to people from all societies because a high-quality education can, in theory, ensure the security, welfare, and prosperity of a nation [24]. University staff play an essential role in realizing these ambitions [25]. This is consistent with SDG 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. However, the cornerstone of a university is a sound administrative system, which determines the success of high-quality research and teaching [26]. Baltaru and Soysal [27] indicate that UAS, who are the personnel that implement the administrative system, play a crucial role in helping universities promote sustainable development through efficient operation and procedures that support academic teachers and students [28].

The question must be asked: what is the workplace environment of UAS? One of the issues affecting the UAS in China is job burnout, which poses a huge challenge to individuals’ health and well-being [29]. Studies have shown that job burnout can seriously undermine health, employee well-being, and job performance [19]. This conflicts with SDG 4, which seeks to realize well-being and healthy living for all people of all ages. However, how is it possible to reduce the job burnout of UAS and promote the sustainable development of universities? SDG 8 provides the answer, which aims to create “decent work”, enable staff to access a “safe and reliable work environment”, and reduce unstable employment [30]. To be specific, decent work is defined as an occupation in which one’s duties or tasks are meaningful, the income is reasonable, and the job meets the staff member’s expectations [31]. Such conditions lead to increased productivity and high levels of autonomy [32], commitment, job satisfaction, and trust [33]. As stated in SDG 8, this trend is inherently linked to a reduction in job burnout [34,35]. Based on the theme devised for this paper, the sustainable development of universities should focus on addressing job burnout by exploring administrators’ emotional and interpersonal experiences.

2.2. A Job Demands-Resources Perspective on Burnout

2.2.1. The JD-R Model

The JD-R model has been extensively applied to interpret job burnout and engagement across different fields [9]. Demerouti et al. [36] devised the JD-R model to understand the factors that lead to burnout. The model divides all job characteristics into two groups: job demands and with job resources. The former means “the organizational, social or physical aspects of work that need sustained physical or mental effort and are thus correlated with psychological and physical costs” [36]. Meanwhile the latter refers to the psychological, physical, organizational, or social aspects of work that may: (a) contribute to the achievement of job goals; (b) reduce job demands and their accompanying psychological and physical costs; and (c) encourage individual growth and progress [36].

In the JD-R model, job demands are typically considered to be the negative organizational, social, or material aspects of a person’s job, while job resources are the positive aspects [9]. The JD-R model hypothesizes dual processes that account for the relationship between employee well-being and job characteristics. One process involves damage to health: high job demands actively predict fatigue associated with workplace tasks, which leads to health and emotional problems [9]. The other process is of a stimulating character: having sufficient resources in place will positively predict motivation or engagement with one’s job [9]. Taking into account that job burnout can be the result of two health-damaging conditions, one is the process of exhaustion induced by high job demands and the other is the process of failure to satisfy the demands resulting from insufficient resources [37].

Job burnout is regarded as an outcome of chronic work stress [16] and can occur when short-term stresses are not resolved or dealt with in effective ways. Demerouti et al. [36] indicated that job demands were largely linked to burnout or emotional exhaustion, while job resources were linked to job engagement. Similarly, while shortfalls in job resources can trigger burnout, job resources can, to a certain extent, cushion the role of job demands in triggering burnout [38].

2.2.2. Emotional Job Demands, Job Autonomy, Colleague Support, and Burnout

This work explores the nature of the emotional job demands experienced by Chinese UAS and their correlation with job burnout. Emotional job demands are qualitative workplace issues that are characterized by the variety, intensity, and frequency of the interpersonal interactions required in one’s duties [39]. Such demands need continuous individual effort and are linked to some costs [40]. Emotional job demands are generally viewed as harmful and stressful due to the valuable resources they consume and because they can simultaneously cause a person to feel emotionally uncontrollable in many circumstances [41]. In the context of higher education, Yin [42] argued that teachers experience high emotional job demands since they need to constantly manage or regulate their emotions in frequent and intense interactions with students, parents, and colleagues.

Prior studies have indicated that there is close link between serious outcomes and emotional job demands such as job dissatisfaction, burnout, and poor commitment [39]. It has also been observed that emotional job demands are inextricably linked to trait anxiety in employees [43] and work anxiety, as well as emotional exhaustion and health problems [44]. In terms of education, Yin et al. [21] revealed that there is a positive relationship between emotional job demands and the emotional exhaustion felt by academic staff and a negative relationship with job satisfaction and well-being. On this basis, we assumed that emotional job demands would be positively correlated with job burnout among UAS in China, which means that SDGs 3 and 8 cannot be attained. Based on this argument, the following hypothesis is posited:

H1: 

Emotional job demands have a positive correlation with job burnout.

The JD-R model views job autonomy as an essential resource in the workplace [9]. In accordance with this model, job autonomy has a positive impact on the well-being of employees due to the learning opportunities it offers, which benefit SDGs 3 and 4 since employees with greater autonomy have more opportunities to experiment with new ideas and behaviors [45]. This, in turn, can contribute to a variety of positive results, including better job security satisfaction and lower burnout levels [46,47], which is consistent with SDG 8. Conversely, workers with limited autonomy do not have the ability to choose how they respond to the demands placed upon them, leading to a lack of control and an inability to cope with potential stressors [40]. Over time, the draining of an individual’s energy due to an inability to cope with job demands can elevate the risk of burnout [36]. With this argument, we put forward this hypothesis:

H2: 

Job autonomy has a negative relationship with job burnout.

Social support is described as the availability of resources, information sharing, and emotional attention from individuals’ social networks. Although social support is often deemed to be a single construct in some research studies [48], other research contends that social support may vary in its sources and types. Prior research has identified that job burnout has a negative impact on social support [20]. Moreover, Lim [49] demonstrated that colleague support can effectively overcome the issues wrought by job insecurity on withdrawal behavior and job satisfaction, which helps to realize SDG 8. In the current work, two types of social support were delineated, specifically, leader support and colleague support, both of which were hypothesized to be negatively correlated with job burnout:

H3: 

Leader support (H3a) and colleague support (H3b) are negatively related to job burnout.

2.3. Emotion Regulation as a Personal Resource

The JD-R model has been refined to include personal resources as an important factor [9]. Personal resources constitute the psychological profile that makes a person able to control and shape their environment [20]. These resources serve as mediators between employee well-being and job demands [9]. Research has demonstrated that the satisfaction of individuals with their basic cognitive needs, for instance, ability, autonomy, and a sense of belonging, plays a mediating role between job demands and fatigue [50].

Emotion regulation is a significant personal resource in the higher education system in that it influences the sense of happiness of teachers/lecturers and the effectiveness of classroom management [51]. Emotion regulation is determined as “the process in which persons affect what emotions they possess, when they possess them, and how they experience and describe such emotions” [52]. Gross presented two extensive emotion regulation strategies, namely, cognitive reappraisal and expressive suppression [53]. Reappraisal is an antecedent-centered emotion regulation strategy that seeks to explain underlying emotional situations in non-emotional terms. Meanwhile, suppression is an emotion regulation strategy based on a response that involves suppressing a person’s sustained expression of emotions [53].

Regarding the relationship between burnout and emotion regulation strategies, Gross and John [54] have reported that the persons who applied reappraisal strategies presented with a positive sense of well-being, better interpersonal functioning, and a lower likelihood of having to deal with job burnout issues, which is consistent with SDG 3. Conversely, those who employed suppression strategies exhibited worse interpersonal functioning, a poor sense of well-being, and a better capacity to cope with job burnout, which will hinder the achievement of SDG 3. Similarly, Buruck et al. [55] emphasized that reassessing emotional stimuli is a valid means of handling situations that trigger stress, while suppressing negative emotional behavior is less effective and may have serious outcomes for individuals. In accordance with the former determinations of personal resources, in combination with personal demands or vulnerability factors [9,56], reappraisal should be regarded as a type of personal resource that represents one person’s capacity to effectively control their emotions and adapt to their environment. In the meantime, suppression should be considered a personal demand that represents the inability of one person to deal with the emotional demands of the current environment. It is linked to additional effort and psychological or physical costs.

In the education sector, qualitative research conducted by Sutton [57] indicated that successful emotion regulation may reduce susceptibility to burnout. Additionally, quantitative research conducted by Brackett et al. [58] observed that the capacity of teachers to manage their own emotions is positively linked to their positive emotions, personal achievements, and job satisfaction. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the reappraisal strategy and suppression strategy present negative and positive correlations with job burnout, respectively [39]. The most recent empirical research has suggested the negative impact of suppression and the positive effect of reappraisal on the measures of well-being, like job satisfaction, and burnout [21]. Consistent with the above findings, we put forward the following hypothesis:

H4: 

Reappraisal (H4a) and suppression (H4b) are negatively and positively linked to job burnout, respectively.

With reference to the relationships among emotion regulation, job resources, and emotional job demands, Yin et al. [21] contend that cognitive reappraisal is a personal resource that enables individuals to manage their own emotions and adapt to their environment. Research has shown that teachers use cognitive reappraisals to resolve the effects of emotional job demands on teachers’ autonomy in their work [59]. Conversely, suppression is deemed to be a personal demand that reflects a person’s inability to deal with emotional job demands, requiring additional cognitive and emotional effort and resulting in physical or psychological strains or costs. Studies suggest that the suppression of emotions exhausts teachers’ cognitive resources and is associated with SDGs 4 and 8 due to the poorer quality of their work and their compromised job autonomy [60]. Thus, we assume that:

H5: 

Emotional job demands have negative and positive relationships with reappraisal (H5a) and suppression (H5b), respectively.

H6: 

Job autonomy has positive and negative relationships with reappraisal (H6a) and suppression (H6b), respectively.

The role of support from colleagues as a crucial factor in creating a constructive school environment is one of the factors contributing to achieving SDG 8 [61]. When safety is guaranteed, it is possible that people may feel more comfortable about being themselves [62]. Therefore, trusted colleagues may help ameliorate perceptions of work stress and help to encourage a more relaxed environment that requires fewer coping strategies. Teachers who experience support from colleagues are far more likely to be authentic and use fewer emotion regulation strategies. Conversely, unsupportive colleagues may cause teachers to engage in “surface acting” to fake or cover their true emotions and opinions, while supportive colleagues may facilitate “deep acting” since individuals feel more valued in a genuinely supportive context [63]. According to Grandey’s [64] emotion regulation model, emotion regulation at work, or emotional labor, is a central element. It is consequently hypothesized that colleague support has a positive relationship with reappraisal and a negative relationship with the suppression among UAS. Moreover, emotion regulation may mediate the impact of social support on burnout; based on this, two hypotheses are suggested here:

H7: 

Leader support has a positive relationship with reappraisal (H7a) and a negative relationship with suppression (H7b).

H8: 

Colleague support has a positive relationship with reappraisal (H8a) and a negative relationship with suppression (H8b).

Finally, it is hypothesized that emotion regulation may serve as a mediator between emotional job demands, burnout, and job autonomy. We propose the mediated relationship according to the JD-R model, which argues that job demands and job resources may influence burnout through one’s personal resource (in this study, emotion regulation). Furthermore, several previous studies have provided evidence to support the mediating role of emotion regulation between job characteristics and work attitudes. For example, Zheng and colleagues [65] revealed that emotion regulation mediated the relationship between job demands and occupational well-being (job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion). Yin and colleagues [21] also uncovered that teachers’ emotion regulation strategies mediated the relationships between emotional job demands, trust in colleagues, and teacher well-being. Therefore, in this study, we hypothesize that emotion regulation mediates the relationships among job demands, job resources, and burnout.

3. Methodology

To explore the complex relationships among the job resources, job demands, emotion regulation, and amount of burnout among UAS in the setting of Chinese higher education, the study adopted a quantitative analysis strategy. By collecting self-reported questionnaires, an effort is made herein to reveal the characteristics of the work environment of UAS and the potential antecedents and consequences of workplace characteristics.

3.1. Participants

The relevant data were gathered through an online questionnaire survey in November 2022. In total, 1009 UAS working in 26 universities in 13 cities voluntarily participated in the survey with the permission and assistance of the administrators in charge of UAS in the higher-education institutions in East China, Jiangsu Province. The sample comprised 413 males (40.9%) and 596 females (59.1%), with 229 (22.7%) born after 1995, 317 (31.4%) born between 1990 and 1994, 365 (36.2%) born between 1980 and 1989, 87 (8.6%) born between 1970 and 1979, and 11 (1.1%) born between 1960 and 1969. In total, 115 (11.4%), 859 (85.1%), and 35 (3.5%) respondents had bachelor’s, master’s, and doctorate qualifications, respectively. Regarding their employment as UAS, 347 (34.4%) had worked for 3 years or less, 251 (24.9%) had worked for 4 to 7 years, 233 (23.1%) had for 8 to 15 years, 138 (13.7%) had worked for 16 to 23 years, and 40 (40.0%) had worked for a minimum of 24 years. Concerning the institutions at which the UAS worked, 292 (28.9%) were affiliated with Double First Class universities, 539 (53.4%) with general undergraduate universities, and 178 (17.6%) with higher vocational colleges. Regarding their average working hours per day, 6 (0.6%) worked less than 3 h, 20 (20.0%) worked 3–6 h, 145 (14.4%) worked 6–8 h, and 838 (83.1%) worked more than 8 h. Regarding their time spent with students per day, 66 (6.5%) spent less than 1 h, 181(17.9%) spent 1–2 h, 227 (22.5%) spent 3–4 h, 141(14.0%) spent 4–5 h, 83 (8.2%) spent 5–6 h and 311 (30.80%) spent more than 6 h with students.

3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Emotional Job Demands

The Emotional Job Demands Scale (EJDS) [42] served to examine the job demands of the UAS. This scale consists of four items that primarily evaluated the views of the UAS on the emotional demands of their jobs. One example of such an item is: “In order to do my job well, I have to spend a lot of time with colleagues and students.” Participants scored each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha (α) amounted to 0.92, meaning that there was an acceptable internal consistency.

3.2.2. Emotion Regulation Strategies

The Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (ERQ) [54] was utilized to investigate the use of emotion regulation strategies by the UAS. Six items were evaluated for reappraisal, for instance: “I will change may way of thinking when I want to feel more positive emotions at work,” and four items were evaluated for suppression, such as, “At work, I control my emotions by inhibiting and not expressing them”. Participants scored each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The alpha coefficients were 0.89 and 0.78 for the reappraisal and suppression scales, respectively, highlighting an acceptable internal consistency.

3.2.3. Burnout

The five items of the Maslach Burnout Inventory—General Survey (MBI) [66] served to examine the university administrative staff members’ job burnout. Examples of the items were as follows: “Work makes me feel like I’m falling apart”, and “Work makes me feel physically and emotionally drained.” Participants scored each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The Cronbach’s alpha (α) of the scale was 0.93, revealing a sound internal consistency.

3.2.4. Job Resources

The Job Resources Scales (JRS) selected three types of job resources. Three items assessed job autonomy (for example: “I have a say in what happens at work.”), four items assessed leader support (for instance, “My supervisor cares about the well-being of the employees in the department.”), and four items evaluated colleague support (e.g., “My colleagues care about me.”). All these scales were adapted from a Chinese version of the Job Content Questionnaire [67]. Participants scored each item on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The alpha coefficients were 0.87, 0.92, and 0.86 for the job autonomy, leader support, and colleague support scales, respectively, indicating an acceptable internal consistency.

3.3. Analysis

The analysis was executed utilizing SPSS 21.0 and Mplus 8.0. The correlations and descriptive statistics were calculated via SPSS, while Mplus provided structural equation modeling (SEM). SEM functioned to explore the associations among the constructs of interest. Unobservable potential constructs that were defined via one or more observed variables were assessed using SEM, which simultaneously modelled all parameters. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) tested the structural validity of the scales. In the meantime, an evaluation of model fit was carried out via the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), Chi-square value (χ²), comparative fit index (CFI) and the Tucker–Lewis Index (TLI). When the TLI and CFI are not under 0.90 (higher is better), the data fit is acceptable, and an acceptable fit requires an RMSEA value of less than 0.10 (lower is better) [68]. A bootstrap method was exploited to determine the indirect effects of the mediation analysis [69].

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Result

Table 1. Descriptive statistics, reliability, and correlations matrix.

Factors	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. JAD	—
2. EJD	0.03	—
3. LS	0.44 **	0.10 **	—
4. COS	0.35 **	0.22 **	0.63 **	—
5. SU	0.10 **	0.27 **	0.18 **	0.19 **	—
6. RE	0.22 **	0.50 **	0.31 **	0.35 **	0.61 **	—
7. JB	−0.28 **	0.21 **	−0.28 **	−0.19 **	0.14 **	−0.03	—
Cronbachα	0.87	0.92	0.92	0.86	0.78	0.89	0.93
M	3.21	4.10	3.60	3.88	3.42	3.83	3.22
SD	0.89	0.68	0.93	0.71	0.71	0.59	0.97

Note: JAD = job autonomy; EJD = emotional job demands; LS = leader support; COS = colleague support; SU = suppression; RE = reappraisal; JB = job burnout. ** p < 0.01.

displays the descriptive statistics data, reliability, and correlations. The CFA showed a good data fit for the Emotional Job Demands Scale (χ² = 22.71, df = 2, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.10; CFI = 0.993; TLI = 0.979), Maslach Burnout Inventory (χ² = 80.98, df = 5, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.10; CFI = 0.96, TLI = 0.92), Job Resources Scale (χ² = 134.11, df = 32, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.06; CFI = 0.99; TLI = 0.98), and the Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (χ² = 454.31, df = 34, p < 0.01, RMSEA = 0.10, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.90). These scales all demonstrated excellent reliability and structural validity. Table 1 summarizes that UAS have the highest scores in terms of emotional job demands (M = 4.10; SD = 0.68), and the lowest scores in terms of job burnout (M = 3.22; SD = 0.97) and job autonomy (M = 3.21; SD = 0.89). For correlations, all variables were remarkably correlated, even including an insignificant correlation between emotional job demands and job autonomy (p < 0.01). The correlation coefficients lie between −0.28 and 0.63, and in fact, all were less than 0.70. The job autonomy, leader support, colleague support, and emotion reappraisal of these staff members are all negatively correlated with job burnout.

4.2. SEM Results

To explore the complex relationships among job resources, job demands, emotion regulation strategies, and burnout, an SEM analysis was conducted, and the results are displayed in Figure 1. The results revealed an excellent model fit (χ² = 1966.01, df = 357, p = 0.00, RMSEA = 0.067, CFI = 0.92, TLI = 0.91). Emotional job demands can positively predict job burnout (β = 0.29, p < 0.01), reappraisal (β = 0.51, p < 0.01), and suppression (β = 0.33, p < 0.01); therefore, H1 and H5b are supported. Job autonomy has a negative relationship with burnout (β = −0.17, p < 0.01) but a positive relationship with reappraisal (β = 0.10, p < 0.01), so H2 and H6a are supported. Leader support has a positive association with reappraisal and suppression and a negative association with burnout, so H3a and H7a are supported. Colleague support is positively correlated with reappraisal (β = 0.09, p < 0.05), so only H8a is supported. Reappraisal and suppression presented opposite effects on job burnout, so H4a and H4b are supported.

4.3. Mediation Results

Mediating effects were checked on the basis of 1000 bootstrap samples, and the findings are displayed in

Table 2. Estimates of direct effects and indirect effects of the 95% confidence intervals.

Dependent Variable	Independent Variable	Mediation Analysis
		Mediation Variable	Estimates (SE)	p	95% CI
JB	JAD	RE	−0.03 (0.01)	0.02	[−0.06, −0.01]
	EJD	SU	0.09 (0.02)	0.00	[0.08, 0.22]
	EJD	RE	−0.12 (0.03)	0.00	[−0.29, −0.10]
	LS	RE	−0.05 (0.02)	0.03	[−0.10, −0.01]

Note: JAD = job autonomy; EJD = emotional job demands; LS = leader support; COS = colleague support; SU = emotion suppression; RE = emotion reappraisal; JB = job burnout.

. For the mediators, effect sizes were reported through point estimates of indirect effect. As proposed by Hayes [69], if zero is not between the upper and lower limits of the 95% confidence interval, the indirect effect is deemed to be significant. Specifically, the findings strongly suggest that reappraisal markedly mediates three things: first, the influence of job autonomy on burnout (β = −0.03; p < 0.05); second, the influence of leader support on burnout (β = −0.05; p < 0.05); and third, the influence of emotional job demands on burnout (β = −0.19; p < 0.01). Meanwhile, suppression simultaneously and markedly mediates the influence of emotional job demands on job burnout (β = 0.14; p < 0.01).

5. Discussion

This work adopts SDGs and the JD-R model in the higher education context, with particular attention paid to university administrative staff (UAS) and the work they perform. By investigating the job resources and job demands of this specific group, this study is designed to reveal the intricate relationships between job autonomy, emotional job demands, colleague support, job burnout, and to what extent the SDGs are achieved. Moreover, through the lens of emotion regulation, this paper examines emotion regulation as a type of personal resource. The results will be of value in improving our understanding of the work performed by university faculty staff. Before narrowing the focus to the issue of job burnout and how emotional autonomy helps to address the crisis of job burnout, we need to explain the effect of UAS job burnout on decent work conditions in higher education.

5.1. Effect of UAS Job Burnout on the Sustainable Workplace in Higher Education

The workplace atmosphere has always been found to predict the productivity of employees [70]. Dekawati [71] argued that achieving effective organizational productivity requires the implementation of ideal and supportive conditions, such as policies, procedures, fair outcomes, etc. According to SDGs 3, 4, and 8, a sustainable work environment should improve staff health and sense of well-being and create a decent workplace which can promote good-quality higher education [8]. A more sustainable workplace environment might attract more people to the profession and provide existing UAS with an incentive to stay in their jobs. However, studies show that job burnout has a negative association with a sustainable workplace atmosphere [72].

Job burnout can result in ill health. In turn, this leads to a negative outlook, cynicism, or self-doubt [19] and consequently, increasing amounts of sick leave. Unsurprisingly, these symptoms usually result in a reduction in the productivity levels of UAS. Likewise, the well-being of faculty members is a key factor in determining an organization’s long-term effectiveness [73]. Many studies have shown a negative correlation between low productivity caused by job burnout and the overall health and well-being of the workforce (International Labour Organization, 2022), which contradicts SDG 3 and affects the sustainability of a sustainable workplace.

Moreover, job burnout undermines learning opportunities because a significant amount of energy is depleted handling other issues [74]. In the JD-R model, learning opportunities are classified as an essential part of job resources [9]. According to the model, these learning opportunities enable staff to cope with threatening environments and stress-laden conditions and prevent them from having to experience negative consequences [75]. Conversely, job burnout occurs when there is a lack of learning opportunities or when learning opportunities are lost as valuable resources [76]. Job burnout not only directly affects the quality of work but also seriously affects students’ academic performance and social behavior [77]. These problems will directly affect the quality of the education provided. Based on this discussion, burnout affects the ability to achieve SDG 4.

The basic requirement for decent work is to obtain full-time and well-paid employment, exercise one’s legal rights in the workplace, receive social security guarantees, and participate in social discussions [31]. Of course, encouraging UAS to engage in decent work is crucial for promoting overall social well-being. Toscanelli et al. [78] reported that decent work is closely associated with low levels of job burnout, and low levels of decent work will promote burnout. Therefore, in order to avoid the negative consequences of job burnout, universities must focus on decent workplace environments for UAS.

5.2. The Influences of Leader Support and Colleague Support

The study results reveal that leader support is negatively related to job burnout (H3a), while colleague support had no significant relationship with job burnout (H3b) among UAS. This finding is very different from other research studies that concerned social support as a whole, which was negatively associated with job burnout in different professional contexts [79,80]. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that leader support is better than colleague support in reducing job burnout. The benefits of supportive leadership in reducing job burnout have been widely documented in previous research [57]. Leader support can be an essential job resource to assist UAS in dealing with high job demands and curbing the risk of burnout through reducing or buffering the overall level of stress.

However, this study also found that colleague support played a weak role in predicting UAS job burnout (H3b). This may be due to the fact that many UAS have a fixed amount or level of tasks or duties and specific responsibilities for classrooms and students which limits their opportunities to collaborate with colleagues. Additionally, UAS directly report to their leaders, who are responsible for evaluating their work, which may further diminish the importance of colleague support. Moreover, our findings indicate a positive association between colleague support and reappraisal (H8a), whereas no significant relationship was observed between colleague support and suppression (H8b). One study revealed that teachers preferred to adopt more reappraisal strategies to manage their emotions at work when they perceive their colleagues to be trustworthy, skilled, honest, and open [21]. UAS also can release and reflect on their negative emotions by sharing them with supportive colleagues or close friends, and they are more likely to interpret their work situations in a positive light, rather than suppress their negative emotions.

Furthermore, our findings established that leader support has a positive association with both suppression and reappraisal. UAS tend to employ suppression or reappraisal strategies when they perceive support from their leaders in order to maintain emotional composure and self-control. In Chinese universities, UAS are bound by management policies that increasingly prioritize output and productivity. Therefore, leaders wield significant influence over assigning tasks and evaluating the performances of UAS in administrative departments, agencies, units, etc. Consequently, leader support is more important than colleague support in terms of its relationship with the emotional well-being of UAS. Well-being is the core of SDG 3, which means that leader support contributes to achieving the SDGs by reducing UAS job burnout.

5.3. The Role of Emotional Job Demands and Job Autonomy

In line with Bakker and Demerouti’s [40] conclusions, heavy job demands can cause serious health problems such as stress, energy depletion, and fatigue, while having enough job resources can be motivating and is linked to high levels of engagement, excellent performance, and better health. Our work employing the JD-R model revealed that emotional job demands and job autonomy were correlated with job burnout, strongly confirming the benefits of job resources and the detrimental role of job demands. The above results are largely in line with prior research that has employed the JD-R model in other contexts [81,82]. At the same time, it also shows that emotional job demands are opposite to SDG 3, whereas job autonomy is consistent with this goal. Job autonomy provides UAS with job security and makes it possible to realize SDG 8.

Our findings support H5b, suggesting that emotional job demands present a positive relationship with both reappraisal and suppression, while H5a was not supported. This is in contrast to most research conducted previously, which has indicated a negative association between reappraisal and emotional job demands [18]. Our findings revealed that UAS utilized both suppression and reappraisal strategies in the face of higher emotional job demands. Put differently, UAS reflected on their emotions while suppressing their true emotions to keep calm and efficiently regulate their emotions. Peng et al. [43] discovered that higher emotional demands heightened the use of coping strategies by employees, demonstrating that emotional job demands may prompt UAS to utilize suppression or reappraisal strategies. Due to the high expectations of colleagues, leaders, and the public, these reappraisal strategies are widely applied in the work carried out by UAS. Meanwhile, UAS were observed to restrain and inhibit their own emotions in order to handle the pressures of their environment.

Furthermore, our study revealed that job autonomy was positively related to reappraisal (H6a), and no remarkable association was observed between suppression and job autonomy (H6b). This finding reveals that UAS are more likely to utilize cognitive reappraisal as a strategy to alleviate the influence of emotional needs when they have a higher degree of job autonomy. This finding concurs with prior research, meaning that teachers with high levels of job autonomy report lower levels of emotional exhaustion because they have the skills to deploy cognitive reappraisal, despite the emotional demands of their work [59]. The ability to autonomously make decisions about their tasks and how to approach them can provide teachers with a perception of empowerment and control, which can thus encourage better emotion regulation through cognitive reappraisal. These findings highlight the significance of job resources, such as job autonomy, in alleviating the negative influence of emotional demands on the emotional well-being of UAS.

5.4. The Importance of Emotion Regulation

This work explored the association between job resources and job demands on burnout simultaneously and whether or not emotion regulation functions as a personal resource. Our results reveal that reappraisal presented a negative relationship with burnout, while suppression had a positive relationship with burnout, supporting H4a and H4b, respectively. These outcomes echo the findings of prior studies, which suggested a positive relationship with reappraisal and a negative association with suppression for job burnout [54]. Individuals who use suppression tend to exhibit less optimism, lower life satisfaction, and higher levels of stress [83]. Due to the late operation of suppression in the emotional sequence, it is only poorly effective in reducing negative emotional experiences [54,83]. This is also true for UAS, since those who suppress their emotions are more likely to suffer from burnout at work.

Reappraisal is negatively correlated with job burnout since one of its major functions is to curtail the awareness of adversity at an early stage of the emotional process [54]. Qualitative research by Sutton [57] has demonstrated that teachers who manage their own emotions are more effective in their work and are better able to conform to the idealized emotional image of being a teacher. Shin et al. [84] also concluded that reappraisal was negatively correlated with burnout because reappraisal reduces the experience of disgust. Therefore, the finding is consistent with previous research. Since UAS report utilizing the reappraisal strategy more frequently, their ability to better utilize their cognitive abilities to control and reflect on their environment may contribute to buffering against the likelihood of burnout.

The present study complements this literature by incorporating personal resources into the mediating process in the JD-R model. To be specific, suppression mediated the effect of emotional job demands on burnout, whereas reappraisal notably mediated the relationships among job autonomy, emotional job demands, job burnout, and leader support. The outcomes generally agree with what prior research found involving teachers. For example, Zheng et al. and Yin et al. [85,86] discovered that emotion regulation strategies mediated the connection between teachers’ well-being and emotional job demands. Our study further demonstrates that emotion regulation can function as a personal resource and serve as a mediator, and reappraisal is a critical resource that can cushion the impact of job demands on job burnout. The study is an important step toward understanding the mechanisms of UAS job burnout when effective emotion regulation strategies serve as intervention strategies.

Previous research on the JD-R model included a variety of types of personal resources, such as self-efficacy, optimism and organization-based self-esteem [9], but have neglected the ability to look after one’s emotions. Reappraisal, as a personal resource, is the ability of an individual to control his or her emotions effectively and to adapt to his or her environment [9]. Reappraisal plays an important role in various professions and contexts [87,88], which is consistent with UAS-based research. Therefore, UAS who have a higher capacity for reappraisal may be better able to transform stress, gain support from leaders, and experience less job burnout. They may also be mentally healthier when compared to those who repress their true feelings. Hence, in their daily work, UAS should adjust their mindset and reassess the situation to turn a weakness into a strength. The significance of interpersonal emotion regulation is further supported by the findings of our quantitative analysis, as prior qualitative research has revealed [89]. Overall, our study firstly underscores the importance of emotion regulation as a personal resource to alleviate job burnout and secondly suggests that job autonomy and leader support are crucial in helping UAS better control their emotions and workplace environments. These measures can lead to the SDGs being achieved in the university context.

6. Conclusions

The study utilized the job demands–resources (JD-R) model to examine the relationships between job characteristics and the burnout experienced by many UAS in higher-education institutions in China. Through this review, it is evident that job burnout among UAS warrants more attention, as the operations of universities depend heavily on UAS. Without efficient and commonsense operational systems in place, universities will not be able to provide high-quality education to students or the wider community or achieve the SDGs. Promoting the stability of teams of UAS can be addressed through interpersonal support, sufficient job autonomy, and emotional control to reduce job burnout, which can improve the well-being of UAS and promote the sustainability and economic progress of universities. In summary, it is necessary to conduct further research on the administrative personnel of universities to promote the development of these staff, who are crucial for achieving SDGs.

7. Implications for Practice

This study makes a solid contribution to the knowledge of SDGs by revealing the complex connections between job resources, job demands, burnout, and emotion regulation among UAS, generating important implications for practice. Firstly, the results emphasize the need for universities to pay more attention to job burnout and emotional well-being in UAS to achieve SDG 3, given the highly demanding and multi-task nature of university administrators’ work. In order to strengthen the emotion regulation knowledge and skills of UAS, career education development should include relevant and meaningful training to provide UAS with learning opportunities, which is consistent with SDG 4. Additionally, UAS must aware of the various functions of diverse emotion regulation strategies in the context of their job burnout and working conditions.

Secondly, policymakers should consider the psychological and emotional demands of UAS as an important aspect of their well-being, which will further affect the achievement of SDG 3. Furthermore, in a leader-supported and autonomous environment, UAS are far more likely to make use of reappraisal strategies, which can greatly mitigate their sense of feeling burnt out. It is suggested that university and faculty policymakers foster supportive relationships between leaders and their lower-level colleagues and cultivate autonomous and harmonious workplace environments [90]. Facilitating collaboration among leaders and colleagues can build trust and enthusiasm among UAS. At the same time, allowing for job autonomy provides them with more control over their work, which can subsequently help generate less job burnout and greater job satisfaction. In this case, UAS will consider their job to be decent and meaningful enough to help improve the quality of education in universities to achieve SDGs 4 and 8.

8. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

There are a few limitations to be aware of in our study. First, all data were gathered via self-reporting, which may cause bias to emerge based on the employed methodology. While self-reporting is a valuable method of capturing individuals’ subjective experiences, it is recommended that future research incorporate additional sources and types of data, such as observational data or reports from other stakeholders, to gain a more objective perspective on the phenomenon under study. Secondly, the cross-sectional design in this work restricted our capacity to draw causal inferences. While the hypothetical model examined in the present study is grounded in established theories, future experimental or longitudinal designs are required to better understand the causal relationships among constructs.

Thirdly, the generalizability of the findings may be limited by the UAS sample coming from only one province in mainland China. It is important to recognize the diversity of workplaces and cultural practices, traditions, and contexts in China’s many regions. With this in mind, future research may profit from a more diversified sample to truly establish the universality of the findings.

Fourthly and finally, although this study concentrated on the mediating role of emotion regulation strategies in the JD-R model, prior research indicates that personal resources can also serve as a moderator in the model. Future research may investigate the potential moderating impact of personal resources in the JD-R model and provide further insights into the complex interactions among job demands, personal resources, employee well-being, and job resources.