Ms. Nor Nazeranah Haji Omar Din is a Senior Lecturer and Programme Leader of International Business Management from the School of Business, Management Operations and Research at Asia Pacific University of Technology & Innovation, Kuala Lumpur. An academic professional, HRD Corp Accredited Trainer, MQA Panel Assessor, and PhD scholar, she has contributed to Malaysian higher education since 2006 through curriculum design, programme leadership, and academic moderation. Her teaching excellence has earned global recognition, including the Global Teacher Award 2024 and Teacher Gratitude Award 2024. A committed sustainability advocate, she received the Iconic Sustainability Award 2024 and a Bronze Medal at the Sustainability Promoters and Collaborators Awards 2025. She also serves as a journal reviewer, editorial board member, and international keynote speaker.
The increasing reliance on virtual higher education environments has reshaped the nature of academic work. Digital platforms such as learning management systems, video conferencing tools, collaborative applications, and data-driven educational technologies have expanded instructional possibilities and enabled pedagogical innovation. However, these advancements have simultaneously intensified digital stressors that affect academicians’ psychological well-being and work performance.
Within virtual higher education environments, academicians are expected not only to deliver content but also to design digital learning experiences, manage continuous online communication, and adapt to rapidly evolving technologies. These demands raise important questions about how academicians sustain innovative work behaviour under increasing digital pressure. Technology self-efficacy also plays a vital role as a key psychological resource that buffers the adverse effects of digital stressors specifically technostress, tele pressure, and role stress on academicians’ innovative work behaviour.
Digital Stressors in Virtual Higher Education Environments
Technostress
Technostress refers to the strain experienced when individuals struggle to cope with technological demands such as complexity, constant updates, and information overload (Tarafdar, Cooper, & Stich, 2019; La Torre et al., 2019). In virtual learning environments in higher education, academicians often engage with multiple platforms simultaneously, manage digital assessments, and respond to frequent system changes.
- In Malaysia, academicians reported difficulties juggling multiple platforms (Zoom, Moodle, WhatsApp) and frequent updates, which reduced their cognitive flexibility and limited creative teaching approaches (Hussin, 2018).
- In Saudi Arabia, academicians reported high technostress during the pandemic due to constant shifts between Blackboard, Zoom, and other platforms (Al-Fudail & Mellar, 2008).
- In Pakistan, unstable internet and frequent updates led to emotional exhaustion and reduced innovation (Iqbal et al., 2021).
- In Europe, adapting to multiple tools simultaneously hindered experimentation with new methods (La Torre et al., 2019).
Tele pressure
Tele pressure reflects the internalized pressure to respond rapidly to digital communications (Barber & Santuzzi, 2015).
- In Malaysia, academicians often felt compelled to reply instantly to student messages on WhatsApp and email, blurring personal boundaries and limiting time for reflection on innovative teaching (Hussin, 2018).
- In China, faculty reported similar pressures on WeChat (Zhang & Zhu, 2020).
- In Turkey, constant ICT connectivity reduced recovery time (Grawitch et al., 2018).
- In Macau, tele pressure undermined deep thinking and course redesign (Chan, 2021).
Role Stress
Role stress arises when job expectations are unclear, conflicting, or excessive (Eatough et al., 2011).
- In Malaysia, academicians experienced role overload, balancing teaching, research, and digital facilitation, while also acting as IT troubleshooters for students unfamiliar with online platforms (Hussin, 2018).
- In Australia, role ambiguity emerged when faculty were expected to act as teachers and instructional designers simultaneously (Panisoara et al., 2020).
- In India, unclear digital expectations reduced discretionary effort for innovation (Kumar & Dwivedi, 2021).
- In the United States, role overload during COVID-19 restricted creative practices (Misra & McKean, 2000).
Innovative Work Behaviour in Virtual Learning Environment in Higher Education
Innovative work behaviour involves the generation, promotion, and implementation of new ideas that improve work processes, teaching effectiveness, or educational outcomes (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2010; Messmann & Mulder, 2012).
- In Malaysia, academicians redesigned assessments, integrated emerging technologies, and experimented with flexible distance learning models to sustain innovation (Hussin, 2018).
- In Indonesia, lecturers explored gamified pedagogy and collaborative online knowledge-sharing (Suharti & Sulistyo, 2020).
- In Europe, academicians redesigned courses with institutional support for experimentation (Messmann & Mulder, 2012).
Technology Self-Efficacy as a Buffering Mechanism
Technology self-efficacy refers to individuals’ beliefs in their capability to effectively use technology to accomplish work tasks (Compeau & Higgins, 1995; Bandura, 1997).
- In Malaysia, academicians with strong technology self-efficacy adapted quickly to new platforms, maintained student engagement, and proactively integrated tools like Kahoot and Padlet into teaching (Hussin, 2018).
- In Peru, higher digital competence enhanced resilience against technostress (Rojas-Méndez, 2021).
- In Australia, self-efficacy supported creative online methods (Tams et al., 2018).
- In Spain, academicians embraced self-directed digital learning and tool integration (Cabero-Almenara & Llorente-Cejudo, 2020).
From the Job Demands–Resources framework, technology self-efficacy acts as a personal resource that offsets stress and sustains innovation.
Implications for Virtual Learning Environment in Higher Education Practice
The buffering role of technology self-efficacy underscores the need for higher education institutions to move beyond a purely technology‑centric approach to digital transformation. Strengthening academicians’ confidence in digital tools is just as important as providing the tools themselves.
- Malaysia’s initiatives in flexible learning and digital training programs demonstrate how targeted professional development can help academicians sustain innovation under pressure. By embedding digital competence modules into faculty development, Malaysian universities have shown that resilience grows when academicians feel capable of navigating multiple platforms.
- Peru’s digital competence programs highlight the value of structured training that enhances resilience against technostress.
- Indonesia’s peer mentoring initiatives illustrate how collaborative knowledge‑sharing builds confidence and sparks innovation.
- Australia’s recognition of role stress emphasizes the importance of clarifying academic boundaries, ensuring that academicians are not overloaded with conflicting responsibilities.
- China’s tele pressure findings point to the need for communication policies that protect academicians’ well‑being, such as setting expectations for response times and respecting personal boundaries.
By combining these strategies, institutions can reduce technostress and tele pressure while creating conditions that encourage experimentation, innovation, and resilience.
Conclusion
As virtual learning environment in higher education evolves, academicians exemplify how resilience and tech-savviness sustain innovation under digital pressure. Technology self-efficacy emerges as a critical buffer against technostress, tele pressure, and role stress, enabling academicians to remain creative and engaged. By fostering digital confidence and supportive practices, higher education institutions can cultivate environments where resilience and innovation thrive.
References
- Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2017). Job demands–resources theory: Taking stock and looking forward. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.
- Bandura, A. (1997). Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman.
- Barber, L. K., & Santuzzi, A. M. (2015). Please respond ASAP: Workplace telepressure and employee recovery. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology.
- Compeau, D. R., & Higgins, C. A. (1995). Computer self-efficacy: Development of a measure. MIS Quarterly.
- Tarafdar, M., Cooper, C. L., & Stich, J. F. (2019). The technostress trifecta. Information Systems Journal.
- De Jong, J., & Den Hartog, D. (2010). Measuring innovative work behaviour. Creativity and Innovation Management.
- Messmann, G., & Mulder, R. (2012). Innovative work behaviour in vocational education and training. Journal of Vocational Education & Training.
- Eatough, E. M., Chang, C. H., Miloslavic, S. A., & Johnson, R. E. (2011). Relationships of role stressors with employee strain. Journal of Applied Psychology.
- Tams, S., Ahuja, M., Thatcher, J. B., & Grover, V. (2018). Worker stress in the age of digitalization. Communications of the ACM.
- Al-Fudail, M., & Mellar, H. (2008). Investigating policy, practice and technostress in Saudi higher education.
- Iqbal, S., et al. (2021). Technostress and innovation in Pakistani higher education.
- Zhang, C., & Zhu, Y. (2020). Telepressure in Chinese higher education.
- Chan, K. (2021). Telepressure and innovation in Macau universities.
- Kumar, A., & Dwivedi, Y. (2021). Role stress in Indian higher education.
- Misra, R., & McKean, M. (2000). Academic stress and innovation in U.S. universities.
- Suharti, L.,