The interplay between job-related factors of career development and organizational resilience among academic nurse educators: a mixed-methods study.

The interplay between job-related factors of career development and organizational resilience among academic nurse educators: a mixed-methods study - PMC Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Search Log in Primary site navigation Search Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice Sci Rep . 2026 Apr 10;16:16944. doi: 10.1038/s41598-026-40045-0 The interplay between job-related factors of career development and organizational resilience among academic nurse educators: a mixed-methods study Fatmah Alsharif 1 , Ghada Hamouda 2 , Wafa Fahim 3 , Hala Elsayes 4, 5, 6 , Ohoud Felemban 2 , Fathia Kaseem 2 , Faten Kandil 7 , Wedad M Almutairi 3 , Hayaf Almutary 1 , Ebtsam Aly Abou Hashish 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, ✉ Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Medical Surgical Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 2 Public Health Nursing Department, Faculty of Nursing, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 3 Maternity and Child Health, Faculty of Nursing, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 4 Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, Egypt 5 Psychiatric and Mental of Nursing, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt 6 Psychiatric and Mental Health Department, Faculty of Nursing, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt 7 Medical-Surgical Nursing, Department of Nursing, College of Applied Medical Sciences, University of Jeddah, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 8 College of Nursing, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 9 Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 10 Faculty of Nursing, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt 11 Present Address: College of Nursing - Jeddah, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdulaziz Medical City, National Guard Health Affairs, Mail Code 6565, P.O.Box.9515, Jeddah, 21423 Kingdom of Saudi Arabia 12 King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Jeddah, Saudi Arabia ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Jul 25; Accepted 2026 Feb 10; Collection date 2026. © The Author(s) 2026 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if you modified the licensed material. You do not have permission under this licence to share adapted material derived from this article or parts of it. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ . PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13230505  PMID: 41963369 Abstract In higher education, job-related factors significantly influence faculty members’ career development, satisfaction, and institutional commitment. While organizational resilience is critical for academic sustainability, limited evidence exists on how faculty perceptions of their work environment relate to it—especially through a mixed-methods approach. This study aimed to explore the relationship between faculty members’ perceptions of job-related career development factors and organizational resilience using an integrated mixed-methods design. A mixed-methods design was employed, combining a descriptive cross-sectional survey with semi-structured interviews. The quantitative phase included 60 faculty members from a Saudi university using convenience sampling. Data were collected through an online questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics, job-related career development factors, and organizational resilience. The qualitative phase involved semi-structured interviews with 12 faculty members to gain deeper insight into their lived experiences. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and multiple linear regression, while qualitative data underwent thematic analysis. Quantitatively, 71.7% of participants reported high perceptions of job-related career development factors (M = 99.51, SD = 13.6), and 83.3% demonstrated high levels of organizational resilience (M = 71.42, SD = 9.6). Regression analysis revealed that job-related factors are significantly associated with organizational resilience (β = 0.298, p = 0.001), explaining 41% of the variance (R² = 0.41). Qualitative findings produced four themes—Roots of Growth, Autonomy with Anchors, Bouncing Forward, and Disconnected Bridges—that revealed how mentorship, leadership practices, adaptive behavior, and systemic constraints influenced faculty development and institutional resilience. This study reveals significant associations between faculty career development factors—particularly autonomy, mentorship, and supportive leadership—and organizational resilience in academic institutions. Academic leaders and policy-makers may consider implementing structured, inclusive development programs and mentorship pathways to support faculty engagement and institutional adaptability, which relates to institutional capacity. However, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference. Keywords: Faculty members, Career development, Job-related factors, Organizational resilience, Mixed-methods, Higher education Subject terms: Education, Health occupations, Psychology, Psychology Introduction In today’s dynamic academic environment, faculty members are increasingly expected to navigate complex professional demands while contributing meaningfully to teaching, research, and institutional service 1 . These expectations have intensified in the face of global educational shifts, technological advancements, and organizational reforms, placing greater pressure on faculty to remain engaged, adaptive, and resilient 2 . As higher education institutions aim to sustain performance and innovation, supporting the professional development and well-being of their faculty becomes a strategic imperative 1 , 3 . Among the various institutional strategies, fostering faculty career development is recognized as a vital factor for promoting satisfaction, retention, and performance 1 , 4 . Faculty members’ perceptions of autonomy, mentorship, opportunities for advancement, and supervisor support are especially influential in shaping their engagement and long-term commitment 5 . These job-related factors not only enhance individual growth but also foster building resilient academic environments capable of withstanding disruption and sustaining core functions 6 . Organizational resilience—the ability of institutions to adapt, recover, and thrive amidst adversity—has gained traction as a critical concept in higher education leadership 7 . Yet, the role of faculty development in contributing to this resilience remains underexplored, particularly from the perspective of those directly involved in academic delivery 8 . While studies have emphasized the importance of leadership, institutional infrastructure, and change-readiness 5 – 8 , few have examined how job-related experiences of faculty shape their capacity—and that of their institutions—to respond to challenges. To address this gap, the present study adopts a mixed-methods approach to explore the relationship between faculty members’ perceptions of job-related career development factors and organizational resilience. By integrating quantitative data with in-depth qualitative narratives, this study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of how faculty development practices influence the adaptive capacity of academic institutions. Background and conceptual framework According to the Career Development Institute (CDI), career development is an ongoing and individualized process that enables individuals to manage their learning and work progression effectively, contributing to both personal and economic wellbeing 9 . Career development is conceptualized in higher education literature as a multidimensional construct encompassing individuals’ progression and growth within their professional roles. Faculty career development is a multidimensional construct encompassing ongoing professional learning, advancement opportunities, autonomy in practice, and supportive supervision 10 , 11 . This broader construct includes multiple dimensions such as advancement pathways (opportunities for promotion and career progression), mentorship structures (access to guidance and professional relationships), training and development opportunities (availability of educational and skill-building programs), workload management (balance between responsibilities and capacity), job autonomy (freedom in decision-making), and supervisory support (managerial encouragement and recognition). In the context of higher education, these job-related factors play a pivotal role not only in shaping individual faculty satisfaction and motivation but also in contributing to broader institutional outcomes such as organizational resilience 11 , 12 . Faculty members who perceive their institutions as supportive—offering autonomy, mentorship, and fair promotion pathways—are more likely to remain engaged, adapt to change, and support the sustainability of the academic environment 2 , 12 . While all these dimensions are recognized as important to faculty career satisfaction and institutional functioning, the scope of this investigation focuses specifically on two foundational dimensions: job autonomy and supervisory support. This focused approach was selected to enable rigorous examination of specific relational and structural factors most directly theoretically linked to organizational resilience, while acknowledging the broader landscape of career development. In this study, the operational definition of job-related factors of career development includes two key domains: job autonomy and supervisory support, as measured by the scale developed by Ismaiel et al. 13 . Job autonomy refers to the degree of freedom and discretion faculty members have in making decisions related to their academic responsibilities, including teaching, research, and service activities 14 . Supervisory support is another crucial component influencing career development. It encompasses the emotional, professional, and developmental support provided by supervisors to their subordinates 15 . Supervisory support encompasses the extent to which department heads or academic leaders provide guidance, encouragement, and constructive feedback that fosters faculty growth 16 . These two dimensions serve as foundational pillars for career advancement and professional satisfaction in academic settings. However, it is important to note that this operational definition represents a focused measurement of career development rather than a comprehensive assessment of all career development elements. Other recognized dimensions of career development—such as promotion pathways, formal mentorship structures, access to training programs, and workload balance—are not directly measured in this study, though they are acknowledged as important in the literature. Job autonomy and supervisory support were selected as the focus of this investigation for several theoretically grounded reasons. First, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985) identifies autonomy as a fundamental psychological need essential for intrinsic motivation, well-being, and engagement in the workplace. Job autonomy enables faculty members to exercise professional judgment, take ownership of their work, and experience a sense of agency—all factors critical to job satisfaction and commitment. Second, supervisory support represents the quality of the managerial relationship and organizational climate. Literature on organizational behavior and leadership consistently demonstrates that supervisory support is fundamental to employee satisfaction, retention, and performance. Third, both autonomy and supervisory support are directly measurable through validated instruments and have established theoretical links to organizational functioning. Fourth, within academic contexts specifically, these two dimensions represent key structural and relational factors that faculty members directly experience in their daily work lives, making them particularly relevant to understanding faculty perspectives on career development. This focused inquiry enables rigorous examination of how these specific factors associate with organizational resilience, while acknowledging that comprehensive understanding of career development’s impact on institutional resilience would benefit from future research encompassing additional dimensions. Parallel to these developmental components, the study conceptualizes organizational resilience as the institution’s capacity to withstand challenges, adapt to change, and recover from disruptions. Drawing on Chen’s model 17 , organizational resilience is assessed across five interrelated domains: shared vision, willingness to learn, adaptive ability, cooperative awareness, and work enthusiasm. Shared vision represents the alignment of faculty and institutional goals; willingness to learn reflects an openness to feedback and growth; adaptive ability captures flexibility in the face of change; cooperative awareness emphasizes collaboration and mutual support; and work enthusiasm refers to intrinsic motivation and energy at work 17 . Together, these constructs form a conceptual framework in which job-related factors of career development are hypothesized to influence organizational resilience. Faculty members who experience high levels of autonomy and supportive supervision are more likely to exhibit proactive behavior, emotional commitment, and adaptive coping, all of which support the institution’s resilience. Conversely, environments characterized by limited autonomy or insufficient supervisory support may diminish faculty morale and hinder the institution’s capacity to respond effectively to crises or transformation 1 , 18 . Other dimensions of career development may have distinct or complementary relationships with institutional resilience; however, those associations are not examined in the current study. Theoretical underpinning This study is theoretically grounded in the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model, which provides a comprehensive framework for understanding how workplace conditions influence employee well-being, motivation, and performance. Originally developed by Demerouti et al. 19 , the JD-R model posits that every occupation has its own specific risk factors associated with job stress, which can be categorized broadly into job demands and job resources. While demands refer to the physical, emotional, or organizational aspects of the job that require sustained effort and are associated with strain, resources are those aspects that help achieve work goals, reduce job demands, or stimulate personal growth and development 19 , 20 . In the context of higher education, job-related factors of career development—such as job autonomy and supervisory support—function as critical job resources. These resources have been consistently linked to increased work engagement, reduced burnout, and improved professional performance among faculty members 20 . Autonomy enables academic staff to exercise control over their teaching, research, and service activities, fostering intrinsic motivation and innovation. Similarly, supportive leadership provides faculty with recognition, guidance, and psychological safety—elements that are essential for professional growth and organizational alignment 21 . At the institutional level, organizational resilience can be viewed as both an outcome and a reflection of how effectively job resources are leveraged to navigate stressors and uncertainty. From the JD-R perspective, resilience emerges not solely from individual traits but also from environmental conditions that support adaptability, learning, and collaboration 22 . When faculty experience sufficient resources—such as constructive feedback, shared vision, and team cohesion—they are more likely to respond positively to institutional challenges, thereby reinforcing organizational resilience 7 . Furthermore, the model accommodates feedback loops, acknowledging that resource-rich environments not only buffer job demands but also create conditions for continuous improvement and institutional transformation 17 . This dynamic aligns with the conceptual premise of the current study that supporting faculty development practices might be related to individual and collective resilience, and that resilient institutions in turn nurture environments conducive to ongoing faculty success. The JD-R framework is particularly suited to a mixed-methods design, as it supports both quantitative measurement of variables (e.g., autonomy, support, resilience domains) and qualitative exploration of how faculty perceive and experience these factors in real-life contexts. It enables the integration of psychological, organizational, and behavioral insights, thereby providing a robust theoretical lens for interpreting the interplay between career development and resilience in higher education. Study hypotheses Based on the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model and existing literature, the following hypothesis was formulated: H 1 : There is a statistically significant positive relationship between faculty members’ perceptions of job-related factors of career development (autonomy and supervisory support) and their perceived organizational resilience (Fig. 1 ). Fig. 1. Open in a new tab Conceptual framework. Significance of the study Over the past decade, increasing attention has been paid to the factors influencing faculty members’ engagement, retention, and performance within higher education institutions 23 . Several studies have emphasized that faculty perceptions of their work environment—including autonomy, mentorship, and leadership support—play a decisive role in shaping professional satisfaction and development. Research has also indicated that job-related resources not only influence individual outcomes but may also foster institutional resilience by enhancing commitment, adaptability, and shared responsibility among academic staff 1 , 4 , 7 , 11 – 16 . Despite these insights, the relationship between faculty career development factors and organizational resilience remains underexplored in the context of higher education, particularly in non-Western academic systems. Studies in organizational behavior and human resources have established that resilient institutions are more likely to withstand disruption and maintain continuity when their workforce feels supported and empowered 22 . However, few studies have examined this dynamic from the faculty perspective, nor have they investigated how perceived job-related support and autonomy relate to collective resilience, especially in rapidly changing academic settings such as those in Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, existing literature is dominated by quantitative studies that provide important correlations but lack depth in explaining how these relationships manifest in real-life academic experiences. A qualitative or mixed-methods perspective is necessary to uncover the processes, challenges, and contextual nuances that shape faculty perceptions and behaviors. Without such understanding, institutions may struggle to design effective faculty development policies or cultivate resilient academic cultures that are responsive to emerging demands. This gap highlights the need for an integrative study that examines how job-related career development factors are perceived by faculty members and how these perceptions relate to organizational resilience. The present study addresses this need by employing a mixed-methods design that not only measures the relationship between job autonomy, supervisory support, and resilience but also explores faculty narratives that provide meaning to these constructs. This approach is especially timely as higher education systems worldwide seek to recover from post-pandemic disruptions, improve institutional agility, and sustain academic excellence. By identifying key leverage points for faculty development and organizational adaptability, the findings of this study are expected to inform policy makers, academic leaders, and educational planners. Ultimately, this work contributes to the growing body of literature advocating for resilient, faculty-centered academic systems that support both individual well-being and institutional sustainability. Aim of the study The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between faculty members’ perceptions of job-related factors of career development—specifically job autonomy and supervisory support—and their perceived organizational resilience in a Saudi higher education context. Additionally, the study sought to explore faculty experiences that explain and contextualize this relationship, using a mixed-methods approach to enrich the understanding of underlying mechanisms and meanings. Methods Study design This study employed a mixed-methods design to explore the relationship between job-related factors of career development and organizational resilience among faculty members. The quantitative phase utilized a descriptive cross-sectional approach, involving a sample of 60 faculty members from the Faculty of Nursing at a public Saudi university. To complement the quantitative findings, the qualitative descriptive component adopted a thematic analysis approach. This approach was selected for its flexibility and ability to uncover meaningful patterns from participants’ lived experiences regarding professional development and institutional resilience 24 . Sampling and participants All faculty members who met the inclusion criteria were invited to participate in the quantitative phase of the study. Inclusion criteria comprised holding a full-time academic teaching appointment, having a minimum institutional tenure of six months to ensure adequate organizational exposure, active involvement in teaching or administrative responsibilities, ability to communicate in English, and voluntary provision of informed consent. Faculty members in purely administrative roles, visiting or temporary faculty with contracts shorter than six months, those on sabbatical or unpaid leave during the data collection period, and individuals who did not provide informed consent were excluded. A total of 60 faculty members completed the quantitative survey, yielding a response rate of 85.7% (60/70). Given the finite population size, this achieved sample corresponds to an estimated margin of error in the range of approximately 4–5% at a 95% confidence level, assuming a population proportion of 0.68. This level of precision was considered adequate for the study’s exploratory, associational objectives. Nevertheless, the cross-sectional design and single-site context limit causal inference and broader generalizability. Participants were recruited using total population sampling, whereby all eligible faculty members were invited through institutional emails and departmental communication channels over a three-month period from September to November 2023. Participation was voluntary, and no incentives were offered. For the qualitative phase , purposive sampling was employed to select participants from the quantitative respondent pool. Twelve faculty members were recruited to ensure variation in academic rank, specialty area, and years of experience. All qualitative participants had a minimum of three years of academic service at the institution, ensuring sufficient institutional familiarity to reflect meaningfully on career development and organizational resilience. Qualitative data saturation was achieved at the eleventh interview, defined as the point at which no new codes or themes emerged. A twelfth interview was conducted to confirm saturation. This approach aligns with qualitative research standards for thematic analysis and supports analytic adequacy within a single-institution context. Tools of data collection Data for this study were collected using two main sources: a structured self-administered questionnaire and a semi-structured interview guide. For quantitative data , the questionnaire was developed in English and delivered electronically via Microsoft Forms. It consisted of three sections designed to capture demographic characteristics, perceptions of job-related career development factors, and organizational resilience levels. The first section included demographic questions related to age, academic title, years of experience, and department affiliation. This section provided background information necessary for sample description and subgroup comparison. The second section measured job-related factors of career development using a previously validated tool developed by Ismaiel et al. 13 . Consistent with the conceptual framework outlined in the Introduction, career development in this study was operationalized using two job-related dimensions: job autonomy and supervisory support 13 . These dimensions reflect proximal work conditions that directly shape faculty members’ professional agency, leadership interaction, and opportunities for growth within academic roles. Although career development is widely recognized as a multidimensional construct that may also include promotion systems, mentorship structures, training access, and workload balance, these elements were not directly measured in the quantitative phase of the study. Accordingly, quantitative interpretations are confined to autonomy and supervisory support, while broader career development elements are addressed only qualitatively as contextual influences rather than measured predictors. This scale comprises 27 items covering two core domains: job autonomy (14 items) and supervisory support (13 items). Items were rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The total score was calculated by summing responses across all items, with higher scores indicating more favorable perceptions. Based on percentage scores, participant responses were classified into three levels: high (> 70%), moderate (50–70%), and low (< 50%) in line with prior studies. To capture richer contextual insights, qualitative data were collected using a semi-structured interview guide developed by the research team. The interview protocol was designed to align with the study objectives and was informed by the quantitative domains. The guide included open-ended questions covering four primary areas: (1) experiences with professional and career development, (2) perceived support and leadership dynamics within the institution, (3) personal and organizational responses to academic or structural change, and (4) views on institutional adaptability and resilience. Example guiding questions included: “Can you describe a situation where you felt supported or unsupported in your career development?” and “How do you think your institution responds to major academic or operational challenges?” Probing questions were used to deepen the discussion, allowing participants to elaborate on complex experiences and reveal meaningful patterns. The structure and phrasing of the questions were reviewed by qualitative research experts to increase clarity and ensure alignment with the study’s conceptual framework. All interviews were conducted by the researchers either in person or through secure online platforms, depending on participant preference. Interviews lasted between 35 and 50 min, were audio-recorded with prior consent, and transcribed verbatim for analysis. Instrument validity, and reliability Quantitative data The validity and reliability of the quantitative instruments were rigorously evaluated. The content validity of the scales was confirmed through expert panel review, ensuring cultural and contextual appropriateness for the Saudi academic environment. The Job-Related Factors of Career Development Scale, originally developed by Ismaiel et al. 13 had its content validity confirmed through expert panel review, ensuring cultural appropriateness for the Saudi academic setting. The Organizational Resilience Scale, developed by Chen 17 , had been previously validated and was adapted for academic use in this context. Internal consistency reliability was assessed for both tools using Cronbach’s alpha. The Job-Related Factors Scale showed high reliability (α = 0.868), and the Organizational Resilience Scale demonstrated similarly strong internal consistency (α = 0.854). These coefficients exceed the commonly accepted threshold of 0.70 and support the reliability of the instruments for exploratory associational analysis. Given the exploratory nature of the study and the limited sample size, additional psychometric procedures such as factor analysis were not conducted. Therefore, construct validity was supported through prior validation evidence and the current internal consistency assessment rather than scale revalidation within this dataset. Trustworthiness and rigor In the qualitative phase, several strategies were employed to ensure trustworthiness and rigor. Trustworthiness was supported using strategies aligned with Lincoln and Guba’s framework. Credibility was enhanced through verbatim transcription, iterative engagement with the data, peer debriefing within the research team, and member checking. Member checking was conducted by returning transcripts to participants to confirm accuracy. Participants were also invited to comment on whether the preliminary thematic interpretations reflected their experiences. Dependability was supported through consistent application of the analytic framework and maintenance of an audit trail documenting key analytic decisions, coding refinements, and theme development. Confirmability was enhanced through reflexive memo writing and documentation of analytic decisions. Findings were grounded in participant quotations to demonstrate clear linkage between data and interpretations. Cases that did not align with emerging patterns were examined during theme refinement to strengthen conceptual clarity. Transferability was supported by providing detailed descriptions of the institutional context, participant characteristics, and analytic procedures to enable readers to judge relevance to comparable higher education settings. Given the single-institution context, findings should be interpreted as context-specific. Data collection procedure Prior to formal data collection, a pilot study was conducted with three faculty members who met the study’s inclusion criteria. The purpose of the pilot was to assess the feasibility, clarity, and time required to complete the online questionnaire. Feedback confirmed that the items were clear and relevant, and no modifications were necessary. As a result, these participants were included in the final sample. Quantitative data were collected through a self-administered online questionnaire distributed to faculty members using Microsoft Forms. Participants received an invitation via institutional email along with an information sheet outlining the study’s purpose, ethical assurances, and participation requirements. To increase accessibility and response rates, the link was also shared via academic WhatsApp and Telegram groups with approval from faculty leadership. Faculty members were given approximately three weeks to complete the questionnaire, with two reminders issued during this period. The total time required to complete the survey ranged between 10 and 15 min. The quantitative data collection took place between March 1 and May 1, 2023. Following the quantitative phase, participants who had expressed willingness to take part in follow-up interviews were contacted directly. Twelve faculty members were purposively selected to participate in the qualitative phase. Semi-structured interviews were scheduled at mutually convenient times and conducted either in person or via secure online platforms, depending on participant preference and availability. All interviews were conducted in English and lasted between 35 and 50 min. The interview environment was designed to ensure privacy, encourage open discussion, and minimize distractions. Interviews were recorded with participant consent, transcribed verbatim, and stored securely to protect confidentiality. Data analysis Quantitative data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 24. Data were screened for completeness, accuracy, and coding errors prior to analysis. Descriptive statistics, including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations, were computed to summarize participant characteristics and responses to the study instruments. Pearson’s correlation analysis was conducted to examine the strength and direction of associations between job-related factors of career development (job autonomy and supervisory support) and organizational resilience. A total of 60 faculty members completed the quantitative survey, yielding a response rate of 85.7% (60/70). Given the finite population size, this achieved sample corresponds to an estimated margin of error in the range of approximately 4–5% at a 95% confidence level, assuming a population proportion of 0.68. This level of precision was considered adequate for the study’s exploratory, associational objectives. Nevertheless, the cross-sectional design and single-site context limit causal inference and broader generalizability. Sample size adequacy for multiple linear regression analysis was evaluated using G*Power version 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2009). For a multiple regression model with two variables (job autonomy and supervisory support), assuming a medium effect size (f² = 0.15), an alpha level of 0.05, and a desired statistical power of 0.80, the minimum required sample size was estimated at 55 participants. The achieved sample of 60 faculty members therefore exceeded this minimum threshold, indicating adequate statistical power to detect meaningful associative relationships. Nevertheless, the sample size remains modest relative to more conservative guidelines recommending 10–15 participants per variable (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Accordingly, regression analyses were interpreted as exploratory and associative, and model complexity was intentionally limited to reduce the risk of overfitting. Regression assumptions and diagnostic procedures Prior to regression analysis, key assumptions were evaluated. Normality of residuals was assessed using normal probability plots and statistical tests, indicating no substantial deviation from normality. Linearity was examined through scatterplots of standardized residuals against values, which supported linear relationships between variables. Homoscedasticity was evaluated through visual inspection of residual plots and showed an approximately constant variance across variables values. Multicollinearity was assessed using variance inflation factors (VIF), which were within acceptable limits, indicating no serious multicollinearity concerns despite the strong correlation between variables. Given the cross-sectional and exploratory nature of the study, regression findings were interpreted as associative rather than causal. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Qualitative coding procedures, data saturation, and integration Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis following Braun and Clarke’s six-phase approach 26 . The analysis began with familiarization, during which the researchers read the interview transcripts multiple times to gain an overall understanding of the data. Initial codes were then generated inductively by identifying recurring phrases, patterns, and meaningful units related to career development experiences, supervisory support, institutional context, and adaptive responses. Two members of the research team independently conducted the initial coding to enhance analytic rigor. The coding frameworks were compared, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus. Codes were subsequently grouped into potential themes, which were iteratively reviewed, refined, and organized into coherent thematic structures. Subthemes were identified to add depth and nuance, and each theme was clearly defined and named to reflect its central meaning. Reflexivity and rigor were maintained throughout the analysis through peer debriefing, memo writing, and ongoing consultation among the research team. Selected participant quotations were used to support theme interpretation and ensure that findings were grounded in participants’ experiences. Data saturation was assessed concurrently with analysis and was defined as the point at which successive interviews yielded no new codes or conceptual insights. Saturation was reached at the eleventh interview, and an additional interview was conducted to confirm that no new themes emerged. This process ensured analytic completeness while remaining appropriate for a single-site qualitative inquiry. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings occurred during the interpretation phase. Qualitative themes were used to contextualize and explain patterns observed in the quantitative results, providing a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between faculty career development factors and organizational resilience. Results Participants’ characteristics A total of 60 faculty members participated in the study. The average age was 43.25 years (SD = 8.14), with the largest proportion (36.7%) falling in the 40 to less than 50 age group. Regarding academic qualifications, the vast majority (90%) held a PhD, while only 5% each held either a master’s or bachelor’s degree. Assistant professors comprised the largest academic rank (45%), followed by associate professors (28.3%) and professors (16.7%). The average professional experience was 12.43 years (SD = 3.99), with more than one-quarter (28.3%) having over 20 years of experience, and 23.3% reporting 5 to less than 10 years of experience. See Table 1 . Table 1. Distribution of studied faculty members regarding their demographic characteristics ( n = 60). Items N % Age 20 - <30 3 5.0 30 - <40 20 33.3 40–50 22 36.7 > 50 15 25.0 Mean ± SD 43.25 ± 8.14 Education level Bachelor 3 5.0 Master 3 5.0 PhD 54 90 Position Demonstrator 3 5.0 Lecturer 3 5.0 Associate professor 17 28.3 Assistant professor 27 45.0 Professor 10 16.7 Experience < 5 13 21.7 5 - <10 14 23.3 10 - <15 11 18.4 15–20 5 8.3 >20 17 28.3 Mean ± SD 12.43 ± 3.99 Open in a new tab SD = Standard deviation. Faculty members’ perceptions of job-related career development factors Table 2 shows that the majority of participants (73.3%) reported a high level of job autonomy, while only 8.4% perceived it as low. The mean score for job autonomy was 52.62 (SD = 6.1), reflecting a mean percentage of 75.1%, indicating favorable perceptions of decision-making freedom and independence in academic roles. Regarding supervisory support, 68.3% of the faculty expressed high levels of perceived support from their supervisors, while 10% reported low levels. The mean score for supervisory support was 46.89 (SD = 5.7), with a mean percentage of 72.1%, suggesting generally positive experiences with leadership encouragement and guidance. Overall, the total perception of job-related career development factors was high among 71.7% of participants, with a mean score of 99.51 (SD = 13.6), corresponding to a mean percentage of 73.7%. These results indicate that most faculty members view their work environment as supportive of career development, particularly in terms of autonomy and leadership engagement. Table 2. Distribution of studied faculty members regarding perception of job-related factor of career development ( n = 60). Items High > 70% Moderate 50–70% Low < 50% Mean ± SD Mean % N % n % N % Job autonomy 44 73.3 11 18.3 5 8.4 52.62 ± 6.1 75.1 Supervisor support 41 68.3 13 21.7 6 10 46.89 ± 5.7 72.1 Total job-related factors 43 71.7 12 20 5 8.3 99.51 ± 13.6 73.7 Shared vision 45 75 11 18.3 4 6.7 15.22 ± 2.4 76.1 Willingness to learn 51 85 7 11.7 2 3.3 16.56 ± 2.8 82.8 Adaptation ability 50 83.3 6 10 4 6.7 11.88 ± 3.1 78.6 Cooperative awareness 52 86.7 16 26.7 2 3.3 16.43 ± 3.3 82.1 Work enthusiasm 46 76.7 11 18.3 3 5 11.41 ± 2.9 76.1 Total score of the scale 50 83.3 6 10 4 6.7 71.42 ± 9.6 79.3 Open in a new tab * SD= standard deviation. Regarding faculty members’ perceptions of organizational resilience across its five domains, the majority of participants (83.3%) demonstrated a high overall perception of organizational resilience, with a mean total score of 71.42 (SD = 9.6), representing 79.3% of the possible score. Among the subdomains, the highest reported area was willingness to learn, with 85% of participants showing high perception and a mean score of 16.56 (SD = 2.8), equating to 82.8%. This was closely followed by cooperative awareness, reported by 86.7% of faculty members, with a mean score of 16.43 (SD = 3.3), and adaptive ability, perceived as high by 83.3% of the participants with a mean of 11.88 (SD = 3.1). In contrast, shared vision and work enthusiasm received slightly lower scores, though still within the high range, each reported by approximately three-quarters of the sample (75% and 76.7%, respectively), both with a mean percentage of 76.1%. These results reflect strong perceptions of resilience in learning, collaboration, and adaptability, although alignment of goals and motivational engagement appear to be relatively less emphasized within the institutional culture. See Fig. 2 . Fig. 2. Open in a new tab Overall mean % of studied variables. Relationship between demographic characteristicsand study variables Table 3 demonstrates that all examined demographic variables—age, educational level, academic position, and years of experience—were significantly associated with both organizational resilience and job-related factors of career development. Table 3. Relationship between sample characteristics and organizational resilience, and job- related factor of career development ( n = 60). Items Organizational resilience Career development Mean ± SD F ( p ) Mean ± SD F ( p ) Age 20 - <30 63.09 ± 6.8 14.559 (0.000)** 91.34 ± 6.4 13.444 (0.000)** 30 - <40 65.11 ± 7.2 93.4 ± 8.1 40–50 68.5 ± 10.4 98.6 ± 5.9 > 50 74.6 ± 9.3 102.5 ± 9.1 Education level Bachelor 64.01 ± 6.6 10.992 (0.006)* 91.22 ± 8.8 10.217 (0.000)** Master 69.2 ± 8.1 95.6 ± 6.3 PhD 78.10 ± 5.3 100.6 ± 9.7 Position Demonstrator 65.7 ± 4.8 6.551 (0.011)* 90.2 ± 10.3 9.881 (0.000)** Lecturer 67.4 ± 6.4 93.2 ± 6.5 Assistant Professor 68.10 ± 5.3 96.7 ± 9.1 Associate professor 71.25 ± 7.1 99.4 ± 11.2 Professor 75.08 ± 6.3 103.4 ± 10.4 Experience < 5 66.1 ± 5.5 5.739 (0.017)* 94.32 ± 9.6 6.002 (0.010)* 5 - <10 67.9 ± 4.9 96.7 ± 8.9 10 - <15 69.3 ± 5.7 98.4 ± 7.3 15–20 70.4 ± 6.2 100.5 ± 9.0 > 20 73.2 ± 6.9 Open in a new tab F: ANOVA, P Significant at ≤ 0.05. Regarding perceptions of job-related career development factors, a highly significant relationship was found with age ( p < 0.001), education level ( p < 0.001), and academic position ( p < 0.001), while years of experience also showed a statistically significant association ( p = 0.010). Professors and associate professors reported the highest scores on job-related development factors, with mean scores of 103.4 (SD = 10.4) and 99.4 (SD = 11.2), respectively. These findings suggest that more senior and academically qualified faculty tend to perceive both greater institutional resilience and more favorable career development environments. Specifically, organizational resilience showed a highly statistically significant relationship with age ( p < 0.001) and educational level ( p = 0.006), while academic position and experience were also significantly related ( p = 0.011 and p = 0.017, respectively). Faculty members above 50 years of age reported the highest levels of organizational resilience (M = 74.6, SD = 9.3), while those under 30 reported the lowest (M = 63.09, SD = 6.8). Similarly, participants holding doctoral degrees had the highest resilience scores (M = 78.10, SD = 5.3), compared to those with bachelor’s degrees (M = 64.01, SD = 6.6). Correlation and regression analyses Prior to regression analysis, bivariate correlations were examined (Table 4 ). Job autonomy was significantly and positively correlated with organizational resilience ( r = 0.586, p < 0.001), as was supervisory support ( r = 0.623, p < 0.001). Job autonomy and supervisory support were also very strongly correlated with each other ( r = 0.816, p < 0.001), indicating substantial overlap between the two dimensions of career development. Given this high intercorrelation, a composite career development score was used in subsequent regression analysis to reduce multicollinearity and improve model stability. Table 4. Pearson correlations between career development factors and organizational resilience. Variables 1 2 3 1. Job autonomy 1 2. Supervisory support 0.816*** 1 3. Organizational resilience (total) 0.586*** 0.623*** 1 Open in a new tab Pearson correlation coefficients *** p < 0.001. Simple linear regression analysis indicated that job-related factors of career development were significantly associated with organizational resilience (Β = 0.236, p = 0.001). The model explained approximately 41% of the variance in organizational resilience (R² = 0.41). Although statistically significant, findings are interpreted cautiously as indicative of an association rather than a predictive or causal relationship. The modest standardized coefficient (β = 0.236) reflects the exploratory nature of the analysis and the sample size constraints. (Table 5 ). Table 5. Simple linear regression model for organizational resilience. ß Β t test P value Constant 0.120 0.083 2.50 0.037 Job-related Factor of career development 0.298 0.236 2.95 0.001** Regression model fit R 2 F P value 0.41 8.71 0.001** Open in a new tab ß :Sandardized Coefficients. Β Unstandardized coefficients p < 0.001. Qualitative findings Participant profile The qualitative sample included twelve faculty members across academic ranks, with most holding the title of Assistant Professor ( n = 6), alongside Lecturers, Associate Professors, and Professors. Their experience ranged from 4 to 25 years, allowing for varied insights from both early-career and senior academics. Thematic analysis Through thematic analysis of in-depth interviews with faculty members, four interconnected themes emerged that illuminate the lived experiences, institutional challenges, and adaptive strategies shaping both career development and organizational resilience in academic settings. These themes—“Roots of Growth,” “Autonomy with Anchors,” “Bouncing Forward,” and “Disconnected Bridges”—reflect the dynamic ways faculty engage with, and are affected by, the structures and cultures within which they work. See Table 6 . Table 6. Themes, subthemes, and illustrative quotations. Theme Subtheme Example quotation Roots of Growth: Foundations of Career Development Mentorship and Role Models I honestly wouldn’t be in this position if a senior colleague hadn’t taken me under her wing. She believed in me and guided me through my early years Promotion Pathways and Clarity The rules for promotion keep shifting. You think you’ve met all the criteria , and then a new policy appears out of nowhere Access to Resources and Opportunities We get invited to workshops , but they’re often during teaching hours or too generic. It feels more performative than helpful Autonomy with Anchors: Balancing Freedom and Structure Freedom in Academic Role Being able to design my own course content and try new approaches keeps me inspired. It’s the part of my job that I love most Administrative Load and Structural Constraints There’s always a new form to fill out , a new report to write. I spend more time on paperwork than on actual academic work Leadership Support and Bureaucracy Navigation My supervisor’s support made all the difference— I knew she had my back. But some leaders micromanage or block every new idea Bouncing Forward: Stories of Academic Resilience Adaptability in Crisis I had to convert my entire course online in a weekend. It was chaotic , but I learned so much— about tech , about myself , about my students Learning Mindset and Professional Reinvention Whenever something shifts—new tech , new policies —I try to see it as an opportunity to grow , not just a hurdle Peer Support and Emotional Safety Nets We had an informal group chat during the pandemic. We shared resources and frustrations. That support kept me sane Disconnected Bridges: Barriers Undermining Resilience and Development Unclear Policies or Inconsistent Support You get told ‘great job , ’ but then there’s no follow- through—no funding , no promotion , no real reward Lack of Inclusion in Decision-Making Policies are often handed down without consultation. We find out after everything’s been decided Burnout and Role Strain Balancing teaching , research , service , admin—it’s relentless. And in the end , it’s our health that suffers Open in a new tab Theme 1: roots of growth – foundations of career development Faculty members repeatedly emphasized the value of mentorship, clear growth pathways, and relevant professional development as cornerstones of their academic journey. Mentorship was particularly powerful, described not only as guidance but as affirmation. One associate professor recalled, “I honestly wouldn’t be in this position if a senior colleague hadn’t taken me under her wing. She believed in me , pushed me to apply for grants , and checked in when I was struggling.” Yet, clarity around promotion criteria varied greatly. While some felt supported, others described feeling lost in a system with moving targets. “The rules for promotion keep shifting ,” one lecturer remarked. “You think you’ve met all the criteria , and then a new policy appears out of nowhere.” Even when opportunities for training were available, participants noted a mismatch between institutional offerings and actual faculty needs. “We get invited to workshops , but they’re often during teaching hours or too generic ,” one said. “It feels more performative than helpful.” This theme highlights that growth is not just about programs—it’s about accessibility, alignment, and meaningful engagement. Theme 2: autonomy with anchors – balancing freedom and structure Faculty take pride in the independence that academia offers—especially in teaching and research. One participant reflected, “Being able to design my own course content and try new approaches keeps me inspired. It’s the creative part of my job that I love most.” However, this autonomy is often tempered by the realities of bureaucratic workload. Administrative tasks were commonly described as overwhelming. “There’s always a new form to fill out , a new report to write. Sometimes it feels like I spend more time on paperwork than on actual academic work ,” an assistant professor shared. Leadership also played a pivotal role in shaping the faculty experience. While some participants described their department heads as empowering, others found them obstructive. “My supervisor’s support made all the difference—I knew she had my back ,” said one senior academic. In contrast, another noted, “Some leaders micromanage or delay everything. It’s like climbing with someone stepping on your fingers.” The presence—or absence—of supportive leadership was a recurring determinant of both professional satisfaction and resilience. Theme 3: bouncing forward – stories of academic resilience This theme captures how faculty adapted to challenges, especially during periods of uncertainty or disruption. The COVID-19 pandemic was a powerful reference point, with many describing it as a catalyst for transformation. “I had to convert my entire course online in a weekend ,” one participant recounted. “It was chaotic , but I learned so much—about digital tools , about myself , and about my students’ needs.” A recurring mindset among participants was that of continuous learning. Faculty often initiated their own development in response to change. “Whenever something shifts—new tech , new policies—I try to see it as an opportunity to grow , not just a hurdle ,” one mid-career lecturer said. And through it all, the support of colleagues emerged as a lifeline. “We had this informal group chat during the pandemic. We shared tips , vented , even sent each other coffee emojis ,” one faculty member laughed. “That little bit of connection made a big difference.” These stories illustrate not just individual grit, but a culture of mutual support that sustains resilience. Theme 4: disconnected bridges – barriers undermining resilience and development Despite their passion and dedication, faculty members identified several persistent barriers that eroded both their capacity for growth and their sense of institutional belonging. A key frustration was the gap between verbal encouragement and tangible support. “You get told ‘great job , ’ but then there’s no follow-through—no funding , no promotion , no reduced load ,” one senior faculty member lamented. Participants also expressed concern over being excluded from important decisions. “Policies are often handed down without consultation. We find out after everything’s been decided. It’s hard to feel invested when you’re not even in the room ,” one assistant professor shared. The emotional and physical toll of competing demands was evident. “Balancing teaching , research , service , admin—it’s relentless ,” one professor admitted. “There’s no time to think , let alone innovate. And in the end , it’s our health that suffers.” These voices underscore the need for structural reforms that align policy with practice and empower faculty as true partners in organizational success. Together, these themes offer a deeper understanding of the realities faculty face—from the people and structures that lift them up, to the systems that hold them back. They also provide valuable insights for academic leaders seeking to foster an environment where both career development and resilience can thrive. Integration of quantitative and qualitative findings The integration of quantitative and qualitative findings was undertaken to help interpretation of the observed statistical associations rather than to confirm or validate causal relationships. Quantitative results indicated that job autonomy and supervisory support were statistically associated with higher levels of organizational resilience. Qualitative findings provided contextual insight into how these job-related conditions were experienced by faculty members in practice and how they intersected with broader institutional dynamics. See Table 7 . Table 7. Integrative summary of quantitative and qualitative findings. Key domain Quantitative pattern Qualitative insight Career development perceptions Majority of faculty reported high perceptions of job-related career development Faculty described career development as shaped by mentorship experiences, perceived agency, and access to informal growth opportunities Job autonomy High levels of perceived job autonomy were reported Autonomy was valued but often constrained by administrative workload and procedural demands Supervisory support Perceptions of supervisory support varied across faculty Leadership experiences ranged from empowering support to hierarchical control Organizational resilience High overall resilience scores, particularly in willingness to learn and cooperative awareness Resilience was described as emerging through collegial support, adaptability, and shared coping during institutional challenges Interpretation of association Job-related career development factors were statistically associated with organizational resilience Qualitative themes illustrated contextual conditions that may explain variability in how autonomy and support relate to resilience Open in a new tab Qualitative themes illustrated that autonomy was often experienced alongside competing administrative demands, which shaped how faculty exercised professional agency. Similarly, supervisory support was described as variable and context-dependent, ranging from empowering leadership practices to more hierarchical and restrictive approaches. While quantitative results reflected generally high levels of perceived resilience, qualitative narratives revealed underlying tensions, emotional strain, and structural constraints that complicate a purely numerical interpretation. Together, these findings highlight that the relationship between career development factors and organizational resilience is shaped by contextual, relational, and organizational conditions, underscoring the non-linear and experience-dependent nature of institutional resilience. Discussion The findings of this study are based on the participation of a convenience sample of 60 faculty members from the Faculty of Nursing at a single Saudi Arabian university. While the insights are meaningful within this specific institutional and cultural context, caution should be exercised when considering broader applications. All findings reported here reflect the experiences and perceptions of academic nurse educators within this particular setting and should not be assumed to generalize to faculty in other disciplines, institutions, or cultural contexts. The institutional structures, cultural values, and organizational dynamics in Saudi higher education may differ significantly from other national and regional contexts, potentially shaping how faculty experience autonomy, support, and resilience differently. Accordingly, throughout this Discussion, findings are interpreted primarily within the context of the studied setting, with implications for similar institutional contexts noted where applicable. Descriptive findings Within the studied Saudi nursing context, the findings of this study revealed that most faculty members perceived a high level of support for their career development, particularly in terms of job autonomy and supervisory support. Participants felt empowered to manage their teaching and research responsibilities, make academic decisions independently, and contribute creatively to institutional goals. This perception of autonomy was illuminated through qualitative data, where faculty described how the freedom to design their academic pathways and adopt innovative teaching approaches enhanced their professional identity and motivation. However, this sense of autonomy was sometimes constrained by institutional structures. Several faculty described in the qualitative findings challenges such as administrative bureaucracy, excessive documentation, and rigid regulations that limited their ability to fully exercise autonomy. These tensions were captured in the theme “Autonomy with Anchors,” illustrating the delicate balance faculty navigate between independence and structural expectations. These findings are consistent with Dara et al. 27 , who found that faculty members widely perceive autonomy in academic decision-making and the use of innovative, technology-driven teaching strategies. Such autonomy, they concluded, is vital for promoting creativity, instructional effectiveness, and job satisfaction. Similarly, Hoch et al. 28 emphasized that job autonomy supports creative engagement and adaptability—both of which are crucial for enhancing institutional resilience. Despite these findings, it is important to note that the specific ways autonomy is experienced and valued may be shaped by the institutional and cultural context of Saudi higher education, which may differ from the contexts where these prior studies were conducted. Supervisory support was also perceived positively by the majority of participants. Faculty described their academic leaders as approachable and supportive, often providing encouragement, feedback, and mentorship. This aligns with prior studies showing that leadership support contributes to faculty well-being and engagement. While this aligns with prior studies on leadership support and faculty well-being, the specific manifestations and cultural interpretations of supervisory support within the Saudi academic context may differ from Western models of leadership. For instance, Squires et al. 29 found that when faculty members receive consistent support from supervisors, they report higher morale and are more likely to engage in collaborative, resilience-promoting behaviors. Despite these positive perceptions, the qualitative data also revealed variability in leadership experiences. Some participants reported inconsistent feedback, lack of transparency in evaluations, or superficial mentorship. These accounts suggest that while many faculty feel supported, there is still a need for more authentic, consistent supervisory practices. This observation aligns with Shen et al. 30 who highlighted that career development efforts are most impactful when supervisors are meaningfully engaged in faculty growth. Similarly, Farmanesh and Zargar 31 noted that supportive leaders enhance trust through motivational behaviors and positive interactions in the workplace. Building on the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model, Horoub and Zargar 32 demonstrated that empowering leadership significantly enhances job satisfaction and well-being among faculty members, especially in the post-pandemic academic landscape. Their findings reinforce the notion that supportive environments—marked by autonomy and constructive leadership—are critical for faculty development and institutional sustainability. In the studied context, faculty members perceived their institutions as generally resilient, especially in the areas of learning, adaptability, and collaboration. Many participants expressed a strong willingness to learn and grow professionally through engaging in workshops, adopting new technologies, and adjusting to curricular and policy changes. The qualitative theme “Bouncing Forward” captured this dynamic vividly, illustrating how faculty demonstrated resourcefulness and a shared commitment to sustaining academic excellence during times of disruption. While these findings align with organizational learning theory, it is important to note that the specific ways continuous learning and collective reflection manifest—and their relative importance for resilience—may be shaped by the regulatory environment and cultural values specific to Saudi higher education. Experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic were particularly telling, as participants described how digital upskilling, peer collaboration, and adaptive teaching strategies enabled them to maintain educational quality amid uncertainty. Moreover, recent research has empirically highlighted key enablers of resilience in academic settings—such as effective leadership, strong organizational culture, investment in human capital, external knowledge networks, and digital infrastructure 34 – 37 . These elements resonate with the study’s findings, as faculty emphasized how collegial relationships and institutional learning culture helped them remain flexible and future-oriented. Despite these strengths, a smaller proportion of participants expressed concerns about institutional direction and emotional engagement. Some faculty reported unclear strategic priorities or limited alignment between their individual contributions and the university’s broader goals. Others cited emotional fatigue, feelings of disconnection from decision-making, and lack of support—particularly among junior faculty and those in transitional roles. These concerns were encapsulated in the theme “Disconnected Bridges,” which pointed to both structural and emotional gaps that may undermine long-term resilience. This is consistent with findings by Vallés & Clarà 38 , who argue that when institutions lack inclusive planning, transparent communication, and relational support, faculty engagement may erode over time. In the present study, these gaps were not necessarily the dominant experience but nonetheless served as important reminders that institutional resilience is only sustainable when paired with consistent engagement, emotional well-being, and a shared sense of direction. Overall, the descriptive findings suggest that while faculty members in the studied nursing college largely experience their academic environments as supportive and conducive to growth, this experience is nuanced. Institutional efforts to foster autonomy, learning, and collaboration have been largely successful, yet they must be strengthened by greater emotional support, workload management, and inclusive leadership to ensure resilience is experienced equitably across all faculty levels. Correlation and regression findings The quantitative findings reveled a significant association between autonomy and resilience which is also illuminated by qualitative data showing that educators experience autonomy as creating opportunity for problem-solving. However, qualitative data also reveal that this experience is not universal: educators describe considerable variation in how autonomy manifests in practice, depending on institutional context and individual preferences. This suggests that while the variables are associated quantitatively, the relationship operates through complex contextual mechanisms not captured in cross-sectional analysis. Additionally, the direction of relationship remains unclear; qualitative data suggest both that autonomy enables resilience and that resilient educators may be more effective at securing autonomy. The cross-sectional design cannot determine which interpretation is correct. In particular, the theme “Roots of Growth” emphasized how structured mentorship, recognition, and career progression opportunities strengthened faculty members’ engagement and institutional commitment. This finding aligns with previous studies confirming the link between faculty development and institutional adaptability. For example, Shen et al. 30 highlighted that transparent career pathways and supportive leadership significantly associated with improved performance and resilience. Similarly, Squires et al., 29 reported that when faculty perceive alignment between their personal development and institutional goals, they tend to demonstrate stronger commitment and proactive behaviors. Additionally, Polat & Iskender 39 found that individuals with higher resilience levels are more likely to internalize institutional values, leading to increased dedication and meaningful contributions to their organizations. Regression analysis further supported this association.Those reporting greater access to mentorship, autonomy, and feedback also identified their institutions as more capable of navigating change and uncertainty. These findings are consistent with the organizational learning perspective, which suggests that institutions become more adaptive and responsive when they actively invest in the professional growth and agency of their members 33 . Qualitative accounts, particularly within the theme “Bouncing Forward,” illustrated how empowering environments contributed to adaptive behaviors. Faculty described learning new technologies, shifting pedagogical strategies, and sustaining student engagement during periods of disruption, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. These experiences highlight the value of institutional support in enabling innovation and flexibility. Supporting this view, Hao et al. 40 reported a positive relationship between empowering practices—including autonomy and inclusion—and employee resilience behaviors across sectors. Recent literature also emphasizes that resilience is not merely a personal trait but an outcome of contextual factors. Kuntz et al. 41 argue that employee resilience emerges from the interaction between individuals and their work environments. Stokes et al. 42 and Mohammad et al. 43 add that leadership and supervisory practices are critical in shaping how employees adapt and respond to challenges. Furthermore Franken et al. 44 and Ning & Hui 45 have shown that leadership support can encourage proactive behaviors, promote employee voice, and reduce the negative effects of stress or ambiguity—factors that ultimately strengthen organizational resilience. However, this relationship was not uniformly experienced. The theme “Disconnected Bridges” revealed that some faculty—particularly those in early career stages—felt excluded from institutional planning or unsupported in their growth. These individuals described feelings of emotional fatigue and isolation, which undermined their perception of institutional resilience. Hoch et al. 28 similarly observed that uneven distribution of autonomy or mentorship across faculty ranks may weaken cohesion and limit collective adaptability.Taken together, the findings emphasize that faculty development plays a strategic role in shaping organizational resilience. Institutions that prioritize authentic support, inclusive leadership, and meaningful development opportunities are more likely to foster commitment, adaptability, and innovation among their faculty members—traits that are essential in navigating the evolving demands of higher education. Demographic influences Within the studied nursing faculty, demographic variables such as age, academic rank, educational level, and years of experience were significantly associated with faculty members’ perceptions of job-related career development and organizational resilience. Senior faculty—those in higher age groups, with doctoral degrees, or holding positions such as associate professor or professor—tended to report greater autonomy, more consistent supervisory support, and higher overall satisfaction with their developmental opportunities. Correspondingly, they were more likely to perceive their institutions as adaptable, collaborative, and resilient. This pattern may be attributed to the professional maturity and institutional influence often held by senior academics. With more established networks, greater involvement in institutional decision-making, and clearer career trajectories, experienced faculty may enjoy enhanced access to developmental resources and leadership opportunities. While these findings align with Levin et al. 46 , the role of tenure and seniority in accessing resources and institutional influence may be particularly pronounced in hierarchical institutional contexts, as characterizes many Saudi academic institutions, and may operate differently in less hierarchical institutional environments. Similarly, Shen et al. 30 reported that seasoned academics benefit from more structured developmental pathways, higher visibility, and more frequent recognition, all of which reinforce their institutional engagement and commitment. In contrast, faculty in early career stages—particularly those holding lecturer or demonstrator positions—reported lower perceptions of both career development support and institutional resilience. These faculty members often expressed challenges in accessing mentorship, navigating unclear promotion criteria, or participating in strategic initiatives. Such concerns were reflected in the qualitative theme “Disconnected Bridges,” where junior faculty voiced a lack of inclusion in institutional dialogue, inconsistent supervisory interactions, and ambiguity in career progression. These barriers contributed to feelings of emotional distance and professional stagnation. This discrepancy in experience highlights that faculty development and organizational resilience are not perceived uniformly across academic ranks. Instead, they are shaped by faculty members’ positionality, access to institutional resources, and the quality of leadership interactions. Institutions must therefore move beyond a one-size-fits-all model and adopt tailored strategies that address the unique developmental needs of early-career faculty. Targeted mentorship programs, transparent evaluation frameworks, and participatory leadership practices are essential to fostering equitable growth and engagement across all academic levels. As emphasized by Vallés & Clarà 38 , institutions that neglect the developmental and emotional needs of junior faculty may face unintended consequences such as disengagement, reduced innovation, and resistance to change. Moreover, Michalak & Ellixson 47 , stressed the pivotal role of mentorship in career advancement, particularly when embedded within a structured and well-supported development system. Such mentorship not only enhances procedural fairness but also cultivates psychological safety—two critical elements for faculty engagement and institutional resilience. Integration of qualitative data The qualitative findings offered deep insight into how faculty members interpret and navigate career development and organizational resilience in their institutional contexts. Four central themes emerged from the analysis— Roots of Growth , Autonomy with Anchors , Bouncing Forward , and Disconnected Bridges — each reflecting different dimensions of the faculty experience that either enhanced or hindered their sense of professional well-being and institutional adaptability. The first theme, “Roots of Growth , ” captured the foundational role of mentorship, skill development, and structured career advancement in faculty members’ professional journeys. Participants described these elements as essential for building confidence, academic identity, and long-term career satisfaction. They valued continuous learning, access to professional workshops, and academic recognition—elements that fueled their motivation and connection to the institution. However, some faculty also expressed frustration over vague promotion criteria or the absence of personalized career guidance. These narratives highlight the importance of consistent and transparent developmental structures. This theme reflects the broader understanding that sustained faculty development must be embedded within a clear institutional vision to reduce stagnation and promote engagement 30 , 38 . Similarly, Michalak and Ellixson 47 emphasized that mentorship, when situated within well-defined developmental pathways, contributes to procedural fairness and psychological safety, further strengthening institutional trust. The second theme, “Autonomy with Anchors , ” revealed a complex interplay between professional freedom and institutional constraint. Faculty members spoke positively about their intellectual independence in designing curricula, conducting research, and selecting instructional methods. However, many also described administrative overload, unclear procedures, and micromanagement as barriers to fully exercising this autonomy. This duality underscored that while autonomy is empowering, it must be supported by enabling structures that reduce bureaucratic burden and offer clarity. This finding resonates with Dara et al. 27 , who reported that job autonomy is crucial for fostering innovative teaching and professional creativity, especially in the digital age. At the same time, Hoch et al. 28 argued that unsupported autonomy—especially when coupled with institutional ambiguity—may result in disengagement rather than empowerment. The third theme, “Bouncing Forward ,” illustrated faculty members’ adaptive capabilities in the face of institutional change or disruption. Faculty described their experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, detailing how they learned new digital tools, redesigned learning experiences, and relied on peer support to maintain their responsibilities. This adaptability was not viewed as a solitary endeavor but as a collective effort rooted in collegial collaboration, shared vision, and mutual trust. Participants associated these experiences with growth, resilience, and a deepened connection to their academic community. These findings align with organizational learning theory, which posits that resilience emerges through continuous learning and shared institutional memory 33 . Moreover, recent research by Hollands et al. 34 and Isensee et al. 35 emphasizes the role of human capital, digital tools, and social capital in sustaining resilience in higher education. The final theme, “Disconnected Bridges ,” exposed emotional and structural gaps experienced by some faculty members—particularly those early in their careers. Participants recounted feeling excluded from decision-making, unsupported in promotion processes, or under-recognized despite their efforts. These perceptions led to emotional fatigue, reduced morale, and weakened institutional commitment. This theme offers a critical counterbalance to the otherwise positive perceptions of career development, revealing the inconsistencies that exist within faculty support systems. The findings echo Levin et al. 46 , who argued that institutional resilience requires inclusive engagement across all academic ranks to prevent disengagement and preserve organizational cohesion. Similarly, Shen et al. 30 noted that developmental frameworks lacking fairness and consistency may erode trust and diminish institutional loyalty. Contextual significance of qualitative findings These qualitative themes illuminate the lived experiences of academic nurse educators within the studied Saudi institutional context and reveal dimensions of career development and resilience that quantitative measures cannot fully capture. However, it is essential to recognize that these interpretations are specific to the studied faculty and may reflect cultural values and organizational dynamics particular to Saudi higher education. The emphasis on hierarchical decision-making described in some accounts—and the emphasis on consensus and relationship-building in others—may reflect institutional or national cultural patterns that differ from less hierarchical Western academic systems. Similarly, concerns about emotional well-being and the emphasis on collegial support may be shaped by the specific stressors and institutional context of the studied nursing faculty during a period of transition and change. Therefore, while these themes provide important insights into faculty experiences within this setting, their applicability to other contexts should be considered carefully, with attention to institutional, disciplinary, and cultural differences. In summary, the qualitative themes contextualize the quantitative findings by uncovering the nuanced realities behind faculty perceptions of autonomy, support, and resilience. While many faculty expressed appreciation for growth opportunities and institutional responsiveness, others revealed the challenges of navigating unclear structures, limited recognition, and emotional disconnect. These insights underscore the need for academic institutions to foster not only formal mechanisms of support but also relational and culturally sensitive strategies that promote equity, voice, and engagement across all faculty ranks 37 , 48 . Strengths and limitations One of the notable strengths of this study is its adoption of a mixed-methods design, which enabled a comprehensive exploration of the relationship between job-related career development and organizational resilience among faculty members within a Saudi higher education context. The integration of quantitative findings with qualitative insights enriched the interpretation of results, allowing for a deeper understanding of not only statistical patterns but also the personal, institutional, and cultural contexts that shape them 49 , 50 . Furthermore, the inclusion of participants across different academic ranks and experience levels enhanced the credibility of the qualitative findings within the studied setting. The study benefited from thoughtful mixed-methods integration in which qualitative data illuminated how faculty experience and interpret career development and resilience rather than simply validating quantitative associations. Despite these strengths, several important limitations substantially constrain the scope and generalizability of this study. First and foremost, the study was conducted with a convenience sample of 60 faculty members from a single Faculty of Nursing at one public university in Saudi Arabia. This single-site, single-discipline design fundamentally limits the generalizability of findings. The results reflect the specific experiences and context of academic nurse educators within this particular institution and may not extend to faculty in other disciplines (such as engineering, sciences, or humanities), faculty at other Saudi institutions (which may have different policies and cultures), or faculty in other national or cultural contexts. Readers should exercise considerable caution in assuming these findings apply broadly to “higher education” or “academic institutions” generally. Second, the institutional and cultural context of Saudi higher education is distinct and likely shapes the findings in ways that may not apply elsewhere. The hierarchical structures, cultural values regarding respect for authority and decision-making processes, specific national policies governing higher education, and the particular institutional dynamics of the studied university all influence how faculty experience autonomy, supervisory support, and resilience. These contextual factors differ substantially from institutional contexts in Western countries and other regions, suggesting findings should not be assumed to generalize across these different contexts without explicit consideration of how these differences may shape outcomes. Third, the qualitative component, while providing valuable interpretive insights, included a relatively small sample of faculty members. Although purposive sampling was used to ensure diversity in terms of rank and experience, the qualitative findings are specific to the interviewed faculty and are not intended to generalize beyond the studied population. The themes that emerged may reflect the particular experiences, stressors, and institutional context of the time of data collection and may not represent all faculty experiences within the institution or across other contexts. Fourth, reliance on self-reported data in both the quantitative and qualitative phases may introduce social desirability bias, particularly regarding perceptions of autonomy, support, and resilience. Faculty members may present themselves or their institutions more favorably than objective conditions might warrant. Additionally, to address multicollinearity between job autonomy and supervisory support, a composite career development score was created, which may obscure nuances in how these dimensions operate distinctly. Furthermore, while the cross-sectional design allowed identification of associations, it precludes causal inference; the relationship between variables could be reciprocal, bidirectional, or influenced by unmeasured third variables. Finally, future research would benefit from triangulating self-reported measures with objective institutional data or performance indicators to boost the robustness of conclusions. Longitudinal studies and multi-site comparative research across different institutional and cultural contexts would substantially strengthen the evidence base for understanding faculty career development and organizational resilience in higher education more broadly. Conclusion Within the studied Saudi nursing faculty context, this research underscores the relationship between job-related career development factors—namely, autonomy, supervisory support, and structured opportunities for professional growth—and faculty members’ perceptions of organizational resilience. Among the faculty members studied, those who perceived greater developmental support were more likely to view their institutions as adaptive, collaborative, and forward-looking; however, this association reflects the specific institutional and cultural context of the studied setting and should not be assumed to extend identically to other contexts without careful consideration of contextual differences. However, the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference. The integration of qualitative findings further illuminated how mentorship, intellectual freedom, and adaptability relate to resilience, while also highlighting emotional strain and disengagement experienced by some, particularly junior faculty. These qualitative insights revealed significant individual and positional variation in how career development factors are experienced, complicating a simple interpretation that these factors uniformly foster resilience. These findings reinforce the notion that, within the studied setting, faculty career development is not solely a matter of individual advancement but a strategic lever for building institutional resilience. The variation in experiences across faculty ranks—with junior faculty reporting considerably less access to support and more frequent feelings of disconnection—highlights the critical importance of equitable approaches to career development. To foster truly resilient academic environments, it is imperative to ensure equitable access to development opportunities, cultivate inclusive and supportive leadership practices, and promote a shared culture of trust, recognition, and purpose. However, given the cultural and institutional specificity of these findings, institutions in different contexts should carefully consider how their own distinctive environments may require adaptations to these recommendations. Future research examining these relationships across diverse institutional and cultural contexts would strengthen the evidence base for understanding faculty development and resilience in higher education more broadly. Implications for practice For academic nursing faculty in contexts similar to the studied Saudi university—particularly those characterized by hierarchical institutional structures, emphasis on faculty engagement and resilience, and commitment to inclusive development—the following practices are recommended based on these findings. First, institutions should prioritize the development and implementation of inclusive, stage-appropriate career development programs that explicitly address the distinct needs of faculty at different career stages, with particular attention to early-career faculty who report feeling disconnected and under-supported. Such programs should include structured mentorship with clear role definitions, transparent criteria for promotion that are communicated clearly and consistently, and regular, constructive feedback mechanisms that support faculty growth rather than simply evaluate performance. Second, preserving and actively supporting faculty autonomy—particularly in teaching and research—should be balanced with institutional clarity, reduced administrative overload, and supportive structures that enable innovation and adaptability. However, given cultural differences in how autonomy is valued and expressed across different institutional contexts, institutions should adapt these approaches to align with their own cultural values and institutional norms. Third, institutions should ensure that supervisory support and developmental opportunities are distributed equitably across all faculty ranks and positions. The finding that junior faculty and those in transitional roles experience substantially less support and greater disconnection highlights the need for targeted interventions for these populations. Leadership at all levels should be trained to provide meaningful mentorship, recognize contribution, and foster psychological safety. Finally, these recommendations are offered with the understanding that they emerge from a specific institutional context. Institutions in other settings—particularly those with different cultural values, organizational structures, or disciplinary norms—should carefully consider how their own distinctive contexts may require modifications to these recommendations to maximize relevance and effectiveness. Implications for leadership and policy For educational leaders and policymakers within Saudi higher education institutions—and particularly those in nursing education—the findings of this study suggest several important considerations. First, institutional leaders should consciously work to foster an environment of inclusive and responsive leadership where faculty feel recognized, supported, and meaningfully involved in institutional planning and decision-making. The qualitative finding that some faculty felt excluded from institutional dialogue and lacked voice in decisions affecting their work suggests this is a critical area for improvement. In the studied context where hierarchical structures may be culturally normative, creating authentic mechanisms for faculty voice and inclusion requires deliberate, ongoing effort. Second, investing in leadership development programs that cultivate emotional intelligence, authentic communication, and transformational leadership practices may enhance the quality of supervisory support and faculty loyalty. However, such programs should be adapted to align with cultural values and expectations regarding leadership within the Saudi context rather than simply importing models from Western leadership literature. Third, policies that prioritize psychological safety, interdisciplinary collaboration, and continuous learning will support a more resilient academic workforce. In particular, policies should ensure that equity in support and recognition is maintained across all academic ranks, with explicit attention to supporting early-career faculty and those in transitional roles who appear most vulnerable to disengagement in this study. Finally, while these recommendations are offered as potentially relevant to similar nursing faculty contexts in Saudi higher education, institutional leaders should recognize that the specific policy and structural changes most effective for their institution will depend on their particular context, stakeholder needs, and strategic goals. The evidence presented here should inform but not fully determine local decision-making. Recommendations for future research While this study provides meaningful insights into faculty experiences within a specific Saudi nursing faculty context, several avenues for future research would substantially strengthen the evidence base for understanding career development and organizational resilience in higher education. First, longitudinal research is needed to understand the temporal dynamics of these relationships and to explore whether career development experiences realted to changes in perceived resilience over time or vice versa. Such research could clarify the directional relationships that the cross-sectional design of this study cannot establish. Second, multi-site comparative research across different Saudi higher education institutions—and particularly comparing different disciplines (nursing, engineering, humanities, sciences)—would reveal whether the patterns observed here are specific to nursing faculty or more broadly characteristic of faculty in Saudi universities. Similarly, comparative international research examining these relationships across different national and cultural contexts would illuminate how institutional and cultural factors shape the relationship between career development and resilience. Third, research that triangulates faculty self-reported perceptions with objective institutional data (such as faculty turnover rates, performance evaluations, institutional metrics of innovation, or research productivity) would provide a more multidimensional understanding of how career development and resilience operate at both individual and institutional levels. Fourth, studies specifically examining the experiences of early-career faculty and those in transitional positions would be valuable, given the striking differences in reported support and engagement across career stages observed in this research. Understanding the barriers faced by these faculty members and identifying effective interventions could improve institutional resilience and faculty retention. Finally, qualitative research exploring the mechanisms by which leadership and supervisory practices foster or undermine resilience—and how these mechanisms may differ across cultural contexts—would increase understanding of the role of institutional relationships in shaping faculty well-being and institutional effectiveness. Acknowledgements The authors thank all the participants who participated in the current study. Abbreviations ANOVA Analysis of variance BMC BioMed central COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019 IRB Institutional Review Board PhD Doctor of Philosophy R 2 Coefficient of determination SD Standard deviation SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences UK United Kingdom USA United States of America Author contributions All authors have substantial contributions to the manuscript (FA, GH, WF.HE, OF, FK, FK, WA, HA, EA). Critical revisions for important intellectual content and correspondence: EA. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Ebtsam Aly Abou Hashish: final manuscript draft and correspondence. Funding This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Data availability All Data are provided within the manuscript. Competing interests The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics approval and consent to participate Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the Faculty of Nursing Ethical Committee at King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia (Ref. No. 2 F.42). All procedures were conducted in accordance with the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki. Participation in the study was entirely voluntary, and no form of coercion or obligation was applied. An informed consent form was embedded within the online survey and required participants to respond to two questions confirming their agreement to participate and granting permission for the use of anonymized data for research and publication purposes. Footnotes Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. References 1. Abou Hashish, E. A., Alsayed, S. A. & Alnajjar, H. A. Exploring workaholism determinants and life balance: a mixed-method study among academic nurse educators. J. Prof. Nurs. 54 , 234–244. 10.1016/j.profnurs.2024.07.014 (2024). [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] 2. Singun, A. Unveiling the barriers to digital transformation in higher education institutions: a systematic literature review. Discov. Educ. 4 , 37. 10.1007/s44217-025-00430-9 (2025). [ Google Scholar ] 3. Abou Hashish, E. A., Alnajjar, H. & Rawas, H. Voices on academic accreditation: lived experiences of nurse educators, administrators, students, and alumni in nursing education. BMC Med. Educ. 25 (1), 64. 10.1186/s12909-025-06657-2 (2025). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 4. Van der Heijden, B. I., Davies, E. M., Van der Linden, D., Bozionelos, N. & De Vos, A. The relationship between career commitment and career success among university staff: the mediating role of employability. Eur. Manag. Rev. 19 (4), 564–580. 10.1111/emre.12503 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 5. Muammar, O. M. & Alkathiri, M. S. What really matters to faculty members attending professional development programs in higher education. Int. J. Acad. Dev. 27 , 221–233. 10.1080/1360144X.2021.1897987 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 6. Daumiller, M., Stupnisky, R. & Janke, S. Motivation of higher education faculty: theoretical approaches, empirical evidence, and future directions. Int. J. Educ. Res. 99 , 2–9. 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101502 (2020). [ Google Scholar ] 7. Shaya, N., Abu Khait, R., Madani, R. & Khattak, M. N. Organizational resilience of higher education institutions: an empirical study during Covid-19 pandemic. High. Educ. Policy 2022 , 1–27. 10.1057/s41307-022-00272-2 (2022). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] 8. Price, R. A. A review of resilience in higher education: toward the emerging concept of designer resilience. Stud. High. Educ. 48 (1), 83–99. 10.1080/03075079.2022.2112027 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 9. Career Development Institute (CDI). Career development policy: a framework for lifelong career development in the 21st century (2017). https://www.thecdi.net . 10. Nīmante, D., Kokare, M., Baranova, S. & Surikova, S. Transferring results of professional development into practice: a scoping review. Educ. Sci. 15 (1), 95. 10.3390/educsci15010095 (2025). [ Google Scholar ] 11. Asfahani, A. M. Nurturing the scientific mind: resilience and job satisfaction among Saudi faculty. Front. Psychol. 15 , 1341888. 10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1341888 (2024). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 12. Kuwaiti, A. A., Bicak, H. A. & Wahass, S. Factors predicting job satisfaction among faculty members of a Saudi higher education institution. J. Appl. Res. High. Educ. 12 (2), 296–310. 10.1108/JARHE-07-2018-0128 (2020). [ Google Scholar ] 13. Ismaiel, M. H. Factors affecting nurses’ career development. J. Am. Sci. 9 (5), 163–172 (2013). http://www.jofamericanscience.org . [ Google Scholar ] 14. Oshodi, T. O. et al. Registered nurses’ perceptions and experiences of autonomy: a descriptive phenomenological study. J. Nurs. Manag . 27 (3), 549–557. 10.1111/jonm.12710 (2019). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 15. Siraj, S., Tariq, S., Shoukat, H. & Malik, M. I. Burnout, resilience, supervisory support, and quitting intention among healthcare professionals: a moderated-mediation model. BMC Health Serv. Res. 23 (1), 1–11. 10.1186/s12913-023-09127-y (2023).36593483 [ Google Scholar ] 16. Greenway, M. & Acai, A. Academic leadership in nursing: a concept analysis. Nurse Educ. Today . 141 , 106338. 10.1016/j.nedt.2024.106338 (2024). [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 17. Chen, S. H. Construction of an early risk warning model of organizational resilience: an empirical study based on samples of R&D teams. Discret Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2016 , 1–9. 10.1155/2016/5840891 (2016). [ Google Scholar ] 18. Coşkun, B., Katıtaş, S. & Karadaş, H. The relationship between faculty members’ organizational support perceptions and personal growth initiative Levels, the mediating role of general Self-Efficacy. Int. J. Mod. Educ. Stud. 6 (2), 400–422. 10.51383/ijonmes.2022.226 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 19. Demerouti, E. Job demands-resources and conservation of resources theories: how do they help to explain employee well-being and future job design? J. Bus. Res. 192 (C), 115296. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115296 (2025). [ Google Scholar ] 20. Borst, R. T., Kruyen, P. M. & Lako, C. J. Exploring the job Demands–Resources model of work engagement in government: bringing in a psychological perspective. Rev. Public. Pers. Adm. 39 (3), 372–397. 10.1177/0734371X17729870 (2017). [ Google Scholar ] 21. Ye, L., Li, Y. & Zhang, N. The impact of autonomy-supportive organizational environments on employees’ emotions and creative performance: a self-determination theory perspective. PLoS One . 20 (5), e0322184. 10.1371/journal.pone.0322184 (2025). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 22. Garrido-Moreno, A., Martín-Rojas, R. & García-Morales, V. J. The key role of innovation and organizational resilience in improving business performance: a mixed-methods approach. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 77 , 102777. 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2024.102777 (2024). [ Google Scholar ] 23. Verma, S. & Kaur, G. Faculty retention dynamics: investigating the role of HR Climate, Trust, and organizational commitment in higher education context. SAGE Open. 14 (1), 1–15. 10.1177/21582440241233372 (2024). [ Google Scholar ] 24. Creswell, J. W. & Poth, C. N. Educational Research: Planning, Conducting, and Evaluating Quantitative and Qualitative Research (Pearson, 2016). 25. Sezen-Gültekin, G. & Argon, T. Examination of the relationship between organizational resilience and organizational sustainability at higher education institution. Int. J. Curric. Instr . 12 , 329–343 (2020). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1245133.pdf [ Google Scholar ] 26. Braun, V. & Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3 (2), 77–101. 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa (2006). [ Google Scholar ] 27. Dara, D. An investigation of faculty members’ job autonomy, work satisfaction, and innovative work behavior indicators. Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 13 (12), 1–5. 10.6007/IJARBSS/v13-i12/19852 (2023). [ Google Scholar ] 28. Hoch, J. E., Bommer, W. H., Dulebohn, J. H. & Wu, D. Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. J. Manag. 44 , 501–529. 10.1177/0149206316665461 (2018). [ Google Scholar ] 29. Squires, V., Walker, K. & Spurr, S. Understanding self perceptions of wellbeing and resilience of preservice teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 118 , 103828. 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103828 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 30. Shen, X., Gu, X., Chen, H. & Wen, Y. For the future sustainable career development of college students: exploring the impact of core self-evaluation and career calling on career decision-making difficulty. Sustainability 13 (12), 6817. 10.3390/su13126817 (2021). [ Google Scholar ] 31. Farmanesh, P. & Zargar, P. Trust in Leader as a Psychological Factor on Employee and Organizational Outcome (IntechOpen, 2021). 10.5772/intechopen.100372. 32. Horoub, I. & Zargar, P. Empowering leadership and job satisfaction of academic staff in Palestinian universities: implications of leader-member exchange and trust in leader. Front. Psychol. 13 , 1065545. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1065545 (2022). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 33. Sharief, E. Leadership styles and organizational resilience in times of crisis in Sudan. Am. J. Leadersh. Gov. 9 (2), 26–37. 10.47672/ajlg.1859 (2024). [ Google Scholar ] 34. Hollands, L., Haensse, L. & Lin-Hi, N. The how and why of organizational resilience: a mixed-methods study on facilitators and consequences of organizational resilience throughout a crisis. J. Appl. Behav. Sci. 2023 , 1–45. 10.1177/00218863231165785 (2023). 35. Isensee, C., Teuteberg, F. & Griese, K. M. Success factors of organizational resilience: a qualitative investigation of four types of sustainable digital entrepreneurs. Manag Decis. 61 (5), 1244–1273. 10.1108/MD-03-2022-0326 (2023). [ Google Scholar ] 36. Alsayed, S. A. et al. Psychological distress, self-efficacy, and academic advising among Saudi nursing students during academic reform: a mixed-methods study. BMC Med. Educ. 25 (1), 1724. 10.1186/s12909-025-08229-w (2025). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 37. Abou Hashish, E. A., Alnajjar, H., Bajamal, E. Z., AlJohani, H. A. R. & Bahawi, R. A. Cultural competence and transcultural teaching behaviors and influencing factors in nursing academia: a Mixed-Methods study among nurse educators. SAGE open. Nurs. 11 , 23779608251375375. 10.1177/23779608251375375 (2025). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 38. Vallés, A. & Clarà, M. Conceptualizing teacher resilience: a comprehensive framework to articulate the research field. Teach. Teach. 29 (1), 105–117. 10.1080/13540602.2022.2149483 (2022). [ Google Scholar ] 39. Polat, D. D. & İskender, M. Exploring teachers’ resilience in relation to job satisfaction, burnout, organizational commitment and perception of organizational climate. Int. J. Psychol. Educ. Stud. 5 (3), 1–3. 10.17220/ijpes.2018.03.001 (2018). [ Google Scholar ] 40. Hao, M., Min, Y. A., Jie, L. & Yuling, D. The effect of shared leadership on employee resilience: wielding the double-edged sword. Front. Psychol. 16 , 1441660. 10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1441660 (2025). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 41. Kuntz, J., Connell, P. & Näswall, K. Workplace resources and employee resilience: the role of regulatory profiles. Career Dev. Int. 22 , 419–435. 10.1108/CDI-11-2016-0208 (2017). [ Google Scholar ] 42. Stokes, P. et al. Resilience and the (micro-) dynamics of organizational ambidexterity: implications for strategic HRM. Int. J. Hum. Resour. Manag . 30 (8), 1287–1322. 10.1080/09585192.2018.1474939 (2019). [ Google Scholar ] 43. Mohammad, H. F., Abou Hashish, E. A. & Elliethey, N. S. The relationship between authentic leadership and nurses’ resilience: a mediating role of self-efficacy. SAGE Open. Nurs. 9 , 23779608231214213. 10.1177/23779608231214213 (2023). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 44. Franken, E., Plimmer, G. & Malinen, S. Paradoxical leadership in public sector organisations: its role in fostering employee resilience. Aust J. Public. Adm. 79 (1), 93–110. 10.1111/1467-8500.12396 (2020). [ Google Scholar ] 45. Ning, Y. & Hui, C. Care about my own team: research on the relationship between shared leadership and employee voice. Collect. Essays Fin Econ. 36 , 83–92 (2020). [ Google Scholar ] 46. Levin, N., Braunstein-Bercovitz, H., Lipshits-Braziler, Y., Gati, I. & Rossier, J. Testing the structure of the career Decision-Making difficulties questionnaire across country, gender, age, and decision status. J. Vocat. Behav. 116 , 103365. 10.1016/j.jvb.2019.103365 (2020). [ Google Scholar ] 47. Michalak, R. & Ellixson, D. Factors influencing career advancement and tenure in academic librarianship. J. Acad. Librariansh. 51 (5), 103104. 10.1016/j.acalib.2025.103104 (2025). [ Google Scholar ] 48. Abou HashishE. A. Nursing faculty expertise is undervalued in clinical practice despite opportunities for transformative impact. Evid. Based Nurs. 10.1136/ebnurs-2025-104357 (2025). [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] 49. Abou Hashish, E. A., Bajbeir, E., Almabadi, S. A., Alzebali, N. D. & Alhubishi, S. F. Investigating quality of life, academic resilience, and influential factors in nursing education: a mixed-methods study among nursing students. SAGE Open. Nurs. 10 , 23779608241303690. 10.1177/23779608241303690 (2024). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] 50. Alnajjar, H. A. & Abou Hashish, E. A. Exploring the effectiveness of the career guidance and counseling program on the perceived readiness for the job market: a lived experience among nursing students. Front. Public. Health . 12 , 1403730. 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1403730 (2024). [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Data Availability Statement All Data are provided within the manuscript. Articles from Scientific Reports are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (1.8 MB) Cite Collections Permalink RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top

Related documents

• The association between toxic leadership behaviors and nurses' career resilience: heterogeneous indirect roles of regulatory focus profiles.#1054349
• Balancing Resilience and Vulnerability: An Integrative Review of the Strong Black Woman Schema in Nursing Education and Leadership.#143077
• Predictors of Academic Resilience Based on Demographic and Psychological Profiles among Undergraduate Nursing Students: A Multicentric Survey in India.#13413
• Predictors of psychological resilience among high-risk professionals: a two-year follow-up study in Dutch firefighters.#404607
• Job strain and burnout in Spanish nurses during the COVID-19: resilience as a protective factor in a cross-sectional study#947695