Sabagh, Z., N. Hall, and A. Saroyan. “Antecedents, Correlates and Consequences of Faculty Burnout.” Educational Research 60, no. 2 (2018): 131–156.
CENTRAL TAKEAWAY
Faculty burnout is increasingly common and has severe consequences for both faculty and their institutions. Leaders are strongly urged to assess anonymously faculty wellbeing and prioritize reducing workload and making other improvements where indicated.
SUMMARY
Over the past few decades, burnout levels in academia have risen to become “comparable to those observed amongst school and health care professionals” (p. 132). The authors of this systematic review of the research literature sought to identify the possible causes of burnout in faculty members, as well as burnout’s consequences. Guided by the Job Demands-Resources model, the scholars identified 36 quantitative studies that collectively looked at burnout in over 9,000 faculty members from 13 countries. It must be noted that they examined faculty members only, and excluded studies regarding burnout in administrators, staff, and students. Furthermore, all the identified studies were cross-sectional in nature, compromising any strong claims about causality.
DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
A number of factors seem to contribute to faculty burnout. Regarding faculty characteristics, older faculty seem to be slightly less likely to experience burnout. Furthermore, although there are many attestations in the literature that female faculty experience more burnout than their male peers, the bulk of the empirical evidence shows no significant differences between burnout rates for male and female faculty, while those that did find male/female differences often produced mixed results.
Regarding job demands, experiencing higher work expectations was a very strong predictor of burnout. This often takes the form of higher degrees of assigned or expected work and pressure to increase academic productivity. Teaching higher numbers of students was also a powerful predictor of burnout, with lower teaching loads and more balance between teaching, research, and service being associated with less burnout. Other contributors included being overqualified for one’s position, and having ambiguous workplace roles, or conflict between different assigned roles. Furthermore, experiencing lower social support from one’s superiors and colleagues appeared to contribute to burnout, as did: a) feeling like one had less control over their work, b) being less involved in decision making, and c) having fewer performance-contingent rewards available to them. Finally, and predictably, some factors outside of institutional control, like family stressors, were significantly correlated with burnout.
Concerning the effects of burnout, the research indicates that it has serious effects upon workplace performance. Those experiencing more burnout have much higher intentions to leave their current position or institution, and their work performance also frequently suffers. They tend to exhibit less energy and effective engagement with their work, and experience less psychological identification with their job and less commitment to their workplace.
Finally, burnout is very strongly correlated with both mental and physical illness. It is a very strong predictor of major depression, and is associated with intense demotivation, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced assessments of one’s personal accomplishments. Furthermore, faculty experiencing burnout tend to be less empathetic towards others, demonstrate less caring, adopt less understanding perspectives, and are less responsive to their peers and students.
IMPLICATIONS FOR ACTION BY CAMPUS LEADERS
Institutions need to remain aware of the ethics of their own practices as they continue to advocate in larger social discourses for more just and considerate stances. While neoliberal logics, increasing student and research demands, and mounting pressures for institutions to ‘remain competitive’ all push institutions towards meeting greater demands with fewer resources, pursuing these imperatives at the price of employee wellbeing is ultimately an inefficient strategy. Campus leaders should take seriously the notion that the ‘best’ institutions may be measured, not just by the size of their endowment or their research prestige, but by the degree to which their faculty flourishes. This synthesis of the literature provides strong evidence and arguments for institutional leaders who want to make reducing faculty burnout a strategic priority.
Institutional leaders concerned about burnout may wish to institute anonymous faculty surveys that measure its antecedents. These data can then provide a guide for directing resources (like another faculty line to reduce teaching loads) to the groups of faculty that need them most, and can work to reduce the factors that are likely to cause both burnout, faculty ill health, and turnover.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Zaynab Sabagh is a researcher in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology at McGill University.
Nathan C. Hal is an associate professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology at McGill University.
Alenoush Saroyan is a professor in the Department of Educational and Counseling Psychology at McGill University.
RECOMMENDED FOLLOW-UP LITERATURE
Demerouti, Evangelia, Arnold B. Bakker, Friedhelm Nachreiner, and Wilmar B. Schaufeli. “The Job Demands-Resources Model of Burnout.” Journal of Applied Psychology 86, no.3 (2001): 499–512.
Maslach, Christina, and Michael P. Leiter. The Truth About Burnout: How Organizations Cause Stress and What to Do about It. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, 1997.
Watts, J., and N. Robertson. “Burnout in University Teaching Staff: A Systematic Literature Review.” Educational Research 53 no. 1 (2011): 33–50.