Research Overview

In a recent Gallup poll of nearly 7,500 full-time employees representing employees from both private and public sectors, almost two-thirds of full-time workers indicated experiencing a form of burnout (Wigert and Agrawal, 2018). Unfortunately, no such equivalent study has been located for full-time/tenure-track higher education faculty or administration. Anecdotally, however, it is no surprise that the topic is widely discussed behind closed doors.

Burnout is most often associated with the “helping” professions, especially within the medical fields (Menezes et al., 2017; Shah et al., 2018, Grace, 2018, & Fong 1990), and it presents itself with both mental and physical symptoms (Melendez & deGuzman, 1983; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). However, because burnout is not classified as a mental illness, the condition is often seen as simply a sign of weakness or apathy, and it’s easy for teachers to find themselves in a downward spiral without resources or support.

​

American psychologist Herbert Freudenberger outlined a series of symptoms in the mid-1970s that included a heightened sense of exhaustion and decreased productivity (“Depression: What is Burnout,” 2012) that depletes an employee’s confidence and work ethic (Yu, 2005; Kudva,1999). Burnout also costs employers a significant loss of financial resources, including an increased number of sick days and emergency room visits billed through insurance (Wigert & Agrawal, 2018) as well as decreased employee productivity (Sabagh, Hall, & Saroyan, 2018). In fact, “job burnout accounts for an estimated $125 billion to $190 billion in health-care spending each year and has been attributed to type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, gastrointestinal issues, high cholesterol and even death for those under the age of 45” (Kraft, 2018).

​

However, some forty years after Freudenberger’s diagnosis, burnout remains unaddressed, mainly in higher education. In many cases, it carries a stigma of weakness and/or a complacent attitude towards one’s career. And admittedly, the term itself can be used all too freely and without thought to what authentic “burnout” actually represents – or the consequences it has on institutions. “Burning out” after binge-watching a Netflix© series is different than a physically and psychologically draining condition that effects workplace performance. This is the very reason a broad study on the conditions that cause burnout and how burnout might be addressed by faculty and governing bodies is warranted.

​

As colleges and universities become increasingly identified as no longer being “comparatively low-stress working environment[s]” (Watts & Robertson, 2011, p. 34) and given that they identify more as corporate entities (Melewar & Akel, 2005; Brown & Scase, 1994), the complexities of employee job satisfaction and stress levels are bound to change. This project provides an opportunity to examine and hear from faculty members about the factors that lead to burnout.

Consequently, institutions can work towards positive practices that will encourage employees to remain enthusiastic about their daily obligations during times of unsettling change and challenge.

​

Burnout has received more attention as of late, especially in elementary and secondary systems. Any brief scan of teacher blogs indicates that the loss of public-school teachers is at a critical high. These teachers are, anecdotally, describing a variety of reasons, including emotional stress, lack of institutional support, and unrealistic expectations for work/life balance. The consequence is that public schools lose an estimated $7.3 billion in losses every year (Mulvahill, 2019) as teachers take time off or walk off the job completely. Conducting a study on burnout will help inform institutions’ decision-making practices regarding employee support.

​

There is, unfortunately, a lack of research in applying burnout in post-secondary education settings that offers similar findings at the post-secondary level. The hypothesis of this study is, that to date, higher education faculty have had high levels of autonomy; however, as colleges and universities adopt corporate models of structure and work requirements, work conditions and expectations are changing. As such, studying the factors that lead to decreased employee productivity during a time when employee motivation and engagement needs to be an all-time high is essential. This study seeks to articulate faculty concerns, in the form of aggregate data, so that no single faculty member, administration, institution, or entity is emphasized. This is a problem systemic to higher education in our country, not in any single location or college.

​

Additionally, the majority of the articles discussed in the proposal’s literature review are single-factor studies; however, it’s important to recognize that no factor lives in a vacuum. Each factor contributes something different to the larger issue; thus, conducting a broad-perspective survey analysis means to address the issue in its totality while sharing results with a wide population of stakeholders. This topic impacts not just the faculty members, themselves, who are concerned with burnout, but the students they teach, the administrators for whom they work, and the loved ones outside of the institution.

​

We all recognize that there are workplace factors that cannot be controlled and that challenging situations and experiences will always be present; however, when we are working within a national higher education crisis where schools are closing, eliminating positions, and/or reducing the number of new hires, there is an obligation to address teachers’ mental well-being in challenging times.

Although many stressful factors are beyond faculty members’ control, there is an opportunity to help them identify the warning signs of burnout prior to having work performance suffer, and likewise, educate the governing bodies of colleges and university about successful ways in which preventative programs might be discussed and/or implemented.