«Vera, María; Salanova, Marisa; Martín, Beatriz University faculty and work-related well-being: the importance of the triple work profile Electronic ...»
Second, we tested whether these different work profiles of university faculty members are related with the experience of well-being at work (i.e., burnout, work engagement and intrinsic job satisfaction). Although differences were only significant for the absorption and intrinsic satisfaction dimensions, Figure 1 shows that there were differences and that these differences (i.e., percentage differences) are in line with what we expected in Hypotheses 2 and 3, i.e., those university faculty members whose management tasks dominate their work pattern present the highest values in burnout and the lowest in engagement and intrinsic satisfaction. In contrast, university faculty members whose research tasks dominate their work pattern present the lowest scores for burnout and the highest for engagement and intrinsic satisfaction. This also agrees with what other authors such as Caramés (2003) or Currie (1996) have postulated. Moreover, it is in line with Gozalo and León (1999), who stated that university faculty members may feel more satisfied with their work when they spend more time on research tasks, partly because the role of researcher is of great importance nowadays. Conversely, Winefield et al. (2003) proposed that stress in university faculty members has increased because they have to conduct higher quality research in order to obtain more external resources for the university.
Profesorado universitario y su bienestar laboral: la importancia del triple perfil laboral Finally, we confirmed a four-dimensional structure of burnout in our sample, composed of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, cynicism, and lack of professional efficacy. We firmly believe that the differentiation between depersonalization and cynicism is necessary for university faculty members since they may experience cynicism toward their work as teachers, researchers and managers, but might also experience depersonalization toward students, coworkers or service staff. Moreover, the four dimensions mentioned above have already been confirmed by Salanova et al. (2005) in two samples made up of 483 secondary-school teachers and 474 blue-collar workers.
Regarding the theoretical and practical implications, we agree with Johnsrud (2008) when she states that university faculty members are important because of the work they do, since they transform individual lives and improve the quality of life of the entire society, and hence the importance of studying this population. And we also agree with Guerrero and Vicente (1999) when they stated that it is necessary to conduct studies about university faculty members’ work. According to these authors, it is important to study the multiple roles of this particular group and the discrepancies between excessive demands and the limited personal, material and institutional resources available.
However, this study is not without its limitations. The first one is the crosssectional nature of the study, although the first two objectives of the studies are essentially exploratory. In this study we described that there are different working patterns and that such patterns have different levels of well-being. Of course it is necessary to confirm these four work patterns at other universities, whether Spanish or international, and to analyze the well-being in each work pattern in other samples. Second, observations were based solely on self-reports, which might have inflated the relationships among the variables. Harman’s single-factor test (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003) was therefore conducted, the results showing that one single factor could not account for the variance in the data (Delta 2(3) = 81.97 p.001). So, common method bias is not a major drawback in this study. The third limitation is perhaps related to the sample size, since only a small percentage (18%) of university faculty members completed the scale. Moreover, we used a convenient sample and then included all the university faculty members so that they all had the chance to respond to the scale. This method is possibly not the most effective in terms of sample collection and we could have used another type of sampling. Furthermore, the ANOVA showed that the work María Vera et al.
pattern produces significant differences in intrinsic satisfaction and absorption, but the size of the effects that were measured (η2 =.056; η2 =.048) is low. This may be due to the relatively large sample size for the ANOVAs. Although not all the ANOVA values are significant, we can see clearly in Table 3 and Figure 1 that the optimal values for the university faculty members are in the cluster dominated by research tasks.
Regarding future research, we believe it is important to continue checking whether it makes sense to analyze the four dimensions of burnout in different samples. In addition, it is important to perform cluster analyses in other universities by analyzing the work situation in which there are other national and international faculty members.
This study shows not only the reality of the triple work profile among most of the university faculty members in our sample, but also how the distribution of this triple job profile is not equal among all the faculty members, since there are four types of work patterns depending on the task which takes up the greatest amount of time. And most importantly, these members’ absorption and intrinsic satisfaction depend on the work pattern. In addition, this study has confirmed that among university faculty it makes sense to talk about the four dimensions of burnout by differentiating between depersonalization and cynicism.
Arbuckle, J. L. (1997). Amos Users’ Guide version 4.0. Chicago, IL: Smallwaters Corporation.
Arco, J. L., Fernández, F. D., López, S., & Heilborn, V. (2004). Motivación, universidad de calidad y servicios de counseling en la universidad de Granada [Motivation, university quality and counseling services at Granada university]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 2(1), 81-96.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Profesorado universitario y su bienestar laboral: la importancia del triple perfil laboral Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1-26.
Browers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16, 239-253.
Buela-Casal, G., & Sierra, J. C. (2007). Criterios, indicadores y estándares para la acreditación de profesores titulares y catedráticos de Universidad [Criteria, indicators and standards for the accreditation of university faculty and professors].
Psicothema, 19, 537-551.
Caramés, R. (2003). Precarización y burnout del puesto de trabajo del personal docente e investigador de la universidad [Precarious and burnout in university faculty].
Revista Praxis, 2, 13-21.
Chalmers, A. (1998). Workload and stress in New Zealand universities in 1998. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Cherniss, C. (1993). The role of professional self-efficacy in etiology and ameloriation of burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, and T. Marek (Eds.), Professional
burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 135-149). London:
Taylor & Francis.
Cifre, E., Llorens, S., Salanova, M., & Martínez, I. (2003). Salud psicosocial en profesores: Repercusiones para la mejora en la gestión de los recursos humanos [Psychosocial health in teachers: Implications for the improvement of management human resources]. Estudios financieros, 247, 153-168.
Court, S. (1994) Long hours, little thanks: a survey of the use of time by full-time academic and related staff in the traditional UK universities. London: Association of University Faculty.
Currie, J. (1996). The effects of globalisation on 1990s: Overworked, stressed out and demoralised. Melbourne Studies in Education, 37, 101-128.
Fisher, S. (1994). Stress in Academic Life: The Mental Assembly Line. Buckingham:
Open University Press.
González, I. (2006). Dimensiones de evaluación de la calidad universitaria en el espacio europeo de educación superior [Dimensions for evaluating university quality in European higher education space]. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 10, 4(3), 445-468.
María Vera et al.
Gozalo, M. & León, B. (1999). La promoción de la autoeficacia en el docente universitario [The promotion of self-efficacy in university teaching]. Revista electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 2, 79-90. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from http://www.uva.es/aufop/publica/revelfop/99-v2n1.htm Green, D. E., Walkey, F. H., & Taylor, A. J. (1991). The three-factor structure of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. A multicultural, multinational, confirmatory study. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6, 453-472.
Guerrero, E., & Vicente, F. (1999). Una Revisión sobre las Funciones del Profesorado Universitario [A Review on the University Faculty’s role]. Revista electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 2, 571-578. Retrieved February 11, 2006 from http://www.uva.es/aufop/publica/revelfop/99-v2n1.htm.
Hogan, J. M., Carlson, J. G., & Dua, J. (2002). Stressors and Stress Reactions Among University Personnel. International Journal of Stress Management, 9, 289Hoyle, R. H. (1995). The structural equation modeling approach: Basic concepts and fundamental issues. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues and applications (pp. 1-15). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
Johnsrud, L. K. (2008). Faculty Work: Making Our Research Matter More. The Review of Higher Education, 31, 489-504.
Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1986). LISREL user guide version VI (4th. ed.). Mooresville, IL: Scientific Software International.
Lackritz, J. R. (2004). Exploring burnout among university faculty: incident, performance, and demographic issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 713León, B. & Gozalo, M. (1999). Algunas aportaciones de la psicología de la educación que guían la docencia universitaria [Some contributions of educational psychology to guide university teaching]. Revista Electrónica Interuniversitaria de Formación del Profesorado, 2, 63-78. Retrieved February 11, 2006, from http://www.uva.es/aufop/publica/revelfop/99-v2n1.htm.
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Profesorado universitario y su bienestar laboral: la importancia del triple perfil laboral Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C.
Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: recent developments in theory and research (pp. 19-32). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Meliá, J. L. & Peiró, J. M. (1989). La medida de la satisfacción laboral en contextos organizacionales: El Cuestionario de Satisfacción S20/23 [The measurement of job satisfaction in organizational settings: The S20/23 Job Satisfaction Questionnaire]. Psicologemas, 5, 59-74.
Moriana, J. A. & Herruzo, J. (2004). Estrés y burnout en profesores [Stress and burnout in teachers]. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 4, 597Morrison, A. A. (1996). University staff research time - what gets in the way? Different Approaches: Theory and Practice in Higher Education. HERDSA Annual International Conference, Perth, Western Australia, 8-12 July. Retrieved February 5, 2006, from http://www.herdsa.org.au/confs/1996/morrison.html.
Nunnaly, J. C. & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGrawHill.
Oshagbemi, T. (1997). Job satisfaction and dissatisfaction in higher education. Education + Training, 9, 354-359.
Oshagbemi, T. (1999). Academics and their managers: a comparative study in job satisfaction. Personnel Review, 28, 108-123.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. L., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical view of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879-903.
Salanova, M., Bresó, E., & Schaufeli, W. (2005). Hacia un modelo espiral de las creencias de eficacia en el estudio del burnout y del engagement [Towards a spiral model of efficacy beliefs in the study of burnout and engagement]. Ansiedad y Estrés, 11, 215-231.
Salanova, M., Llorens, S., García, M., Burriel, R., Bresó, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2005).
Towards a Four Dimensional Model of Burnout: A Multigroup FactorAnalytic Study including Depersonalization and Cynicism. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 901-931.
María Vera et al.
Salanova, M., Martínez, I., & Lorente, L. (2005). ¿Cómo se relacionan los obstáculos y facilitadores organizacionales con el burnout docente? Un estudio longitudinal [How is the relationship between organizational obstacles and facilitators and teacher burnout? A longitudinal study]. Revista de Psicología del Trabajo y las Organizaciones, 21, 37-54.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., González-Romá, V., & Bakker, A. B (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey. In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), The Maslach Burnout Inventory - Test manual (3rd ed., pp. 19-26). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Taris, T. W., Schreurs, P. J., & Van Iersel-Van Silfhout, I. J. (2001). Job stress, job strain, and psychological withdrawal among Dutch university staff: towards a dual-process model for the effects of occupational stress. Work & Stress, 15, 283-296.