Burnout and Job Satisfaction in Online Student Support Staff

A dissertation submitted

Lisa Marie Haas

Benedictine University

in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Higher Education and Organizational Change

Lisle, Illinois

Burnout and Job Satisfaction in Online Student Support Staff

A dissertation submitted

Lisa Marie Haas

Benedictine University

in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Education

Higher Education and Organizational Change

This dissertation has been accepted for the faculty

of Benedictine University

______Eileen Kolich, Ph.D. ______

Dissertation Committee Director & Chair Date

______Cassandra Sheffield, Ed.D. ______

Dissertation Committee Reader Date

______Seung Won Yoon, Ph.D. ______

Dissertation Committee Reader Date

______Sunil Chand, Ph.D. ______

Program Director, Faculty Date

______Ethel Ragland, Ed.D., M.N., R.N. ______

Dean, College of Education and Health Services Date

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my deepest gratitude to everyone who supported me throughout my doctoral journey. First, I want to thank Dr. Kolich for guiding and mentoring me throughout the program and through my dissertation. Her continuous support, advice, and knowledge were an invaluable resource. I would not have made it to this point without her being a great director and chair.

I also want to thank the rest of my committee for their guidance and direction throughout my study. Dr. Sheffield would always send an encouraging e-mail at the right time to help me focus on the big picture. Dr. Yoon provided me with the statistical expertise that I needed to explore my topic successfully. I cannot say thank you enough.

My sincerest thanks also go out to Dr. Chand, the Benedictine University Higher Education and Organizational Change faculty, and my classmates who assisted me on my journey. Your experience, advice, and feedback greatly influenced me. I have learned to embrace my progressive thinking instead of shy away from it. I appreciate the thought-provoking discussions and the ways you challenged me so I could strengthen my arguments. You would not let me settle for less than I was capable of achieving. You inspired me to set challenging goals and to continue my leadership journey in higher education.

Last, but not least, I want to thank my family for supporting me throughout my education. I learned my work ethic from them and know that anything worth working for requires sacrifice. My time with them was more limited during my studies. I am also very grateful for the encouragement from my mom to have my own career and to tackle any obstacles in my way. Yes, Dad, I am finished with my education—at least for the time being. While my Nana and Poppy are not around to see me finish, I know that I would make you proud.

DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to all higher education professionals who were ever burned out due to caring too much about the success of students. Thank you for your perseverance and service.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements iv

List of Tables x

List of Figures xi

Abstract xii

Chapter 1: Introduction 1

Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Online Education 1

Statement of the Problem 5

Purpose of the Study 6

Research Questions 6

Significance of Study 7

Definitions 7

Limitations 8

Delimitations 8

Chapter 2: Literature Review 9

Burnout 9

Job Satisfaction 16

Online Education 23

Student Support Staff 25

Chapter 3: Methodology 31

Research Design 31

Population and Sample 32

Instrumentation 33

Demographic Information 33

Maslach Burnout Inventory 33

Job Satisfaction Survey 35

Data Collection 37

Data Analysis 38

Research Question 1 38

Research Question 2 39

Research Question 3 39

Research Question 4 39

Chapter 4: Findings 41

Restatement of Purpose and Research Questions 41

Data Collection 42

Demographics of Respondents 43

Research Questions 45

Research Question 1 45

Research Question 2 48

Research Question 3 49

Research Question 4 51

Summary 53

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations 55

Summary 55

Conclusions 57

Research Question 1 57

Research Question 2 57

Research Question 3 58

Research Question 4 59

Implications for Practice 60

Recommendations for Future Research 61

REFERENCES 63

Appendix A Consent Form 78

Appendix B Demographic Information 79

Maslach Burnout Inventory 80

Questions from the Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Edition 80

Job Satisfaction Survey 82

vii

List of Tables

Table 1. Instructions for Scoring the Job Satisfaction Survey 36

Table 2. Norms for Higher Education in the United States 37

Table 3. Ages of Participants 43

Table 4. Length of Time Worked at the Institution 44

Table 5. Highest Level of Education Participants Completed 44

Table 6. Participants' MBI Scores 46

Table 7. Indication of Burnout per Category 46

Table 8. Participants Who Scored in a Burned Out Range 47

Table 9. Functional Work Areas in the Burned-Out Group 48

Table 10. Participants’ Job Satisfaction Scores 49

Table 11. Intercorrelations Between Burnout and Job Satisfaction 50

Table 12. Block-Entry Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Job Satisfaction From Demographic Information and Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Inefficacy 52

Table 13. Block-Entry Multiple Regression Coefficients Predicting Job Satisfaction From Demographic Information and Emotional Exhaustion, Depersonalization, and Inefficacy 53

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1. Student services web. 26

Figure 2. Relationship among technology, student affairs, and distance learners. 30

Abstract

This study measured burnout and job satisfaction in online student support staff at higher education institutions. Online education continues to grow, but the effects on staff members have not been studied. Data were collected online and the Maslach Burnout Inventory—Human Services Survey was used to measure burnout and its components exhaustion, cynicism, and self-inefficacy; the Job Satisfaction Survey was used to measure job satisfaction and nine facets of it; and a general demographics questionnaire was used to gather background information. Burnout emerged as an emotional reaction, while job satisfaction was an attitudinal response. The findings indicated that approximately 57% of the participants showed indications of burnout and, in general, had an ambivalent attitude toward job satisfaction. There was a strong relationship between burnout and job satisfaction among the participants, and the strongest correlation was among emotional exhaustion and job satisfaction. The Maslach Burnout Inventory variables emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and inefficacy, when combined with demographic variables, predicted about 60% of the variance of job satisfaction.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Online Education

Professional burnout can be devastating and can lead to negative consequences for individuals and their employers, coworkers, customers, and families. Burnout can occur in any organization and across industries, but it occurs most often in service organizations such as in the medical and educational fields (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 2010). Burnout is a major concern because most of the individuals who experience job burnout work with others in various capacities. Burnout is a three-dimensional problem involving emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment (Maslach, Jackson, et al., 2001). People who experience burnout will start detaching themselves from others and cannot give all their attention to their work, which can be detrimental for the individual and for any customers or clients whom they serve.

When burnout occurs in higher education, students are often the ones who do not receive the best advice and answers. When student support staff, such as academic and financial aid advisors, become burned out, they cannot deliver the best service, which can negatively affect their information or satisfaction levels. Psychologically and physically, the support staff detach themselves from their situation as a coping method (Maslach et al, 2001). Everyone suffers as a result.

Over the past five years, there has been more emphasis and pressure on higher education. Government and organizational leaders are placing more importance on retention, graduation, and completion rates, and President Obama made it a goal to increase the number of college graduates in the United States, with a goal of becoming the country with the most college graduates by 2020 (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). Online education is one method students choose to complete their education. According to I. E. Allen and Seaman (2011), “Online courses are those in which at least 80 percent of the course content is delivered online” (p. 7). According to a study by the Sloan Consortium, which tracks online education trends in the United States by surveying all higher education institutions, more than 6.1 million students, or about 31% of the students pursuing higher education in 2010, are taking at least one online course (I. E. Allen & Seaman, 2011). This rate of increase exceeds the growth of enrollment in higher education (I. E. Allen & Seaman, 2011). Online education had become part of the long-term strategy for 65% of the institutions that participated in the study, and the percentage has been increasing for several years (I. E. Allen & Seaman, 2011).

In online higher education, student support staff who serve students on a full-time basis are critical to student success. Some agencies such as the Commission on Colleges: Southern Association of Colleges and Schools make support staff and support services a requirement for accreditation, as the online programs need to be similar to traditional programs (Commission on Colleges of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, 2010). Support staff provide students with the ancillary information they need tobe successful in college such as planning classes, facilitating the financial aid process, finding employment, and coaching students (Floyd & Casey-Powell, 2004). When staff members are burned out, the quality of their work may be negatively affected. They detach themselves from work and the students as a coping mechanism, which can negatively affect the job satisfaction rate of employees and result in lower service and higher turnover (Maslach & Leiter, 2008). If an institution or specific program has limited staffing, one individual’s departure can put the service within the overall program at risk (K. Betts, personal communication, July 16, 2012). Dalziel and Payne (2001) noted, “Providing effective, efﬁcient online student services is an enormous challenge for higher education administrators” (p. 5). When coupled with burnout, quality service can be even harder to provide.

Christina Maslach is one of the leading researchers on professional burnout. Through several studies, she has shown that people in service professions such as education or health care (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2010) have higher tendencies to burn out. Student support staff fall into this category. The researcher has witnessed the burnout of several support staff members over the past 10 years working as both a support staff member and as an administrator. The researcher also had the opportunity to talk with advising administrators at other institutions who expressed similar experiences with their employees. The trend is alarming, and with the increase in online education, research is needed to explore the burnout and satisfaction of online student support staff.

Brewer and Clippard (2002) inquired into the school support staff at higher education institutions. They believed that burnout is higher in these staff members because of the depth and the amount of contact with students. In several institutions, customers (students) expect quick responses (Maslach, 2003). As a result, the environment increases the pressure on the employees and can cause burnout. The chronic stress and environmental factors also can increase the risk of burnout. When it increases, engagement decreases, which can also lead to lower job satisfaction (Maslach & Leiter, 2008).

Job satisfaction and engagement are important to many organizations within and outside of higher education, as an engaged and happy staff is often more productive (Vance, 2006). Researchers for organizations such as the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) and Gallup regularly conduct research on job satisfaction and engagement to look at trends (Mendes, 2011; SHRM, 2011; Vance, 2006). Organizations also hire consultants and consulting firms to survey their employees on job satisfaction. There may be a plethora of reasons behind the trend, including the desire to decrease absenteeism and turnover or to increase the well-being of their employees (Vance, 2006). No matter the reason, job satisfaction is important to higher education.

A difficult aspect of research on job satisfaction is that there is not one, concrete definition or description. Most descriptions classify job satisfaction as the way employees feel about their job (Spector, 1997). Each theory branches in different directions from the others.

Spector (1997) described job satisfaction as a collection of feelings toward a job. He measured satisfaction based on nine facets: pay, promotion, supervision, benefits, contingent rewards, operating procedures, coworkers, nature of work, and communication (Spector, 1997). Spector created the Job Satisfaction Survey (JSS) to evaluate job satisfaction in human service positions, and the instrument has since been validated and normed across different types of organizations.

One of the most widely accepted theories is Locke’s range of affect theory, which considers job satisfaction as what one values in a job compared to what one has in a job (Locke, 1976). The focus of Locke’s theory was the value of specific facets of what an individual enjoys (Locke, 1976). This theory is vastly different from Herzberg’s two-factor theory, which is also known as the motivator–hygiene theory. According to the two-factor theory, certain aspects motivate an employee to do well such as the work and responsibility, and other factors lead to dissatisfaction, including supervision and organizational policy (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1959).

Approximately 71% of employees are disengaged or not completely engaged in their work (Blacksmith & Harter, 2011). As a result, these employees leave organizations, which can be costly (Blacksmith & Harter, 2011). According to Mendes (2011), only 87.5% of employees are satisfied with their employment, which had lowered due to the downturn in the economic situation in the United States. While the job satisfaction of professors trended on the higher end of the job satisfaction scale despite the recent recession, research on support staff is limited (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2011; Jump, 2010).

Statement of the Problem

There are several studies on burnout or job satisfaction in higher education (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2011; Brewer & Clippard, 2002; Guthrie, Woods, Cusker, & Gregory, 2005; Love, Tatman, & Chapman, 2010; Perrakis, Galloway, Hayes, & Robinson-Galdo, 2011). The researchers of these studies focused on faculty, students, presidents, and other leadership positions. Other studies are qualitative, and the researchers explored the perceptions of burnout (Gross, Kmeic, Worell, & Crosby, 2001; Simpson, 2001; Zhang, DeMichele, & Connaughton, 2004). There have also been several studies on how the online environment affects faculty members (McCann & Holt, 2009; McLawhon & Cutright, 2012; Saterlee, 2010). However, no one had linked burnout and job satisfaction in online support staff at online higher education institutions. Spector (1997) linked the two variables: “where job satisfaction is an attitudinal response, burnout is more of an emotional response to the job” (p. 65). Research was needed on online student support staff, focusing on the link between burnout and job satisfaction.