INTELLECTUAL AND EMOTIONAL BURNOUT DEGREE ASSESSMENT AT HIGHER SCHOOL

The article studies conceptual approaches to constructing modern systems of higher educational institutions effective management. Constructing such systems is caused by the trend in reforming public sector which higher education institute belongs to. Exceeding workload caused by higher school modernization has invoked a significant psychological and emotional stress of employees at different levels, which has led to certain deformations in their professional activities. Materials and methods. The analysis of modern trends in management development shows that, according to the theory of organizational justice, successful constructing and implementing effective management systems in higher education is determined by the social and psychological state of employees, by their level of professionalism, which excludes intellectual and emotional burnout of the teaching staff. The study hypothesizes that the state of universities’ organizational culture determines the corresponding level of professional (intellectual and emotional) burnout of the teaching staff, as far as the systemic phenomenon of organizational culture is a synergetic combination of employee relationships within the organization in the process of their joint activities and of their adaptive capacity to external influences. There is proposed a diagnostic scale of the individual characteristics of organizational justice. To assess the level of deviations associated with professional (intellectual and emotional) burnout of members of the university community, the article suggests using the difference of general cultural vectors related to the existing present and to the desired states of organizational culture. Diagnostics of organizational culture was made on K. Cameron and R. Quinn’s OСAI procedure. The empirical materials have been obtained within the framework of the investigation conducted in 2016–2018 among 386 respondents from 18 universities representing 12 regions of the Russian Federation. To compare and contrast these materials, the data of the similar research conducted in 2003 have been used. The results of the investigation. The activity of the considered expert and age groups is shown to be under significant influence of hierarchical (bureaucratic) organizational culture (at present state). At the same time, general cultural vectors of a desirable state of the considered groups’ organizational culture come to be within the field of clan (family) organizational culture. This result qualitatively causes objective conditions of university assemblage members’ professional (intellectual and emotional) burnout. The quantitative assessment of professional burnout level as the general cultural vectors difference, which concerns the existing present and desirable states of organizational university culture, shows, firstly, the growing dynamics of university workers’ professional burnout level of (throughout 2003–2018); secondly, the influence of the considered groups’ age over professional (intellectual and emotional) burnout degree. There are also outlined conditions preventing the construction of just, effective management systems in Russian higher education. Discussion and conclusion. The study originally considers the unintended impact of management systems, which are the objective reasons for university workers’ intellectual and emotional burnout. Neglecting the factor of intellectual and emotional teaching staff’s burnout is fraught with the loss of their professional identity, which, on its turn, will lead to a decrease in efficiency, degradation of higher education. The research materials can be practically useful for heads of universities as scientific and methodological recommendations for constructing and implementing fair systems of effective management, as well as enterprises and organizations of various profiles.

1. Stedmen-Dzhounz D. Rozhdenie neoliberalnoy politiki. Ot Hayeka i Friedmana do Reigana i Tetcher – Socium. M.: Mysl’. 2017. 528s.

2. Pollitt C., van Thiel, S. and Homburg V. New Public Management in Europe: Adaptations and Alternatives. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan, 2007.

3. Broucker B. and De Wit K. New Public Management in Higher Education. / In Palgrave Handbook of Higher Education Policy and Governance, edited by J. Huisman, H. de Boer, D. Dill, and M. Souto-Otero, P. 57–75. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

4. Decramer A., Smolders C., Vanderstraeten A. and Christiaens J. The Impact of Institutional Pressures on Employee Performance Management Systems in Higher Education in the Low Countries. British Journal of Management. 2012. V. 23 (S1). P. 88–103.

5. Tomilin O. B., Fadeeva I. M., Tomilin O. O. Dinamica izmenenij organizacionnoy cultury rossijskichk universitetov // Universitetskoye upravlenije: practica i analiz. 2017. № 2. P. 92–105

6. Klyuev A. K., Tomilin O. B., Fadeeva I. M., Tomilin O. O. Upravlenie universitetom: itogi transformatscii// Universitetskoye upravlenie: practica i analiz. 2018. № 1. P. 93–104.

7. Tomilin O. B., Fadeeva I. M., Tomilin O. O., Klyuev A. K. Organizatscionnaya cultura rossiyckiychk universitetov: ozhidania i realii. Vysheye obrazovanie v Rossii. 2018. № 1. P. 96–107.

8. Jones D. R., Patton D. An academic challenge to the entrepreneurial university: the spatial power of the «Slow Swimming Club». https://doi.org/10.1080/3079079.2018.1534093.

9. McCormac, J., Propper C., and Smith S. Herding Cats? Management and University Performance. The Economic Journal. 2014. V.124 (578). P. 534–564.

10. Kallio K., and Kallio T. Management-By-Results and Performance Measurement in Universities – Implications for Work Motivation. Studies in Higher Education. 2014. V.39 (4). P. 574–589.

11. Ringelhan S., Wollersheim J. and Welpe I. Performance Management and Incentive Systems in Research Organizations: Effects, Limits and Opportunities.» In Incentives and Performance – Governance of Research Organizations, edited by I. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, and M. Osterloh, Heidelberg: Springer, 2015. P. 87–103.

12. Van Waeyenberg T., Decramer A., Desmidt S., and Audenaert M. The Relationship Between Employee Performance Management and Civil Servants’ Turnover Intentions: A Test of the Mediating Roles of System Satisfaction and Affective Commitment. Public Management Review. 2017. V.19 (6). P. 747–764.

13. Ordóñez L. D., Schweitzer M. E., Galinsky A. D., and Bazerman M. H. Goals Gone Wild: The Systematic Side Effects of Overprescribing Goal Setting. The Academy of Management Perspectives. 2009. V.23 (1). P. 6–16.

14. Vodopjanova N. E., Starchenkova E. S. Sindrom vygorania: diagnostika i profilactica. St. Petesburg: Piter, 2008. 336 p.

15. Barkhuizen N., Rothmann S. and van de Vijver. F. J. R. Burnout and Work Engagement of Academics in Higher Education Institutions: Effects of Dispositional Optimism. Stress and Health. 2014. V. 30 (4). P. 322–332.

16. Demerouti E., Bakker A., Vardakou I. and Kantas A. The Convergent Validity of Two Burnout Instruments: A Multitrait-Multimethod Analysis. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 2003. V. 19 (1). P. 12–23.

17. Watts J., and Robertson N. Burnout in University Teaching Staff: A Systematic Literature Review. Educational Research. 2011. V.53 (1). P. 33–50.

18. Halbesleben J. R. B. and Buckley M. R. Burnout in Organizational Life. Journal of Management. 2004. V.30 (6). P. 859–879.

19. Zhang K. L., Song J., Hackett R. D., and Bycio P. Cultural Boundary of Expectancy Theory-Based Performance Management: A Commentary on DeNisi and Pritchard’s Performance Improvement Model. Management and Organization Review. 2006. V.2 (2). P. 279–294.

20. Bowen D. and Ostroff C. Understanding HRM–Firm Performance Linkages: The Role of the ‘Strength’ of the HRM System. Academy of Management Review. 2004. V.29 (2). P. 203–221.

21. Greenberg J. A Taxonomy of Organizational Justice Theories. Academy of Management Review. 1987. V.12 (1). P. 9–22.

22. Brown M. and Benson J. Rated to Exhaustion? Reactions to Performance Appraisal Processes. Industrial Relations Journal. 2003. V.34 (1). P. 67–81.

23. Katou A. Justice, Trust and Employee Reactions: An Empirical Examination of the HRM System. Management Research Review. 2013. V.36 (7). P. 674–699.

24. Colquitt J. A., Conlon D. E., Wesson M. J., Porter C. O. L. H. and Ng K. Y. Justice at the Millennium: A MetaAnalytic Review of 25 Years of Organizational Justice Research. Journal of Applied Psychology. 2001. V.86 (3). P. 425–445.

25. Heffernan M. and Dundon T. Cross-Level Effects of High-Performance Work Systems (HPWS) and Employee WellBeing: The Mediating Effect of Organisational Justice. Human Resource Management Journal. 2016. V.26 (2). P. 211–231.

26. Sousa C., De Nijs W. and Hendriks P. Secrets of the Beehive: Performance Management in University Research Organizations. Human Relations. 2010. V.63 (9). P. 1439–1460.

27. Kroon B., Van de Voorde K., and Van Veldhoven, M. Cross-Level Effects of High Performance Work Practices on Burnout: Two Counteracting Mediating Mechanisms Compared. Personnel Review. 2009. V.38 (5). P. 509–525

28. Noblet A. J. and Rodwell, J. J. Integrating Job Stress and Social Exchange Theories to Predict Employee Strain in Reformed Public Sector Contexts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 2008. V.19 (3). P. 555–578.

29. Moliner C., Martínez-Tur V., Ramos J., Peiró J. M. and Cropanzano R. Organizational Justice and Extrarole Customer Service: The Mediating Role of Well-Being at Work. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. 2008. V.17 (3). P. 327–348.

30. Moorman R. Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors: Do Fairness Perceptions Influence Employee Citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology. 1991. V.76 (6). P. 845–855.

31. Erkutlu, H. The Moderating Role of Organizational Culture in the Relationship Between Organizational Justice and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. 2011. V.32 (6). P. 532–554.

32. Moorman, R. H., and Blakely, G. L. IndividualismCollectivism as an Individual Difference Predictor of Organizational Citizenship Behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 1995. V.16 (2). P. 127–142.

33. Shein E. X. Organizatscionnaya cultura i liderstvo/ Translated from English. Ed. by Spivak. St. Petesburg: Piter. 2002. 336 s.

34. Tomilin O. B., Barnashova M. I., Tomilin O. O. Organ izatscionnaya cultura kak novy upravlenchesky resurs strategicheskogo menedzhmenta // Universitetscoye uprevlenie: practicai i analiz. 2014. № 3. S. 19–38.

35. Cameron K., Kuin R. Diagnostica i izmenenie organizatscionnoy cultury /Translated from English by Andreeva/ St. Petersburg. 2001. 320 s.

36. Makarkin N. P., Tomilin O. B., Britov A. V. Rol’ organizatscionnoy cultury v effectivnom menedzhemente vysshy uchebnychk zavedeny // Universitetskoye upravlenie: practica i analiz. 2004. № 5–6. S. 152–162.

37. Tomilin O. B., K luyev A. K. Dr ugova E. A., Fadeeva I. M., Tomilin O. O. Organizatscionnye conflikty i transformatscii universitetov: destruam et aedificato // Integratsciyz obrazovania, 2019 (being published).

38. «Dvenadtscat’ resheny dlya novogo obrazovania». Ekspertniy doklad Centra strategicheskychk razrabotok Vyshey shkoly economiki /Rucovodoteli rabot: Ya. Kuzminov i I. Fruman pri uchastii L. Ovcharovoy. Moskva, aprel’ 2019 Doklad_obrazovanie_Web.pdf.

39. Teelken C. Compliance or Pragmatism: How Do Academics Deal with Managerialism in Higher Education? A Comparative Study in Three Countries. Studies in Higher Education. 2012. V.37 (3). P. 271–290.

40. Aguinis H. Performance Management. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2013.

41. Galazhinsky E. V. Kak budet menyat’sya upravlenie universitetami// Universitetskoye upravlenie: practica i analiz. 2018. № 2. P. 3–6.