Popular writers and academic researchers have added volumes of literature in the past decades to the study of occupational stress. Most data based studies have investigated the…
Abstract
Popular writers and academic researchers have added volumes of literature in the past decades to the study of occupational stress. Most data based studies have investigated the sources of stress while few have addressed how educators cope with their job pressures. Current research on coping provides a wide‐ranging assemblage of fragmented coping techniques or categories of coping that have been theorized but not tested. This study is advanced as a means of overcoming some of the previous shortcomings by: (1) identifying specific coping techniques helpful to educators in handling the tensions of their jobs; (2) clustering the reported techniques into interpretable coping categories; (3) assessing the number and frequencies of coping techniques used by educators; and (4) identifying similarities and differences in coping responses. The results of this study suggest a possible coping taxonomy from which educators could seek stress reduction through a balance of seven coping categories.
Stress intrigues and plagues the practitioner and researcher alike. Internationally over 100,000 books, journals and articles have dedicated their attention to the phenomenon of…
Abstract
Stress intrigues and plagues the practitioner and researcher alike. Internationally over 100,000 books, journals and articles have dedicated their attention to the phenomenon of stress. Only within the past two decades have we seen the exponential proliferation of articles written about the stresses and strains of school administration (over 1300 articles since 1966). While early writings tended to be anecdotal in nature with little substantive connection to empirical evidence, the past ten years have seen refined interest from researchers.
Walter H. Gmelch and Gordon Gates
The purpose of the study was threefold: to identify the most salient personal, professional, and organizational characteristics contributing to administrator burnout; to determine…
Abstract
The purpose of the study was threefold: to identify the most salient personal, professional, and organizational characteristics contributing to administrator burnout; to determine those correlational relationships that are most salient; and to assess the role of social support’s impact on job satisfaction, burnout, and performance. A total of 1,000 principals and superintendents from Washington State were administered the Administrator Work Inventory. The authors identify different strategies to be taken to mitigate the various dimensions of burnout.
WATER H. GMELCH and BOYD SWENT
This research was exploratory in nature, conducted in the context of a field study. A questionnaire was developed through a series of iterations, one important component of which…
Abstract
This research was exploratory in nature, conducted in the context of a field study. A questionnaire was developed through a series of iterations, one important component of which was the use of stress logs by a sample of administrators. The resultant instrument was completed by 1156 respondents from the Confederation of Oregon School Administrators (elementary and secondary principals, superintendents, assistant superintendents and central office staff). Twelve stressors are identified and discussed. Although there are differences in responses, all members of the management team are shown to share many common stressors, e.g. complying with rules, attending meetings, completing reports on time.
Walter H. Gmelch and John S. Burns
Seeks to answer the following research questions: What job dimensionsare perceived as stressful by department chairs? To what degree dochairs exhibit stress from their dual…
Abstract
Seeks to answer the following research questions: What job dimensions are perceived as stressful by department chairs? To what degree do chairs exhibit stress from their dual faculty and administrator roles? What influence does academic discipline have on chair stress? and What influence do personal attributes have on chair stress? Over 800 department chairs, stratified by discipline, were selected from research and doctorate granting institutions and completed the Department Chair Stress Index along with demographic questions. A response rate of 70.2 per cent was achieved. The results of the study indicate that, overall, stress among department chairs appears to be monolithic in its effect. Also chairs expressed high stress both in faculty and in administrative areas of concern.
Details
Keywords
Department chairs represent one of the most intriguing, complex, and important leadership roles in higher education. Despite the important role chairs play, there is limited…
Abstract
Department chairs represent one of the most intriguing, complex, and important leadership roles in higher education. Despite the important role chairs play, there is limited research about ongoing dynamics and how they manage the complexities that come along with the position. The tension between the academic and administrative cores creates inherent stress in the position. What stresses department chairs? Has it changed over time? The theoretical construct used to investigate these questions is based on the four-stage chair stress cycle (identification, perception, response, and consequences), and in particular the first two stages of identification and perception. The data for this study are derived from two data sets collected in 1991 and 2016 surveying 800 and 982 department chairs respectively. Each survey assessed personal profiles, professional and organizational variables, and two validated stress and role instruments. Findings collected 25 years apart suggested some shifts in chair gender, motivation to serve, professional identity, preparation, tenure status, and ethnicity. When comparing top stressors from 1991 to 2016, more stress emanated from chairs trying to balance scholarship and leadership as well as work-life balance. Top department chair stressors underscored the difficulty to find some balance between professional and personal roles. Many of these imbalances appeared to be more structural and inherent in the position while others fall within the chairs' control to be personally managed. Female chairs experienced higher stress than men from having insufficient time to stay current in their academic fields and balancing administrative and scholarly demands. The researchers expected to find significant differences according to marital status, ethnicity, and age, but no significant trends emerged. Ultimately, higher education institutions will continue to have a leadership crisis if the conditions for chairing departments remain unmanageable.
Details
Keywords
Alfred Huan Zhi Chan, Mohd Dahlan Malek and Ferlis Bahari
The purpose of this paper is to identify higher authority organizational stressors encountered by higher education deans.
Abstract
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to identify higher authority organizational stressors encountered by higher education deans.
Design/methodology/approach
This current research employed a qualitative approach utilizing a contextual paradigm with a multiple case study methodology.
Findings
Out of ten investigated deans in a public higher education institution in Malaysia, nine reported experiences of organizational stressor elements arising from higher authority. Three non-overlapping subthemes were systematically discovered.
Practical implications
Successful identification of these higher authority organizational stressors has implications for higher education management policies. Policies that reduce or eliminate these stressors may create a positive and progressive environment for deans and the higher education field.
Originality/value
This study will thus serve to promote a deeper understanding of higher authority organizational stressors encountered by higher education deans.
Details
Keywords
Anthony H. Normore and Jeffrey S. Brooks
Leadership and management are concepts regularly used in organizational change and reform literature. This is particularly evident in educational settings and oftentimes…
Abstract
Leadership and management are concepts regularly used in organizational change and reform literature. This is particularly evident in educational settings and oftentimes understood as interchangeable. The school administrator is considered a leadership position, as is department chair in an institution of higher education. Yet, most are engaged daily in management tasks with little to no time spent on leadership (Bush, 2008). In higher education, the complex role of department chair necessitates a multi-task oriented individual (Hecht, Higgerson, Gmelch, & Tucker, 1999) who can both serve and coordinate multiple constituencies and ultimately balance the role of chair with the continuing roles of teacher and scholar. Although they are pulled in many directions there may be no more important leadership position in the institution for those interested in affecting the future of young people as well as their colleagues. In this chapter we discuss the commonalities and differences between leadership and management across the PreK-16 continuum; present the general roles and responsibilities of school-based administrators and university-level department chairs, and; compare leadership readiness and transition processes of school-based and university-level department chairs. Implications for theory and practice are presented.