Influence of Personality and Self-Esteem on Teachers’ Proness to Burnout Syndrome in Lagos Metropolis

Arogundade Odunayo Tunde*, Onabanjo Oladipo C

Department of Behavioural Studies, Redeemer's University, Mowe, Ogun State, Nigeria

Abstract: This study aimed at assessing the influence of personality and self-esteem on teachers’ susceptibility to burnout syndrome in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria. A descriptive survey design was adopted for the study and a simple random sampling technique was used to select 200 participants (M=94; F=106) from ten public and ten private secondary schools in Lagos metropolis. Data collected using three psychological instruments namely: Index of self- esteem (ISE), Big Five Inventory (BFI) and Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) were analyzed by independent t-test and simple regression analysis. It was revealed that there were significant differences between the levels of self-esteem and personality differences in the teachers’ proness to burnout syndrome. Furthermore, personality traits jointly accounted for 2.7% variance in teachers’ burnout syndrome. The implication of the findings of this study depicts that there are certain traits that make up efficient and effective teachers as well as burnout teachers. In addition, highly motivated teachers tend to love their profession and students and are less likely susceptible to burnout syndrome.

Keywords: personality, self-esteem, burnout syndrome, teachers

Received January 21, 2013; Revised March 22, 2013; Accepted March 25, 2013

Citation: Arogundade Odunayo Tunde, Onabanjo Oladipo C, Influence of Personality and Self-Esteem on Teachers’ Proness to Burnout Syndrome in Lagos Metropolis. American Journal of Applied Psychology, 1 (1). 7-13. January 2013. doi:10.12691/ajap-1-1-2

1. Introduction

Teaching is one of the most demanding profession, thus there is likelihood of stress and burnout among teachers. Thus, the teaching profession is increasingly being perceived as a highly stressful one. In particular, research on teacher burnout has become more prominent than research on any other human service occupation [1]. A pertinent question, then is, why are so many teachers experiencing burnout? Researchers indicate that teachers continually face increasing workloads, larger class sizes, unmotivated and undisciplined students, minimal parental and or administrative support, and decreasing resources among other factors [2,3,4].

Oboegbulem & Ogbonnaya [5] explained that teacher burnout is a major problem in the field of education, often resulting in a high turnover rate for new teachers. Teacher burnout has a debilitating effect on the process of education, the teachers’ personal health, and the delivery of services to students. According to Freudenberger [6] professional burnout is an “energy exhaustion among professionals in the sphere of social help, it is when people feel that they are overloaded with problems of other people”.

Maslach [7] defined burnout syndrome to include physical and emotional exhaustion, development of negative self-esteem and attitude to work as well as loss of understanding and sympathy for clients. Maslach &Leiter [8] described burnout as a sustained response to chronic work stress which is made up of three aspects namely:

a) Emotional exhaustion: this involves feelings of being emotionally overextended and exhausted by one’s work, resulting in a loss of energy and general weakness.

b) Depersonalization: this refers to the development of impersonal and unfeeling attitudes toward patients and loss of idealism at work.

c) Reduced personal accomplishment: this refers to a feeling of lack of competence in oneself and work. People experiencing this aspect of burnout are not happy with their jobs or themselves.

A burnout syndrome causes physical and mental disorders. Workers having this problem reveal psychopathological, psychosomatic, somatic symptoms and symptoms of social dysfunction. They have chronic tiredness, cognitive dysfunction (dysfunction of memory and attention), sleep disorders due to difficulties to sleep and early awakening, personality disorders. These people can develop depression, psychoactive substance dependence as well as commit a suicide [9].

The general somatic symptoms are headache, gastrointestinal disorders (diarrhoea, aching stomach syndrome), cardiovascular disorders (tachycardia, arrhythmia, hypertension). As a result of a burnout syndrome people lose satisfaction in life quality, lose the sense of their professional activity and ability to feel sympathy for other people, they also lose sensitivity to personal emotions.

1.1. Types of Burnout

Farbar & Miller [10]classified teacher burnout into three categories namely: Type I Burnout teacher, Type II Burnout teacher and Type III Burnout teacher.

The Type I burnout teachers are the worn out teachers. The group encompasses those teachers who regularly pass out mimeographed worksheets and react to stress not by working harder but rather by working less hard and attempting to balance the discrepancy between input and output by reducing their input. Teachers in this category no longer believe their actions can affect the intended goal but that regardless of how hard they work the classroom will be disappointing.

Type II Burnout Teachers are excessively driven and overcommitted and therefore cling to a high sense of self-esteem thereby attempting desperately to succeed against all odds, risking their personal health and neglecting their personal lives to maximize the probability of professional success. To them, the job is an extension of themselves, their egos and must be successfully performed; hence the acknowledgment of failure is nearly impossible in as much as it reflects on their personal worth as human beings.

Farbar & Miller [10] made a fine distinction between the type I and type II burnout teachers. In his view, the distinction lies essentially in their reaction to frustration and disappointment. The type I burnout teacher is willing to concede to, at least, partial defeat and withdraws his or her personal investment in work, the type II burned out teachers cannot admit defeat or to be content with reasonable success and reacts by working harder and investing increasingly more of him or herself until no more is possible and exhaustion sets in.

Type III Burnout Teacher is composed of the under challenged teachers. Farbar et al [10] noted, this group of disenchanted teachers appear to be neither over nor under used by employers but rather feel dissatisfied by the sameness and lack of stimulation presented by their tasks. The under challenged teacher is disinterested rather than fed up, bored rather than intolerably stressed. Often the under challenged teachers complain that their skills go unnoticed and their talents are not being utilized sufficiently in their schools.

Researches indicate that variables like self-efficacy, self-esteem, locus of control, emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, positive affectivity, negative affectivity, optimism, proactive personality impact highly on burnout [4,11]. Thus, personality and self-esteem are psychological variables that have potentials of influencing actions and reactions of teachers towards burnout syndrome.

1.2. Personality

According to Arogundade & Alausa [12] the concept of personality is multidimensional and as a result, theorists and researchers differ in their definitions. They defined personality as the characteristic patterns of behaviour and modes of thinking that determine a person’s adjustment to the environment. Allport [13] defined personality as the dynamic organization within the individuals of those psychological systems that determine his characteristics behaviour and thought. Thus personality is an organized, permanent and subjectively perceived entity, which makes one unique and different from others.

In other words, an individual's personality is an aggregate conglomeration of the decisions one has made throughout his or her life and the memory of the experiences to which these decisions led. There are inherent natural, genetic, and environmental factors that contribute to the development of our personality.

The undernoted are the five major personality traits:

a) Extraversion is characterized by positive emotions, dominance, and the tendency to seek out stimulation and the company of others. The trait is marked by pronounced engagement with the external world.

b) Agreeableness: Agreeableness is a tendency to be compassionate and cooperative rather than suspicious and antagonistic towards others. Individuals are trustworthy and humble.

c) Conscientiousness: Conscientiousness is a tendency to show self-discipline, act dutifully, and aim for achievement against measures or outside expectations. It influences the way in which we control, regulate, and direct our impulses.

d) Neuroticism: Neuroticism is the tendency to experience negative emotions, such as anger, anxiety, or depression. It is sometimes called emotional instability.

e) Openness: Openness is a general appreciation for art, emotion, adventure, unusual ideas, imagination, curiosity, and variety of experience. People who are open to experience are intellectually curious, appreciative of art, and sensitive to beauty.

1.3. Self Esteem

This refers to the way an individual feels about his or her self: including the degree to which he or she possesses self-respect and self-acceptance. It is an individual’s sense of personal worth and competence that a person associates with the self-concept. Branden [14] explained that self-esteem is the sum of self-confidence (a feeling of personal capacity) and self-respect (a feeling of personal worth). He described self-esteem as a favourable or unfavourable attitude towards the self. Self-esteem begins to develop early in life and has been studied in children as young as seven years of age. As children learn to describe aspect of themselves, such as their physical attributes, abilities and preferences, they also begin to evaluate them. An individual’s self-esteem is a generalized evaluation of the self. Self-esteem can strongly influence thoughts, moods and behaviours.

Maslach et al. [8] identified two groups of factors which dominate the person before burnout. The first group is called situational predictors consist of six antecedents namely: (i) workload, (ii) control, (iii) award, (iv) social interactions, (v) fairness and (vi) values. The second group or individual antecedents include such factors as age, gender, marital status and experience. Further causes of burnout syndrome include: Lack of adequate teaching resources, adequate time to deal effectively with students, as well as issues such as salary, lack of feedback for teaching performance, unclear methods of evaluation, lack of insufficient peer support and dealing with colleagues, students’ misbehaviour and home life quality have also been mentioned as sources of burnout [4,16,17].

Gender and sex roles have been identified as predictor variables of burnout syndrome in a number of empirical studies [8,18]. These researchers suggest that females were more likely to experience burnout in the form of Emotional Exhaustion, whereas burnout in males tends to be manifested in the form of Depersonalization. Maslach et al. [8] explained that this sex difference might be due to females being prescribed as having nurturing and caring roles. Thus, it is more likely that women would respond to others in a sensitive and caring way and, so in comparison to their male colleagues, they would score lower on Depersonalization. Females have also been found to be more susceptible to burnout in general and also tended to experience higher levels of burnout than their male counterparts. Allen, Herst, Bruck, & Sutton [19] have attributed this finding to increased levels of work life conflict in women.

Following from the above review, the under listed hypothesis were derived:

1) Teachers classified as having low self esteem will be more susceptible to burnout syndrome compared to teachers with high self-esteem.

2) Introverted teachers will be more prone to burnout syndrome when compared to extraverted teachers.

3) Teachers with disagreeable personality traits will report a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to teachers with agreeable personality traits.

4) Unconscientious teachers will be more susceptible to burnout syndrome when compared to Conscientious teachers.

5) Neurotic teachers will report a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to emotionally stable teachers.

6) Teachers who are open to experience are more prone to burnout syndrome when compared to teachers who are closed to experience.

7) Younger teachers will report a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to their older counterparts.

8) Female teachers will report higher levels of burnout syndrome compared to male teachers.

9) Teachers in public school will report higher levels of burnout syndrome than teachers in private school.

10) Personality factors will jointly significantly predict manifestation of teachers’ burnout syndrome.

2. Methodology

This research adopted a cross-sectional survey design. The independent variables were psychosocial factors such as personality, self-esteem, age, gender, school type of teachers while dependent variable measured was burnout syndrome.

2.1. Population and Sample

The population involved in this study is secondary school teachers in both public and private schools in Lagos state, Nigeria. A simple random sampling method was used to draw two hundred samples which constituted male and female teachers from public and private schools in Lagos state. The teachers were drawn from 10 public (state) secondary schools and 10 private secondary schools.

2.2. Research Instruments

A battery of psychological tests was used, namely: Big Five personality Inventory, Index of Self-esteem, and Maslach Burnout Inventory.

The data collected were analyzed with the independent t-test and multiple regression analysis techniques. While the Independent t-test was used to find the difference between mean scores; multiple regression used to predict the influence of the independent variables on the dependent variable.

3. Results

Table 1. Independent t-test of Teachers’ burnout syndrome based on Self Esteem

Table 1 shows that there is a significant difference between teachers with high self esteem and teachers with low self esteem. (t cal = 9.096, df =198, P<0.05). From the results, it was observed that teachers with low self esteem (Mean=75.65) are more susceptible to burnout syndrome compared to teachers with high self esteem (Mean=60.94). Conclusively, hypotheses one which states that teachers’ with low self esteem are more susceptible to burnout syndrome compared to teachers with high self-esteem is accepted.

Table 2. Independent t-test of Teachers’ burnout syndrome based on Extraversion

Table 2 shows that there is a significant difference between extraverted and introverted teachers(t cal = 2.0, df =198, P<0.05). From the result, it was observed that extraverted teachers are more prone to burnout syndrome compared to introverted teachers with their mean score burnout level being 70.88 and 67.06 for introverted teachers.

Table 3. Independent t-test of Teachers’ burnout syndrome based on Agreeableness

Table 3 shows the t-test analysis of agreeable and disagreeable teachers based on their scores on burnout syndrome and the results indicated that there is a significant difference between agreeable and disagreeable teachers(t cal = 2.24, df =198, P<0.05). The result from the table indicates that teachers with disagreeable personality traits scored higher on burnout syndrome) than teachers with agreeable personality traits. Hence, hypothesis three which states that teachers with disagreeable personality traits will report a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to teachers with agreeable personality traits is hereby accepted.

Table 4. Independent t-test of Teachers’ burnout syndrome based on Conscientiousness

Table 4 shows the t-test analysis of conscientious and unconscientious teachers based on their scores on burnout syndrome and the results indicated that there is a significant difference between conscientious and unconscientious teachers (t cal = 7.05, df =198, P<0.05). From the result it was observed that unconscientious teachers are more prone to burnout syndrome compared to conscientious teachers with their mean score burnout level being 69.83 and 68.48 for conscientious teachers.

Table 5. Independent t-test of Teachers’ burnout syndrome based on Neuroticism

Table 5 shows the t-test analysis of Neurotic and Emotionally stable teachers based on their scores on burnout syndrome and the results indicated that there is no significant difference between neuroticism and emotionally stable teachers (t cal = 0.30, df =198, P>0.05). However, emotionally stable teachers scored higher on burnout (Mean=69.13) compared to neurotic teachers (Mean=69.07), but the difference is not significant as shown (t cal = 0.30, df =198, P>0.05).

Table 6. Independent t-test of Teachers’ burnout syndrome based on Openness to experience

Table 6 shows the t-test analysis of Openness to experience and Closed traits teachers based on their scores on burnout syndrome and the results indicated that there is no significant difference between teachers with openness to experience and closed traits teachers (t cal = 0.22, df =198, P>0.05). However, teachers with openness to experience scored higher on burnout (Mean=69.28), compared to teachers with closed traits (Mean=68.85), but the difference is not significant as shown (t cal = 0.22, df =198, P>0.05).

Table 7. Independent t-test comparing the burnout level of age of teachers

Table 7 shows the t-test analysis of young and old teachers based on their scores on burnout syndrome, and the results indicated that there is no significant difference between young and old teachers respectively. (t cal = 0.793, df =198, P>0.05). However, older teachers scored higher on burnout (Mean=69.77), compared to younger teachers (Mean=68.24), but the difference is not significant as shown (t cal = 0.793, df =198, P>0.05).

Conclusively, hypothesis seven which states that young teachers will report a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to their older counterparts is hereby rejected.

Table 8. Independent t-test showing gender difference in the level of burnout syndrome

Table 8 shows the t-test analysis of male and female teachers based on their scores on burnout syndrome, and the results indicated that there is no significant difference between male and female teachers respectively. (t cal = 1.635, df =198, P>0.05). However, male teachers scored higher on burnout (Mean=70.76), compared to female teachers (Mean=67.64), but the difference is not significant as shown (t cal = 1.635, df =198, P>0.05). Thus, the hypothesis which states that female teachers will report a higher level of burnout syndrome compared to male teachers is hereby rejected.

Table 9. Independent t-test showing Teachers’ burnout syndrome based on school type

Table 9 above shows the t-test analysis of teachers based on their scores on burnout syndrome and type of school. The results indicated that there is a significant difference between teachers in private school and teachers in public school respectively. (t cal = 3.461, df =198, P<0.05). From the results, it was observed that teachers in public schools (Mean=72.32) reported higher level of burnout syndrome compared to teachers in private schools (Mean=65.89). Thus, hypothesis nine which states that teachers in public school will report higher levels of burnout syndrome than teachers in private school is hereby accepted.

Table 10. Regression Analysis showing the effects of personality on Teachers’ burnout syndrome

Table 10 shows that personality factors (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience) do not significantly predict teachers’ burnout syndrome (F = 1.07; P > 0.05). The hypothesis is therefore rejected. It can also be noted from the table that personality factors predicted 2.7% of the explained variance in teachers’ burnout syndrome. This implies that 97.3% of variance in teachers’ burnout syndrome lies in other factors not mentioned above.

4. Discussion of Findings

This study deals with the influence of personality and self esteem on teachers’ burnout syndrome. Ten hypotheses were tested in the study and the findings were discussed below.

The first hypothesis was that teachers classified as having low self esteem will be more susceptible to burnout syndrome compared to teachers with high self esteem was confirmed. In Table 1, it was observed that teachers’ classified as having low self esteem had a higher mean score on burnout compared to teachers with high self esteem. This implies that the lower the self esteem of teachers, the higher the susceptibility to burnout syndrome.

This finding corroborates with the findings of Abraham [20] who observed, individuals with low self-esteem experience greater job dissatisfaction and propensity to turn-over than those with high self esteem. In addition, Alavi & Askaripur [21]) observed that personnel with high self esteem have more job satisfaction in their jobs than personnel with low self esteem. Kyriacou [22] maintains that low self-esteem either causes or contributes to neurosis, anxiety, and defensiveness.

Hypothesis two which stated that introverted teachers will be more prone to burnout syndrome when compared to extraverted teachers was rejected. In Table 2, it was observed that extraverted teachers had a higher mean score on burnout compared to introverted teachers. This implies that teachers’ who are quiet, lack exuberance, lack energy and activity, and disengaged from the social world are less prone to burnout compared to teachers who are actively engaged to the social world, enjoy being with people and full of energy.

This finding was not supported by the findings of Eastburg & Zellars [23] who have consistently found a positive association between extraversion and personal accomplishment in the burnout literature. Furthermore, Zellars, Perrewe, & Hochwarter [24]) found that extraversion is negatively associated with emotional exhaustion. In contrast Bakker, Van der Zee, Lewig, & Dollard [18] found that extraversion appeared to be the most consistent predictor of burnout.

Hypothesis three which stated that teachers with disagreeable personality traits will report a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to teachers with agreeable personality traits was confirmed. In Table 3, it was observed that disagreeable teachers had a higher mean score on burnout than agreeable teachers. This implies that teachers who are considerate, friendly, generous, helpful and willing to compromise interest with others are less susceptible to burnout compared to teachers who are selfish, unfriendly, suspicious and uncooperative. This finding is corroborated with the findings of Piedmont [11] which showed that agreeableness correlates negatively with emotional exhaustion and positively with personal accomplishment. Piedmont also showed that, in completing a 7-month follow-up questionnaire, teachers who scored high on agreeableness were less likely to report feelings of emotional exhaustion and negative attitudes toward their students. In addition, Zellars et al [24] reported similar results and found an admittedly weak negative relationship between agreeableness and depersonalization and no relationship between agreeableness and the two other burnout variables.

Hypothesis four which stated that unconscientious teachers will be more susceptible to burnout syndrome when compared to Conscientious teachers was confirmed. In Table 4, it was observed that unconscientious teachers had a higher mean score on burnout compared to conscientious teachers. This finding indicates that teachers who avoid troubles, regulate and control their impulses, and achieve high levels of success through purposeful planning and persistence are less likely to experience burnout compared to their colleagues who are negligent, careless, lazy and lack ambition. Maslach et al [8] noted that neurotic and conscientious individuals have higher job burnout. According to Gholipour et al [16] stated that neuroticism has the highest impact and conscientiousness has the lowest impact on job burnout among personality variables.

Researchers have consistently associated conscientiousness with problem-solving coping, probably because of the persistency characteristic of individuals high in this trait [4,5]. Bakker [18] found a positive relationship between conscientiousness and personal accomplishment. He also noted that conscientiousness has no relationship with the other two burnout dimensions. Costa, McCrae, & Dye [15] associated conscientiousness with self-discipline, achievement striving, dutifulness, and competence. The conscientious teacher’s persistency and self-discipline will probably also cause him or her to finish tasks and to accomplish things.

Hypothesis five which states that neurotic teachers will report a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to emotionally stable teachers was rejected. In Table 5, it was observed that emotionally stable teachers scored higher on burnout compared to neurotic teachers. However, there is no significant difference between neurotic teachers and emotionally stable teachers. This finding indicates that both teachers who are emotionally stable and teachers’ who have negative feelings (anxiety, anger or depression), set extremely high goals for themselves and tend to underestimate their own performance are both susceptible to burnout syndrome. This is in contradiction with the findings of LePine & Jackson, [26]; who viewed that individuals’ who are high in neuroticism are more likely to report feelings of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization in comparison with emotionally stable individuals.

Hypothesis six which states that teachers who are open to experience are more prone to burnout syndrome when compared to teachers with closed traits was rejected. In Table 6, it was observed that teachers with openness to experience scored higher on burnout compared to teachers with closed traits. However, there is no significant difference between teachers with openness to experience and closed traits teachers. This implies that both teachers who are creative, down to earth, intellectually curious and teachers’ who are conservative and resistant to change are both prone to burnout syndrome. This could be as a result of the fact that teachers who are open to experience have the drive to have new challenges and goals, but while searching for new experiences, their expectations are not met, which leads to burnout. Secondly, teachers who are closed in nature are resistant to change, and if such individuals are experiencing problems, they tend to keep to themselves and suffer in silence.

Hypothesis seven which states that young teachers will report a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to their older counterparts was rejected. In Table 7, it was observed that there is no significant difference between young and old teachers respectively. However, older teachers scored higher on burnout compared to younger teachers. The finding of this hypothesis can be explained from the view that younger teachers are probably experiencing burnout as a result of financial difficulties, inexperience, apt to be more vulnerable to inflationary effects because they are making major expenditures (example, housing and automobiles), they also hold less informal power in schools and their ideas about teaching may be at variance with older colleagues resulting in conflict in relationships [27]. According to Fimian [4] older teachers are more likely to experience burnout than younger teachers; the probable cause is that younger teachers have many ways of relaxing than older teachers which helps them to ease off the stress of the day while older teachers who are probably more conservative, with more responsibilities outside of teaching finding it difficult to relax.

Hypothesis eight which states that female teachers will report higher levels of burnout syndrome compared to male teachers was rejected. In Table 7, it was observed that, male teachers scored higher on burnout compared to female teachers. However, there is no significant difference between female teachers and male teachers. This implies there are no gender differences in the manifestation of burnout. This result corroborates with findings of Arogundade [28] who found no gender differences in all the measures of Job tension scale, Organizational frustration scale, Maslach Burnout Inventory. In addition, Ajufo [29] found out that no gender difference existed in the manifestation of organizational frustration. In contrast, Maslach et al [8] viewed that there is a significant difference between male and female teachers. He explains that this sex difference might be due to females being prescribed as having nurturing and caring roles. Thus, it is more likely that women would respond to others in a sensitive and caring way and, so in comparison to their male colleagues, they would score lower on depersonalization scale. In the same direction, males naturally desire to be in charge, respected, served and do not like subordinates. However, these desires are frustrated as most of the schools used in the study had female principals, vice principals and heads; thus, the male teachers may feel underrated and incapacitated in their profession, thereby leading to burnout syndrome.

Hypothesis nine which states that teachers’ in public school will report higher levels of burnout syndrome than teachers’ in private school was confirmed. In Table 9, public school teachers had a higher mean score on burnout compared to private school teachers. This finding agrees with the concept of equity in the equity theory [30]. In that, employees in the public sector tend to manifest more frustration than employees in the private sectors, due to the fact that there is a visible margin in their inputs and outcomes (working conditions, reward system, promotion possibilities) when compared to their colleagues in private sectors (referred to as “significant other” in equity theory), who may possess equal or less educational qualifications, work experiences etc, as they do. In other words, employees in the private sector are seen as well paid and fairly treated by management than those in public sector who judge their management as unfair and unfavourable. Hence, this feeling of perception of unfair treatment leads to job satisfaction, low commitment to their job and may at the long run lead to burnout syndrome. Singh & Billingsley [31] noted that organizational factors such as rigid principal leadership style, insufficient resources and inappropriate budgets, poor working conditions, larger class sizes, unmotivated students, longer working hours, lack of perceived collegiality among teachers and support from parents, all contribute to high teacher burnout in public schools.

Hypothesis ten which states that personality factors will jointly significantly predict manifestation of teachers’ burnout syndrome was rejected. According to Table 10, it was observed that personality factors (extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience) do not significantly predict teachers’ burnout syndrome. This is in consonance with a number of findings from previous works such as [23] and [26] who both arrived at results supporting the hypothesis. It was also observed that personality factors predicted 2.7% of the explained variance in burnout syndrome (R=0.16, R²=0.027). This agrees with researches that indicate that variables like self-esteem, self-efficacy, locus of control, emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, positive affectivity, negative affectivity, optimism, proactive personality impact highly on burnout [17,27,32].

5. Conclusion

This study examined the influence of personality and self-esteem on teachers’ proness to burnout syndrome in Lagos metropolis and the following findings were derived from this study:

i. Teachers’ with low self esteem are more susceptible to burnout syndrome compared to teachers with high self esteem.

ii. Extraverted teachers are more prone to burnout syndrome compared to introverted teachers.

iii. Teachers with disagreeable personality traits reported a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to teachers with agreeable personality traits.

iv. Unconscientious teachers are more susceptible to burnout syndrome when compared to conscientious teachers.

v. Neurotic teachers did not report a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to emotionally stable teachers.

vi. Teachers who are open to experience did not report a higher level of burnout syndrome when compared to teachers with closed traits.

vii. There is no significant difference between older and younger teachers in the manifestation of teachers’ burnout syndrome.

viii. There are no gender differences in the manifestation of teachers’ burnout syndrome.

ix. Teachers in public school reported higher levels of burnout syndrome than teachers’ in private school.

x. Personality factors do not have a joint significant influence on teachers’ manifestation of burnout syndrome.

Recommendation

The following recommendations are made from the findings of this study, to researchers, principals, stakeholders, management of organization and the government:

1. Principals of schools should carry out periodic assessment of the stress level of their teachers and those identified should be counseled accordingly.

2. It is important that Teacher training programmes at all levels should incorporate skills and techniques that are useful in coping with burnout and disappointments. Stress inoculation and anxiety treatment procedures should be core programmes in teacher preparation.

3. The disparity that results from perceived inequity between private and public school teachers in terms of wage, promotion, welfare packages, motivation etc should be bridged by necessary and appropriate government policies. This will have a positive effect in changing the societal value of this noble profession.

4. More researches should be done using other psychosocial variables not mentioned in the study to address the issue of teachers’ burnout syndrome in Nigeria.

References

[1]   | Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. In S.T. Fiske, D. L. Schacter & C. Zahn-Waxler (Eds.), Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 397-422.
[2]   | Jackson, S.E., Schwab, R.L., & Schuler, R.S. (2006). Towards an Understanding of the Burnout Phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(4), 630-640.
[3]   | Schaufeli, W., & Enzmann, D. (2008). The burnout companion to study and practice: A critical analysis. London: Taylor & Francis.
[4]   | Fimian, M. (1987). Teacher stress. An expert appraisal. Psychology in the Schools (January); 5-14.
[5]   | Oboegbulem, A. & Ogbonnaya, N.O (2008) Management of administrative-related stress of Academic heads of departments in federal and state universities in South-East Nigeria. In Journal of the Nigerian Academy of Education, 4(1).
[6]   | Freudenberger, H.J. (1983). Burnout: Contemporary Issues, Trends and Concerns. In B.A. Farbar (ed), Stress and Burnout in the Human Service Professions. Elmsford, N.Y., Pergamon Press.
[7]   | Maslach, C. (1995). The client role in staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 100-125.
[8]   | Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2005). Stress and burnout: the critical research, in Cooper, C.L. (Ed.), Handbook of Stress Medicine and Health, CRC Press, Lancaster, 155-72.
[9]   | Michielsen, H. J.,Willemsen, T. M., Croon, M. A., De Vries, J., & Van Heck, G. L. (2004). Determinants of general fatigue and emotional exhaustion: A prospective study. Psychology and Health, 19, 223-235.
[10]   | Farbar, B.A & Miller, J. (1981). Teacher burnout: A Psycho-educational Perspective, Teachers College Record, 82 (2), 235-243.
[11]   | Piedmont, R. L. (2002). A longitudinal analysis of burnout in the health care setting: The role of personal dispositions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61, 457-473.
[12]   | Arogundade, O.T., & Alausa, W.M., (2006). Psychology for Beginners: Personality theories. Lagos: Stalworld Concepts.
[13]   | Allport, G .W (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. NY. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
[14]   | Branden, N. (2001). The psychology of self-esteem: a revolutionary approach to self-understanding that launched a new era in modern psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
[15]   | Costa, P. T. Jr., & McCrae, R. R. & Dye., D.A (1999). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: a revision of the NEO personality inventory. Personality and individual differences, 12, 887-898.
[16]   | Gholipour, A., Anvari , M.R.A., and Kalali, N.S (2011), How does personality affect burnout? International Journal of Trade, Economics and Finance, 2(2).
[17]   | Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behaviour: A measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 14(2), 103-118.
[18]   | Bakker, A. B., Van der Zee, K. I., Lewig, K. A., & Dollard, M. F. (2006). The relationship between the big-5 factors and burnout: A study among volunteer counselors. Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 31-50.
[19]   | [Allen, T.D., Herst, D.E., Bruck, C.S. & Sutton, M. (2000). Consequences associate with work-to-family conflict: A review and agenda for future research. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 278-308.
[20]   | Abraham, Rebecca. (1999). “The relationship between differential inequity, job satisfaction, intention to turn over and self esteem”. The Journal of Psychology, 133 (2), 205-11.
[21]   | Alavi, H.R., & Askaripur, M.R. (2003). “The relationship between self-esteem and job satisfaction of personnel in government organizations”. Public Personnel Management, 32(4), 591-598.
[22]   | Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53, 28-35.
[23]   | Eastburg, M. C.,& Zellars, K. L.(2000). Social support, personality and burnout in nurses. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1233-1250.
[24]   | Zellars, K. L., Perrewe, P. L., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2000). Burnout in health care: the role of the five factors of personality. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30, 1570-1598.
[25]   | Watson, D., & Hubbard, B. (1996). Adaptational style and dispositional structure: Coping in the context of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 64, 737-774.
[26]   | LePine, J. A., LePine, M., & Jackson, C. L. (2004). Challenge and hindrance stress: Relationships with exhaustion, motivation to learn, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 883-891.
[27]   | Lingard, H. (2003). The impact of individual and job characteristics on ‘burnout’ Among civil engineers in Australia and the implications for employee turnover. Construction Management and Economics, 21, 69-80.
[28]   | Arogundade , O.T (2003). “Perceived organizational stress and burnout syndrome among workers”. Unpublished M.Sc Research Project, Department of psychology, University of Lagos.
[29]   | Ajufo, N.T (2006). “The effect of locus control on organizational frustration”. Unpublished B.sc. Research Project, Department of Psychology, University of Lagos.
[30]   | Adams, J.S (1965). “Inequity in social exchange”. In L.Berkowitz (Ed), Advances in Experimental social psychology (Vol.2). New York: Academic press.
[31]   | Singh, K., & Billingsley, B. (1996). Intent to stay in teaching: Teachers of students with emotional disorders versus other special educators. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 37-47.
[32]   | Busch, T. W., Pederson, K., Espin, C. A., & Weissenburger, J. W. (2001). Teaching students with learning disabilities: Perceptions of a first-year teacher. Journal of Special Education, 35, 100-104.