Teacher Burnout and Collegiality at the Workplace in Higher Education Institutions in the Arab Gulf Region

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of teacher burnout on collegial relationships among faculty members in two higher education institutions- one in Kuwait and the other in the United Arab Emirates. A quantitative methodology was employed using a self-constructed online questionnaire. The results of the study showed that there was no statistically significant difference between the teachers’ perception of burnout and collegiality by gender, age group, and years of experience in teaching at a 0.05 level of significance. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the teachers in Kuwait and the UAE in their perception of burnout, although the difference was not significant for collegiality at a 0.05 level of significance. The findings also showed that the participants’ gender, age, and work experience were not predictors of collegiality, but the perception of burnout was a significant predictor of collegiality. Conclusions were drawn from the study’s findings, with implications for policy, practice, and future research.

1. Introduction

Higher education institutions are public spaces, where some of their teachers are more motivated than others in investing in social and professional relationships. In particular, teachers’ professional relationships in terms of collegiality as a companionship of co-workers have always been explored in light of their significance for teachers’ professional development, their careers, and school reform as a whole [1]. More importantly, collegiality is often influenced by one’s level of burnout in the workplace, argued to be triggered by personal [2,3] and work factors [3,4,5,6,7,8,9], some of which were explored in this study. Largely, teachers’ collegiality in the workplace is explored in light of schooling as a transmitter of culture [10] and as a space for communality [11]. The term school/schooling is used in this study to refer to tertiary education settings.

Shulman and Shulman [11] posited that accomplished teachers are not only developed along the dimensions of readiness, willingness, ability, and reflection but also through communality. Here, being communal, is defined as being involved in a professional community that requires “deliberation, collaboration, reciprocal scaffolding, and distributing expertise” [11] (p. 271). In light of this, Shulman and Shulman [11] introduced four models for analyzing communal relationships at individual and institutional levels within a school context, three of which analytically represent the continuing interaction between the individuals within a community. According to Shulman and Shulman [11], having a shared knowledge base among colleagues plays a significant role in forming communal norms, incentives, and practices.

Nevertheless, researchers have yet to formulate criteria for distinguishing between a community of teachers and a group of teachers [12]. Such a distinction between the two communal constructs implies a differing nature between each group. This study is particularly concerned with the formation and maintenance of professional relationships within a school context. Such professional bonds are explored in light of internal and external factors, which could cause teacher burnout and thus influence the level of collegiality in the workplace. As indicated earlier, formulating criteria for distinguishing between a community of teachers and a group of teachers [12] is required due to the lack of knowledge about how teachers establish professional bonds, maintain them, and apply conflict resolution skills. Therefore, it is necessary to address this understudied professional aspect of communal bonds in the workplace by examining the relationship between teacher burnout and collegiality in the Arab Gulf Region.

The notion of teacher burnout may play a central role in examining the level of collegiality in the workplace at schools. The selection of burnout and collegiality dimensions in this study was inspired by the findings of previous literature. Burnout is comprised of three dimensions: workload [3,4,5,6,7,8,9], personal relationships [2,3], and leadership [7]. The workload dimension in this study refers to administrative and teaching responsibilities. Furthermore, the personal relationship dimension includes domestic responsibilities, emotional matters, and family life. Finally, leadership encompasses the leadership roles and professional development opportunities provided to faculty members in the workplace. In this case, teachers’ leadership roles have been associated with low burnout [13]. However, it has changed with the current situation, such as COVID-19, which has caused a severe impact on educational institutions of all levels, with demand for rapid response to change from face-to-face teaching to an online mode in a short period [14]. This abrupt change due to the demand of online teaching added technostress to several teachers, leading to academic uncertainty in terms of whether the classes would run smoothly or not, and a feeling of burnout in the workplace that might have demanded heightened collaborative efforts concerning teamwork and collegiality [15].

In addition, the scope of collegiality covers trust [5], teamwork [16], and resource sharing [11]. This study defines trust as having confidence in one’s colleagues to complete collaborative work projects without the need to oversee the details of the process. It is also the belief in having confidence in stating one’s professional opinions without being judged. Moreover, teamwork is defined as the collaborative team effort toward the achievement of common occupational goals that may enhance job satisfaction [17]. Finally, resource sharing can be exemplified by being open to sharing and receiving relevant teaching and assessment resources amongst team members. These collegiality dimensions reflect the theorization of the studies mentioned above.

Teacher burnout is related to collegiality in the workplace, which may have a significant impact on teachers’ learning and development, ultimately influencing students’ learning and achievement [18]. Güneş and Uysal [19] explored socialization as a probable cause for facing issues that could result from organizational socialization, leading to teacher burnout. Nevertheless, our study derives its importance from the fact that collegiality does not revolve around the social aspect of relationships in the workplace. It explores trust, teamwork, and resource sharing as professional aspects of communal bonds within a school context. In addition, we have realized that there is a lack of regional research exploring the influence of teacher burnout on the collegiality level in the workplace, as it instead merely aimed to determine the predisposing psychological factors of burnout among teachers [20]. Regional research also mainly explored the intervening effect of teacher anxiety on the correlations between perfectionism and burnout levels [21], and examined the relationship between self-efficacy and stress in EFL teachers rather than collective efficacy [9,22]. This showed a clear literature gap in the area of teacher burnout and collegiality in the Arab Gulf Region, especially in higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to investigate higher education teachers’ perceptions of burnout in the workplace, the level of collegiality, the effect of demographic variables on burnout and collegiality, and the effect of burnout on collegiality among faculty members in two higher education institutions in Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates. Our study derives its significance from the possibility of determining the effects of teacher burnout on professional relationships amongst college teachers. Moreover, the study examined the implications of teachers’ workload and leadership on the level of collegiality in the workplace. In turn, it informs leadership policy on how to organizationally support teachers’ domestic responsibilities, emotional pressures, and family life outside the workplace. As limited regional studies have been conducted concerning this topic, in its particularities, applying this research scope to the two selected educational enterprises will be of value.

The below questions directed the focus of this research study, as they were inspired by the gap in research concerning teacher burnout and collegiality. The online questionnaire for the study focused on the following research questions to investigate the selected higher education institution teachers’ perceptions of burnout, collegiality, effect of demographic variables on burnout and collegiality, and effect of burn out on collegiality.

RQ1. What is the perception of higher education teachers’ burnout in the selected higher education institutions the Arab Gulf region?

RQ2. What is the perception of higher education teachers’ collegiality in the selected higher education institutions in the Arab Gulf region?

RQ3. What is the effect of higher education teachers’ demographic variables (sex, age, institution, total experience, and experience in the current college) on burnout and collegiality in the selected higher education institutions in the Arab Gulf region?

RQ4. What is the effect of teacher burnout and the level of collegiality in the workplace in the selected higher education institutions in the Arab Gulf region?

With research questions from the stance of teacher-researchers, we wanted to tackle the respective issues with teachers in particular, so that they could provide their insights into the influence of teacher burnout on collegiality in the workplace. In the rest of the paper, first we presented literature related to teacher burnout and collegiality. Second, we explained the research method. Third, we reported the results from the data analysis of study. Fourth, we discussed the results followed by conclusion, implications, and limitations of the study.

2. Literature Review

In this section, the theoretical constructs of teacher burnout and teacher collegiality guided our study. Both constructs were explored internationally as well as regionally. The following survey of literature also explored the relationship between teacher burnout and collegiality in the workplace.

2.1. Teacher Burnout

Many teachers undergo different forms of stress and anxiety over the course of their careers, which can lead to fatigue, depression, changing attitudes and personalities or poor performance, illness, and retirement [23]. Additionally, teachers become prone to experiencing burnout, which is a chronic psychological state of exhaustion that results from longstanding interpersonal and professional stress while performing their professions [4,5,6,9]. Moreover, Cherniss [24] defined burnout as an undesirable personal change resulting from the frustrating demands in professional settings. Similarly, Maslach et al. [16] and Lian et al. [25] defined burnout as a condition of emotional fatigue, depersonalization, and limited productivity, which could jeopardize individuals who work with other people to a certain capacity. Emotional fatigue involves stress and refers to the feeling of being emotionally strained, and it usually develops over a long period of stressful encounters [23] leading to a low self-efficacy, low sense of fairness in the school environment, and job-related depression [26]. Furthermore, research has shown that experiencing burnout can happen at the beginning of one’s career or can increase over the years. For instance, Barkhuizen and Rothmann [27] explored academia as a highly stressful occupation, in which associate professors and academics with five to seven years of teaching experience experienced the highest level of job demands in South African higher education institutions. In contrast, Al-Asadi et al. [20] reported that younger teachers and those with fewer years of teaching experience had a significantly higher burnout rate than those who were older and more experienced.

Internationally, studies have argued for similar causes of burnout in professional educators. For example, Smetackova et al. [9] studied the relationship between teacher burnout syndrome and self-efficacy, coping strategies, social support, and job satisfaction amongst teachers with burnout and teachers with no burnout in Czech elementary schools. In their study, burnout was measured using the Shirom–Melamed Burnout Scale [9], which hypothesizes burnout in light of three dimensions: physical fatigue, emotional exhaustion, and cognitive weariness. In addition, teachers’ coping strategies, measured by the standardized Stress Coping Style Questionnaire (SVF 78) [9], were found to affect their burnout. Moreover, the results showed that teachers employed positive coping strategies more often than negative ones when dealing with burnout [9].

Caruso et al. [5] explored the influence of school reforms on burnout levels among teachers in Italy. The study aimed to analyze the relationship between burnout, triggered by exhaustion, depersonalization, reduced personal accomplishment, and interpersonal trust, and the components of school climate [5]. The four scales of interpersonal trust included faith in the intentions of peers, faith in the intentions of the school manager, confidence in the actions of peers, and confidence in the actions of the school manager. Accordingly, the data was collected using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), the Interpersonal Trust at Work (ITW) and the Revised School Level Environment Questionnaire (SLEQ- Revised [5,16]. The scales of interpersonal trust showed a high internal consistency and correlation with the school’s positive climate. Overall, the study concluded that trust and school climate play an essential role in preventing the three burnout dimensions: exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment [5]. The cross-cultural study of Schwarzer et al. [23] examined the same dimensions of burnout as a worldwide phenomenon using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI; Maslach and Jackson, 1986; [16]) as cited by Schwarzer et al. [23]. Schwarzer et al. [23] compared levels of teacher burnout among 542 German and Chinese teachers and concluded that the correlation patterns generally support the assumption of cross-cultural validity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory. However, the strength of association was noted to be much lower in the Hong Kong sample.

Coulter and Abney’s [6] study examined how burnout levels differed amongst Canadian teachers working in international schools and those working in their country of origin. The study’s findings demonstrated that statistically, international teachers have significantly lower burnout levels than teachers working in their country of origin. In addition, a Spearman rho test was performed to determine the correlation between demographic data and the burnout level in both teacher groups, which indicated that burnout affects teachers relatively equally, regardless of demographic data: age, gender, level of education, and years in the teaching profession [6]. Therefore, the low or weak correlation between burnout level and demographic data, as indicated by the Spearman rho test, confirmed the assumption that the teaching environment in international schools is the main predictor of why international teachers are better able to prevent burnout [6].

Regionally, Al-Asadi et al. [20] investigated the predictors of burnout as well as their relationships. The significance of their study stems from the lack of research on burnout among primary school teachers in Iraq. Therefore, their research aimed to decide the level of self-reported burnout and its predictors among primary school teachers in Basrah. The researchers observed that in light of the participants’ marital status, married teachers experienced a lower burnout rate than single teachers. Overall, their study found that work-related factors had an essential role in burnout development [20]. In addition, Chalghaf et al. [28] aimed to test the effects of certain socio-professional triggers on the development of burnout among physical education teachers in Tunisia and showed that such triggers, including sex, job seniority, and marital status, are significantly correlated with the development of burnout among the teachers in that institution. In addition, Mahmoodi-Shahrebabaki [21] and Vaezi and Fallah [22] based their research on the context of Iran. While Vaezi and Fallah [22] concluded that enhancing teachers’ self-efficacy could diminish their stress, Mahmoodi-Shahrebabaki [21] explored the intervening effects of 276 EFL teachers’ anxiety correlations between their perfectionism and burnout levels. More specifically, Mahmoodi-Shahrebabaki [21] attributed perfectionism as playing a critical role in teacher burnout. Perfectionism is usually characterized by the desire for attaining ideals and exceptionally high standard performance with tendencies for persistent critical assessments of an individual’s behavior and effectiveness [21]. In other words, it is associated with normal psychological functioning and emotional and behavioral issues while demanding perfection. According to their research findings, perfectionism has led to higher levels of burnout and anxiety among teachers [21].

2.2. Workplace Collegiality

Spiller [29] explored the idea of collegiality as a “conceptual barrier to effective leadership in academia” (p. 680). In the survey of the literature, they shed light on some collegiality-related concepts, including “unselfish collaboration” [29] (p. 680) and “contrived collegiality” [29] (p. 680). Spiller’s [29] study attempted to interpret some collegial narratives, in which the findings reported a multifaceted interchange of organizational stories in light of managerial shortcomings and academic autonomy. One event presented collegiality in a restricted sense of collective decision-making [29]. The event recounted an instance where several academics indicated that they would rather the chairperson make more decisions without referring to the consensual model of decision-making, which naturally requires involving them in the decision-making processes [29]. Such reluctance to participate in decision-making is argued to confuse colleagues, as one chairperson reported, “People did not readily respond to invitations to participate in discussions about key matters, but then sometimes complained that they felt excluded after decisions had been made” [29] (p. 684). In light of this, Spiller [29] suggested that there is a clear relationship between how chairpersons theorize academic relationships and their bias toward manager, leader, and scholar approaches.

Within a school context, collegiality and professional collaboration have been equivocally researched in relation to job satisfaction [30,31], teacher isolation [32], and improving education for students with disabilities [33]. For instance, Woods and Weasmer [30] posited, “In striving to enhance collegiality, collaborative efforts prove invaluable” (p. 119). In addition, Shah [31] posited that establishing collaborative cultures based on collegiality, openness, and trust promotes change in schools. As demonstrated, describing workplace collegiality has an extensive survey of equivocating it with workplace collaboration. In their criticism of this, Fielding [34] argued that equivocating the two concepts makes them rather amorphous in the definition. In other words, collegiality and collaboration are often confused based on the dispositions of those who are involved in professional relationships.

Fielding [34] criticized Little [1] for using collaboration and collegiality interchangeably and almost synonymously. For instance, in Little’s study [1], interaction dimensions were classified as “range, focus, inclusivity (actors and locations), reciprocity, relevance, concreteness, and frequency” [34] (p. 4). However, those dimensions were argued by Fielding to cover a wide range of elusive professional encounters, which remotely and vaguely link to collegiality, as they predominantly do not connote collaborative interactions except for reciprocity [34]. Yet, in a later study, Little [35] described teachers as members of a professional community exercising reciprocity in the interests of student clientele. This description can be examined within a collegiality framework, as it necessitates that teachers be oriented to a common purpose [35].

Nonetheless, Fielding [34] persisted in differentiating between collegiality and collaboration because collaboration is regarded as a form of individualism rooted in self-interest while collegiality signifies communality. Similarly, Farrell [36] used the Webster dictionary, which defines collegiality as the “cooperative relationship of colleagues” (p. 172). In an article, Fielding explored the value of interactive cross-departmental collegial relationships within the academic community of librarians, educators, and researchers [36]. Farrell [36] wrote:

Departments and individuals will not be successful if they attempt to work within an isolated or remote environment cut off from other experts within the library and the larger community that they serve. In order to work collaboratively, library personnel will need to develop and maintain productive relationships with colleagues and other departments.

(p. 173)

Farrell [36] further posited that having an open, collegial process would help employees have civil discourse during meetings and brainstorm possible solutions to complex problems.

Collegiality and collaboration are distinct due to the social/emotional aspect of collegiality [37]. In a study, Jarzabkowski [37] used the concept of collegiality to denote teachers’ participation with their peers on intellectual, moral, political, and social levels. In addition, Jarzabkowski [37] explored teachers’ collaboration and teachers’ interpersonal relationships with their colleagues as two subcategories of collegiality. However, our study is not concerned with the interpersonal aspects of workplace communal relationships, as it limits the scope of collegiality to explore trust, teamwork, and resource sharing [37]. Even trust, which could be seen as a significant aspect of social/emotional interaction within the workplace, is mapped in the study tool in light of overseeing team members’ work during collaborative projects, freely practicing self-expression at meetings without feeling judged by team members, and being involved in critical decision-making processes [37]. Hence, collegiality in this study derives its meaning from the professional aspects of communal bonds within a school context. In addition, as collegiality is measured through three subcategories, including collaboration in our study, it stresses the fact that collaboration is indeed a subcategory of collegiality rather than an equivocation of it.

Research has either used the term ‘collegiality’ and ‘collaboration’ interchangeably [38] or specifically employed the term ‘collegiality’ as a means to explore educational development [39,40]. In their study, Mukerji and Jammel [38] analyzed the potential for growth in higher education in light of three dimensions: adult and youth literacy, infrastructure set up for higher educational provisions including universities in all GCC countries, and the availability of trained and skilled human resources. These dimensions were argued to assist in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the support of higher education systems for collaboration amongst universities and higher education institutions in the GCC region [38]. For instance, Mukerji and Jammel [38] reported that educational infrastructure setup had witnessed a pivotal expansion because of collaborative opportunities between foreign universities and local institutions. In addition, Dirani and Alshdooh’s [39] study assessed the level of collegiality among the faculty members at the University of Jarash in Jordan. Their survey of the literature stresses that while collegiality is understood as congeniality or just being nice to others, it also denotes belonging to a mutually respected community where faculty members’ contributions to the institution are valued, and concern is shown for their well-being [39]. Accordingly, the concept of collegiality in their study focused on the collaboration, honesty, and trust among faculty members, highlighting the nature of the collegial bonds as both professional and interpersonal [39]. Their findings indicated that faculty members at the university were aware of the traits and behaviors of collegial and non-collegial colleagues and concluded that collegiality remains the main factor for the success of the participants’ academic lives, departments, and institutions [39]. Also, the researchers emphasized the role of collegiality in honestly assessing one’s behaviors and modifying undesirable traits [39].

Ibrahim’s [40] study identified the factors that could foster or inhibit true teacher collaboration. Ibrahim’s [40] study is significant due to the limitedness of similar and relevant research about collaboration in the UAE schools. In other words, while prior ADEC research recognizes some factors affecting collaboration amongst teachers, Ibrahim’s study offers new insights into the matter by considering external policies/demands and accountability measures as factors that can likely hinder the formation of collaborative work cultures. Their study concluded that teacher autonomy and internal accountability are essential for creating and sustaining truly collaborative cultures in Al-Ain schools in the UAE [40].

2.3. Teacher Burnout and Collegiality

Day and Leiter [7] argued for the link between job burnout and the strained social relationships at work through examining four primary models of job burnout, “social motivation, job demands-resources model, conservation of resources model, areas of the work-life model,” which recognize the importance of collegial relationships (pp. 58–61). Day and Leiter [7] explained that each approach is argued to influence employees’ levels of energy, involvement, and efficacy, and their findings indicated a relationship between burnout and collegiality in the workplace with individuals’ relationships. In light of this, a lack of social support was identified as the main predictor of burnout [7]. Similarly, Hakanen et al. [41] identified job control, access to information, supervisory support, innovative school climate, and social climate as five job resources whose existence plays a “dual role” in increasing engagement in the workplace, but their absence could result in increasing burnout (p. 508). Being one of the previously mentioned job resources, supervisory support is believed to influence teacher engagement and burnout in the workplace [7,41]. Day and Leiter [7] indicated in their research that collegiality and supervisors’ social support could reduce burnout. Such findings are considered significant because while previous research focused on the general social climate within an organization, their contribution of the incivility construct pertains to the micro-level of day-to-day social encounters between coworkers [7]. They explain that micro examination of incivility in the light of social encounters can recognize the needed intervention strategies for dealing with negative social behaviors occurring within the workplace [7].

In a later study, Leiter et al. [42] explored the association of social support with the distress caused by professional demands as teachers encounter them. Leiter et al. [42] explained that social support could help in encountering distressing job demands and lessen their stressful impact when encountered. In other words, uncivilized social encounters, in the form of quarrels and fights at work, are stressful and are argued to lead to increasingly hostile social encounters in the workplace. In light of their findings, Leiter et al. [42] recommended that future research address the association between the superficiality of one’s collegial relationships and experiencing less burnout. Superficiality in their study is argued to result from one’s high levels of avoiding uncivil or disrespectful social encounters [42]. The disruption in collegial relationships can be caused by work-related stress and a lack of stress management efforts in the workplace, such as schools or higher education institutions [43]. Such a workplace environment is harmful and needs immediate attention of all concerned teachers and institutional leaders to stop further deterioration of teachers’ “emotional resources to cope with stressors” [43] (p. 3).

3. Methodology

In this section we introduced the study sample, tool, procedure for data collection, and analysis. We discussed each sub-section separately.

3.1. Study Sample

The study used a quantitative research methodology to collect and analyze the data. Due to restrictions caused by the pandemic, the data were collected online. Buchanan and Zimmer [44] defined internet research as using the internet to collect data via an online tool. Participation was open to faculty members at one higher education institution in Kuwait and one higher education institution in the United Arab Emirates.

The study sample included faculty members from different departments at both regional colleges, who responded to the open invitation to participate in the online survey provided on Google Forms. Although the two higher education institutions were selected on a convenience basis, the participation of the respondents was their own choice, not due to the researchers’ influence or personal access to them. The number of respondents from both the colleges was 101 (56 responses from the college in Kuwait and 45 responses from the college in the United Arab Emirates). Furthermore, the study sample included 52% females and 48% males, while 10% of the study sample represented the age range between 20–29 years, and 38% a range between 30–39 years. Finally, 52% of the participants were 40 years and above in age. In addition, 100% of the participants were teaching full-time at the colleges, with 55% of them having more than ten years of overall teaching experience, whereas 28% had between 5–10 years of overall teaching experience. Finally, 17% of the participants had less than five years of overall teaching experience. Regarding their teaching experience at their current workplace, 45% of the participants had between 5–10 years of teaching experience, 41% had less than five years of teaching experience, and 14% had more than ten years of teaching experience.

3.2. Data Collection Tool

The data collection instrument was self-constructed and was developed by studying the findings of past literature to study the influence of teacher burnout on collegiality in the workplace. The questionnaire included Likert-type four-point multiple-choice questions, as well as time-scale five-point questions, as those are argued to be quick to complete, straightforward to code, and “do not discriminate unduly on the basis of how articulate respondents are” [45] (p. 476). The questionnaire was divided into three parts: Part 1—demographic information-related items for research question 3 with (9 items), Part 2—teacher burnout (15 items) for research question 1, and Part 3—collegiality in the workplace (9 items) for research question 2. The first part of the questionnaire sought the participants’ demographic information including gender, age, affiliation, number of teaching years at the college, and years of teaching in total. Part two explored teacher burnout in light of three dimensions: workload, personal reasons, and leadership. Part three examined the participants’ collegial relationships in the workplace, which were measured in the light of three dimensions: trust, teamwork, and resource sharing. Parts 2 and 3 in the questionnaire were helpful for studying the effect of teacher burnout on collegiality in research question 4.

A voluntary study sample of ten participants (not included in the final study) assisted in piloting our research instrument. The piloting sample did not take part in the actual study during the official data collection phase. However, piloting the questionnaire helped in testing the study tool on a small sample of respondents to identify potential problems that might lead to biased answers and possible solutions before finally sharing it with the study participants [45,46]. Part of piloting the questionnaire required the participants to record the start and end time for completing the questionnaire, as there were two allocated questions for documenting time [45,46]. In addition, the piloting participants were requested to compile their feedback in the comments section at the end of the pilot questionnaire. Their feedback was helpful in addressing the issues of validity of the tool by aligning the content of the questionnaire with the purpose and research questions, and clarifying the statements in clear, simple language according to the construct of the items.

Reliability implied that the research was dependable, consistent, and could be replicated over time, research tools, and respondents [45,46]. Additionally, Bryman and Cramer [47,48] suggested that the reliability level becomes acceptable at Cronbach’s alpha of 0.8. The method for measuring the reliability of the pilot questionnaire was conducted with a Cronbach alpha test, which reported a value of 0.78, while our official and finalized study tool obtained a Cronbach alpha value of 0.83.

3.3. Data Collection Procedure

Teachers from the two higher education institutions were invited to participate in the study through personal email contacts. Moreover, avoiding harm to people and promoting beneficence are two guiding principles in research [45,46]. Cohen et al. [45,46] explained that researchers should operate in what they considered was the best interest of the study participants. Hence, it was vital to obtain ethical approval from the research committee of a higher education institution and include a copy of it in the study tool. The study honored the anonymity of participants as well as the confidentiality of their responses [45,46], as they were assured of data confidentiality in the online questionnaire’s embedded consent form before they started responding to the questionnaire. They were also allowed to withdraw from the study at any time without penalties. Quantitative data were collected over two weeks in April 2021. Altogether, 56 teachers from the college in Kuwait and 45 teachers from the college in the UAE responded to the online questionnaire. Although the two colleges were selected with convenient sampling based on familiarity with the college administration, the participants were random as the email request had been circulated to all potential participants in both colleges, and only those who wished to participate in the study voluntarily responded to the request.

3.4. Data Analysis Method

The raw data were first extracted from the online questionnaire in an Excel Spreadsheet. The data were coded for the participants and their responses. The coding of the participants’ sex was done with Male = 1, Female = 2, age group as less than 30 years = 1, 30–40 years = 2, more than 40 years = 3, college in Kuwait = 1, and college in the UAE = 2. Their experiences at the same college were coded as less than 5 years = 1, 5–10 years = 2, and more than 10 years = 3. Likewise, their overall experiences of teaching were coded as less than 5 years = 1, 5–10 years = 2, and more than 10 years = 3. The time-scale responses were coded as never = 1, rarely = 2, sometimes = 3, often = 4, and always = 5. The Likert-type items were coded as strongly disagree = 1, disagree = 2, agree = 3, and strongly agree = 4. After coding all the variables and items in an Excel Spreadsheet, the data were transferred to Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS IBM Version 26) for analysis.

The data were analyzed for descriptive statistics of frequency, mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. Next, the normality for the sub-scales and overall burnout and collegiality were examined with Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests to decide whether parametric or non-parametric tests were suitable for further analysis. Based on the results of the normality test, the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-tests were performed for burnout and collegiality sub-scales and overall average values to examine if there were any statistically significant differences that existed between the teachers from the two colleges. At the end, a Generalized Linear Model test was used to examine the impact of burnout on teachers’ collegiality. In the GLM, the type of model was linear, the independent variables (predictors) were demographic characteristics as factors (e.g., gender, age group, college, and work experience), the covariate variable was burnout, and the dependent variable was collegiality. In the model fit, main effects were used to examine the impact of predictors and covariates on the dependent variable.

4. Results of the Study

The sub-scale average values were calculated for workload, individual or personal reasons, and leadership as components of teacher burnout, and overall burnout average values were computed. In the same way, the sub-scale average values were calculated for trust, teamwork, and resource sharing as components of teacher collegiality, and overall collegiality average scores were computed (see

Table 1. The descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis) for burnout and collegiality and their sub-scales.

Variables	N	Mean	Std. Dev.	Skewness	Kurtosis
Workload	101	3.11	0.64	−0.32	−0.17
Personal Reasons	101	3.14	0.73	−0.79	1.18
Leadership	101	2.75	0.96	0.09	−0.62
Trust	101	2.29	0.56	0.46	0.83
Teamwork	101	2.09	0.60	0.44	0.54
Resources Sharing	101	1.95	0.63	0.15	−0.67
Burnout	101	3.00	0.59	−0.73	1.04
Collegiality	101	2.11	0.49	0.34	0.36

).

A normality test was performed for burnout, collegiality, and their sub-scale values in order to decide whether parametric or non-parametric tests were appropriate for these variables for further analyses. The test of normality with Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests showed that workload was the only subscale of burnout that did not reject the null hypothesis for both tests (p > 0.05), while all other sub-scales and overall burnout and collegiality scales rejected the null hypothesis. This means that only the sub-scale of workload was normally distributed, yet all other sub-scales and the scales of burnout and collegiality were not normally distributed (p < 0.05) (see

Table 2. Test of normality for teacher burnout and collegiality and their sub-categories.

Variables	Kolmogorov–Smirnov			Shapiro–Wilk
	Statistic	Degree of Freedom	Sig.	Statistic	Degree of Freedom	Sig.
Workload	0.088	101	0.053	0.978	101	0.087
Individual/Personal	0.156	101	0.000	0.945	101	0.000
Leadership	0.100	101	0.015	0.974	101	0.043
Trust	0.175	101	0.000	0.944	101	0.000
Teamwork	0.213	101	0.000	0.925	101	0.000
Resources	0.167	101	0.000	0.937	101	0.000
Burnout	0.125	101	0.000	0.959	101	0.003
Collegiality	0.123	101	0.001	0.971	101	0.026

).

4.1. Higher Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Burnout

The results of item-wise frequencies for categories of burnout together with histograms have been presented in

Table 3. Frequency Distribution of Participants’ Responses to Questionnaire Items for Teacher Burnout.

Burnout	Teachers’ Opinions	N	R	S	O	A	Distribution (Histogram)
W O R K L O A D	The amount of work in my job is more than I can bear.	11	22	40	18	10
	I have time to participate in voluntary activities at work.	4	11	35	38	13
	I have the habit of doing the bare minimum at work.	4	4	20	26	47
	My teaching day seems to never end.	20	20	39	17	5
	Having admin tasks affects my teaching preparation time.	23	29	34	11	4
P E R S O N A L R E A S O N S	My emotions and overall temperament can affect my work performance.	11	16	33	26	15
	My domestic responsibilities affect my work performance.	9	6	33	22	31
	I take every opportunity to call in sick because of my domestic responsibilities.	3	4	9	7	78
	My family members motivate me to work.	39	27	25	7	3
	My work achievements are celebrated at home.	30	24	32	13	2
L E A D E R S H I P	My workplace provides leadership opportunities for me.	18	17	39	11	16
	I am able to demonstrate leadership skills in the workplace.	26	24	33	10	8
	My leader(s) effectively delegate work tasks within the team.	13	28	30	26	4
	I trust my leader(s) to provide me with internal and external relevant professional development opportunities.	19	24	33	17	8
	I am receiving the needed mentorship in the workplace.	12	30	27	25	7

.

Workload. The frequency distribution of teacher responses for each item of workload showed that most of the time, teachers could participate in voluntary activities (Often 38% and Always 13%). The results also showed that a majority of teachers have the habit of doing only minimal work (Often 26% and Always 47%). However, the majority of them sometimes considered that having administrative tasks affected their teaching preparation time (Never 23%, Rarely 29%, and Sometimes 34%) (see Table 3).

Personal Reasons. The frequency distribution of teacher responses for each item in regard to individual or personal reasons for burnout showed that a majority of teachers thought that their domestic responsibilities affected their work performance (Sometimes 33%, Often 22%, and Always 31%). A large majority of them (78%) accepted that they always took every opportunity to call in sick because of their domestic responsibilities. Their family members never or rarely motivated them to work (Never 39%, Rarely 27%, and Sometimes 25%). In addition, their work achievements are never or rarely celebrated at home (Never 30%, Rarely 24%, and Sometimes 32%) (see Table 3).

Leadership. The teachers’ response to leadership opportunities is not quite encouraging (Never 18%, Rarely 17%, and Sometimes 39%). A majority of the respondents had never or rarely or only a few times been able to demonstrate their leadership skills in the workplace (Never 26%, Rarely 24%, and Sometimes 33%). Their leaders did not delegate leadership roles often (Never 13%, Rare 28%, and Sometimes 30%). Only 30% of them had their leaders often or always delegate leadership tasks to them (see Table 3).

In order to compare teacher burnout in two colleges (one in Kuwait and the other in the UAE), a non-parametric version of the Mann–Whitney U-test was performed (

Table 4. Mann-Whitney U Tests for Teacher Burnout (Colleges in Kuwait and UAE).

Test Values	Workload	Personal	Leadership	Burnout
Total N (56 + 45)	101	101	101	101
Mann–Whitney U	835.000	1050.000	893.500	882.500
Wilcoxon W	1870.000	2085.000	1928.500	1917.500
Test Statistic	835.000	1050.000	893.500	882.500
Standard Error	145.606	145.330	145.702	146.071
Mean Rank: Kuwait (N = 56)	58.59	54.75	57.54	57.74
Mean Rank: UAE (N = 45)	41.56	46.33	42.86	42.61
Standardized Test Statistic (Z)	−2.919	−1.445	−2.515	−2.584
Asymptotic Sig. (2-tail)	0.004	0.148	0.012	0.010

). The Mann–Whitney test results showed that there was a statistically significant difference between teachers’ experience of workload (Kuwait: Mean Rank = 58.59, N = 56, UAE: Mean Rank = 41.56, N = 45, p = 0.004 < 0.05). Similarly, there was a statistically significant difference between teachers’ experience of leadership roles in Kuwait and the UAE colleges (Kuwait: Mean Rank = 57.54, N = 56, UAE = Mean Rank = 42.86, N = 45, p = 0.012 < 0.05). However, there was no statistical difference between the teachers’ experience of burnout due to personal reasons in the two colleges (Kuwait: Mean Rank = 54.59, N = 56, UAE: Mean Rank = 46.33, N = 45, p = 0.148 > 0.05). Overall, there was a statistically significant difference between the teachers of Kuwait and the UAE in terms of their experience of burnout in the workplace (Kuwait: Mean Rank = 57.74, N = 56, UAE: Mean Rank = 42.61, N = 45, p = 0.01 < 0.05) (See Table 4).

4.2. Higher Education Teachers’ Perceptions of Collegiality

The results of item-wise frequencies for categories of collegiality have been presented in

Table 5. Frequency distribution of participants’ responses to items for teacher collegiality.

Item No.	Teachers’ Opinions	SD	D	A	SA
T R U S T	I do not need to oversee my team members’ work during collaborative projects.	8	52	31	9
	I can freely practice self-expression without feeling judged by my team members.	10	60	23	8
	My team members involve me in critical decision-making processes.	12	66	15	8
T E A M W O R K	My team members constructively work with each other.	15	63	20	2
	My team members value my contributions.	24	59	13	5
	My team members celebrate my work achievements.	16	55	24	6
R E S O U R C E S	My team members are ready to give advice about teaching resources	25	61	13	2
	I regularly share teaching resources with my team members.	35	48	14	4
	I always find resources made available by my team members.	29	43	24	5

.

Trust. A majority (60%) of teachers either strongly disagreed or disagreed that they do not need to oversee their team members’ work in collaborative projects, and about 70% of them strongly disagreed or disagreed that they can freely practice self-expression without feeling judged by their team members. In addition, about 78% of the teachers disagreed that their team members involve them in critical decision-making (see Table 5).

Teamwork. Regarding teachers’ experience of teamwork, only 22% agreed or strongly agreed that their team members work constructively with each other and only 18% agreed or strongly agreed that their team members valued their contributions. However, 30% of the teachers agreed that their team members celebrated their work achievements (see Table 5).

Resource sharing. Regarding sharing teaching resources in the workplace, only 15% of teachers agreed or strongly agreed that their team members were ready to advise on teaching resources, and only 18% of them regularly shared the teaching resources with their team members. About 29% of the teachers agreed or strongly agreed that they always found resources made available by their team members (see Table 5).

In order to compare the teacher collegiality in two colleges (one in Kuwait and the other in the UAE), the non-parametric Mann–Whitney U-test was performed (

Table 6. Mann–Whitney U-Tests for Teacher Collegiality (Colleges in Kuwait and UAE).

Test Values	Trust	Teamwork	Sharing Resource	Collegiality
Total N (56 + 45)	101	101	101	101
Mann–Whitney U	1048.500	1268.000	1065.000	1163.000
Wilcoxon W	2083.500	2303.000	2100.000	2198.000
Test Statistic	1048.500	1268.000	1065.000	1163.000
Standard Error	142.966	140.956	143.691	145.778
Mean Rank: Kuwait	54.78	50.86	54.48	52.73
Mean Rank: UAE	46.30	51.18	46.67	48.84
Standardized Test Statistic (Z)	−1.479	0.057	−1.357	−0.665
Asymptotic Sig. (2-tail)	0.139	0.955	0.175	0.506

). The Mann–Whitney test’s results showed that there was no statistically significant difference between teachers’ experience of trust in the two colleges (Kuwait: Mean Rank = 54.78, N = 56, UAE: Mean Rank = 46.30, N = 45, p = 0.139 > 0.05). Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between teachers’ experience of teamwork in Kuwait and the UAE colleges (Kuwait: Mean Rank = 50.86, N = 56, UAE = Mean Rank = 51.18, N = 45, p = 0.955 > 0.05). Likewise, there was no statistical difference between the teachers’ experience of resource sharing among the colleagues in the two colleges (Kuwait: Mean Rank = 54.48, N = 56, UAE: Mean Rank = 46.67, N = 45, p = 0.175 > 0.05). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference between the teachers of Kuwait and the UAE in terms of their experience of collegiality in the workplace (Kuwait: Mean Rank = 52.73, N = 56, UAE: Mean Rank = 48.84, N = 45, p = 0.506 > 0.05) (see Table 6).

4.3. Effect of Demographic Variables on Perceptions of Burnout and Collegiality; and Effect of Burnout on Collegiality

A Generalized Linear Model (GLM) for the dependent variable (collegiality), the probability distribution normal, and the link function identity were performed with independent factor predictors of sex, age, institution, total experience, and experience in the current college and covariates of workload, personal reasons and leadership roles.

Robustness of the models was examined with Goodness of Fit (Deviance/df) and Omnibus Test of Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square and Significance for all the dependent variables of Trust, Teamwork, Sharing Resource, and Overall Collegiality (see

Table 7. Generalized linear model for dependent variables trust (B_trust), teamwork (B_team), resource sharing (B_res), and collegiality (B_col._-1 & B_col._-2), with independent variables sex, age, institution, experience, workload, personal reasons, and leadership.

	Trust		Teamwork		Resources		Collegiality
Variables	Btrust	Sig.	Bteam	Sig.	Bres.	Sig.	Bcol-1.	Sig.	Bcol-2	Sig.
(Intercept)	2.073	0.000	1.953	0.000	1.361	0.000	1.796	0.000	1.350	0.000
Sex: Male	−0.136	0.147	0.040	0.729	−0.269	0.029	−0.122	0.612	−0.073	0.445
Sex: Female	0	.	0	.	0	.	0	.	0	.
Age: 20–29 Years	0.095	0.620	−0.048	0.838	−0.343	0.172	−0.099	0.579	0.011	0.955
Age: 30–39 Years	0.001	0.993	−0.101	0.474	−0.062	0.684	−0.054	0.615	−0.009	0.942
Age: 40 Years or More	0	.	0	.	.	.	0	.	0	.
College in Kuwait	0.174	0.096	−0.080	0.530	0.096	0.484	0.063	0.514	0.022	0.833
College in UAE	0	.	0	.	0	.	0	.	0	.
Experience (Overall): <5 Yrs.	−0.378	0.042	−0.062	0.786	0.177	0.468	−0.087	0.613	−0.062	0.748
Experience (Overall): 5–10 Yrs.	−0.299	0.011	0.043	0.763	−0.001	0.997	−0.085	0.436	−0.116	0.339
Experience (Overall): >10 Yrs.	0	.	0	.	0	.	0	.	0	.
Experience (Current Inst.): <5 Yrs.	0.343	0.023	0.073	0.691	0.241	0.223	0.219	0.118	0.263	0.091
Experience (Current Inst.): 5–10 Yrs.	−0.073	0.597	−0.073	0.668	0.113	0.534	−0.011	0.933	0.066	0.646
Experience (Current Inst.): >10 Yrs.	0	.	0	.	0	.	0	.	0	.
Workload	−0.157	0.071	−0.171	0.108	−0.113	0.321	−0.147	0.069	-	.
Personal Reasons	−0.041	0.604	−0.011	0.912	0.127	0.221	0.025	0.732	-	.
Leadership	0.304	0.000	0.280	0.000	0.179	0.008	0.254	0.000	-	.
Burnout (W+P+L)	-	.	-	-	-	.			0.230	0.005
Goodness of Fit (Deviance/df)	0.214		0.318		0.369		0.184		0.227
Omnibus Test (Chi-sq. Lkhd. Ratio)	51.20		24.33		19.83		36.5		13.45
Sig.		0.000		0.011		0.048		0.000		0.143

). The female teachers had a greater impact on trust, resource sharing, and overall collegiality compared to their male counterparts, but none of them were statistically significant (p > 0.05). The male teachers had a greater impact on teamwork than their female counterparts, but it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05). There was no statistically significant impact of age group on collegiality and its sub-scales (trust, teamwork, and resource sharing) on teachers compared to the age group of 40 years or above (p > 0.05). The teachers in the college in Kuwait had a greater impact on trust, resource sharing, and overall collegiality than the teachers in the college in the UAE, yet the impact was the opposite for the teamwork. However, the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0.05) (Table 7).

Teachers’ overall teaching experience of less than five years and between five to ten years had a lesser impact on trust compared to teachers who had more than ten years of teaching experience, and the difference was statistically significant (B_<5yrs = −0.378, p = 042 < 0.05; B_5–10yrs = −0.299, p = 0.011 < 0.05). The other sub-scales and overall teacher collegiality were not significantly impacted by teaching experience (p > 0.05). Likewise, teachers’ experience of less than five years in the same college impacted trust positively compared to the teachers of longer experience (more than ten years), and the difference was statistically significant (B_<5yrs = 0.343, p = 0.023 < 0.05) (See Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4).

5. Discussion

Examining the effects of burnout on the level of collegiality in both research contexts was justified because burnout worked as a predictor for teachers’ willingness to further professionally invest at both colleges. Exploring collegiality at the two concerned universities is vital. Such significance is derived from findings that render collegiality as the main factor for the success of academic institutions [39]. When we initially sought to examine the effects of burnout on teachers’ working relationships in terms of collegiality, we proposed four hypotheses as theories that could help better understand the relationship between the two variables. In addition to these hypotheses, several international and regional ideas and notions about the two variables were incorporated to better understand what could be measured through burnout and collegiality. For instance, burnout was explored in research that focused on academia as a highly stressful occupation [27]. Furthermore, while previous literature intentionally equivocated collegiality with collaboration [1,30,31,32], our study, inspired by Fielding’s [34] clear distinction between the two concepts, hopes to define the concerned variable better.

Leadership roles of teachers have been positively associated with trust, teamwork, and resource sharing. In this sense, the teachers who have the opportunity to play leadership roles have less burnout and a greater degree of collegiality in the workplace. This kind of environment might show a positive relationship between collegiality and prevention (against burnout). When this role is not clear, a lack of resources happens that may cause burnout, and, subsequently, it may affect teachers’ collegiality negatively [13]. A greater degree of burnout in the workplace may cause teachers to feel exhausted and a lack of team spirit that may affect the collegial working environment in educational institutions [49]. As teachers’ burnout negatively affected trust, which then might have affected their sense of relatedness and overall wellbeing in the workplace and wellbeing of the students [18,50]. When teachers feel that their coworkers do not support them in gaining resources and preparing for teaching, this may lead them to low self-efficacy toward their workplace and their profession due to a lack of support from others, causing burnout [51].

6. Conclusions

The study found that burnout is significantly correlated with the level of collegiality in the workplace. However, the low correlations between burnout and collegiality and the participants’ demographic data, in the colleges in Kuwait and the UAE, make the study unique, as its findings are not similar to those reported in other regional and international literature. In addition, although low correlations were found between the two variables and the participants’ demographic data, no statistically significant results were reported between the researched groups. In addition, the rarity of exploring burnout and collegiality regionally makes this study of value, particularly for the two concerned institutions. The findings of the study showed how workload may have an impact on trust, teamwork, resource sharing, and collegiality (overall), impact of personal factors on trust, teamwork, resource sharing, and collegiality (overall), impact of leadership on trust, teamwork, resource sharing, and collegiality (overall), and impact of burnout on trust, teamwork, resource sharing, and collegiality (overall). These findings from the study show a strong effect of teacher burnout on their workplace collegiality, which may affect the institutional effectiveness and quality of higher education in the long run due to the tainted motivation and dedication of faculty members and staff to the institution’s mission and goal.

7. Implications and Limitations

In addition, the study findings have, in fact, implications for policy, practice, and future research. Shah [31] posited that establishing collaborative cultures based on collegiality, openness, and trust promotes change in schools. Hence, collegiality is rendered necessary for maintaining a healthy and collaborative work climate. Policymakers and departmental leaders should consider the psychological and physiological effects of assigning excessive workload to their subordinates [43]. In addition, our study hopes to inform leadership policy about how to organizationally support teachers’ domestic responsibilities, emotional pressures, and family life outside the workplace. Finally, leadership should play a role in reducing one’s burnout, as the lack of supervisors’ social support evidently induced burnout [7,41].

Nevertheless, this study had some limitations. Firstly, a larger-scale study could have generated more statistically significant results. Moreover, the number of participants from each college was not equal, which might have had implications on the generated correlational data of the variables and the participants’ demographic data. In addition, time constraints added to the limitations of the study, as more participants could have been added to the study sample. The sample size of only 101 across two institutions limits the generalizability of the findings to other institutions and contexts. Full generalizability of the results is also not possible even within the two institutions, due to limited sample size and other institutional variations across the two countries in the Arab Gulf Region. Therefore, the study recommends that similar future research initiatives recruit more participants to generate more generalized findings, as well as map the effects of each burnout dimension on each collegiality dimension. This way, it will provide more detailed correlational insights into the two variables. In addition, we recommend that the collected data be further verified from more sources through triangulation. Our study questionnaire did not allow the participants to give qualitative explanations for their responses; thus, triangulation can be carried out by integrating written archives and interviews in the future.