Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
https://doi.org/10.31577/sp.2021.01.811
Predictors of Teacher Burnout in Middle Education:
School Culture and Self-Efficacy
Meral Öztürk1
, Meryem Berrin Bulut2
, Murat Yildiz3
1
Social Work, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
2
Psychology, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
3
Social Work, Sivas Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
This study aimed to investigate the extent to which school culture and self-efficacy predicts teacher burnout. The research was conducted on 284 (Mage = 36.15, SDage = 8.34; 51.4% females) middle school teachers
from 12 Turkish middle schools. The data were collected utilizing the School Culture Scale, Teachers’ Sense
of Efficacy Scale, Maslach Burnout Inventory and personal information form. Structural equation model
was used to analyze whether school culture and self efficacy predicts teacher burnout or not. Findings
showed that school culture dimensions of bureaucratic culture and task culture had a statistically significant positive association with efficacy for student engagement and efficacy for instructional strategies.
Task culture had also a significant positive association with efficacy for classroom management. Although
success culture was negatively associated with both emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, bureaucratic culture had a positive association with depersonalization. Efficacy for student engagement was negatively associated with emotional exhaustion. The results of this study support the importance of school
culture for self-efficacy and burnout. The findings were discussed within the scope of burnout literature.
Key words: burnout, culture, school culture, self-efficacy, teacher
Introduction
Occupational stress is a common global problem of contemporary work life. Most workers
may experience it at various levels in their
work environment (Grayson & Alvarez, 2008).
Long-term occupational stress may lead to
chronic exhaustion that closely correlates
with the burnout syndrome (Jennett, Harris,
& Mesibov, 2003; Smetackova, 2017).
The burnout concept was first introduced
and defined in the 1970s by American Psychologist Herbert Freudenberger (Schaufeli,
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Meryem Berrin Bulut, Psychology, Sivas
Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey. E-mail: berrin_teke@yahoo.com
Supplementary information for this article can be accessed at https://journals.savba.sk/index.php/studiapsychologica/article/view/122
Received September 29, 2019
6
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
Leiter, & Maslach, 2009). Since then, it has
been extensively researched by different disciplines, but any standard definition of the
concept has not been achieved yet due to
its complex, continuous, and heterogeneous
construct (Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter, 1996).
Researchers from different disciplines have
attributed different meanings to the term
(see Farber, 1990; Maslach & Jackson, 1981;
Pines & Aronson, 1988; Roloff & Brown, 2011;
Schaufeli & Enzman, 1998). Among these
definitions, the most widely accepted and
used one comes from Maslach and Jackson
(1981), who define burnout as a syndrome of
emotional exhaustion that occurs frequently
among people who work in some capacity
with people. This conceptualization underlines three dimensions of burnout: Emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization and personal
accomplishment. When people’s emotional
resources run out, they feel exhausted. This
kind of burnout stems from work overload
and personal conflict at the workplace. If one
feels emotionally exhausted, one no longer
has sufficient energy to face another day or
another person in need. As a result of depersonalization, people feel negative and behave pessimistically towards their colleagues.
The overload of emotional exhaustion and
self-protective instinct cause this type of
burnout. Finally, low personal accomplishment refers to a tendency of self-criticism
and dissatisfaction with one’s working capacity. This kind of burnout emerges due to the
lack of social support and opportunities for
self-development in the workplace (Maslach
& Jackson, 1981).
Substantial number of research studies
have revealed the prevalence of burnout syndrome in teaching (Guglielmi & Tatrow, 1998;
Johnson, Cooper, Cartwright, Donald, Taylor,
& Millet, 2005; Kyriacou, 2000; Maslach &
Schaufeli, 1993; McCarthy, Lambert, O’Donnell, & Melendres, 2009; McGuire, 1979;
Stoeber & Rennert, 2008; Tomić, Evers, &
Brouwers, 2004; Troman & Woods, 2001).
Teachers experience burnout when they feel
that they are unable to meet the physical and
emotional needs of their students, display
cynical attitudes towards students, parents
and the workplace and feel that they can no
longer contribute to students’ development
(Maslach et al., 1996 cited in Grayson & Alvarez, 2007).
Burnout among teachers results in serious physiological, psychological and social
problems by increasing their anxiety, anger, boredom, guilt feelings, chances for
nervous breakdown and disturbing their
everyday activities, mood and social relations with others (Dimitrios & Konstantinos, 2014; Friedman, 1991); causing them
to neglect the preparation of their classes
(Friedman, 1991); decreasing their self-confidence, causing low motivation (Schonfeld,
2001); triggering depression (Schonfeld,
2001); reducing job satisfaction (Skaalvik &
Skaalvik, 2009); leading to premature retirement (Baker & Schaufeli, 2000) and changing attitude and personality (Schwarzer &
Greenglass, 1999).
Individual factors such as age, sex, marital status, education, tenure (Mojsa-Kaja,
Golonka, & Marek, 2015), self-esteem and
self-efficacy (Brouwers & Tomic, 2000) and
situational factors like workload, excessive
paperwork, lack of social support from colleagues and administrators, role conflict and
ambiguity, low salary, student misbehavior, difficult relationships with parents, time
pressure, low motivation of pupils (Burke &
Greenlass, 1993; Friedman, 1991; Kokkinos,
2007; Kyriacou, 1998; Kyriacou, 2001; Schonfeld, 2001; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011; Stoeber
& Rennert, 2008), poor working conditions,
school climate, school culture and job characteristics (Mojsa-Kaja et al., 2015; Torfi, Alam,
& Nikbakhsh, 2014) have all been marked as
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
exhaustion factors among teachers. Among
these factors, the impact of school culture
and self-efficacy have been frequently studied
in burnout research (Friedman, 1991).
Teacher Burnout and School Culture
Organizational culture is seen as a fundamental element of organizations (Zamini, Zamini,
& Barzegary, 2011) since it affects all organizational functions (Torfi et al., 2014). Mainly, the
term is defined generally as ‘common meanings shared by organizational members’ (Torfi
et al., 2014). Values, visions, norms, plans and
practices are all part of the organizational culture (Kaplan & Owings, 2013). Organizational
culture affects organizational behaviors and
shapes the work climate and work strategies
(Balay & İpek, 2010).
Like every organization each school has its
own culture (Peterson, 2002). Factors such
as personalities of the school members, the
demographic background of the students, national cultural values, attitudes of school principals, etc., constitute school culture (Rahiem,
Abdullah, & Rahim, 2012).
Terzi (2005) has divided school culture into
“support culture, bureaucratic culture, success culture, and task culture” by adapting the
classifications in the international literature
to the Turkish culture. Support culture refers
to the school environment where mutual interactions and trust among employees are
prioritized. In bureaucratic cultures there are
rational standards and rules. Administrators
strictly supervise the rules to keep the control of the organizations. In success cultures,
individual success is more important than
obeying the rules. Schools adopting success
culture prefer to work with qualified employees. In task cultures, the organization’s goal is
prioritized rather than the individual’s aim.
The relationship between school culture
and burnout has been revealed in various
7
research studies. For instance, Dimitrios and
Konstantinos (2014) have found that schools,
which are highly organized and dominated by
success culture, increase burnout. Peterson
(2002) have showed that schools dominated
by positive, collaborative or supportive school
culture, reinforce learning, commitment and
motivation of teachers and decrease the
feeling of burnout. Hence, in these schools
the burnout level is low. Friedman (1991)
has found a direct relation between school
culture and burnout. He informed that the
drive toward measurable goal-achievement
behavior imposed on teachers by school principles, distrust of teachers’ professional skills,
circumscribing school culture, and disagreeable physical environment all contributed
to teacher burnout. Likewise, Zamini et al.
(2011) have revealed that job exhaustion is
high in comprehensible culture groups. That
is, the participative organizational culture has
the lowest job burnout among other kinds
of cultures. In their study, Torfi et al. (2014)
have found significant negative correlation
between organizational culture and burnout.
In an organization dominated by powerful cohesiveness, communication and innovation,
job burnout is low.
Teacher Burnout and Self-Efficacy
Self-efficacy, based on the theoretical framework of the Social Cognitive Theory, can be defined as individual belief in the ability to plan,
organize and perform professional working
roles (Bandura, 1994). This definition implies
that self-efficacy is not about how many skills
and competencies one has, but it is about a
person’s belief in what he/she can do with
what he/she owns (Coladarci, 1992). Even if
the person has sufficient knowledge, skills and
abilities, he/she may not be aware of them or
may have doubts about them, causing him/
her to not even attempt to perform the task.
8
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
Thus, in order to perform a particular task,
one should believe in one’s knowledge, skills
and abilities required. A sense of self-efficacy
motivates individuals to continue their task
in spite of mishaps. Besides, it ensures more
willingness to do the task, and work harder
and longer toward accomplishment. A person
with high self-efficacy links his/her failure to
deficient effort or to other variables such as
the use of improper knowledge and skills. On
the other hand, people with low self-efficacy
are not able to accomplish their duties requiring effort, continuity and perseverance (Bandura, 1993). Employees with low self-efficacy
presumably have negative thoughts about
their future success and self-improvement
(Luszczynska, Scholz, & Schwarzer, 2005).
Self-efficacy is important in education as
well as in other fields. Cherniss (1993) states
that teacher self-competence contains the
ability to fulfill professional requirements, determining teaching stages, fulfilling duties and
procedures related to school management,
being part of the school, and completing social and political processes in the school environment. If a teacher believes that his or her
knowledge, skills and experience in these areas are sufficient, it means that he or she has
high sense of self-efficacy. Self-efficacy has a
significant role in overcoming hard situations
effectively during professional life. Teachers
with high self-efficacy can cope with the problems that they come across at schools (Bandura, 1993/1995).
A great deal of research revealed that high
level of teachers’ self-efficacy is related to effectiveness, self-concept, commitment, personality, and well-being (Yulianti, Atomzeal, &
Arina, 2018). When teachers with high self-efficacy face problems related to their job, they
focus on these problems and work to solve
them. In contrast, teachers with low self-efficacy avoid such problems and strive to resolve
their emotional discomfort in their inlying
world. Such a situation increases the exhaustion risk of teachers (Friedman, 1991; Savaş,
Bozgeyik, & Eser, 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2010; Schwarzer & Hallum, 2008). In other
words, if teachers have high level of self-efficacy, they develop positive attitudes towards
students and education systems (Bandura,
1997). Contrarily, low level of self-efficacy is
linked to anxiety. Thus it can be concluded
that self-efficacy is one of the coping resources against anxiety and burnout (Schwarzer &
Greenglass, 1999). The meta-analysis of 57
original studies gave an estimate of the average effect of -.33 for the relationships between self-efficacy and burnout (r = -.33). The
average impact estimate between self-efficacy and emotional exhaustion (-.31) is similar
to the average impact estimate for the relationship between self-efficacy and depersonalization (-.33). The greatest estimate of the
average effect of -.49 was found for the relationship between self-efficacy and decreased
personal success (Shoji, Cieslak, Smoktunowicz, Rogala, Benight, & Luszczynska, 2015).
Self-Efficacy and School Culture
The relationship between school culture and
self-efficacy has been confirmed in some
studies. For example, Guenther (2014) found
a significant correlation between teachers’
perceptions of their working conditions and
self-efficacy. In their study with doctors, nurses and other staff members in hospitals, Kılıç,
Seymen, and Grobowski (2014) have revealed
that self-efficacy has statistically significant
relationships with organizational culture.
However, this relationship between self-efficacy and organizational culture is mutual.
That is, change in one leads to change in the
other (Bandura, 1994/1997).
Creating a healthy and productive learning
environment depends on self-efficacy level of
teachers. If teachers have high self-efficacy
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
level they develop positive attitudes towards
students and education systems (Bandura,
1997). High self-efficacy enhances environmental change and personal conformation.
Teachers with high self-efficacy will take part
in changing the negative environmental structure. If they fail to accomplish this, they will
seek another organization with better circumstances; however, those with low self-efficacy
will react to negative environment with resignation and cynicism. But self-efficacy is not
sufficient for lessening burnout when the organizational structure is excessively punitive,
unfair and unresponsive (Cherniss, 1993).
Bandura (1997) claims that “Individuals are
born without their efficacy perceptions; this
perception develops as a result of individual’s
interaction with his/her environment along
a time”. It means that environmental conditions are the main sources of teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions. Thus, it can be concluded
that self-efficacy is context dependent. For
instance, in schools with democratic culture,
each person’s views, contributions and opinions are regarded as important. These kinds
of institutions encourage teachers to be more
successful in doing their jobs. As a result,
teachers become more enthusiastic about
being successful in their jobs and also, their
perceptions of self-efficacy are expected to be
positive (Bandura, 1997; Kılıç et al., 2014). On
the other hand, in schools with power culture,
teachers’ self-efficacy perceptions are expected to be negative, since power and authority
are solely in the hands of the organizational
leader who is in charge of everything. In these
cultures, where inequality and hierarchy are
dominant, members of the organizations are
not encouraged enough to carry out their responsibilities (Hofstede, 1983 cited in Kılıç et
al., 2014). Sottile, Carter, and Murphy (2002)
have shown that high self-efficacy develops
through encouraging positive social interactions.
9
The Present Study
Self-efficacy is one of the coping resources against burnout which has attracted most
attention, being also the most significant internal resource. As mentioned above, lack of
self-efficacy is linked to anxiety (Schwarzer &
Greenglass, 1999). Social support is another
coping resource against burnout. Social support is related to the functional value of social relations, especially their supportive side
in times of need (Schwarzer & Greenglass,
1999). This corresponds to school culture.
Based on these relations, this study aimed to
examine the extent to which school culture
and self-efficacy predicts teacher burnout.
For this purpose, structural equation modeling was used. In creating the model, the associations are based on the information that
burnout has some antecedents (e.g., individual and situational factors) (Brouwers & Tomic,
2000; Mojsa-Kaja et al., 2015). Self-efficacy,
as the ‘individual factor’ and school culture,
as the ‘situational factor’, are taken into the
equation. Although considerable efforts have
been devoted to understand the nature of
relationships between school culture and
self-efficacy, self-efficacy and burnout, and
school culture and burnout, they seem to remain unsatisfactory because these binaries
have been examined independently from each
other. However, recent studies have revealed
that burnout is not tied to a single cause, but
to a combination of different factors (Gündüz,
2006). Therefore, Kokkinos (2007) states that
teachers’ personal parameters and stress factors should be kept in mind when examining
the burnout phenomenon. With these explanations, this study simultaneously explores
the effects of personal and situational factors
on burnout. By examining the associations
between the variables within a model, this
study intended to fill the gap in the national
10
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
and international burnout literature, since as far
as we know, a study considering the association
among school culture, self-efficacy and burnout
has not been conducted yet.
This study is intended to assist middle education practitioners and institutions in their
pursuit of decreasing burnout. The Turkish
middle school educational system includes
a general education middle school and a religious vocational middle school that provide
compulsory and formal education. The public general education middle schools provide
free education opportunities for students.
Private general education middle schools,
on the other hand, are owned by a natural
person and education is given in return for
certain fee. Nevertheless, they are under the
control of the state. Education in both middle
schools is based on positive science courses
such as chemistry, physics and mathematics. The religious vocational middle schools
are owned by the state only. They provide
religious education in addition to the general curriculum given at public middle schools.
Students in these schools learn the basic
sources and methods of Islam in depth. In this
context, they take courses such as the life of
Figure 1 Hypothesized model
the Prophet Muhammad, Arabic, Quran and
other courses giving basic religious information. At the end of the 8th grade, the entrance
examination for high school is administered.
With this examination held annually, students
are enrolled in high schools. Those who pass
the high school entrance exam are enrolled in
high schools with high level of success; those
who fail to pass this exam can go to relatively low-achieving high schools. Thus, the stage
between 5th and 8th grade is very important
not only for both students and their parents
but also for teachers in these schools. For
this reason, especially the secondary school
teachers were selected for this study. When
the impact of different dimensions of school
culture on self-efficacy and burnout are examined, the concept of this study can provide a
broader view of how teacher-school relationships can become positive and be maintained.
These relationships can be efficient both in
the short and long term in the middle schools.
Based upon the previous work on the dynamics of school culture, self-efficacy and
burnout, we developed and tested a hypothesized model (see Figure 1). Hence, we proposed the following hypotheses.
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
H1 Support, success and task culture are
positively associated with self-efficacy but
bureaucratic culture is negatively associated
with self-efficacy.
H2 Self-efficacy dimensions are negatively
associated with burnout dimensions.
H3 Bureaucratic and success cultures are
positively associated with burnout while support and task cultures are negatively associated with burnout dimensions.
For reasons of clarity, direct relations between school culture dimensions and burnout dimensions are not shown in Figure 1.
Methods
Participants
In this study, we had 284 middle school teachers’ voluntary participation. Participants were
selected according to convenience and snowball
sampling, which are non-probability sampling
techniques. There were 146 (51.4%) females
and 138 (48.6%) males in the sample. The mean
age of the participants was 36.15 years (SD =
8.34; Range = 22-65). 80.3% of the participants
were married (n = 228), 70.36% (n = 197) were
working at public middle school, 15% at religious
vocational middle school and 14.64% at private
middle school. 93% (n = 264) of them intentionally chose their profession. The vast majority of
the participants graduated from the faculty of
education (71.5%) with a Bachelor’s or Master’s
degree (74.3%). Most of the participants’ partners are (65.8%) working. The mean tenure in
the current school is 4.40 years (SD = 3.56) and
the mean tenure of their profession as teachers
is 12.68 years (SD = 8.13). The mean of weekly
course hours is 24.93 hours (SD = 6.46).
Instruments
To measure school culture, self-efficacy and
burnout, psychometrically valid and reliable
11
instruments were used. For this purpose, the
data were collected utilizing three scales and
one personal information form. More information about the scales and personal information form are given below.
School Culture Scale (SCS): This scale was developed through exploratory factor analysis by
Terzi (2005) to measure the different kinds of
school cultures. The confirmatory factor analysis for this scale was conducted by Kılıç (2018).
The instrument has 29 items and four subscales:
Support (e.g., ‘Employees share their joys and
sorrows.’), success (e.g., ‘Working for professional purposes is appreciated.’), bureaucratic
(e.g., ‘Hierarchy is important.’), and task cultures (e.g., ‘Enough efforts are made to achieve
the goals of the school’). A five-point Likert type
scale ranging from ‘1 = never to 5 = always’ was
used. Cronbach’s Alpha values of the subscales
were .88 for the support culture, .82 for the success culture, .76 for the bureaucratic culture,
and .74 for the task culture. In the present study,
the Cronbach’s Alpha and split-half values were
.81/.80 for support culture, .74/.77 for success
culture, .75/.76 for bureaucratic culture, and
.73./.75 for task culture.
Turkish Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
(TTSES): Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy Scale
(TSES) was developed by Tschannen-Moran
and Hoy (2001) to assess the sense of efficacy
of teachers and adapted to Turkish through
the use of confirmatory factor analysis and
Rasch measurement by Çapa, Çakıroğlu, and
Sarıkaya (2005). It consists of 24 items and
three subscales: Efficacy for student engagement – SE (e.g., ‘How far can you achieve
reaching hard-to-work students?’), efficacy
for instructional strategies – IS (e.g., ‘How
well can you answer students’ difficult questions?’), and efficacy for classroom management – CM (e.g., ‘How much can you ensure
to control the behaviors that negatively affect
the lesson in the classroom?’). It is rated with
a nine-point Likert type scale ranging from
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
12
‘1 = never to 9 = always’. The coefficient Alpha
values were .82 for SE, .86 for IS, and .84 for
CM. The reliability of the whole scale was .93.
In this study, the internal consistency coefficient and split-half values were .89/.88 for SE,
.90/.88 for IS, and .91/.88 for CM. The reliability of the whole scale was .96/.93.
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI): The
original scale was developed by Maslach and
Jackson (1986) to measure levels of burnout
and adapted to Turkish through exploratory
factor analysis with varimax rotation by Ergin
(1993). MBI for Human Services version was
used in this study since this version is widely used in Turkey. The authors have license
rights to MBI from MindGarden. There are 22
items and three subscales: Emotional exhaustion (e.g., ‘I feel emotionally drained from my
work.’), depersonalization (e.g., ‘I feel I treat
some recipients as if they were impersonal objects.’), and personal accomplishment (e.g., ‘I
deal very effectively with the problems of my
recipients.’). The inventory is evaluated with
a five-point Likert type scale from ‘1 = never
to 5 = everyday’. Cronbach’s Alpha was .83 for
emotional exhaustion, .65 for depersonalization, and .72 for personal accomplishment. In
the current study, the Cronbach’s Alpha and
split-half values were .79/.70 for emotional
exhaustion, .71/.71 for depersonalization,
and .49/.50 for personal accomplishment.
Because of the unacceptable reliability values
of personal accomplishment, this factor was
extracted from structural analysis.
Personal Information Form: This form is
developed by researchers in order to get information about gender, age, marital status,
school, education, tenure and weekly course
hours of the participants.
Education Directorate. Ethical permission was
received from Sivas Cumhuriyet University
Social Science Ethical Committee. According
to the information obtained from Sivas National Education Directorate, in the academic year of 2018-2019, there were 66 middle
schools (regular or religious/public or private)
in which 1769 teachers were employed in the
center of Sivas. In the first stage, the convenience sampling technique was used in determining the sample. In this frame, 5 schools
were visited by researchers. The questionnaires were distributed to the teachers who
agreed to participate in the survey. Teachers
were given three days to complete the questionnaire. After 3 days, researchers collected
the questionnaires.
The participants were informed that there
were no right or wrong answers to the items,
as long as the answers reflected their personal ideas. The survey took about 15 minutes
to complete. Informed consent was obtained
from all participants. The responses were
treated anonymously.
In the second stage, the snowball technique was preferred to reach the sample.
The researchers visited 7 schools with the
guidance of the school principals who were
visited before. Thus, the data were collected
from a total of 12 middle schools of which 3
were private and 9 were public schools. As a
result, researchers aimed to reach all types
of schools in the Turkish education system,
so the diversity/heterogeneity of the sample
was provided for. A total of 310 questionnaires were distributed to the teachers and
288 of them were returned. 4 questionnaires
were excluded from the analysis as they were
not fully or adequately completed.
Procedure
Analysis
Before conducting the study, the research
permission was obtained from Sivas National
In the analysis process, the descriptive and
inferential analysis techniques were used,
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
and the data were analyzed by SPSS25 and
AMOS24. Using the AMOS24 structural equation, modeling with eight latent constructs
was performed to analyze the data based on
the hypothesized model. The Bentler-Weeks
Model specification method was utilized
(Bentler & Weeks, 1980). For processing data
path model with both latent factors and observed variables and covariance matrix were
used.
Results
Before conducting the analysis, the data set
is checked for missing data, outliers, normality and homogeneity of the variances. To
check whether the scales have construct validity, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted. The fit indexes are: for school culture
scale (RMR-Root Mean Square Residual = .06;
IFI-Incremental Fit Index = .92; CFI-Comparative Fit Index = .92; RMSEA-Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation = .04) for teacher
sense of self-efficacy scale (RMR = .07; IFI =
.93; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .07) and for burnout
scale (RMR = .08; IFI = .91; CFI = .90; RMSEA =
.06). These values indicate a good fit between
the model and the observed data.
Since measurement errors put the validity
of the findings and the conclusions of a research at risk, researchers try to avoid these
errors. Method biases are the basic causes of
measurement errors. Common method bi-
13
ases, which can be the result of the fact that
the predictor variable and the criterion variable are provided by the same person, can
affect the correlation observed among the
measures. One of the frequently used methods to test the common method bias is the
Harman’s single factor test. The findings have
shown that there is no common method bias
(explained variance 18.46%) in this study.
Before conducting SEM, researchers examined whether self-efficacy, school culture and burnout level of teachers differed
in terms of school types in Turkish educational system. In order for researchers to be
able to generalize the findings we carried
out ANOVA analysis.
As shown in Table 1, there is a significant
mean difference in efficacy for student engagement, efficacy for instructional strategies,
efficacy for classroom management, bureaucratic culture and task culture. In student/
instructional efficacy, private schools differ
significantly from both religious vocational
schools and public schools. In classroom efficacy, private schools differ significantly from
religious vocational schools. In bureaucratic
culture, three school types differ from each
other significantly. In task culture, private
schools differ significantly from both religious
vocational schools and public schools. On
the other hand, burnout level is not different
among teachers working in different types of
schools.
Table 1 Mean differences in school types (ANOVA)
School
Type
Mean
SD
Emotional
Religious 2.41
.70 Between
exhaustion
Groups
Public
2.34
.68 Within
Groups
Private
2.41
.64 Total
Sum of
Squares
.241
df
2
127.004 277
Mean
Squares
.12
F
.26
p
.77
.46
127.246 279
Table 1 continues
14
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
Table 1 continued
Depersonalization
Efficacy for
student
engagement
Efficacy for
instructional
strategies
Efficacy for
classroom
management
Support culture
Success culture
Bureaucratic
culture
Task culture
Note. p < .05
School
Mean
Type
Religious 1.86
Public
1.91
Private
Religious
2.18
6.72
Public
6.83
Private
Religious
7.52
7.20
Public
7.38
Private
Religious
7.76
7.07
Public
7.27
Private
Religious
7.67
3.83
Public
3.69
Private
Religious
3.87
3.82
Public
3.71
Private
Religious
3.84
2.96
Public
3.20
Private
Religious
3.68
4.07
Public
4.05
Private
4.40
SD
.69 Between
Groups
.71 Within
Groups
.80 Total
.99 Between
Groups
.95 Within
Groups
.79 Total
1.06 Between
Groups
.93 Within
Groups
.86 Total
1.14 Between
Groups
1.00 Within
Groups
.87 Total
.54 Between
Groups
.56 Within
Groups
.57 Total
.61 Between
Groups
.59 Within
Groups
.47 Total
.43 Between
Groups
.57 Within
Groups
.53 Total
.49 Between
Groups
.55 Within
Groups
.49 Total
Sum of
Squares
2.663
df
2
Mean
Squares
1.33
145.108 277
.52
147.771 279
18.218 2
9.11
241.987 277
.87
260.205 279
7.139
2
3.57
245.930 277
.89
253.069 279
8.132
2
4.07
277.672 277
1.00
285.804 279
1.482
2
.74
86.733 277
.31
88.214 279
.894
2
.45
93.198 277
.34
94.093 279
11.595 2
5.80
82.961 277
.30
94.556 279
4.195
2
2.10
78.093 277
.28
82.288 279
F
2.54
p
.08
10.43
.00
4.02
.02
4.06
.02
2.37 1.00
1.33
.27
19.36
.00
7.44
.00
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
According to the results, there were significant correlations among support and success
culture and burnout dimensions. While bureaucratic culture is significantly correlated to
depersonalization, task culture is not significantly correlated to any burnout dimensions.
All dimensions of teacher’s self-efficacy are
correlated to emotional exhaustion. Only efficacy for instructional strategies and efficacy
for classroom management are correlated to
depersonalization (see Table 2).
Then, structural equation modeling was
performed to investigate the predictive effect
of independent variables on burnout. The
model was tested by using the Path analysis,
and Figure 2 shows the path model diagram
including statistically significant path loadings.
The structural equation model explained
7% of the variance in emotional exhaustion
and 8% of the variance in depersonalization,
16% of the variance in efficacy for student engagement, 19% of the variance in efficacy for
instructional strategies, and 13% of the variance in efficacy for classroom management.
Within the sample, bureaucratic culture
and task culture had a statistically significant
association with efficacy for student engagement (βbureaucratic = .15; βtask = .32) and efficacy
for instructional strategies (βbureaucratic = .15;
15
βtask = .40) (p < .05). Task culture also had a
statistically significant association with efficacy for classroom management (β = .37,
p < .05). However, support culture and success culture did not have any significant association with self efficacy. This finding shows
that the first hypothesis is partially supported. As expected, task culture was positively
associated with the self-efficacy dimensions.
But, contrary to our expectation, bureaucratic culture is negatively associated with the self
efficacy dimensions. Surprisingly, no relation
was found between support culture, success
culture and self efficacy dimensions.
Further examination of the structural model indicated that the second hypothesis is partially supported. That is, only success culture
and efficacy for student engagement had a
significant association with emotional exhaustion (βsuccess = -.17; βefficacy for student management =
-.23). On the other hand, efficacy for instructional strategies and efficacy for classroom
management had no statistically significant
association with burnout dimensions.
As for the relationship between school culture and burnout the following findings were
found. Contrary to our expectations success
culture was negatively related to depersonalization. On the other hand, as expected, bureaucratic culture had a significant association
Table 2 Pearson correlation coefficients
1. Support culture
2. Success culture
3. Bureaucratic culture
4. Task culture
5. Efficacy for student engagement
6. Efficacy for instructional strategies
7. Efficacy for classroom management
8. Emotional exhaustion
9. Depersonalization
Mean
SD
Note. *p < .05
1
2
.76*
.22* .23*
.42* .42*
.22* .19*
.23* .18*
.19* .14*
-.19* -.20*
-.16* -.20*
3.73 3.74
.57
.59
3
4
.36*
.30*
.27*
.18*
.09
.16*
3.24
.58
.37*
.43*
.37*
-.08
-.10
4.10
.55
5
6
7
.83*
.79* .81*
-.17* -.14* -.16*
-.07 -.14* -.15*
6.91 7.40 7.29
.96
.96 1.01
8
9
.54*
2.36
.67
1.95
.73
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
16
Figure 2 Path model and estimates, p < .05
with depersonalization (βsuccess = -.21; βbureaucratic =
.16). The results show that the third hypothesis was partially supported.
In this study the following fit indexes are
used: χ2, CFI, IFI, NFI (Normed Fit Index), TLI
(Tucker–Lewis Index), RFI (Relative Fit Index)
and RMSEA. χ2 = 16.78, df = 8, p = .03 indicates
a good model fit (2 < χ2 < 3). CFI = .99, IFI = .99,
NFI = .98, TLI = .97 and RFI = .94 shows good/
acceptable model fit (> .900). Lastly, RMSEA =
.06 indicates an acceptable value (< .08).
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to explore
whether school culture and self efficacy predicts burnout or not. Some important findings
are below:
First, the self efficacy level of private school
teachers was found to be higher than that of
teachers in other schools. This finding is plausible, since the high educational fee in private
schools in Turkey means that the number of
students is low. This may increase the chances of teachers in these schools to engage students in class participation. Besides, teachers
in private school have a variety of materials
to employ the appropriate instructional strategies. The administrators encourage them
to participate in various seminars to support
their development. All these opportunities
may increase the teachers’ self efficacy level
in a positive way (Gençtürk & Memiş, 2009).
Furthermore, it was found that bureaucratic and task cultures were stronger in private
schools compared to state schools.
Second, it has been found that, contrary to
our expectations, bureaucratic culture had a
positive association with sense of self efficacy.
Some researchers argued that bureaucratic
culture in the organization has a negative impact on self-efficacy since it restricts teaching
capacities by hindering collaboration among
teachers and reducing work motivation (e.g.,
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
Sinden, Hoy, & Sweetland, 2004). In a similar vein, Kılınç, Koşar, Er, and Öğdem (2016)
found that bureaucratic school structures and
teacher self-efficacy were positively correlated. One may account for this on the ground
that clear rules, regulations and roles for
teachers in the bureaucratic school cultures
may prevent them from experiencing role
conflict and ambiguity (Kılınç et al., 2016),
since ambiguity restricts a person to evaluate
his/her ability to perform a task (Li & Bagger,
2008). Additionally, as individuals have control and understanding over their environment this will result in the increase of self-efficacy (Gist & Mitchell, 1992).
Furthermore, it has been indicated in our
research that in accordance with our expectation, task culture was found to be significantly
associated with all dimensions of self-efficacy.
Likewise, Sesadri and Gloryson (2013) found
that the self-efficacy level of employees working in institutions based on market culture,
which had a similar goal to task culture, is
high. One plausible explanation may be due
to the fact that in the task culture, school administrators aim to increase teachers’ motivation in line with school’s objectives. Therefore,
they try to increase teachers’ commitment to
school, which is possible through flexible hierarchical structuring. The flexible hierarchy
may provide a positive work environment in
which teachers can develop their capacities
(Sesadri & Gloryson, 2013). Additionally, commitment to teaching has a significant relation
to self-efficacy (Chesnut & Cullen, 2014).
Surprisingly, in this study, success culture
emphasizing the success of teachers, had
no association with any self-efficacy factors.
However, many previous studies have shown
that success culture leads to an increased level of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1994). Although a
significant relation between success culture
and all dimensions of self-efficacy was found
in the correlation analysis, this association in
17
the model could be due to the effects of other variables in the model, and also, this association may have been suppressed by these
variables.
Third, only efficacy for the student engagement dimension of self-efficacy was found
to be significantly associated with burnout.
This sub-factor influences the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout in a negative
way. Burnout has a negative impact both on
psychological and physical well-being, which
leads to a variety of problematic behaviors
(Huberman & Vandenberghe, 1999). As ‘conflicting expectations, increased work pressure, impractical innovations, unsupportive
school environment and unmotivated or
undisciplined pupils appear to affect a large
number of the teaching force in both Europe
and North America’, the same case is valid for
Turkey as well (Huberman & Vandenberghe,
1999). Burnout is regarded as a contributing factor to the behavior and experience of
teachers and students. Burnout is affected by
many factors such as characteristics specific
to social environment and school environment, nature of work, personal characteristics of teachers and students, etc. (Maslach
& Leiter, 1999). Contrary to our expectations,
only the student engagement dimension of
self-efficacy was negatively associated with
the emotional exhaustion dimension of burnout. Instructional strategies and classroom
management were not associated with any
dimensions of burnout. The result confirms
the idea that self efficacy has different associations with three components of burnout. Relationship differences may contribute to the
debate on internal structure of burnout (Shoji
et al., 2015).
The negative relation between student engagement and emotional exhaustion may be
due to the fact that the middle school students are in the 11-14 age range. In this age
range, they are entering adolescence from
18
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
childhood. Adolescence is considered to be
an intermediate stage in which one is neither
a child nor an adult. In this stage, although individuals do not have their own social responsibilities, they can explore, test, and practice
their roles (Cloutier, 1994). Kelleci (2008)
mentions that adolescence is a complex period in which an individual tries to answer the
following questions: how will the relationships with others be, how will their friendships continue and which way to follow in life.
During this period, adolescents have to shape
their own identities and their relations with
other individuals as well as make important
decisions about their futures. One of the most
stressful events in this period for Turkish adolescents is the preparation for the transition
exam for high schools. In this process, adolescents may feel pressure from both their parents and teachers, which causes a substantial
source of stress. For all these reasons, it may
be difficult for teachers to motivate students.
As a result thereof, teachers, who do not have
the competency to motivate students, are
likely to experience emotional exhaustion.
No association among instructional strategies, classroom management and burnout
may be due to the fact that instructional strategies and classroom management strategies
are clearly determined by the Turkish Ministry of National Education and school administrators. Thus, teachers may have no room
to deliberate about how they will behave in
the classroom and what strategies they will
adopt.
Fourth, the present study found that school
culture and burnout were related. In this
frame, success culture and bureaucratic culture have significant associations with the dimensions of burnout. Contrary to our expectations, task culture had no association with
burnout. The significance of organizational
culture as the cause of burnout has been confirmed theoretically and in practice in substan-
tial research (Friedman, 1991). In previous
studies (Korkmaz & Çevik, 2017; Zamini et al.,
2011), where the sample consisted of teacher
candidates, teachers, and academicians, organizational culture had a statistically significant
relation with burnout. This supports the idea
that changing the environment is easier than
changing people (Friedman, 1991). In schools
where the culture of success is dominant, the
teachers may be allowed to make personal
decisions, establish social relationships with
their colleagues, make frequent and important contributions to their organizations, thus,
their perception of weakness, insignificance,
isolation and alienation at school is nominal
(Korkmaz & Çevik, 2017). In line with our expectation, bureaucratic school culture was
found to be positively associated with depersonalization. As is known, certain and clear
standards and rules are found in hierarchical
organizations. It is expected that employees should obey these rules. In this respect,
administrators have a more authoritarian
perspective in a bureaucratic culture (Terzi,
2005). Bureaucratic culture and authoritarian
leadership may cause burnout among employees. The findings of some previous studies have confirmed this positive relationship
between authoritarian leadership and burnout (see Haghani, Bahramiand, & Sarkhosh,
2011; Pyc, Meltzerand, & Lie, 2016).
In this study, while there exists no associations between task culture and burnout,
there is a significant association between
success culture and bureaucratic culture with
burnout. The significance of both organizational and environmental factors as the cause
of burnout has been confirmed theoretically
and in practice in substantial research. This
supports the idea that changing the environment is easier than changing people (Friedman, 1991).
In this research, support culture is associated with neither self-efficacy nor burnout.
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
Although the correlation analysis revealed
that support culture was positively related to
self-efficacy and negatively related to burnout, in the model, support culture did not
have any associations. It may be due to the
fact that the correlation between support culture and these variables is weak.
Overall, concerning the causal model hypothesized, the results obtained for secondary middle school teachers revealed the
relationships expected among variables. In
that, school culture dimensions namely bureaucratic culture and task culture can be
regarded as important predictors of efficacy
for student engagement. Furthermore, efficacy for student engagement can be seen as
an important predictor of burnout. But the
predictive power of variables was found to
be low in explaining variance in burnout. This
result shows that professional exhaustion is
explained by other variables than these two
variables.
Thus, the findings of this study revealed
that in order to decrease burnout, one should
focus on school culture dimensions such as
success/bureaucratic culture and self-efficacy. In other words, school culture dimensions
can be regarded as important predictors of
self-efficacy and burnout. The findings have
indicated that in order to increase self-efficacy, one should focus on school culture dimensions such as bureaucratic and task culture.
These school culture dimensions can be seen
as important predictors of self-efficacy and
burnout.
Strength and Limitations
As in all studies, there are some strengths and
weaknesses in this study. The strength of this
study is the test school culture, self-efficacy
and burnout within a model which can contribute to the literature theoretically. Also,
teachers from all types of middle schools in
19
the Turkish education system are included in
the study, which contributes to the generalizability of the results.
On the other hand, there are some limitations in this study. Firstly, this study was
conducted with Turkish teachers. Since there
are only a few studies on this subject, it was
difficult to compare the findings in this study
with the findings obtained in other cultures.
Secondly, in this study, quantitative techniques were used to analyze the data. For
this reason, conducting an in-depth analysis of the main predictors of school culture,
self-efficacy and burnout was not possible. In
order to overcome this constraint, qualitative
and quantitative techniques may be used together in further studies. Lastly, in this study,
self-efficacy was measured from the teachers’
own perspectives. However, people may not
be objective while evaluating themselves. In
the future, in order to overcome this limitation, principals, parents, students, and other
employees in contact with the teacher may
be asked to fill in the scales. Determining the
self-efficacy levels by considering the ideas of
others would give a more accurate idea.
Conclusion
The results of this study indicate that school
culture dimensions are important predictors
of self-efficacy and burnout. More specifically,
the findings have shown that the school culture dimensions of success and bureaucratic
culture are significantly associated with the
burnout dimension of depersonalization. In
addition, success culture and efficacy for student engagement are significantly associated
with emotional exhaustion. Bureaucratic culture and task culture are significantly associated with efficacy for student engagement
and efficacy for instructional strategies. Task
culture is also significantly associated with efficacy for classroom management.
20
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
A study on the burnout syndrome and on
its contributions in educational field is important, since a better understanding of the
burnout syndrome may provide information
to teachers, school administrators and politicians about major contributors to burnout.
Hence, teachers can exert great efforts to improve their ability to cope with the sources of
stress. School administrators and politicians
might learn the practical needs of teachers,
take necessary measures and provide adequate resources for teachers in order to
prevent burnout. Moreover, school administrators shall comprehend the significance
of organizational culture in self-efficacy and
burnout.
The current study has both theoretical and
practical importance, thereby contributing to
the literature of psychology and sociology. It
points out the importance of studying school
culture and burnout in the context of self-efficacy perspective. This study can be considered an attempt to show the association
among school culture, self-efficacy and burnout. The present study extends prior work
on burnout by addressing school culture and
self-efficacy from psychological and sociological perspective.
The model identified and tested in this
study can be retested by taking other important psychological phenomena in organizations as dependent variables, such as organizational cynicism, organizational effectiveness
and absenteeism.
Authors’ ORCID
Meral Öztürk
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7570-5361
Meryem Berrin Bulut
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8476-8700
Murat Yildiz
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3053-4110
References
Baker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2000). Burnout contagion processes among teachers. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2289–2308. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02437.x
Balay, R., & İpek, C. (2010). Teachers’ perception of
organizational culture and organizational commitment in Turkish primary schools. Zeitschrift
für die Welt der Türken, 2(1), 363–384.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior
(Vol. 4, pp. 71–81). New York: Academic Press.
(Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia
of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press,
1998).
Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of
control. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Bentler, P. M., & Weeks, D. G. (1980). Lineer structural equations with latent variables. Psychometrika, 45(3), 289–308.
Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2000). A longitudinal
study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 16(2), 239–253. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8
Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. (1993). Work stress,
role conflict, social support, and psychological
burnout among teachers. Psychological Reports, 73(2), 371–380. https://doi.org/10.2466/
pr0.1993.73.2.371
Cherniss, C. (1993). Role of professional self-efficacy in the etiology and amelioration of
burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T.
Marek (Eds), Professional burnout (pp. 135–
150). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Chesnut, S. R., & Cullen, T. A. (2014) Effects of
self-efficacy, emotional intelligence, and perceptions of future work environment on preservice
teacher commitment. The Teacher Educator,
49(2), 116–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878
730.2014.887168
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
Cloutier, R. (1994). Ergenlik psikolojisinde kuramlar.
[Theories de l’adolescence] (Çev. B. Onur). Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi,
27(2), 875–904.
Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and
commitment to teaching. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 323–337. https://doi.org/10.1
080/00220973.1992.9943869
Dimitrios, B., & Konstantinos, V. (2014). Organizational culture and job burnout – a review. International
Journal of Research in Business Management, 2(1),
43–62.
Farber, B. A. (1990). Burnout in psychotherapists:
Incidence, types, and trends. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 8, 35–44. https://doi.
org/10.1300/J294v08n01_07
Friedman, I. A. (1991). High- and low-burnout
schools: School culture aspects of teacher burnout. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(6),
325–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.19
91.9941813
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A
theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17,
183–211. https://doi.org/10.2307/258770
Grayson, J. L., & Alvarez, H. K. (2008). School climate factors relating to teacher burnout: A
mediator model. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1349–1363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2007.06.005
Guenther, B. J. (2014). Teacher self-efficacy and
its relationship to teachers’ perceptions of
their working conditions. University of Saskatchewan, College of Graduate Studies and
Research, Canada.
Guglielmi, R. S., & Tatrow, K. (1998). Occupational
stress, burnout, and health in teachers: A methodological and theoretical analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 68, 61–99. https://doi.
org/10.2307/1170690
Gündüz, B. (2006). The prediction of teachers
burnout according to the irrational beliefs and
vocational and personal variables. Türk Psikolojik
Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 3(26), 30–49.
Haghani, M., Bahrami, P., & Sarkhosh, S. (2011).
The relationship among organizational culture
and occupational burnout in personnel of TVTO
organization, Arak City. Journal of Educational
and Management Studies, 2(4), 89–96.
21
Huberman, A. M., & Vandenberghe, R. (1999).
Introduction – Burnout and the teaching profession. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M. Huberman
(Eds.), Understanding and preventing teacher
burnout: A sourcebook of international research
and practice (pp. 1–12). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jennett, H. K., Harris, S. L., & Mesibov, G. B.
(2003). Commitment to philosophy, teacher efficacy, and burnout among teachers of children
with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(6), 583–593. https://doi.
org/10.1023/B:JADD.0000005996.19417.57
Johnson, S., Cooper, C. L., Cartwright, S., Donald,
I., Taylor, P., & Millet, C. (2005). The experience
of work-related stress across occupations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 20(2), 179–87.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940510579803
Kaplan, L. S., & Owings. W. A. (2013). Culture reboot: Reinvigorating school culture to improve
student outcomes. 1st ed. California: Corwin.
Kelleci, M. (2008). The effects of Internet use, cell
phones and computer games on mental health
of children and adolescents. TAF Preventive
Medicine Bulletin, 7(3), 253–256.
Kılıç, T., Seymen, O. A., & Grobowski, W. (2014).
Effects of personality factors and organizational
culture on the individual and collective efficacy.
Conference: The Eighth International Conference on Healthcare Systems and Global Business
Issues, Grantham 2014 At: Harlaxton, Grantham,
England.
Kılınç, A. Ç., Koşar, S., Er, E., & Öğdem, Z. (2016).
The relationship between bureaucratic school
structure and teacher self-efficacy. McGill Journal of Education, 51(1), 615–632. https://doi.
org/10.7202/1037362ar
Kokkinos, C. M. (2007). Job stressors, personality and burnout in primary school teachers.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 229–
243. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X90344
Korkmaz, M., & Çevik, M. S. (2017). Analysis of
the relation between organizational culture
and alienation in secondary educational institutions. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 23(4), 675–716. https://doi.org/10.14527/
kuey.2017.021
Kyriacou, C. (1998). Teacher stress: Past and present. In J. Dunkam & V. Varma (Eds.), Stress in
22
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
teachers: Past, present and future (pp. 1–13).
London: Whurr.
Kyriacou, C. (2000). Stress-busting for teachers.
Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes.
Kyriacou, C. (2001). Teacher stress: Directions for future research. Educational Review, 53(1), 27–35.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910120033628
Li, A., & Bagger, J. (2008). Role ambiguity and
self-efficacy: The moderating effects of goal
orientation and procedural justice. Journal of
Vocational Behavior, 73, 368–375. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jvb.2008.07.008
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., & Schwarzer, R. (2005).
The general self-efficacy scale: Multicultural validation studies. Journal of Psychology, 139, 439–457.
https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.5.439-457
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Occupational Behavior, 2, 99–113. https://doi.
org/10.1002/job.4030020205
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1986). Maslach Burnout Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologist Press.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996).
Maslach Burnout Inventory Manual. 3rd ed. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. (1999). Teacher burnout:
A research agenda. In R. Vandenberghe & A. M.
Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and preventing
teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international
research and practice (pp. 295–303). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1993). Historical
and conceptual development of burnout. In
W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.),
Series in applied psychology: Social issues and
questions. Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 1–16). Taylor
& Francis.
McCarthy, C. J., Lambert, R. G., O’Donnell, M., &
Melendres, L. T. (2009). The relation of elementary teachers’ experience, stress, and coping
resources to burnout symptoms. Elementary
School Journal, 109(3), 282–300.
McGuire, W. H. (1979). Teacher burnout. Today’s
Education, 68(4), 5–7.
Mojsa-Kaja, J., Golonka, K., & Marek, T. (2015).
Job burnout and engagement among teachers
– Work life areas and personality traits as pre-
dictors of relationships with work. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 28(1), 102–119. https://doi.
org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.00238
Peterson, K. D. (2002). Enhancing school culture:
Reculturing schools. Journal of Staff Development, 23(3), 1–6.
Pines, A., & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout:
Causes and cures. New York: Free Press.
Pyc, L. S., Meltzer, D. P., & Liu, C. (2016). Ineffective
leadership and employees’ negative outcomes:
The mediating effect of anxiety and depression. International Journal of Stress Management, 24(2), 196–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/
str0000030
Rahiem, H. M. D., Abdullah, N. S. M., & Rahim, H.
(2012). School culture and the moral development of children. International Proceedings of
Economics Development and Research, 56(23),
114–118. doi: 10.7763/IPEDR
Roloff, M. E., & Brown, L. A. (2011). Extra-tole time, burnout and commitment: The power of promises kept.
Business Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 450–474.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1080569911424202
Savaş, A. C., Bozgeyik, Y., & Eser, İ. (2014). A study
on the relationship between teacher self-efficacy and burnout. European Journal of Educational
Research, 3(4), 159–166.
Schwarzer, R., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Teacher
burnout from a social-cognitive perspective: A
theoretical position paper. In R. Vandenberghe
& A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and
preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international research and practice (pp. 238–246).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sesadri, B., & Gloryson, C. R. B. (2013). Impact
of organizational culture and structure on organizational commitment and individual performance: Mediating role of self-efficacy. 3rd
Biennial Conference of the Indian Academy of
Management, 12–14 December.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzman, D. (1998). The burnout
companion to study & practice. London: Taylor
& Francis.
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., & Maslach, C. (2009).
Burnout: 35 years of research and practice. Career Development International, 14(3), 204–220.
Schonfeld, I. W. (2001). Stress in 1st-year women teachers: The context of social support and
Studia Psychologica, Vol. 63, No. 1, 2021, 5-23
coping. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology
Monographs, 127(2), 133–168.
Schwarzer, R., & Greenglass, E. (1999). Teacher
burnout from a social-cognitive perspective:
A theoretical position paper. In R. Vandenberghe
& A. M. Huberman (Eds.), Understanding and
preventing teacher burnout (pp. 238–246). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived
teacher self-efficacy as a predictor of job stress
and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology, 57, 152–171. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1464-0597.2008.00359.x
Shoji, K., Cieslak, R., Smoktunowicz, E., Rogala, A.,
Benight, C. C., & Luszczynska, A. (2015). Associations between job burnout and self-efficacy: A
meta-analysis. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 29(4),
1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2015.
1058369
Sinden, J. E., Hoy, W. K., & Sweetland, S. R. (2004).
An analysis of enabling school structure. Journal
of Educational Administration, 42(4), 462–478.
https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410544071
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2009). Does school
context matter? Relations with teacher burnout
and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 518–524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
tate.2008.12.006
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2010). Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1059–
1069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.11.001
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2011). Teacher job
satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching
profession: Relations with school context, feeling
of belonging, and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(6), 1029–1038.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001
Smetackova, I. (2017). Self-efficacy and burnout syndrome among teachers. The European Journal of
Social and Behavioural Sciences, 20(3), 2476–2478.
http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/ejsbs.219
23
Sottile, J., Carter, W., & Murphy, R. (2002). The
influence of self-efficacy on school culture,
science achievement, and math achievement
among inservice teachers. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (New Orleans, LA, April
1-5, 2002).
Stoeber, J., & Rennert, D. (2008). Perfectionism in
school teachers: Relations with stress appraisals,
coping styles, and burnout. Anxiety, Stress, &
Coping. An International Journal, 21(1), 37–53.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800701742461
Terzi, A. R. (2005). Organizational culture in primary schools. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 43, 423–442.
Tomić, W., Evers, W., & Brouwers, A. (2004). Existential fulfillment and teacher burnout. European Psychotherapy, 5(1), 65–73.
Torfi, A., Alam, S., & Nikbakhsh, R. (2014). The relationship between organizational culture and job
burnout in the employees of physical education
organization. International Journal of Sport Studies, 4(6), 666–670.
Troman, G., & Woods, P. (2001). Primary teacher’s
stress. New York: Routledge.
Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (1998). The contribution
of burnout to work performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18, 491–499. https://doi.
org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199709)18:5<491::AIDJOB804>3.0.CO;2-I
Yulianti, P., Atomzeal, M. O., & Arina, N. A. (2018).
Burnout, self-efficacy and work satisfaction
among special education teacher. In The 2018
International Conference of Organizational Innovation, KnE Social Sciences, pp. 1180–1191.
https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v3i10.3460
Zamini, S., Zamini, S., & Barzegary, L. (2011). The
relationship between organizational culture and
job burnout among the professors and employees in the university of Tabriz. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 30, 1964–1968. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.10.381