A Study on the Prevalence of Occupational Burnout Among Lecturers at Dong A University, Da Nang

Available online at www.rajournals.in International Journal of Management and Economics Invention ISSN: 2395-7220 DOI: 10.47191/ijmei/v11i10.04 Volume: 11 Issue: 10 October 2025 International Open Access Impact Factor: 8.518 (SJIF) Page no. 4727-4733 4727 Bui Thi Kim Hue1, IJMEI Volume 11 Issue 10 October 2025 A Study on the Prevalence of Occupational Burnout Among Lecturers at Dong A University, Da Nang Bui Thi Kim Hue1, Lê Quang Sơn2, Lâm Tứ Trung1 1University of DongA, 33 Xo Viet Nghe Tinh Street, Hai Chau District, Danang, Vietnam 2University of Danang, 41 Le Duan Street, Hai Chau District, Danang, Vietnam ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Published Online: 13 October 2025 Corresponding Author: Bui Thi Kim Hue Burnout is a psychological syndrome affecting millions of teachers, including university lecturers, worldwide. In Vietnam, lecturer burnout remains underexplored, leaving major theoretical and empirical gaps. Burnout develops under sustained occupational stressors and excessive job demands, producing prolonged negative states marked by psychological exhaustion and a persistent sense of being overwhelmed. Contributing factors include professional isolation, insufficient collegial support, excessive workload, limited autonomy, inadequate leadership engagement, restricted career advancement opportunities, classroom management difficulties, and unrealistic institutional expectations. The consequences are diminished teaching quality, negative or impatient interactions with students, absenteeism, reduced creativity and confidence, and deteriorating quality of life. Burnout harms students, colleagues, and institutions, and is linked to teacher attrition. This study examines the phenomenon of lecturer burnout within the context of Dong A University, aiming to develop tailored interventions and preventive strategies to address it. KEYWORDS: Burnout, mental health, university lecturers, Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), Dong A University 1. LITERATURE REVIEW Herbert J. Freudenberger and Christina Maslach laid the theoretical foundation for burnout research. Freudenberger introduced the term in 1974, identifying 12 stages that begin with enthusiastic commitment and gradually envolve to emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and negative thinking. He emphasized the emotional and interpersonal stressors that emerge from interactions among individuals. In his studies, Freudenberger explored the psychological aspects of burnout, examining its relationship with personality traits, defense mechanisms, and coping strategies. However, several scholars have critiqued Freudenberger for focusing too much on individual factors while overlooking organizational contributors. Building upon Freudenberger’s groundwork, Maslach and her colleagues proposed alternative conceptual models - the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), which remains widely used, conceptualizes burnout as emotional exhaustion, cynicism/depersonalization, and diminished personal accomplishment. Even so, Freudenberger’s foundational contribution remains indisputable. His emphasis on affective dimension burnout, self-care practices, and organizational responsibility continues to inform research and prevention. His seminal work, Burnout: The High Cost of High Achievement (1980) provide a deeper insights into burnout. From the 1980s onward, research on burnout expanded rapidly. Whiton Stewart Paine’s Job Stress and Burnout: Research, Theory, and Intervention Perspectives (1982) provided a comprehensive overview of occupational stress and burnout and discussed various interventions for prevention and management. Subsequently, Professional Burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Marek, 1993, London) compiled contemporary scholarship worldwide, addressing causes, consequences, and treatments. In 2000, Christina Maslach published The Truth About Burnout: How Organizations Cause Personal Stress and What to Do About It, arguing that unhealthy organizational environments precipitate burnout and offering preventive recommendations. Burnout: The Cost of Caring (Maslach & Jackson, 2003) is a classic that reviews causes, symptoms, and consequences, theoretical models, and empirical research, and provides practical guidance for prevention and management. “A Study on the Prevalence of Occupational Burnout Among Lecturers at Dong A University, Da Nang” 4728 Bui Thi Kim Hue1, IJMEI Volume 11 Issue 10 October 2025 In Vietnam, although no dedicated research has yet been conducted on lecturer burnout, recent years have witnessed an increasing number of theses and scholarly articles addressing teacher burnout in general. For instance, Tran Minh Duc (Faculty of Psychology, VNU Hanoi) and his colleagues investigated “Burnout among teachers and its effect on depression, anxiety, and stress” (Journal of Psychology, No. 8 (269), 2021). They conceptualized burnout as a syndrome resulting from chronic and unmanaged workplace stress, leading to physical and emotional exhaustion. They noted the paucity of scientific studies on Vietnamese teachers despite frequent media reports. They used the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) to assess personal, work-related, and colleague-related burnout, and DASS-21 to measure depression, anxiety, and stress - finding strong positive correlations among the components of burnout. In summary, the current lack of in-depth studies on lecturer burnout motivated the present research to enrich psychological theory and propose practical measures to help lecturers overcome burnout. 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Concept of Burnout The concept of occupational burnout was first introduced in the 1970s by Herbert J. Freudenberger, initially as reactions to interpersonal stressors at work, particularly in careoriented professions (healthcare, social work, teaching) (Freudenberger, 1975). Maslach later elaborated the theory, defining burnout as a syndrome comprising three key components: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment. Emotional exhaustion arises from affective demands; depersonalization manifests as cynicism, negativity, or detachment toward patients/students; reduced personal accomplishment involves self-doubt and perceived ineffectiveness at work (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). Freudenberger classified burnout symptoms into three categories: physical, psychological, and behavioral categories, often presenting as deficits: “lack of energy, interest, enthusiasm, motivation, satisfaction, passion, ideas, concentration, self-confidence, and humor” (Fontes, 2020). The World Health Organization (WHO) included burnout in ICD-11 as an occupational phenomenon rather than a medical condition. ICD-11 defines burnout as resulting from chronic workplace stress not successfully managed, characterized by: (1) feelings of energy depletion/exhaustion; (2) increased mental distance from one’s job, or negativism/cynicism related to one’s job; and (3) reduced professional efficacy. Compared with ICD-10, ICD-11 provides greater specificity and differentiation from other mental health conditions (WHO, 2019). Thus, burnout can be understood as a syndrome emerging from prolonged, inadequatedly managed occupational stress, occurring when job demands exceed personal resources. The three hallmarks are emotional exhaustion, negative/cynical attitudes, and diminished professional efficacy. While rooted in mental health, burnout is linked to physical health problems. The term applies specifically to the occupational context. Causes of Burnout Burnout represents a pregressive declines in both physical and mental health, affecting work capacity and life quality, and arises from multiple factors. Personality factors: Sensitive, pressure-prone, or perfectionistic lecturers are more vulnerable when facing professional challenges. Those with limited psychological resilience struggle to recover, leading to prolonged burnout. In higher education, perfectionism and excessive worry, coupled with the desire to achieve flawless teaching performance and classroom management, can create continuous pressure (Savchenko et al., 2022). Isolation and inadequate collegial support: A workplace with limited social connection and weak collegial interaction often leaves lecturers feeling isolated and unspported when difficulties arise. Such social isolation deepens disconnection and reduces motivation and job satisfaction (Watts & Robertson, 2011; Vandenberghe & Huberman, 2006). Insufficient leadership attention: When lecturers’ difficulties are neither heard nor acknowledged, they may experience a sense of neglect and devaluation. The absence of constructive guidence and timely positive feedback can foster anxiety and helplessness, gradually intensifying stress accumulation and leading to burnout (Watts & Robertson, 2011; Vandenberghe & Huberman, 2006). Excessive goals and workload: Lecturers juggle teaching, research, and advising. When faced with high expectations but insufficient time, resources, and institutional support, they are prone to overload, emotional exhaustion, and chronic stress. (Watts & Robertson, 2011; Vandenberghe & Huberman, 2006). Recent findings from public universities in Rivers State, Nigeria also indicates that heavy workload and low autonomy are key mediators and major causes elevating burnout risk and reducing lecturer effectiveness (Ngobe, 2023). Other contributors include imposed decision-making, authority, restricted professional advancedment, and challenges in maintaining discipline and student engagement. These factors interact to form a negative spiral that culminates in burnout. Stages of Burnout Similar to many psychological syndromes, burnout develops progressively across multiple stages. Freudenberger and Gail North proposed 12 stage model - from excessive ambition, overwork, and neglect of self-care to inner conflict, social withdrawal, personality changes, loss of self-worth, fatigue, emptiness, prolonged sadness, and “A Study on the Prevalence of Occupational Burnout Among Lecturers at Dong A University, Da Nang” 4729 Bui Thi Kim Hue1, IJMEI Volume 11 Issue 10 October 2025 finally total physical and mental depletion (Freudenberger, 1975; Fontes, 2020). Vandenberghe and Huberman highlighted four stages: workload overload; physical and emotional exhaustion; depersonalization; and, ultimately, frustration and discouragement when work motivation is almost completely lost (Vandenberghe & Huberman, 2006). Maslach and Leiter did not divide burnout into distinct stages; instead, they emphasize its three core components - emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment - which may emerge at different intensities over time and reinforce one another in a difficult-to-escape psychological spiral (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). Clinical Manifestations Work-related neurasthenia-like features include: persistent fatigue that worsens after mental exertion; at least one of the following - myalgia, dizziness, tension headaches, sleep disturbances, impaired memory, irritability. Three broad groups: • Physical and mental exhaustion • Disconnection from work • Cynicism, low self-efficacy, and reduced professional performance These symptoms do not fully resolve with rest or leisure. They persist for at least three months, and other medical causes have been excluded by clinical and paraclinical assessment (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). Impact on Work, Mental Health, and Life Excessive stress and depletion lead to burnout. Rising job dissatisfaction pushes teachers to quit, creating staffing shortages and harming educational quality (Vandenberghe & Huberman, 2006). Individuals experiencing burnout frequently report severe exhaustion, disappointment, and pervasive discouragement across emotions, behavior, and cognition. They often feel drained of energy, experience fear or avoidance when thinking about work-related issues, and find daily life increasingly stressful, joyless, and irritable. Although burnout is not a standalone disease, prolonged, unmanaged burnout can precipitate depression, anxiety, and other psychological disorders (Watts & Robertson, 2011). Furthermore, Freudenberger and Maslach also noted that elevated risks for physical illness, especially gastrointestinal and cardiovascular diseases. Prolonged burnout may foster social withdrawal, avoidance, fear of confronting daily problems, and, in severe cases, self-harm risk (Fontes, 2020; Maslach & Leiter, 2016). 3. PARTICIPANTS, OBJECTIVES, AND METHODS 3.1. Participants A convenience sample of 69 lecturers and staff at Dong A University, Da Nang. Table 1. Sample Characteristics Criterion N % Age 22–30 20 29.0 30–50 39 56.5 >50 10 14.5 Gender Male 24 34.8 Female 37 53.6 Prefer not to say 8 11.6 Relationship status Single 24 34.8 Married 39 56.5 Other 6 8.7 Inclusion criteria: - Lecturers directly teaching students - Stable cognitive function Exclusion criteria: - Decline to participate - Pregnancy - Under treatment for severe chronic illness 3.2. Research Objective To examine the theoretical basis and actual status of burnout among lecturers and propose measures to mitigate burnout among lecturers at Dong A University, Da Nang. 3.3. Methods Document analysis: Synthesize domestic and international literature on burnout and intervention studies applying cognitive therapy to reduce burnout to define approaches, concepts, tools, and evaluation criteria and build the study’s theoretical foundation. Questionnaire survey: The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) was used to assess burnout across three dimensions with 22 items, each rated on a 7-point scale (0–6). Administration: respondents select the frequency level perceived as appropriate. Scoring: • 0 = Never • 1 = At least a few times a year • 2 = At least once a month • 3 = Several times a month • 4 = Once a week • 5 = Several times a week • 6 = Every day Subscales: • 9 items (01, 02, 03, 06, 08, 13, 14, 16, 20) assess Emotional Exhaustion (EE), signs: fatigue, confusion, tension, excessively negative work thoughts; end-of-day depletion, irritability, loss of control; prolonged loss of motivation. Cut-offs: ≤17 low; 18–29 moderate; ≥30 high (alert threshold). “A Study on the Prevalence of Occupational Burnout Among Lecturers at Dong A University, Da Nang” 4730 Bui Thi Kim Hue1, IJMEI Volume 11 Issue 10 October 2025 • 5 items (05, 10, 11, 15, 22) assess Depersonalization (DP). signs: negative, cynical attitudes toward others; blaming colleagues; persistent sense of failure. Cut-offs: ≤5 low; 6–11 moderate; ≥12 high (alert threshold). • 8 items (04, 07, 09, 12, 17, 18, 19, 21) assess Personal Accomplishment (PA), signs: reduced concentration, creativity, active listening; high expectations and time investment but lower productivity leading to disappointment and burnout. Cut-offs: ≤33 high burnout; 34-39 moderate; ≥40 low. Burnout is very concerning when all three reach alert thresholds. Data analysis: SPSS was used to compute percentages, means (M), standard deviations (SD), t-tests. Case studies: To gather concrete evidence on lecturer burnout at Dong A University, including its effects on life quality, daily functioning, and coping, enabling timely detection and intervention. 4. Research Ethics We emphasized ethics throughout data collection. Participation was voluntary, with the option to withdraw at any time. Because questionnaires involved self-assessment of work-related burnout, personal data confidentiality was prioritized. Participants could request their individual results if desired. 5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Table 2. Overall Burnout Levels Subscale Mean SD Min Max EE 16.10 12.10 1.00 53.00 DP 4.57 6.39 5.00 27.00 PA 30.61 11.75 12.00 56.00 Descriptive statistics on burnout levels are presented in Table 2. All three components are at moderate levels: Emotional Exhaustion (EE), M = 16.10, SD = 12.10; Depersonalization (DP), M = 4.57, SD = 6.39; and Personal Accomplishment (PA), M = 30.61, SD = 11.75. These moderate levels indicate that burnout is not severe overall but is clearly present among many lecturers. The relatively high SDs across all components highlight marked individual differences and heterogeneous influences from the work environment. Table 3. Descriptives for EE Items Item Mean SD Min Max EE – 1. I feel emotionally exhausted because of my work 2.07 1.55 0 6 EE – 2. I feel worn out at the end of a working day 1.70 1.68 0 6 EE – 3. I feel tired as soon as I get up in the morning and see a new working day stretched out in front of me 1.90 1.88 0 6 EE_6. Working with people the whole day is stressful for me 2.99 2.21 0 6 EE_8. I feel burned out because of my work 1.50 1.71 0 6 EE_13. I feel frustrated by my job 1.33 1.79 0 6 EE_14. I get the feeling that I work too hard 1.81 1.74 0 6 EE_16. Being in direct contact with people at work is too stressful 1.61 1.76 0 6 EE_20. I feel as if I’m at my wits‘ end 1.19 1.78 0 6 The descriptive statistics for the Emotional Exhaustion (EE) subscale are presented in Table 3. Overall, lecturers’ burnout level is moderate. Item “6. Working with people the whole day is stressful for me” shows the highest mean (M = 2.99, SD = 2.21). Lecturers interact daily with students, colleagues, and administrators; the sheer volume of interactions can be tiring. Next, the item “8. I feel burned out because of my work” has a mean of M = 1.50, SD = 1.71. This reflects the substantial workload and pressures of teaching and research. Continually juggling multiple tasks-lesson preparation, grading, research activities, and administrative duties-leads to both physical and mental fatigue, indicating that teaching and research require high intensity and sustained concentration. The lowest mean appears for item “20. I feel as if I’m at my wits‘ end” (M = 1.19, SD = 1.78), suggesting that although occupational burnout is perceived, not everyone has reached a state of complete helplessness; some individuals still maintain the capacity to cope with work pressure. Table 4. Descriptives for DP Items Item Mean SD Min Max DP_5. I get the feeling that I treat some clients/colleagues impersonally, as if they were objects objects 0.68 1.45 0 6 DP_10. I have become more callous to people since I have started doing this job nce I took this job 0.74 1.38 0 6 DP_11. I’m afraid that my work makes me emotionally harder 0.96 1.65 0 6 “A Study on the Prevalence of Occupational Burnout Among Lecturers at Dong A University, Da Nang” 4731 Bui Thi Kim Hue1, IJMEI Volume 11 Issue 10 October 2025 DP_15. I’m not really interested in what is going on with many of my colleagues 0.97 1.66 0 6 DP_22. I have the feeling that my colleagues blame me for some of their problems 1.22 1.67 0 6 The descriptive statistics for the depersonalization subscale presented in Table 4 indicate that lecturers’ burnout levels are moderate. Among the items, Item 22.” I have the feeling that my colleagues blame me for some of their problems” has the highest mean (M = 1.22, SD = 1.67), suggesting the presence of collegial pressure. This result implies that lecturers may be perceiving pressure or conflict from colleagues in the workplace. Although the perceived blame is at a moderate level, it points to a potential issue regarding mutual support in collegial relationships. Feeling blamed can lead to emotional disengagement or distancing from colleagues-an expression of depersonalization, a key component of the burnout syndrome. If persistent, this may reduce cooperation and consensus within departments, thereby affecting morale and work effectiveness. These findings underscore the need for interventions such as training in professional, skillful communication and the application of psychological therapies like CBT to strengthen belongingness and reduce feelings of isolation at work. Item “15. I’m not really interested in what is going on with many of my colleagues” has a mean of M = 0.97, SD = 1.66— close to the lower bound—indicating that, overall, lecturers are not indifferent to colleagues. Nevertheless, the emergence of indifference warrants attention, as it reflects a certain degree of emotional distancing—one aspect of burnout in which lecturers begin to reduce emotional connection or show detachment toward students, colleagues, and the work environment. Workload and the broader work context may already be affecting interpersonal relationships. The relatively large standard deviation (SD = 1.66) shows dispersion in responses: some lecturers appear quite indifferent, whereas others remain highly caring. This may reflect Dong A University’s particular context as a multidisciplinary institution with age and role differences across faculties. Such dispersion highlights the need for measures to enhance communication and cohesion in the workplace, thereby improving lecturers’ mental health and work quality. Item “5. I get the feeling that I treat some clients/colleagues impersonally, as if they were objects objects” shows the lowest mean (M = 0.68, SD = 1.45), suggesting that lecturers at Dong A University generally do not tend to treat students or colleagues coldly or distantly. Most maintain a positive, humane, and caring attitude toward others despite ongoing pressures. This may indicate effective emotion-regulation skills and the maintenance of constructive professional relationships, and it is likely supported by the university’s culture of affection, sharing, and empathy. The SD = 1.45 indicates some variation—there are a few lecturers who feel more depersonalized—but the number is not large. Overall, this is a positive signal: many lecturers not only sustain a humane stance but also recognize the importance of emotional relationships at work. Table 5. Descriptives for PA Items Item Mean SD Min Max PA_4. I can easily understand the actions of my colleagues/supervisors 3.64 2.02 0 6 PA_7. I deal with other people’s problems successfully 3.22 1.91 0 6 PA_9. I feel that I influence other people positively through my work 3.68 1.99 0 6 PA_12. I feel full of energy 3.94 2.10 0 6 PA_17. I find it easy to build a relaxed atmosphere in my working environment 3.86 1.87 0 6 PA_18. I feel stimulated when I been working closely with my colleagues 4.20 1.80 0 6 PA_19. I have achieved many rewarding objectives in my work 4.20 1.78 0 6 PA_21. In my work I am very relaxed when dealing with emotional problems 3.87 1.79 0 6 Means indicate good self-perceived competence and value, particularly in creating a positive work climate and collegial relationships. The highest means are PA_18 and PA_19 (both 4.20), reflecting happiness in collaboration and pride in contributions. The lowest mean is PA_7 (M = 3.22), suggesting some difficulty in helping with others’ problems—possibly due to workload or limited support resources. Other items (empathy, energy, creating a relaxed climate) are moderately high. Table 6. ANOVA for EE by Gender Gender Mean SD Min Max Male 14.40 9.92 1 41 Female 18.25 14.48 1 53 Unspecified 17.50 13.88 5 49 “A Study on the Prevalence of Occupational Burnout Among Lecturers at Dong A University, Da Nang” 4732 Bui Thi Kim Hue1, IJMEI Volume 11 Issue 10 October 2025 Females scored higher on EE than males (18.25 vs. 14.40), but F = 0.790, p = 0.458 > 0.05; thus, no statistically significant gender effect. Table 7. ANOVA for DP by Gender Gender Mean SD Min Max Male 4.00 4.90 0 19 Female 5.75 8.05 0 22 Unspecified 3.62 7.20 0 21 Females scored higher on DP (5.75 vs. 4.00), but F = 0.637, p = 0.532 > 0.05; no significant gender effect. Table 8. ANOVA for PA by Gender Gender Mean SD Min Max Male 27.78 12.28 4 48 Female 33.25 11.36 12 48 Unspecified 35.87 6.42 25 45 Females scored higher on PA (33.25 vs. 27.78), but F = 2.62, p = 0.80 > 0.05; no significant gender effect. In conclusion, while burnout among Dong A University lecturers is not severe overall, it is clearly present, with substantial individual variability—underscoring the need for support measures. 6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1. Conclusions All three dimensions of burnout are at moderate levels, each with distinct implications. • EE (M = 16.10, SD = 12.10): Lecturers are experiencing emotional fatigue, psychological pressure, and energy depletion, with common signs such as diminished motivation, reduced productivity, and persistent stress. Although not severe on average, without support this may escalate and impair health and performance. • DP (M = 4.57, SD = 6.39): Indicates some emotional distancing, cynicism, and reduced empathy toward colleagues and students, potentially fostering internal conflict and lowering interaction quality and team spirit. However, levels are below alert thresholds and not widespread. • PA (M = 30.61, SD = 11.75): Perceived accomplishment is not very low yet not high; high expectations unmet by outcomes may fuel disappointment and self-doubt. High SDs across dimensions reveal marked individual differences: some face serious burnout, while others maintain balance. Extremes in min–max values reflect uneven work pressures, environments, and coping capacities. Key contributing factors identified: • Heavy workload (teaching, research, publishing, administration) • Competitive environment and rising performance demands • Work–life imbalance and insufficient recovery time Overall: Burnout is present at moderate levels with notable individual variability, highlighting the need for institutional support. 6.2. Recommendations Rational workload allocation: It is essential to reduce administrative burdens so that lecturers can focus on their core academic responsibilities, including lesson preparation and research. Task assignment should ensure fairness, transparency, and workload equity across departments, preventing situations where a few staff members are overburdened – one of the primary risk factors for occupational burnout. Flexible work-time policies and balance: Given multiple concurrent roles (research, teaching, accreditation, advising, community engagement). Universities should adopt flexible scheduling policies that allow for personalized time management. Flexibility in balancing professional and personal commitments helps safeguard rest, recovery, and mental restoration. Thereby enhancing long-term productivity and well-being. Supportive, user-friendly work environment: Provide each lecturer with a quiet, modern, and ergonomically designed workspace to enhance concentration and satisfaction. Strengthening organizational culture through team-building programs and faculty engagement events can enhance mutual understanding and peer support, creating a more connected academic community. Transparent incentives and career pathways: Reward systems must be refined with clear, measurable criteria, ensuring that every lecturer’s strengths and achievements are recognized and rewarded. Establish clear career development paths and objective performance metrics, especially for earlycareer staff, helping them set realistic long-term goals. Implementing objective performance metrics promotes motivation and retention, while reducing frustration and disengagement. Strengthen the Center for Counseling and Mental Health Care: The Center for Counseling and Mental Health Care should strengthen its communication services. Guide faculty members in developing healthy lifestyle habits, allocating personal time, and cultivating self-awareness of individual strengths. Moreover, seeking assistance from university psychologists at the earliest signs of distress or psychological discomfort. Importantly, the Center should design and refine structured programs for early detection of burnout symptoms and implement Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT)-based interventions. This evidence-based approach has been shown effective in domestic and international studies as an effective method to reduce burnout and enhance lecturers’ psychological resilience. “A Study on the Prevalence of Occupational Burnout Among Lecturers at Dong A University, Da Nang” 4733 Bui Thi Kim Hue1, IJMEI Volume 11 Issue 10 October 2025 REFERENCES 1. Tran Minh Dưc (2021). Teacher burnout and its impact on depression, anxiety, and stress, Journal of Psychology, No. 8 (269), 2021). 2. Freudenberger, H. J. (1975). The staff burn-out syndrome in alternative institutions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 12(1), 73–82. 3. Letam Don-Baridam Ngobe (2023). Work Stress and Job Burnout Among Lecturers in State Owned Universities in Rivers State:The Mediating Role Of Self Efficacy, Iris Journal of Economics & Business Management. https://irispublishers.com/ijebm/pdf/IJEBM.MS.ID.0 00514.pdf 4. Maslach, C. (2018). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 19-32). CRC Press. 5. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC491 1781/ 6. Olena Savchenko et al (2022). Personal Values as Regulators of Teacher Burnout, Journal of Higher Education Theory and Practice, Vol. 22(16) 2022 7. Roland Vandenberghe A. Michael Huberman (2006). Uderstanding and Preventing Teacher Burnout, Cambridge University Press. 8. Watts, J., & Robertson, N. (2011). Burnout in university teaching staff: A systematic literature review. Educational Research, 53(1), 33–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2011.552235 9. WHO (2019). Burn-out an "occupational phenomenon": International Classification of Diseases. https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burnout-an-occupational-phenomenon-internationalclassification-of-diseases