Skip to main content
NCBI home page
SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to SAGE - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Apr 28:19427751231168990. doi: 10.1177/19427751231168990

The Impact of Adaptive Leadership on Burnout in Special Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Britt W Sims 1, Renee I Matos 2, Janna Brendle 1,✉, Robin H Lock 1
PMCID: PMC10149521

Abstract

Occupational burnout among special education teachers results in increased attrition, and lower student and teacher outcomes. The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to establish a framework of occupational burnout within special education and adaptive leadership theory. The quantitative correlational study surveyed K-12 special education teachers who taught during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sixty-seven eligible respondents completed the online survey including demographics, Maslach Burnout Inventory Educators Survey, Adaptive Leadership with Authority Scale, and sections of Pandemic Experiences and Perceptions Survey. A statistical correlation between teacher occupational burnout and adaptive leadership indicated supervisors using adaptive leadership strategies had less teacher attrition.

Keywords: instructional leadership, international programs, leadership and learning, leadership effects, leadership for school improvement

Teacher burnout was a well-described problem prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (Lim & Eo, 2014), with negative impacts on attrition rates (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019) and poor teacher outcomes, including overall teacher well-being, personal relationships, job efficacy (Borman, & Dowling, 2008), and absenteeism (Firth & Britton, 1989; Yang & Hayes, 2020). Previous research demonstrate that attrition of special education staff threatens the quality of education for children with disabilities, as the turnover results in increased hiring of non-qualified teachers and decreased educational/behavioral performance of students (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019). Since 1975, 49 of 50 states report special education teacher shortages (National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services, 2016), although there is variability in special education teacher attrition rates across states. For example, the attrition rate of special education teachers in Texas was roughly twice that of other teachers nationwide (Sullivan et al., 2017). The issue of teacher burnout has not surprisingly been worsened by the COVID-19 pandemic (Williams, 2020). Burnout is conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).

During the COVID-19 global pandemic, the complex variables that have historically precipitated teacher burnout have been magnified. Providing educational instruction during the pandemic stretched thin the educational system and teachers, requiring urgent transformational change for which teachers and administrators were unprepared. In addition, federal, state, and local education agencies were also unprepared, and the burden was thrust onto teachers who have had to adjust to the changing environment (Mitchell, 2020). The organizational structure failed to adapt, and the typical bureaucratic leadership style has been unable to support educators.

While quantitative data exist that clearly present the dire status of special education attrition in the United States (Billingsley & Bettini, 2019), specific data on the connection of teacher burnout to leadership is more ambiguous. Traditional forms of organizational leadership within education have used a “top-down” approach that relies on a few people at the top to learn, understand, and solve complex problems. This form of leadership is well suited for addressing technical challenges where the problem is defined and the solution is clear (Heifetz et al, 2009; Parks, 2005). However, the challenges leading to occupational burnout are complex and more accurately represent what Heifetz (1994) defined as adaptive challenges, as there are no pre-set interventions or applicable formulas to solve adaptive problems Adaptive leadership style that helps organizations deal with adaptive challenges (Heifetz, 1994).

Adaptive challenges in the field of special education require leadership practices that foster learning and stakeholder involvement, with a shift from person-centered to a collective leadership approach from bureaucratic to adaptive leadership (Heifetz, 1994; Raei, 2018).

The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to establish a framework of both occupational burnout within special education and adaptive leadership theory. Using validated surveys to measure the levels of both variables of burnout and adaptive leadership, statistical tests were used to determine whether there was a statistically significant association between them to examine how each of the variables were affected by aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study focused on K-12 special education teachers who worked in either public or charter schools in the one southern state in the United States between the years of fall 2019 to summer 2021. Exploring the association between the adaptive leadership level of administrators and the burnout level of special education professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in gaining new perspective for school administrators, special education professionals, and like-minded researchers.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework of this study was based upon the theories of occupational burnout (Leiter & Maslach, 2017; Maslach, 2003) and adaptive leadership theory (Heifetz, 1994, 1998; Heifetz et al., 2009). Within this model, the assumption that leadership is tied to one person is eliminated, as the leader does not provide all the solutions and is not required to be the expert in all things (Derue, 2011). Stakeholders have a voice, a role, and are deemed equally important in determining a course of action through complex issues.

Burnout syndrome is defined as, “a psychological syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment” (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). This definition provided the “what” by separating out measurable operant conditions that lead to burnout, which was then developed into a testing instrument (Maslach Burnout Inventory) that continues to be the standard for assessment (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).

The adaptive leadership theory originated when Heifetz (1994) made the distinction between two kinds of problems that organizations face: technical problems and adaptive problems. As previously mentioned, technical problems are those that are solvable by an expert and do not require new types of learning to do so. In contrast, adaptive problems require new learning, actions, and a change of mindsets, assumptions, and values (Heifetz et al., 2009). Over a third of the problems faced by leaders can be considered adaptive, and that number is a conservative estimate (Plsek & Greenhalgh, 2001). Given this reality, there is a strong case for moving out of the “heroic” or bureaucratic leadership model and into a model that embraces the complexity of issues facing the organization. Within this model, the assumption that leadership is tied to one person is eliminated, as the leader does not provide all the solutions and is not required to be the expert in all things (Derue, 2011). Stakeholders have a voice, a role, and are deemed equally important in determining a course of action through complex issues. Within that framework and perspective, Heifetz (1994) further defined adaptive leadership into two roles: leadership with authority and leadership without authority. Leadership with authority is tied to a certain position (e.g., principal, coordinator, director, etc.), while leadership without authority is not. These are important distinctions if an organization or individual is to move into a new team approach to organizational leadership. Based on these theories, adaptive challenges in the field of special education require leadership practices that foster learning and stakeholder involvement, with a shift from person-centered to a collective leadership approach from bureaucratic to adaptive leadership (Heifetz, 1994; Raei, 2018).

Methods

The researchers used a quantitative methodological approach to explore the connection between the adaptive leadership level of school administration and the measured burnout of special education teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic of the 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 school years. An online survey was used to measure both the occupational burnout of special education professionals in public and charter schools and the adaptive leadership qualities of their administrators. The purpose of this quantitative correlational study was to establish a framework of both occupational burnout within special education and adaptive leadership theory. Using validated surveys to measure the levels of both variables of burnout and adaptive leadership, statistical tests were used to determine whether there was a statistically significant association between them to examine how each of the variables were affected by aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study focused on K-12 special education teachers who worked in either public or charter schools in the one southern state in the United States between the years of fall 2019 to summer 2021. Exploring the association between the adaptive leadership level of administrators and the burnout level of special education professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in gaining new perspective for school administrators, special education professionals, and like-minded researchers.

To ensure enough participants to achieve adequate power of the study, a power analysis was used to approximate the sample size needed. A sample size calculator was used to compute the number of participants that would be needed in the sample to reach a 95% confidence level with a 10% margin of error resulting in a target sample size of 96. Of the total 114 surveys, 2 were not eligible because they did not complete the consent, 24 were excluded because they taught special education in a different state than Texas, and 7 were excluded due to not teaching in either a public or charter school. Of the 81 respondents that remained, 14 more were excluded due to not completing one of the two main sections of the survey. The number of respondents included (n = 67) was less than the power analysis recommended. A smaller sample population increases the risk of a type II error, which is failing to reject the null hypothesis when there is in fact a difference. However, this limitation likely did not impact the results since statistical significance was reached for most of the research questions despite the small sample size.

Of the 67 eligible surveys completed, more than 85% of the sample participants were between 25 and 54 years of age. The majority identified as females (92.5%) and white (94.0%). The median years of teaching experience was 9 years and the median years at the current school was 4 years. Over half (52.2%) of the respondents taught elementary (K-5), 17.9% middle (6–8), and 7.5% high school (9–12). All but three of the respondents were teachers in a public school (n = 64). Eleven of the teachers reported they left the field of special education during the COVID-19 pandemic, with eight leaving for reasons unrelated to the pandemic and three citing the pandemic as part of their reason for attrition.

Instruments

Burnout

Teacher burnout was measured using the 22-item three factor Maslach Burnout Inventory, Educators Survey (MBI-ES), rated on a 7-point scale, ranging from 1 to 7 (1 = Never to 7 = Everyday) (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). The three factors measured were emotional exhaustion (EE), depersonalization (DP), and personal accomplishment (PA). Burnout is considered a continuous variable, ranging from low to moderate to high, therefore the MBI-ES was broken down into these ranges using normative distribution scales (Maslach & Jackson, 1981) (Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1.

Normative Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) Scales for Teachers (K-12).

MBI subscales Range of experienced burnout
Low (lower third) Average (middle third) High (upper third)
Emotional exhaustion ≤16 17–26 ≥27
Depersonalization ≤8 9–13 ≥14
Personal accomplishment ≥37 36–31 ≤30
Open in a new tab
Table 2.

Means and Standard Deviations Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) Subscales.

Teachers (K-12) (n = 4,163) MBI subscales
Emotional exhaustion Depersonalization Personal accomplishment
Mean 20.99 8.73 34.58
SD 10.75 5.89 7.11
Open in a new tab

Of the three subscales, high emotional exhaustion has been found to be most consistently associated with burnout, so was used as the primary marker of burnout (Bakker et al., 2002). The benefit of using the MBI-ES as a data source was that it has been used in academic literature as the gold standard for assessing occupational burnout. The limitation of using this data source was that it relies exclusively on self-assessment and quantitative methodology.

Adaptive leadership

The Adaptive Leadership with Authority Scale (ADLAS) is a single-factor (unidimensional), 11 question survey rated on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 to 6 (1, Strongly disagree to 6, Strongly agree) that was designed for individuals to assess the leadership style of their “boss” (Raei, 2018). In this survey, boss was defined as the person to whom the respondent directly reports to and who evaluates their performance. A higher number is associated with increased adaptive leadership style. Raei (2018) used a goodness of fit model to pare down his initial 78 questions into 11 items that were most predictive of an adaptive as opposed to technical leadership style, which are included in Table 3. The strength of this data source was that it is the only validated scale regarding adaptive leadership that can be assessed solely by the respondent without a 360 survey that includes information from the leader themselves.

Table 3.

The Raei Adaptive Leadership With Authority Scale.

Item Target sub-construct
1. My boss recognizes that we have to leave some of our old ways behind. Distinguish between adaptive and technical challenges
2. My boss reaches out to influential individuals in the organization to help identify the different stakeholders affected by change. Identify the stakeholders and their losses
3. My boss creates a space where it is safe to discuss what everyone knows but might be afraid to bring out into the open. Create the holding environment
4. My boss creates an environment where we can have conflict about our ideas without getting into personal attacks. Create the holding Environment
5. My boss tolerates my mistakes if there is no major damage. Create the holding environment
6. My boss can read the room during meetings. Regulate the distress
7. My boss prevents us from getting too distracted by immediate but unimportant concerns. Regulate the distress
8. My boss gives people time to learn from their mistakes. Give the work back
9. My boss makes people comfortable bringing up bad news. Protect voices of leadership without authority
10. My boss admits his/her mistakes. Use of self
11. My boss is willing to give up some of his/her authority. Use of self
Open in a new tab

Source. Adapted from Table 4.22 (Raei, 2018, p.125).

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact

The Pandemic Experiences and Perceptions Scale (PEPS) (Leiter, 2020) measures employees’ experiences working during a pandemic and provides critical information in six areas including disruption, resources, risk perception, impact on work life areas, perceptions of leadership, and open-text items. Twenty-three of the questions were used in this survey, which all used a 5-point Likert scale of 1 equals no effect at all to 5 equals completely dominated the work.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed once manually coded in excel using SPSS® Statistics for Mac Version 27. Summary statistics are presented for demographic data and from each of the three surveys. Median and total emotional exhaustion (EE) scores were used as a marker for burnout, which were calculated to account for missing data, and compared to median ALAS score using Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient. Total scores were also compared for association using simple linear regression and Spearman’s rho coefficient. To ensure the sampling was representative of the larger population, demographic data were evaluated. Correlation between the ALAS and PEPS variables was assessed using the Spearman’s rho coefficient. Mann-Whitney U was used to analyze emotional exhaustion as a marker for burnout and attrition of special education teachers. Two-tailed hypotheses were used, and significance level was set at 0.05.

Results

Research question one addressed the association between the adaptive leadership level of school administrators and the measured burnout level of the special education teachers in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic of the 2019 to 2020 and 2020 to 2021 school years.

The analysis identified the statistical correlations between the dependent variable of special education teacher burnout and the independent variable of the adaptive leadership level of school administrators. Data were from the online surveys and extracted for each variable, scored, and analyzed individually to assess the levels of each variable. Primary outcome data are shown in Table 4 for the 67 respondents, and shows the total score, median score, and percentage of low, average, and high levels for the MBI-ES. Median score was calculated for each area to reflect scores more accurately without being skewed by outliers. There are no established standards for low, medium, and high for the ALAS, so these scores were reported as median (IQR) for the survey respondents.

Table 4.

Primary Outcome Survey Results for MBI-ES Subscales and ALAS.

Survey Total score, med (IQR) Median score, med (IQR) Low, n (%) Ave, n (%) High, n (%)
MBI-ES (n = 67)
 Emotional exhaustion 31 (16, 37.5) 4 (2, 5) 18 (26.87%) 12 (19.91%) 37 (55.22%)
 Depersonalization 4.9 (1, 7) 0 (0, 1) 53 (79.10%) 11 (17.91%) 3 (4.48%)
 Personal accomplishment 41 (34.5, 44.5) 5 (4.5, 6) 8 (11.94%) 14 (20.90%) 45 (67.16%)
ALAS (n = 67) 45 (32.5, 52) 4 (3, 5) N/A N/A N/A
Open in a new tab

Note. Med = median; IQR = interquartile range; MBI-ES = Maslach Burnout Inventory-Educator’s Survey; ALAS = Adaptive Leadership with Authority Scale.

Spearman’s rho was calculated to determine the statistical relationship between the dependent median emotional exhaustion for occupational burnout of special education teachers and independent median adaptive leadership level of administrator’s variables (Table 5). The statistical test resulted in rejection of the null hypothesis, indicating that there is an association between the level of adaptive leadership in one’s supervisor and the level of emotional exhaustion in the special educator, p < 0.001 (Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient = −0.427, 95% CI: [−0.610, −0.202]). Total scores for EE and ALAS were also compared for association using simple linear regression, yielding the same results. Adaptive leadership was negatively associated with the amount of emotional exhaustion, b = −0.361, t(65) = −3.24, p < .001. Degree of emotional exhaustion was regressed on level of adaptive leadership (ALAS) and the overall model was significant, F(1, 65) = 10.48, p = .002. Therefore, adaptive leadership can account for 10.5% of the variance in emotional exhaustion. A scatterplot of the two variables with a regression line is shown in Figure 1.

Table 5.

Statistical Correlations for Emotional Exhaustion and Adaptive Leadership.

Test Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient p Value 95% CI
MBI-ES EE and ALAS (n = 67)
 Median scores −.427 <.001* [−0.610, −0.202]
 Total scores −.395 <.001* [−0.585, −0.164]
MBI-ES EE and % time virtual −.065 .600 (NS) [−0.307, 0.185]
Open in a new tab

Note. CI = confidence intervals; MBI-ES = ALAS Educator’s Survey; EE = emotional exhaustion; ALAS = Adaptive Leadership with Authority.

*

Correlation is significant at the.01 level (2-tailed).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Scatter plot of emotional exhaustion total score by adaptive leader total score.

Research question two addressed the association between the level of adaptive leadership of the school administrator and attrition of special education teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Of the 67 respondents, 11 left the field of special education during the pandemic. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the continuous nonparametric variable of ALAS as a total score to the categorical variable of attrition. The Mann-Whitney U test was appropriate for comparing the differences as the variables fit within the four assumptions required: (1) the dependent variable (i.e., ALAS) was ordinal, (2) the independent variable (i.e., attrition) consisted of two categorical independent groups, (3) the observations were independent, and (4) variables were not normally distributed. The null hypothesis for this comparison research question three explored the association between the level of adaptive leadership of the school administrator and the degree of perceived impact from the COVID-19 pandemic on special education professionals. Specific components from the Pandemic Experiences and Perceptions Survey (PEPS) were used to focus on respondents’ extent of impact, risk perception, work-life impact, organizational management response, and immediate supervisor response related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Each subsection of the PEPS score was totaled and a median was calculated so it could be evaluated for a correlation with the ALAS using Spearman’s rho (since the subsections were nonparametric) using a two-tailed hypothesis (Table 6). With the exception of risk perception, there was a statistically significant correlation between the level of adaptive leadership of the direct supervisor and each subsection of the pandemic experiences and perceptions survey at the level of p < .05.

Table 6.

PEPS Subsection Scores and Correlation With ALAS.

PEPS subsection Median scores (IQR) p Value
Total Median Spearman’s rho
Perceived extent of impact, n = 67 11 (9, 12) 4 (3, 4) −0.331 .006
Risk perception, n = 66 14.5 (12, 18.8) 4 (3, 5) −0.148 .236
Work-life impact, n = 66 22.5 (18.3, 26) 3 (3, 4) 0.718 <.001
Organization management, n = 65 16 (13, 20) 3 (3, 4) 0.570 <.001
Immediate supervisor 17.5 (11.8, 21) 3 (2, 4) 0.784 <.001
Open in a new tab

It should be noted that the PEPS assessment tool used in this study was designed to measure employees’ experiences working during the pandemic by assessing the respondents’ perception of their organizations’ response (Leiter, 2020). As this assessment tool was only released recently, a search of the literature revealed no studies using it within special education.

A statistically significant correlation was found on four components of the PEPS including perceived impact, work-life impact, organizational management, and immediate supervisor. All were associated with higher levels of adaptive leadership in the supervisor and had statistically significant correlation with more positive teacher experiences and perceptions of their school’s response to providing instruction during the pandemic.

Discussion

Special education teachers matter but for so many of them the well is empty and they are alone in their attempts to find a solution. An abundance of research has shown the profound impact occupational burnout has had on these professionals (Brunsting et al., 2014; Fore et al., 2002; Nelson et al., 2014) and the field of special education (Park & Shin, 2020). Many scholars have pointed to the substantial role the organizational environment plays in the prevalence of burnout (Gmelch & Gates, 1998; Leiter, 1991). While research clearly assigns the organizational environment as a significant causal factor of burnout (Leiter & Maslach, 2017; Park & Shin, 2020), a gap exists when specifically targeting which factors of the organization are either exacerbating or abating the burnout. Schools function as a product of their leadership, and the methodological approach of their leadership is an underlying factor that dictates how they plan, activate, respond, and evaluate the complex issues that are occurring daily. Adaptive leadership (Heifetz et al., 2009) is an approach that theoretically fits the needs of the school environment due to its shared leadership model that engages complex problems differently than the typical hierarchical models of leadership. This study aimed to determine if there was an association between the perceived adaptive leadership level of administrators and occupational burnout of special education teachers during a particularly stressful period of time (e.g., COVID-19 pandemic).

The results indicated a statistical significance exists between the adaptive leadership level of administrators and the burnout of special education teachers, and rejection of the null hypothesis. Therefore, occupational burnout in special education teacher respondents correlated with the level of adaptive leadership in the administrator with authority above them.

The correlation found in this study reinforces the research of many organizational psychologists and researchers in terms of the crucial role that the organizational environment plays in the occupational burnout of human service professionals (Leiter, 1991; Leiter & Maslach, 2017) and, more specifically, special education teachers (Brunsting et al., 2014; Yang & Hayes, 2020). Further, research has revealed a connection between burnout and administrative support (Conley & You, 2017) and school culture/leadership (Bettini et al., 2017), but the anecdotes for those have been prescriptive “do this so they will do that” interventions that have shown minimal corollary effects (Bataineh & Alsagheer, 2012; Conley & You, 2017; Fore et al., 2002; Iancu et al., 2018) Why is that? Data from the current study would suggest that it is because those interventions are approaching the issue of burnout as a technical problem with a technical fix (hierarchical), but complex issues that have no simple solutions require a different approach (adaptive) (Gregory, 2011; Leiter, 1991). Adaptive leadership embraces those complexities by engaging shareholders into the process and creating a “holding environment” where leaders with and without authority problem solve solutions together (Heifetz, 1994). Data from this study revealed that when the respondents felt they had a voice or were in some way a part of the process of determining solutions, they experienced a decrease in emotional exhaustion. Conversely, when their administrator made unilateral decisions regarding their roles and work environment, the bureaucratic leadership approach, the respondents reported experiencing higher degrees of burnout. Leaders with authority attempting to change the culture of an organization by making top-down decisions will fail because culture is not contingent upon one person (Corazzini et al., 2015). While culture change is informed by leaders with authority, it is dependent upon shared values and engagement from stakeholders (Leiter, 1991; Lim & Eo, 2014; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017).

Several studies have shown that the adaptive leadership model promotes positive organizational change in educational institutions (Bintz, 2009; Jayan et al., 2016; Kershner & McQuillan, 2016; Wool, 2014). The current study builds upon those research studies by quantitatively targeting the pivotal variable of burnout in special education teachers rather than the more generic qualitative measurement of effectiveness. The usefulness of this research should be conceptualized as a catalyst for larger byproducts, as the goal of decreasing burnout at its origin is to decrease both the temporal and long-term effects of burnout. Research on occupational burnout in special education has centered around its effects on the population such as attrition (Berry et al., 2011; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Borman & Dowling, 2008; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019), student outcomes (Brunsting et al., 2014; Nelson et al., 2014), and teacher outcomes (Adera & Bullock, 2010; Chang, 2009; Hastings & Bham, 2016; Oberle & Schonert-Reichl, 2016). Decreasing the cause of burnout should be evidenced by a reduction in the effects of burnout, which could lead to substantial gains across the board for special education and general education teachers alike. With empirical proof of the statistically significant difference that adaptive leadership had on the burnout of special education teachers, it stands to reason that adaptive leadership presents as a consequential methodological change that could provide solutions to this rampant issue.

If it is known that adaptive leadership correlates to lower occupational burnout in special education teachers, the potential for creating lasting change in the educational system is a reality. More needs to be done to understand the process of leadership development that schools and/or districts have in place, and who dictates those strategies. Systemic administrative change requires a paradigm shift toward an emphasis on developing adaptive leaders rather than relying on trait leadership or innate abilities (Gehring, 2007) Moving into the adaptive leadership model would require new learning, innovation, and new patterns of behavior, and should be considered an intentional, walk-along process that is lived into (Derue, 2011). The first step in moving toward an adaptive leadership model is a focus on self-awareness by the leader with authority to examine their motives, mindset, approach, assumptions, and values (Eubank et al., 2012; Heifetz, 1998), next a systematic training on the theoretical and methodological tenets of adaptive leadership, and finally practical application using a leadership in action model (Heifetz et al., 2009).

The association explored between the level of adaptive leadership of the school administrator and attrition of special education teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic was statistically significant concluding that the respondents that left the field of special education scored their “boss” lower on the ALAS scale than did those who remained in the field. Supporting the literature that occupational burnout is associated with the attrition of special education teachers (Berry et al., 2011; Billingsley & Bettini, 2019; Borman & Dowling, 2008; Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019). Researchers have identified multiple variables that play into burnout that leads to attrition such as workload (Van Droogenbroeck & Spruyt, 2016), the increased difficulty of teaching students with disabilities (Gilmour & Wehby, 2019), and work environment (Conley & You, 2017). The association between attrition of special education teachers and a lower level of adaptive leadership in their direct supervisor was also consistent found in the correlation between adaptive leadership and occupational burnout. It is not surprising given the relationship between occupational burnout and attrition, that there was also a correlation between adaptive leadership and attrition. This further strengthens the correlation found in study. Adaptive leadership both theoretically and empirically can be shown as a way forward to decrease attrition.

These findings are important beyond the technical issue of retaining special education teachers to curtail the national special education teacher shortage (E. M. Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2011). Research has shown that the academic and financial costs of teacher turnover to student learning and district budgets is significant (Carroll, 2015). In 2017, the estimated cost of teacher attrition was $7.3 billion a year (Carver-Thomas & Darling-Hammond, 2019). While other effects of burnout are localized to the teacher themselves, attrition also wreaks havoc on students and the education system, creating an urgency for productive solutions. The correlation in this study between adaptive leadership and attrition in special education teachers adds to the literature as a productive solution. Adaptive leadership provides a way forward for administrators to combat attrition by changing the organizational environment into a shared leadership structure that engages stakeholders rather than isolating them, while also defining issues as either technical or adaptive problems or order to approach them accordingly (Heifetz et al., 2009). This movement away from a leader-follower interaction and into emergent relationships and professional/social structures enable the organizational culture to develop and adapt in dynamic contexts (Derue, 2011). The complexity of variables leading to attrition can then be naturally and/or intentionally targeted by both those managing and those experiencing the burnout to find relevant and effective solutions that work for all involved.

Research exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on special education teachers is limited given that it is a current reality with no historical data or exploration. The initial work of researchers used qualitative methodologies to explore the effects of the pandemic on the teachers themselves. Early data show trends in increased attrition, administration-teacher tension, insufficient teacher development procedures, low teacher self-efficacy, teacher burnout, lack of qualified educators, school-family tensions, and funding difficulties (Williams, 2020). In-person teachers and students frequently suffered prolonged periods of quarantine, while special education teachers in particular had increased challenges related to educating children with special needs remotely or with additional physical barriers to allow for social distancing (Mitchell, 2020). While initial studies indicate generally teachers have been affected by the pandemic, the exploration using the PEPS and ALAS allowed this study to explore the respondents’ perception of the organizational role in the magnitude of the impact. Adaptive leadership correlated with multiple aspects of the PEPS indicates that teachers who had supervisors with higher levels of adaptive leadership experienced less perceived work-life impact of the pandemic, less impact of the pandemic in general, and a more favorable perception of their organizational and supervisor management of the pandemic. That data confirms that the variables of impact have a deeper root (organizational leadership) that either evoked or abated burnout in the respondents.

This study not only found that the organizational and administrator response to the pandemic affected special education teachers but also speaks to how their decisions affected the teachers positively or negatively. The correlation found in this study moves beyond that and confirms that the respondents were affected more by how they were led than what the organization did. That distinction exposes the need for a divergence of mindset and methodology from the traditional leadership approach (bureaucratic), and into an adaptive approach that focuses on shared leadership that understands not all problems are the same.

Adaptive leadership involves an evolution of perspective and practice that engages stakeholders in the process of complex problem solving to move through conflict successfully as an organization (Sims, 2009). In quite possibly the most difficult crisis that the educational system has faced to date, the correlation in this question, strengthened also by the correlation in research question one, reveals the magnitude of an adaptive leadership approach. These results continue to extend the value of adaptive leadership as a systemic change that has far reaching, positive effects for teachers, administrators, and the education system.

Practical Implications

Given the impact of burnout on outcomes and attrition of special education teachers, this study is of critical importance to the field of education. New solutions are needed now because the current theoretical/methodological administrative structure has failed to stifle burnout. The statistically significant correlations found in this study between adaptive leadership levels in administrators and the burnout and attrition of special education teachers should be astonishing and cause educational leadership to stop and reevaluate. The additional correlations between adaptive leadership levels in administrators and the respondent’s perceptions of how their organization handled the pandemic should further catalyze exploration into personal and systemic leadership culture.

These administrators are left with the crisis of unfilled teaching positions after burned out teachers quit, and the daunting side effects of the costs associated with attrition, the lack of qualified teachers to hire, and the reality that the next teacher will have to walk into the same system that failed the last one. However, this study offers a practical solution that does not consist of simply showing teachers new skills or providing them with additional people or supplies to help manage their daily issues. Instead, this study suggests that intentional engagement with teachers regarding the problem-solving process to determine the actual issues and how to solve them collectively as an adaptive leader can reduce burnout and the associated negative effects (e.g., attrition). Adaptive leadership provides a level of support and partnership that addresses complex problems at the root, which could be the necessary catalyst for change.

This study supports a shifting in the perspective on leadership structures within the education system and raise questions to administrators as to how they are leading by focusing on actual results. Teaching adaptive leadership principles to administrators would provide a new perspective and instruction on how to support their teams. This shifts the responsibility of solving the problem of attrition and other negative implications of burnout away from the administrators alone to a shared model that partners with those directly impacted (e.g., teachers) to develop solutions.

Therefore, this study may aid in planning and developing trainings for administrators and educators to increase understanding of how the organizational environment impacts occupational burnout. Additionally, these trainings could capitalize on how a change in leadership ideology can be the first step toward a change in the organizational culture that could increase engagement and positive outcomes for all involved. Trainings should also include specific dimensions of teacher burnout as discussed in this study, as well as a focus on adaptive leadership as the ideology that can produce significant change. It is critical that administrators gain an understanding of how leadership style is impacting the occupational burnout of their teachers, while also accessing the framework and practical applications of adaptive leadership theory that can be implemented in their organization.

Limitations of the Study

The limitations of this study are related to issues of generalizability. Although the sample size was significantly smaller than the targeted sample size based on the pre hoc power analysis calculations, the majority of research questions resulted in rejection of the null hypotheses, so this limitation was less of a limitation. A limitation in study design was both in small sample size, but also in the homogeneity of the sample population. By only collecting responses from special education teachers in Texas, it is more difficult to discern whether teaching modality had a significant impact on occupational burnout for these educators.

Another limitation of the study is the sampling methodology. Convenience and snowball sampling are non-probability sampling and are thus more likely to lead to skewed sample populations. This may have contributed to the respondents sampled, which were overwhelmingly white and female. As such, the sampling may have limited the generalizability to all special educators.

Future Research

While this study added to the existing literature by establishing the association between the level of adaptive leadership in administrators and the burnout level of special education teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic (AY2019-2020 and AY 2020-2021), further research is warranted. The following recommendations represent a variety of directions that future research could follow.

The first recommendation would be to replicate the study but with a larger sample size. In an effort to do so, the researcher could change the timeframe that the survey is conducted. The current study distributed the survey in early summer, at a time when special education teachers were not in the classroom, and that could have affected participation in the study. Distributing the survey while school is in session could increase the response from participants by making convenience and snowball sampling more effective.

Next, it is recommended that this study be replicated to include special education teachers across the United States as opposed to limiting responses to one state. States across the country have approached education during the pandemic differently, and results from respondents across the US could add to the understanding of this correlation, in addition to broader associations about the relationship between the COVID-19 response strategy and occupational burnout.

Although this study focused on special education teachers as the targeted population, it is believed that this study could be replicated with general education teachers as well and could shed even more light on the impact that adaptive leadership may have in the broader field of education. While the variables that special education teachers face are different than those of general education teachers, burnout is not exclusive to those in special education by any means. Targeting general education teachers could add to the understanding of the correlation between the level of adaptive leadership in administrators and the level of burnout in teachers.

Finally, further research is indicated to explore the causal relationship between adaptive leadership and occupational burnout within the field of education. Although this study identified that a correlation exists, an experimental design would be indicated to establish causation. This would be a critical next step in understanding the relationship between these two variables and would further strengthen recommendations to employ adaptive leadership skills throughout administrators in the field.

Summary

The correlations found in this study between adaptive leadership and occupational burnout shed light on a conceptual solution to this deeply troubling issue of burnout that has plagued special education teachers for years (Fore et al., 2002). It has been established that occupational burnout is a complex issue with no simple solutions (Maslach & Jackson, 1981), and that creating interventions that target surface variables bears little fruit in combatting burnout (Maslach, 2003; Schaufeli et al., 2009). Despite these challenges, the hierarchical system of leadership in place has focused on canned intervention programs that rely on an “expert” to teach schools how to keep teachers engaged (e.g., change the bucket) rather than looking inward. While those programs may carry some temporal impact, long-term change requires deeper inspection into the systemic issues at the heart of the problem (Lim & Eo, 2014).

Although research on burnout has consistently shown organizational problems are associated with burnout more than those variables encountered in the classroom (Leiter, 1991; Yang & Hayes, 2020), school organizations have continued to focus on the classroom to solve the issue of burnout (Hakanen & Bakker, 2017). Data from this study cast doubt on that strategy by further bridging the association between the system of leadership and occupational burnout in special education teachers. This study suggests that the solution to burnout in special education teachers could lie more in how they are led, rather than what they are led to do. Adaptive leadership theory serves as a methodology designed to tackle complex issues without easy answers through a shared leadership model where employees feel empowered and included in the solution to refill their empty well. The result of this approach has the potential to change culture, improve teacher self-efficacy, and reduce costs associated with attrition in the educational system.

Author Biographies

Dr. Britt Sims is and the owner and Executive Director of Integrated Behavior Solutions, Inc., which specializes in Applied Behavior Analysis and Occupational Therapy services for children on the autism spectrum. As a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) with a Ph.D. in special education, he provides consulting services within the public education system, focusing on both student and professional behavior. His research interests include the intersection between organizational leadership and occupational burnout, and the application of applied behavior analysis within organizations.

Lieutenant Colonel Renée I. Matos, MD, MPH, FAAP, FCCM is the assistant dean of Quality Improvement and Patient Safety at the San Antonio Uniformed Services Health Education Consortium (SAUSHEC), where she oversees quality improvement and patient safety for 37 GME training programs with 600 residents and fellows. Dr. Matos is also a pediatric intensivist, the Pediatric Critical Care Consultant to the Air Force Surgeon General, and an Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the Uniformed Services University. She has served on multiple national committees with research interests in resuscitation, quality improvement, patient safety, critical care air transport, graduate medical education, peer support, and burnout.

Janna Brendle, Ph.D., is an associate professor in the Texas Tech University College of Education Special Education program. Her teaching responsibilities include the educational diagnostician master’s and special education doctoral programs. Her areas of expertise and research focus on assessment, high incidence disabilities, and intervention.

Robin H. Lock, Ph.D. is a professor in the Texas Tech University College of Education Special Education program. Her areas of expertise include transition to adulthood for individuals with disabilities and educator preparation for children with disabilities including the areas of learning disabilities, intellectual disabilities, emotional and behavior disorders, and autism spectrum disorders.

Footnotes

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding: The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Adera B. A., Bullock L. M. (2010). Job stressors and teacher job satisfaction in programs serving students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 15(1), 5–14. 10.1080/13632750903512365 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakker A. B., Demerouti E., Schaufeli W. B. (2002). Validation of the maslach burnout inventory – General survey: An internet study. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 15(3), 245–260. 10.1080/1061580021000020716 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Bataineh O., Alsagheer A. (2012). An investigation of social support and burnout among special education teachers in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Special Education, 27(2), 1. [Google Scholar]
  4. Berry A. B., Petrin R. A., Gravelle M. L., Farmer T. W. (2011). Issues in special education teacher recruitment, retention, and professional development: Considerations in supporting rural teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 30(4), 3–11. 10.1177/875687051103000402 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bettini E., Benedict A., Thomas R., Kimerling J., Choi N., McLeskey J. (2017). Cultivating a community of effective special education teachers: Local special education administrators’ roles. Remedial and Special Education, 38(2), 111–126. 10.1177/0741932516664790 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  6. Billingsley B., Bettini E. (2019). Special education teacher attrition and retention: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 89(5), 697–744. 10.3102/0034654319862495 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bintz S. (2009). Special education cooperative directors: Leadership and effective governance partnerships. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  8. Borman G. D., Dowling N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409. 10.3102/0034654308321455 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  9. Brunsting N. C., Sreckovic M. A., Lane K. L. (2014). Special education teacher burnout: A synthesis of research from 1979 to 2013. Education and Treatment of Children, 37(4), 681. 10.1353/etc.2014.0032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  10. Carroll T. (2015). The high cost of teacher turnover. https://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NCTAFCostofTeacherTurnoverpolicybrief.pdf
  11. Carver-Thomas D., Darling-Hammond L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27, 23–28. 10.14507/epaa.27.3699 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Chang M.-L. (2009). An appraisal perspective of teacher burnout: Examining the emotional work of teachers. Educational Psychology Review, 21(3), 193–218. 10.1007/s10648-009-9106-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  13. Corazzini K., Twersky J., White H. K., Buhr G. T., McConnell E. S., Weiner M., Colon-Emeric C. S. (2015). Implementing Culture Change in Nursing Homes: An Adaptive Leadership Framework. Gerontologist, 55(4), 616–627. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnt170 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Derue D. S. (2011). Adaptive leadership theory: Leading and following as a complex adaptive process. Research in Organizational Behavior, 31, 125-150. 10.1016/j.riob.2011.09.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  15. Eubank D., Geffken D., Orzano J., Ricci R. (2012). Teaching adaptive leadership to family medicine residents: what? why? how? Fam Syst Health, 30(3), 241–252. 10.1037/a0029689 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Firth H., Britton P. (1989). ‘Burnout’, absence and turnover amongst British nursing staff. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62(1), 55. [Google Scholar]
  17. Fore C., Martin C., Bender W. N. (2002). Teacher burnout in special education: The causes and the recommended solutions. The High School Journal, 86(1), 36–44. 10.1353/hsj.2002.0017 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Gehring D. R. (2007). Applying traits theory of leadership to project management. Project Management Journal, 38(1), 44–54. 10.1177/875697280703800105 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  19. Gilmour A. F., Wehby J. H. (2019). The association between teaching students with disabilities and teacher turnover. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 1042. 10.1037/edu0000394 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gmelch W. H., Gates G. (1998). The impact of personal, professional and organizational characteristics on administrator burnout. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(2), 146–159. 10.1108/09578239810204363 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gregory E. (2011). Moving toward adaptive learning. People and Strategy, 34(4), 9–10. [Google Scholar]
  22. Hakanen J. J., Bakker A. B. (2017). Born and bred to burn out: A life-course view and reflections on job burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 22(3), 354–364. 10.1037/ocp0000053 [DOI] [PubMed]
  23. Hastings R. P., Bham M. S. (2016). The relationship between student behaviour patterns and teacher burnout. School Psychology International, 24(1), 115–127. 10.1177/0143034303024001905 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Heifetz R. A. (1994). Leadership without easy answers. Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. [Google Scholar]
  25. Heifetz R. (1998). Walking in the fine line of leadership. The Journal for Quality and Participation, 21(1), 9. [Google Scholar]
  26. Heifetz R., Grashow A., Linsky M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press. [Google Scholar]
  27. Jayan M., Bing K. W., Musa K.(2016). Investigating the relationship of adaptive leadership and leadership capabilities on leadership effectiveness in Sarawak Schools. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 224, 540–545. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.sbspro.2016.05.433 [Google Scholar]
  28. Kershner B., McQuillan P. (2016). Complex adaptive schools: Educational leadership and school change. Complicity: An International Journal of Complexity and Education, 13(1), 4. 10.29173/cmplct23029 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Leiter M. P. (1991). The dream denied: Professional burnout and the constraints of human service organizationS. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 32(4), 547–558. 10.1037/h0079040 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Leiter M. P. (2020). Pandemic experiences and perceptions scale. Copyright © 2020. Michael P. Leiter. All rights reserved in all media. Published by Mind Garden, Inc., www.mindgarden.com: www.mindgarden.com [Google Scholar]
  31. Leiter M. P., Maslach C. (2017). Burnout and engagement: Contributions to a new vision. Burnout Research, 5, 55–57. 10.1016/j.burn.2017.04.003 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lim S., Eo S. (2014). The mediating roles of collective teacher efficacy in the relations of teachers’ perceptions of school organizational climate to their burnout. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 138–147. 10.1016/j.tate.2014.08.007 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  33. Maslach C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 189–192. 10.1111/1467-8721.01258 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  34. Maslach C., Jackson S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 2, 99–113. [Google Scholar]
  35. Maslach C., Jackson S. E., Schwab R. L. (1986). MBI-ES: for Educators. https://www.mindgarden.com/117-maslach-burnout-inventory-mbi
  36. Mitchell. (2020). How will schools provide special education during the coronavirus crisis?: With the coronavirus pandemic pressing tens of thousands of the nation’s school districts into extended closures, education administrators across the nation are wrestling with a complex and legalistic problem: How to keep services flowing for students with disabilities. Education Week, 39(28), 6. [Google Scholar]
  37. National Coalition on Personnel Shortages in Special Education and Related Services (2016). About the Shortage – NCPSSERS. specialedshortages.org [Google Scholar]
  38. Nelson C. B., Melissa A. S., Kathleen Lynne L. (2014). Special education teacher burnout: A synthesis of research from 1979 to 2013. Education & Treatment of Children, 37(4), 681–711. 10.1353/etc.2014.0032 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  39. Oberle E., Schonert-Reichl K. A. (2016). Stress contagion in the classroom? The link between classroom teacher burnout and morning cortisol in elementary school students. Social Science & Medicine, 159, 30–37. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.04.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Park E.-Y., Shin M. (2020). A meta-analysis of special education teachers’ burnout. SAGE Open, 10(2), 10–14. 10.1177/2158244020918297 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  41. Parks S. D. (2005). Leadership can be taught: A bold approach for a complex world. Harvard Business School Press. [Google Scholar]
  42. Plsek P. E., Greenhalgh T. (2001). The challenge of complexity in health care. BMJ, 323(7313), 625. 10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Raei M. (2018). Development and validation of the adaptive leadership with authority scale. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  44. Schaufeli W. B., Leiter M. P., Maslach C. (2009). Burnout: 35 years of research and practice. Career Development International, 14(3), 204–220. 10.1108/13620430910966406 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  45. Sims B. D. (2009). Complexity, adaptive leadership, phase transitions, and new emergent order: A case study of the Northwest Texas Conference of the United Methodist Church. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  46. 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. 10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  47. Skaalvik E. M., Skaalvik S. (2017). Dimensions of teacher burnout: Relations with potential stressors at school. Social Psychology of Education, 20(4), 775–790. 10.1007/s11218-017-9391-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Sullivan K., Barkowski E., Lindsay J., Lazarev V., Nguyen T., Newman D., Lin L. (2017). Trends in teacher mobility in Texas and associations with teacher, student, and schoolcharacteristics (REL 2018–283). http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
  49. Wool L. (2014). Adaptive leadership and school district reform: A ten-year analytic autoethnographic study. In Richards C., Pasmore W., Perkins B., Weintraub R. (Eds.): ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  50. Van Droogenbroeck F., Spruyt B. (2016). I Ain’t Gonna Make It. Comparing Job Demands-Resources and Attrition Intention Between Senior Teachers and Senior Employees of Six Other Occupational Categories in Flanders. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 83(2), 128–155. 10.1177/0091415016647729 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Williams R. L. (2020). Special education teacher experiences and efficacy during a pandemic (Covid-19). ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  52. Yang Y., Hayes J. A. (2020). Causes and consequences of burnout among mental health professionals: A practice-oriented review of recent empirical literature. Psychotherapy, 57(3), 426. 10.1037/pst0000317 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Research on Leadership Education are provided here courtesy of SAGE Publications

RESOURCES