Assessing task prioritization for professors through affinity and satisfaction scores

Abstract

In the realm of academia, the workload of professors varies widely depending on the institution, department, and specific roles they undertake. With many faculty members exceeding a fifty-hour workweek, the balance between teaching, research, administrative duties, and personal life becomes a challenging endeavour, potentially leading to high levels of stress, and dissatisfaction. The objective of this study is to introduce and propose two novel assessment tools, the ‘Academic Affinity Score’ and the ‘Academic Satisfaction Score’, aimed at enhancing professors’ ability to prioritize their tasks effectively. The ‘Academic Affinity Score’ offers a graphical representation of professors’ affinity levels in academic roles, helping them identify areas for improvement, while the ‘Academic Satisfaction Score’ focuses on evaluating their satisfaction with specific academic activities. By utilizing these scores, professors can align their workload with their preferences, potentially reducing stress, preventing burnout, and ultimately enhancing their overall well-being. The study underscores the importance of addressing faculty well-being and suggests potential avenues for the development of public policies to better support the teaching profession in higher education.

Keywords:

• Academic workload
• burnout prevention
• academic prioritization

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Stephen Darwin, Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile

SUBJECTS:

• Sustainability Education, Training & Leadership
• Teachers & Teacher Education
• Higher Education

1. Introduction

The workload of professors can vary depending on their institution, department, and specific role. The majority of faculty reported working over fifty hours a week, which is more than non-academic workers (Breault, 2011; Kenny & Fluck, 2017). Their typical working hours often prove insufficient, leaving them with no choice but to bring work home, thereby lacking the time for leisure, physical activity, and family life (Soares et al., 2019). In a Canadian research, the average weekly workload was nearly 57 hours, with teaching, research, administrative tasks, and service being the main components (Crespo & Bertrand, 2013). In general, the last activity usually falls under the other three, so the main roles of the professors are teaching, research, and administrative duties; with teaching and research being the most common among educators.

Teaching is the activities related to instructing students in a classroom or educational setting. It includes preparing and delivering lectures, creating lesson plans, conducting assessments, and providing guidance to students in their academic endeavours. Research involves activities aimed at acquiring new knowledge, conducting studies, experiments, or investigations to contribute to the existing body of knowledge in a particular field. This may include literature reviews, data collection and analysis, publishing research papers, and collaborating with other researchers. In one study in Mexico, teaching time did not affect the scientific productivity of researchers (Ramirez-Montoya et al., 2023). On the other hand, administrative duties encompass various duties related to the management and organization of educational institutions or departments. This may include tasks such as scheduling classes, managing budgets, coordinating events, handling paperwork, and overseeing logistical aspects of an academic institution. Administrative duties significantly contribute to the Faculty’s work-life imbalance (Dahiya, 2018). And service in an academic context often refers to activities that contribute to the broader community or institution. It may involve serving on committees, participating in outreach programs, mentoring students, and providing expertise or assistance to the university or external community.

In academic careers, time is a precious resource (O’Meara et al., 2017). Professors are required to juggle multiple academic tasks simultaneously, aiming to complete them quickly and with good results. Consistently managing these tasks throughout their careers can lead to stress. It’s important to note that job-related stress can significantly impact life satisfaction (Chen, 2016). Faculty members often work long hours due to the expectations associated with teaching and research, which can result in dissatisfaction (Jacobs & Winslow, 2004). This cumulative stress and pressure may ultimately lead to professors experiencing burnout syndrome. Burnout is a state characterized by physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion resulting from prolonged stress, overwork, or excessive demands. Burnout can be measured through the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), which aims to assess its frequency and intensity of their feelings (Maslach et al., 1997). Professors can be susceptible to burnout due to various factors, including chronic work-related stress (Buele et al., 2019), extended working hours and an accumulation of duties (Silva et al., 2021), a lack of resources and support (Nascimento et al., 2018), personal and family-related factors (Silva et al., 2021), and an absence of work-life balance.

Preventing burnout syndrome is crucial for professors, as they are exposed to high levels of stress. Here are some strategies that professors can use to prevent burnout: set realistic expectations, maintain a healthy work-life balance, seek support from colleagues and mentors, practice stress management techniques, delegate tasks when possible, take regular breaks, continuously update and improve teaching methods, stay organized and prioritize tasks. Prioritizing tasks are essential but often neglected by professors due to their heavy workloads. Professors should regularly assess work pressures, personal strengths and weaknesses, managerial expectations, external influences, and factors within their control (Griffiths, 2007). This can help pinpoint issues, clarify the causes of negative feelings, and guide the development of a solution.

Despite the acknowledged benefits of task prioritization, the central issue under scrutiny is the challenge that professor encounter in effectively prioritizing their tasks. Globally, two primary models, namely the Demand-Control (D-C) (Karasek, 1979) and the Demand-Control-Support (D-C-S) model (Johnson & Hall, 1988), are extensively studied for assessing work stress. Task prioritization relies on job demands (e.g. teaching, research, and administrative tasks) with corresponding control (e.g. over tasks and behaviors) and support (e.g. from management and colleagues). Both the D-C and D-C-S models have been adapted for an academic context. Although not aligning closely with their original postulates, studies indicate that high tension (demand) is linked to poorer health and diminished job satisfaction (McClenahan et al., 2007).

In the realm of estimating professors’ personal strengths and weaknesses, several models are available. For instance, the Teacher Behaviors Checklist identifies modifiable target behaviors derived from qualitative descriptors associated with teaching examples (Keeley et al., 2006). The Values in Action Strengths Inventory serves as a self-assessment tool, providing priority ratings for 24 character strengths and 6 trait-like virtues from multidisciplinary and multicultural literature (Peterson & Seligman, 2004). There are also hybrid approaches, such as the combination of both models as seen in McGovern and Miller (2008). While these studies offer comprehensive insights into the relationship between work and teacher characteristics, they often lack a specific focus on particular tasks like task prioritization, which encompasses both job demands and personal characteristics.

In this context, the objective of this study is to introduce and propose two novel assessment tools, the ‘Academic Affinity Score’ and the ‘Academic Satisfaction Score’, aimed at enhancing professors’ ability to prioritize their tasks effectively. The ‘Academic Affinity Score’ aims to help professors assess the enjoyment they derive from various academic activities, including teaching, research, and administrative duties. It provides a graphical representation of their preferences and allows professors to identify areas where they can improve their focus and satisfaction. The ‘Academic Satisfaction Score’ focuses on evaluating a professor’s satisfaction with specific academic activities. It provides a structured approach for professors to assess their satisfaction with various tasks and adjust their workload to enhance their well-being. Both scores are described below.

2. Academic affinity score

‘Affinity’ refers to the degree of liking or preference someone feels towards something. Therefore, the ‘Academic Affinity Score’ or AAFS pertains to how much a professor enjoys or feels comfortable with academic activities, such as teaching, research, and management. A high level of affinity implies that the professor enjoys and feels at ease with these activities, while a low level of affinity may indicate that they do not enjoy certain academic tasks as much. The ‘Academic Affinity Score’ is used to measure and evaluate this level of affinity in relation to various academic activities.

The AAFS has an analogy with vectors studied in calculus (Hibbeler, 2010). Vectors possess sense, direction, and magnitude. Similarly, the AAFS integrates analytical calculation with visual representation, imparting to professors a tangible sense of direction regarding their activities. The main goal is to help professors become aware of their academic activities and how they are alignment to them. This proposal emphasizes the importance of focusing on meaningful tasks rather than just staying busy.

Juggling all three professorial roles may not always be easy, as it depends on institutional needs and regulations. The professor’s three primary roles are illustrated in Figure 1. Various points have been included as examples, demonstrating where professors might potentially develop within the educational institution. Ideally, the activities in which the professor engages should align with the quadrant where all values are positive. However, there are professors who dedicate themselves more to teaching, others to research, and others to university management.

Figure 1. Cartesian representation of professorial responsibilities: teaching, research, and administrative duties.

The professors typically have a minimum role as professor-researchers. Figure 1 leads to Figure 2, allowing for a more detailed analysis of this relationship. Ideally, a professor who enjoys teaching should also engage in research, which is the expected outcome for both the administration and the professor. On the other hand, if someone does not enjoy both activities, they would fall into an area where the administration would require more effort to make a substantial contribution to the institution. There are two quadrants with a focus on research and two with a focus on teaching. The proposal aims to make professors aware of where their academic activities are situated within the educational institution so they can identify areas for improvement or areas to prioritize.

Figure 2. Detailed Cartesian diagram for teaching and researching of the professor.

The criteria for the Academic Affinity Score (AAFS) in Table 1 were determined based on a calculated maximum value for each role, set at 333.33 for a standardized measure involving 10 academic activities. The 333.33 value was chosen to maintain a balanced representation among the three primary roles—teaching, research, and administrative duties. It’s important to note that if a different number of academic activities are utilized, this threshold should be recalculated accordingly.

Table 1. Classification criteria for the academic affinity score (AAFS).

Classification criteria	AAFS
Highly affinitive	AAFS > 267
Affinitive	267 <AAFS ≤ 200
Moderately affinitive	200 <AAFS ≤ 133
Not affinitive	AAFS ≤ 133

In Table 1, the classification criteria are established as follows. ‘Highly Affinitive’ corresponds to AAFS values greater than 80% of the maximum (267). ‘Affinitive’ encompasses AAFS values falling between 60% and 80% of the maximum (267-200). ‘Moderately Affinitive’ applies to AAFS values ranging from 40% to 60% of the maximum (200-133). ‘Not Affinitive’ includes AAFS values less than 40% of the maximum (133).

These criteria were strategically chosen to provide a clear and nuanced classification of professors’ affinity levels to their academic responsibilities, promoting a balanced distribution across the defined categories.

2.1. Calculation of the academic affinity score

To calculate the Academic Affinity Score, follow these steps:

1. Choose 10 unique academic activities that the professor is engaged in, whether related to teaching, research, or administrative. Ensure that these activities are distinct and not part of other tasks.

2. Assign a value between 0 and 100 to each of the three roles: teaching, research, and administrative. For example, if an activity is primarily about teaching, assign 100 to teaching and 0 to research and administrative. The value assigned depends on the amount of effort and resources (both in terms of the professor’s time and their personal commitment or dedication) that the professor invests in each academic activity. It represents the level of involvement and engagement they have with a particular task.

3. If the professor finds an academic activity unproductive, uncomfortable, or dislikes it, mark it with a negative sign. In contrast, positive values represent positive feelings associated with that activity.

4. Make sure that the sum of the absolute values for each academic activity (each file) equals 100. For example, if a professor gives a score of 80 for teaching a subject and assigns a score of -20 for management tasks that they dislike, the total sum of the ab-solute values should be 100.

5. Plot the coordinates of each activity on a Cartesian plane.

6. Calculate the Academic Affinity Score by adding up the values for teaching, research, and management separately (each row), and then represent them on Cartesian planes.

7. Consult Table 1 to determine the classification criteria for the Academic Affinity Score.

8. Analyse the Academic Affinity Score and prioritize, correct, eliminate, or refocus academic activities.

If the Academic Affinity Score of the three roles falls into the first quadrant (where all sum values are positive), it signifies that the professor enjoys all three roles that they are required to perform. Achieving a perfect balance would mean having a 45° inclination concerning the Cartesian planes, which is quite challenging. The sum can also reveal the professor’s orientation; if one sum is significantly higher than the other two, it indicates a stronger inclination toward that role. However, if the professor falls into any other quad-rant, it implies that some activities require adjustment, elimination, or focus on what genuinely brings satisfaction. These changes can be made by using negative values in the procedure, as failure to address this can lead to the professor’s frustration.

2.2. Example

Table 2 has an example of a professor engaged in teaching, research, and administrative duties. This professor is affiliated with the Economics department, where they handle academic responsibilities related to their field, alongside others like Basic Anthropology. They also work on research projects in the tourism domain, which could be directly connected to Economics, but the professor has expressed negative sentiments about these projects. The sum of each column results in positive values for teaching (180), negative values for research (-60), and negative values for administrative (-100).

Table 2. Example of the application of the 'academic affinity score’ proposal.

Role	Academic task	Professor perception			Total absolute values
		Teach	Research	Administrative
Teaching	Subject: mathematical fundamentals	90	−10	0	|90|+|−10|+0 = 100
Teaching	Subject: basic anthropology	−80	−20	0	|−80|+|−20|+0 = 100
Researching	Subject: statistical inference techniques	100	0	0	|100|+0 + 0 = 100
Researching	Thesis: urban transportation	20	−80	0	|20|+|−80|+0 = 100
Researching	Thesis: business economics x	0	100	0	0+|100|+0 = 100
Researching	Research project: tourism development in the area	0	−100	0	0+|−100|+0 = 0
Researching	Postgraduate thesis: economic analysis of company y	50	50	0	|50|+|50|+0 = 100
Administrative duties	Specialization supervision	0	0	−100	0 + 0+|−100| = 100
Administrative duties	Research group leadership	0	0	100	0 + 0+|100| = 100
Administrative duties	Coordination of pre-professional internships	0	0	−100	0 + 0+|−100| = 100
Total		180	−60	−100

Figure 3 shows a graph representing 10 activities related to teaching and research, along with their total values and the resulting score. In this specific example, the professor should invest more effort in research to align with the typical requirements of a university. It’s essential to remove or refocus on academic activities with negative scores and continue to engage in those with positive scores. Figure 3 also highlights that the professor is involved in numerous activities but lacks focus on the ones they enjoy the most. Using the values from Table 1, it’s evident that the professor has a moderate affinity for teaching (+180). However, when it comes to research (-60) and administrative (-100), these roles don’t align with the professor’s preferences, indicating a lack of enjoyment in performing them.

Figure 3. Results of the academic affinity score for the teaching and research of the example professor.

3. Academic satisfaction score

The Academic Affinity Score offers valuable insights for prioritizing academic activities. However, it assumes that all activities are equally important (given equal weight coefficients), which may not accurately reflect reality. Therefore, it proposes a score that accounts for variations among activities called the 'Academic Satisfaction Score’ or ASAS. ‘Satisfaction’ refers to the pleasant feeling of contentment or fulfilment that an individual experience (Cambridge Dictionary, 2024). The ASAS is a metric used to measure or evaluate the level of satisfaction or contentment experienced by a professor when engaging in specific academic activities, such as teaching, research, and administrative activities. It measures how satisfied a professor feels when participating in these academic tasks. A higher ASAS suggests that the professor finds these activities rewarding and fulfilling, while lower ASAS may indicate that the professor is not as content with certain academic responsibilities.

The ‘Academic Satisfaction Score’ is a concept where professor assess their level of satisfaction with the teaching, research and administrative duties they are engaged in. The specific factors to be evaluated and the calculation details for this score can be found in Table 3. This procedure was adopted from evaluation of operating tunnels (Wu, 2020). The 'range values’ suggested increase by 20 points each. Users can adjust them as they gain a deeper understanding and experience with the tool.

Table 3. Factors to be evaluated and calculation details for the academic satisfaction score of professors.

Factors (i)	Activity to evaluate (j)	Basic satisfaction score (BSSij)			Weight coefficient (γij)	Factor satisfaction score (SSij)
		Classification	Range of values	Values
Teaching	Academic activities that involve a larger share of teaching.	Strongly satisfied	81–100	Stj	γtj	SStj
		Satisfied	61–80
		Neither satisfied or dissatisfied	41–60
		Dissatisfied	21–40
		Most dissatisfied	0–20
Researching	Academic activities that involve a larger share of researching.	Strongly satisfied	81–100	Srj	γrj	SSrj
		Satisfied	61–80
		Neither satisfied or dissatisfied	41–60
		Dissatisfied	21–40
		Most dissatisfied	0–20
Administrative	Academic activities that involve a larger share of administrative duties.	Strongly satisfied	81–100	Saj	γaj	SSaj
		Satisfied	61–80
		Neither satisfied or dissatisfied	41–60
		Dissatisfied	21–40
		Most dissatisfied	0–20

*i = teaching, researching or administrative duties; j = every academic activity; t = teaching; r = researching; a = administrative duties.

The Factor Satisfaction Scores (SSij) are initially calculated based on Table 3. Subsequently, these scores are summed to estimate the professor’s Academic Satisfaction Score (ASAS), as depicted in the following equations: (1) $$\text{SSij}=\text{Sj}\times \mathrm{\gamma }\mathrm{j}$$(1) (2) $$\text{ASAS}=\Sigma \text{SSij},$$(2)

In Equation (1)(1) $$\text{SSij}=\text{Sj}\times \mathrm{\gamma }\mathrm{j}$$(1) , the weighting coefficients are required, which are obtained using the fol-lowing equation: (3) $${\gamma }_{\mathit{\text{ij}}}=\frac{2n-2m+1}{n^2}$$(3) where ${\gamma }_{\mathit{\text{ij}}},$ weight coefficient of each academic activity, n, number of academic activities; m, importance sequence number m ≤ n.

After calculating the ASAS, refer to Table 4. The ranges in this table maintain the same proportions as those proposed for the ‘Academic Affinity Score’.

Table 4. Classification criteria for the academic satisfaction score (ASAS).

Classification criteria	ASAS
Very high satisfaction	ASAS > 80
High satisfaction	60 <ASAS ≤ 80
Moderate satisfaction	40 <ASAS ≤ 60
Low satisfaction	ASAS ≤ 40

3.1. Calculation of academic satisfaction score

To calculate the Academic Satisfaction Score, follow these steps:

1. Choose 10 unique academic activities that the professor is engaged in, whether related to teaching, research, or administrative. Ensure that these activities are distinct and not part of other tasks.

2. Arrange them in order descendent depending on the amount of effort and resources that the professor invests in each academic activity.

3. Calculate the weighting values using Equation (3)(3) $${\gamma }_{\mathit{\text{ij}}}=\frac{2n-2m+1}{n^2}$$(3) . With 10 activities, the values are 0.19, 0.17, 0.15, 0.13, 0.11, 0.09, 0.07, 0.05, 0.03, 0.01. These values may change if the number of academic activities changes.

4. Choose the value for the Basic Satisfaction Score (BSSij) within the specified range of Table 3. If unable to decide on a value, choose an intermediate value between the two ranges.

5. Estimate the Factor Score satisfaction (SSij).

6. Calculate the Academic Satisfaction Score adding all SSij.

7. Consult Table 4 to determine the classification criteria for the Academic Satisfaction Score.

8. Analyze the Academic Satisfaction Score and its proportions in order to prioritize, correct, eliminate, or refocus academic activities.

It’s important to note that professors should adjust or eliminate activities with lower satisfaction o focus on what bring satisfaction. The same applies to high ASAS values with lower satisfaction levels.

3.2. Example

In this example, the same information was used as in the example presented for the calculation of the Academic Affinity Score. The calculations for the Academic Satisfaction Score are detailed in Table 5. It’s important to note that some activities at the top of the table do not provide satisfaction to the professor. These activities should be either eliminated, modified, or refocused to enhance their overall satisfaction. Ideally, all activities should be satisfying, especially those ranked at the top. Therefore, it’s necessary to eliminate or adjust academic activities that contribute to low satisfaction while retaining those that bring satisfaction, for example, the subject of Basic Anthropology and the postgraduate thesis. The last activities, with a lower weighting coefficient, are not urgent and can be adjusted after addressing the ones at the top. The calculated ASAS is 43.6 out of 100, suggesting that, as per Table 4, the professor expresses moderate satisfaction with the three activities they undertake at the university.

Table 5. Example of the application of the 'academic satisfaction score’ proposal.

Role	Academic task	Weight coefficient	Basic satisfaction score		Factor score satisfaction
			Classification	Value
Teaching	Subject: basic anthropology	0.19	Dissatisfied	30	5.7
Teaching	Subject: mathematical fundamentals	0.17	Strongly satisfy	90	15.3
Researching	Thesis: urban transportation	0.15	Most dissatisfied	10	1.5
Researching	Thesis: business economics x	0.13	Most dissatisfied	10	1.3
Administrative duties	Specialization supervision	0.11	Satisfied	70	7.7
Administrative duties	Research group leadership	0.09	Satisfied	70	6.3
Researching	Postgraduate thesis: economic analysis of company y	0.07	Neither satisfied or dissatisfied	50	3.5
Researching	Research project: tourism development in the area	0.05	Most dissatisfied	10	0.5
Administrative duties	Coordination of pre-professional internships	0.03	Dissatisfied	30	0.9
Teaching	Subject: mathematical fundamentals	0.01	Most dissatisfied	90	0.9
Teaching	Subject: basic anthropology	0.19	Dissatisfied	30	5.7
Teaching	Subject: mathematical fundamentals	0.17	Strongly satisfy	90	15.3
Total					43.6

From the total ASAS, the proportions of the professor’s roles can be determined. The sum of ‘teaching’ activities yields a value of 21.9, accounting for 50.23% of the ASAS. A similar calculation can be performed for the other roles, as depicted in Figure 4. In this specific case, it can be observed that the professor derives the most satisfaction from teaching activities, followed by administrative duties, and has the least satisfaction from research. This outcome similar to the findings of the 'Academic Affinity Score’. The equilibrium point for these activities theoretically stands at 33.3%, although achieving this perfect balance can be challenging. However, in this example, adjustments could be made to balance teaching and administrative duties.

Figure 4. Academic satisfaction score of the example professor and its proportions of teaching, researching, and administrative duties.

4. Validation of the scores

To validate both proposals and ensure a comprehensive understanding of the procedure and results interpretation, four professors from the Logistics and Transportation and Civil Engineering programs at the Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja were enlisted, as outlined in Table 6. The selection included beginner male professors, chosen because they often find it more challenging to prioritize various academic activities, even though the tools are applicable to more experienced professors as well. Table 6 presents the MBI results for each professor. Overall, the MBI results suggest that one professor in this sample may be at risk of burnout, even in the early stages of their teaching careers. These findings may indicate a need for interventions or support to address burnout among these academic professionals, contingent on the specific circumstances and context.

Table 6. Example of the application of the 'academic satisfaction score’ proposal.

N°	Program	Age (years)	Academic experience (years)	Maslach burnout inventory (MBI) results^a
				EE	DP	PA
1	Logistics and Transportation	32	1	12 (low)	9 (moderate)	43 (high)
2	Logistics and Transportation	34	1.5	28 (high)	2 (low)	37 (moderate)
3	Logistics and Transportation	29	1	21 (moderate)	14 (high)	45 (high)
4	Civil Engineering	40	3	18 (low)	7 (moderate)	44 (high)
5	Civil Engineering	30	2.5	27 (high)	9 (moderate)	29 (low)

^aEE = emotional exhaustion, DP, depersonalization (cynicism or detachment); and PA, reduced personal accomplishment.

The professors were provided with an explanation of the methodology and the research’s purpose. All of them willingly participated in the study, considering it an academic research project. During the session, any concerns about the procedure for obtaining scores were addressed, enabling adjustments to the proposal’s instructions. Following this, the professors completed a survey comprising four questions, and their responses were analyzed in detail.

• On a scale of 1–5 (where 1 represents the lowest value and 5 represents the highest), please rate the clarity and comprehensibility of the methodology.

• On a scale of 1–5 (where 1 represents the lowest value and 5 represents the highest), please rate the extent to which the methodology provides useful information.

• On a scale of 1–5 (where 1 represents the lowest value and 5 represents the highest), please rate how well the methodology aligns with the realities you encounter.

• Additionally, please provide comments on how you can apply these results in your career.

4.1. Academic affinity score

The results of the professors evaluated by affinity are displayed in Table 7. However, some professors received negative ratings that need resolution. Additionally, in the total sum, there are administrative duties that are not aligned, suggesting potential adjustments in the future. Table 7 also provides numerical responses to the survey regarding the AAFS procedure and its results.

Table 7. Details of the results of the academic affinity score and the professors’ perception of it.

N°	Professor results			Professor answer to the questions*
	Teach	Research	Administrative duties	1	2	3
1	670 (Highly Affinitive)	230 (Affinitive)	−100 (Not Affinitive)	3	5	4
2	290 (Highly Affinitive)	340 (Highly Affinitive)	270 (Highly Affinitive)	5	4	4
3	220 (Affinitive)	460 (Highly Affinitive)	−80 (Not Affinitive)	5	4	4
4	150 (Moderately Affinitive)	290 (Highly Affinitive)	200 (Affinitive)	3	5	3
5	460 (Highly Affinitive)	440 (Highly Affinitive)	−100 (Not Affinitive)	5	3	2

* 1. On a scale of 1–5 (where 1 represents the lowest value and 5 represents the highest), please rate the clarity and comprehensibility of the methodology.

2. On a scale of 1–5 (where 1 represents the lowest value and 5 represents the highest), please rate the extent to which the methodology provides useful information.

3. On a scale of 1–5 (where 1 represents the lowest value and 5 represents the highest), please rate how well the methodology aligns with the realities you encounter.

In the survey responses, where professors rated from 1 to 5, the consensus was that the methodology is clear and understandable, providing useful information. However, when asked about how well the methodology aligns with the realities they encounter, two professors (No. 4 and No. 5), both coincidentally specializing in civil engineering, gave low ratings. Despite those ratings, their comments were positive:

• Professor 1: ‘Maintaining a record of teaching activities, theses, projects, and management is important for assessing the focus of our work. This aids in identifying areas for improvement and determining where we should allocate more or less time. It’s necessary to note that some management activities can be unproductive, uncomfortable, or repetitive in many cases.’

• Professor 2: ‘Evaluating a professor’s affinity for task assignment can be valuable in my career, as it can enhance performance, direct the professor toward activities they enjoy, and enhance job satisfaction for professors.’

• Professor 3: ‘By presenting these results, it would be possible to assign different roles to professors in line with their preferences. This could help prevent individuals from engaging in activities they consider time-wasting.’

• Professor 4: ‘It’s an assessment of the daily activities I engage in. This methodology helps me plan where I should allocate more time and energy and which activities I should change or transform.’

• Professor 5: ‘From my perspective, the short-term application of the results seems unlikely due to the pace of work I must maintain. Nevertheless, I believe that the results are valuable for reflection and for devising improvement strategies to enhance the perception in specific areas that need strengthening.’

In summary, the comments from these professors highlight the significance of self-assessment, preference evaluation, and effective time management in their professional lives, with the potential for improving performance, satisfaction, and overall work quality.

4.2. Academic satisfaction score

Table 8 displays the results of both the Academic Satisfaction Score and the survey responses from the professors. Initially, most professors show high satisfaction values, except for the third one. It’s important to note that having an affinity for academic activities, as seen in Professor 3, doesn’t necessarily guarantee overall satisfaction. Thus, it’s crucial to consider the scores collectively rather than individually. A decline in satisfaction in one area, such as administrative duties in this case, leads to an overall reduction in the professor’s satisfaction. Therefore, the tool aids in pinpointing activities that may need to be reduced, eliminated, or refocused.

Table 8. Details of the results of the academic satisfaction score and the professors’ perception of it.

N°	Professor results				Professor answer to the questions*
	Total ASAS	Teach	Research	Administrative	1	2	3
1	78.6 (High satisfaction)	74.43 %	18.32 %	7.25%	5	5	5
2	64.0 (High satisfaction)	71.71 %	14.96 %	13.33%	5	4	4
3	34.2 (Low satisfaction)	43.86%	28.95%	27.19%	5	4	4
4	61.2 (High satisfaction)	45.59%	28.92%	25.49%	4	4	3
5	76.6 (High satisfaction)	83.16%	15.93%	0.91%	5	4	4

* 1. On a scale of 1–5 (where 1 represents the lowest value and 5 represents the highest), please rate the clarity and comprehensibility of the methodology.

2. On a scale of 1-–5 (where 1 represents the lowest value and 5 represents the highest), please rate the extent to which the methodology provides useful information.

3. On a scale of 1–5 (where 1 represents the lowest value and 5 represents the highest), please rate how well the methodology aligns with the realities you encounter.

Table 7 also shows the responses rating the ASAS procedure and their perception of it. Like the AAFS, the professors agreed that the methodology is clear and provides useful information. In terms of how well it fits the perceived reality of the professor, the values of two professors increased compared to the AAFS. This can be seen in the professors’ comments:

• Professor 1: ‘The results can be applied to refocus the academic activities of each professor and to evaluate the reasons for certain dissatisfactions in specific activities. For example, in the quality team, there are time-consuming tasks that could be carried out by the career office or other university departments’.

• Professor 2: ‘Assigning teaching loads or management and research activities based on the professor’s affinity [satisfaction] benefits efficiency and job satisfaction’.

• Professor 3: ‘By presenting these results, professors could be assigned roles that align with their preferences. This could help prevent individuals from engaging in activities they consider a waste of time’.

• Professor 4: ‘Knowing and documenting the activities I enjoy and those I don’t can help me develop strategies to enhance the activities I enjoy doing’.

• Professor 5: ‘The results allow me to identify the need to refocus specific activities I perform in the institution to concentrate efforts on activities that bring more satisfaction, thereby strengthening the flow and efficiency of work. However, I find it challenging to eliminate activities that I find unsatisfactory, but it seems feasible and beneficial to refocus them in a way that, even if they can’t be made satisfying, they are at least more manageable’.

The professors’ comments highlight the significant potential in using assessment results to refine and enhance academic activities. They emphasize the benefits of aligning tasks with personal preferences, which not only leads to increased efficiency but also contributes to job satisfaction. The acknowledgment that certain activities may be challenging to eliminate entirely but can be made more manageable underscores the practical approach of finding solutions that improve work quality and flow. Overall, these insights shed light on the importance of self-reflection and strategic adjustments in academic roles to optimize performance and job satisfaction.

5. Discussion

The study raises the question of why affinity and satisfaction should be used to prioritize professor tasks. One reason is that prioritizing tasks based on affinity can lead to improved efficiency, job satisfaction, professional development, collaboration, and student engagement (Leo, 2020).

• Efficiency: When professors focus on tasks that match their strengths and interests, they work more efficiently, leading to better outcomes for students and a more productive work environment.

• Job satisfaction: Prioritizing tasks that professors enjoy and excel at increases their job satisfaction. Satisfied professors are more likely to stay in the profession and provide high-quality instruction.

• Professional development: By prioritizing tasks aligned with their interests and strengths, professors continue developing their skills, fostering ongoing professional growth, and improving instructional practices.

• Collaboration: Task prioritization based on affinity enables easier collaboration with colleagues possessing complementary strengths and interests, fostering effective teamwork and a supportive work environment.

• Student engagement: prioritizing tasks aligned with professors’ passions leads to engaging and meaningful learning experiences for students, enhancing student motivation and achievement.

Improving affinity through teaching skills, respect for students, passion, language proficiency, and personal qualities enhances teaching quality (Qing-Ping, 2011). Strategies professors use to seek affinity positively impact learning, motivation, and professor credibility in the classroom (Frymier, 1994). ‘Learning affinities’ for content, facilitation, and community influence perceptions of powerful professional development (Noonan, 2018). Some professors employ strategies to gain students’ liking and interest, underscoring the importance of personal and subject affinity-seeking efforts (Corham et al., 1989). Lastly, prioritizing tasks aligning with a professor’s expertise and interests contributes to greater job satisfaction and retention (LaRocco & Bruns, 2006).

Using satisfaction as a factor for prioritizing professor tasks comes with various benefits. Here’s why it’s a useful metric:

• Job performance and motivation: Job satisfaction correlates positively with intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Satisfied professors are more motivated, leading to better student outcomes (Comm & Mathaisel, 2003; Marston & Brunetti, 2009).

• Efficiency and effectiveness (Marston & Brunetti, 2009): Prioritizing tasks that contribute to professor satisfaction results in more efficient and effective use of time and resources. Satisfied professors are engaged and focused, leading to higher-quality instruction and improved student learning.

• Retention and recruitment: Job satisfaction is crucial for professor retention and recruitment. Prioritizing tasks that contribute to satisfaction creates a positive work environment, attracting and retaining high-quality professors.

• Collaboration and teamwork: Prioritizing tasks contributing to professor satisfaction fosters collaboration and teamwork. Satisfied professors are more open to sharing ideas, collaborating on projects, and supporting colleagues, creating a positive and productive work environment.

• Student engagement and achievement: Satisfied professors are more engaged and enthusiastic, positively impacting student engagement and achievement. Prioritizing tasks that contribute to satisfaction creates a positive and supportive learning environment, promoting student success.

In consequence, it is important to study faculty satisfaction, especially across gender and disciplines, as the professoriate composition changes (Sabharwal & Corley, 2009). Factors like respect for research work, fair compensation (Bozeman & Gaughan, 2011), and institutional support contribute to faculty satisfaction (Desselle & Conklin, 2010). Addressing areas such as retirement arrangements, job security, salaries, and fair promotion systems is crucial to improving faculty satisfaction (S. H. Chen, 2011).

The study has several limitations. Firstly, it solely concentrated on scoring the professor’s perception using two factors: affinity and satisfaction. Recognizing that these factors may not encompass all aspects of professors, and burnout could be influenced by other dimensions, it’s important to note that the detailed procedures might be confusing if not thoroughly analyzed, potentially deviating from their intended purpose. Although the same academic activities were used to calculate scores, they represent different approaches, rather than duplicating the analysis. Additionally, self-report measures were employed for scoring, suggesting that future research could explore these scores in larger and more diverse samples. It would also be valuable to investigate how these scores relate to other outcomes such as burnout, job satisfaction, and student achievement.

Despite these limitations, the study proposes practical levels to help professors reduce their risk of burnout, improve their work-life balance, and align their academic activities with their personal preferences and satisfaction. Implementation of these strategies can contribute to reducing the risk of burnout and maintaining overall well-being for professors, benefiting both themselves and their students. Consequently, public policies could be formulated to organize the teaching career with consideration of the incidence of stress, providing a potential framework for addressing these issues in educational institutions (Soares et al., 2019).

6. Conclusions

This study introduces two new tools, the Academic Affinity Score and the Academic Satisfaction Score, designed to help professors manage their tasks efficiently and enhance their well-being. The results indicate that organizing tasks based on affinity and satisfaction brings various benefits, such as improved efficiency, job satisfaction, professional growth, collaboration, student engagement, performance, motivation, retention, and recruitment. Professors can use these scores to pinpoint areas for improvement and align their workload with their preferences. They’re encouraged to collaborate with colleagues whose strengths complement theirs, prioritize tasks they’re passionate about, and contribute to their professional development. In summary, this study significantly contributes to our understanding of professor well-being and academic productivity, offering tools to create a more sustainable workload. The study’s implications for public policy are clear. Governments should consider policies supporting professors in prioritizing tasks based on affinity and satisfaction. This could involve funding faculty development programs, teaching effective task prioritization, or allowing more flexibility in workload. Additionally, investing in research on faculty well-being can help identify factors contributing to burnout, leading to interventions. Lastly, collaboration with educational institutions is crucial to create a supportive work environment, including access to resources and services, and policies promoting equity and inclusivity. As for future research, it’s essential to continue exploring these scores across different disciplines, genders, teaching experiences, and more.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Yasmany García-Ramírez

Yasmany García-Ramírez is Civil Engineer graduated from Universidad Técnica Particular de Loja (UTPL) in Ecuador in 2006. He obtained a Specialist’s degree in Mountain Road Engineering from Universidad Nacional de San Juan (UNSJ) in Argentina in 2009, as well as a PhD in Civil Engineering in 2014. Currently, He works as an associate professor at UTPL, where he imparts knowledge in subjects related to road design at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels. He also holds several leadership roles within UTPL, including the directorship of the Master’s degree program in Civil Engineering with an emphasis on mountain roads. García-Ramírez has more than 40 publications in the field of road and civil engineering education.

Vera Bijelić

Vera Bijelić earned her degree in architecture from the Faculty of Architecture at the University of Belgrade, Serbia, in 2010. Following that, she completed her Master’s studies in Architecture at the same faculty in 2012. In 2022, she achieved a Doctorate in Architecture and Urbanism from the Faculty of Architecture, Urbanism, and Design at the Universidad Nacional de San Juan, Argentina. Currently, she serves as a researcher and part-time lecturer in the architectural design department at the School of Architecture, Universidad Internacional del Ecuador, Loja campus. Her primary areas of interest revolve around university education and teaching methodologies in design.