When Faculty Push Too Hard, Teaching Suffers Quietly

A new teaching-and-learning reflection argues that “toxic productivity” — described as hyper-optimization and unhealthy over-intensity — can seep into course planning and classroom practice. The piece traces how that mindset shows up as constant syllabus chang

By the time the semester begins, some faculty members are already exhausted.

In the reflection. an adjunct preparing to teach for the first time at a graduate alma mater describes a familiar mix of pressure. anxiety. and imposter syndrome — emotions the author says are normal. but that can make the work harder. The piece also points to a quieter habit many instructors recognize in themselves: reaching for certainty and control instead of allowing the opportunity to reshape their growth. In that mindset. planning becomes a checklist of grand intentions — “I can integrate this”. “I can assign this 1. 000-page book. ” “I can complete this topic in 1-2 sessions. tops.”.

The author doesn’t frame it as laziness or lack of commitment. Instead. the argument is that educators can become their own mentors. professors. and heroes at once — affirming humility while still forgetting that students are not just receiving content. They are also learning from the educator’s developing educational identity. vocation. and voice. whether it’s a first teaching role or a career of 40-plus years.

When those expectations turn unmanaged. the piece warns. a semester can start with what it calls “toxic productivity.” It leans on a definition from therapist and author Israa Nasir (2024). describing toxic productivity as an obsessed mindset of “hyper-optimization” focused on making the most of every hour toward outcomes. achievement. and productivity. Nasir also expands it as “habits or behaviors that have crossed a threshold of intensity or frequency that makes them unhealthy.”.

For faculty, the question becomes immediate and personal: what can be controlled, and what can’t?. How can others be influenced “this term”?. Which habits will be helpful for achievement, and what complications might follow?. The author urges educators to separate what feels urgent from what is important — and to ask whether students can learn specific material today or whether it can wait until tomorrow.

The warning tightens when the sense of urgency isn’t just a temporary push, but a sustained driver.

When the semester mission starts with uncontrolled urgency. the reflection says. goals can flip into stress and anxiety — and that shift can produce recognizable “bad practices” during a course. The piece names several: changing the syllabus constantly. assigning more work to students. not following the topic sequence. and inconsistency in the topics taught.

It also brings student impact into the picture through research referenced in the same reflection. McLean and Jones (2025) are cited for the importance of educators’ ability to develop emotional regulation skills, given the possible impact on students’ learning processes.

The author’s point is not that instructors should suppress emotion. It’s framed as a call to acknowledge goals as learning experiences: some happen, and some do not.

What begins as a personal mindset, the piece argues, can also harden into an institutional problem.

The reflection describes a second layer of toxic productivity that emerges when an institution. department. or office sets expectations without healthy parameters — vague deliverables. unclear key performance indicators. and pressure that funnels faculty toward overdrive. In that environment. faculty are left with uncertain guidance. and the teaching-learning experience. the professor’s vocation. and the student’s future can all absorb the strain. The author adds that when learning ecosystems build toxic patterns, learning “will not occur.”.

Here, Samuels-White (2025) is cited for the need to remember that faculty are human and need flexibility to support — and be supported.

The piece returns repeatedly to a simple loss that many educators may recognize too well: when the job is centralized into one thing only. perspective shrinks. Breaks disappear. Conversations stop. Mentoring and collegial presence fade. Even family events can get crowded out — along with “time to just be.”.

The reflection argues that this is not a dramatic claim, but a call to awareness and reflection before stepping into a new role, course, department, appointment, or chair. Otherwise, it warns, priorities can become “puppet strings.”

Instead of being “agents of change. ” faculty can become absorbed in competing rather than collaborating. bossing around rather than leading. overstepping rather than influencing. and — the author’s sharpest line — becoming numb instead of living. “Numb faculty can speak,” the reflection says, “but I don’t think they can teach.”.

One paragraph threads the turning point through the facts already laid out: the same behaviors that look like control during planning — hyper-optimization. constant syllabus shifts. loading students with more work. breaking topic sequence — also match the emotional regulation concerns highlighted by McLean and Jones (2025). When those habits are then reinforced by institutional expectations and key performance indicators that lack humane parameters. the course becomes less about learning rhythms and more about managing pressure.

The reflection ends not with a single prescription, but with steps aimed at both faculty and institutions.

For faculty. the piece urges reminders that goals are open to change; students expect a human mentor rather than “information machines”; education and learning are “messy” as a natural part of learning and teaching; planning is good but not the end of vocation; and the “best productivity activity” is finding joy in who faculty are. what they do. and why they do it.

For institutions. it calls for redefining and clarifying faculty expectations. connecting educational and faculty developers for faculty consultation. mentoring faculty at every stage toward vocational management so they can design their future with joy. rethinking faculty assessment tools for holistic development instead of fragmented achievements. and recognizing personal and professional effort at the end of the term.

The author signs the piece as Dr. Daniel Andrés Rivera Rosado. Director of the JFU Bible Institute of La Iglesia Cristiana (Discípulos de Cristo) en Puerto Rico. and an adjunct faculty member of Christian Education at the Seminario Evangélico de Puerto Rico. He earned a PhD in Education from the University of Arizona Global Campus. researching the behavioral intention of technology integration in theological educators’ teaching practices. The reflection lists his four books: Misión Activa: El quehacer del liderazgo en la Iglesia local (2022). El ABC de la Educación Cristiana (2023). Influencia Intencional: Liderazgo Educativo para el ministerio (2024). and Quietud: Otra manera de vivir la misión (2025).

Its references include McLean and Jones (March 2025). described as using an observational measure of elementary teachers’ emotional expressions during mathematics and English language arts to explore associations with students’ content area emotions and engagement; Nasir. Israa (2024). Toxic Productivity: Reclaim Your Time and Emotional Energy in a World That Always Demands More; and Samuels-White. Shellon (October 20. 2025). Supporting the Supporters: Promoting Educators’ Mental Health.

toxic productivity faculty workload emotional regulation course design student engagement faculty mental health hyper-optimization education policy adjunct teaching