When Productivity Goes Too Far: How Faculty Can Find Balance

A new piece in higher-education teaching argues that “toxic productivity” can push faculty—especially those starting new roles—into unhealthy, hyper-optimized rhythms that harm course planning and student experience. It defines the term through expert research

The first day in a classroom isn’t supposed to feel like a test of your worth. But for one adjunct preparing to teach at their graduate alma mater for the first time, the nerves are immediate—pressure, anxiety, and a dose of imposter syndrome that won’t wait until the semester settles.

They describe how the emotions are normal, but how they can still make the job harder. The harder part, they say, is the reflex to jump straight to negative possibilities instead of letting the opportunity breathe. In their mind. the temptation is clear: “I can integrate this. ” “I can assign this 1. 000-page book. ” and “I can complete this topic in 1-2 sessions. tops.”.

That drive. they write. can be tied to something good—the humility to learn. and the confidence to act like a mentor to yourself. But then reality catches up: it was the mentor’s experience, not yours. Building your own educational identity. vocation. and voice is what the students expect from you—whether you’re teaching for the first time or you’ve been at it for more than 40 years. Expectations help, the author argues. When they aren’t monitored, though, they can tip into “toxic productivity” before a new semester even starts.

The term is defined through the work of therapist and author Israa Nasir (2024). who describes toxic productivity as an obsessed mindset of “hyper-optimization” that tries to squeeze the most out of every hour for 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.”.

The writer’s point is not that educators should stop planning or stop aiming high. The problem. they say. is that the job itself—designing outcomes. striving for achievements. working through teaching. research. and service—can become the very engine of an unhealthy rhythm. That definition pushes faculty into reflection: What can you control?. What’s out of your control?. How can you influence others this term?. Who can influence you?. Which habits will actually support your achievement?. What complications are possible?. What’s urgent and what’s important?. And, crucially, can students learn something today or should it wait.

From there, the article turns to what tends to happen when that urgency runs unchecked. It can become draining when a semester begins with an uncontrollable sense of urgency. and when goals get swapped for stress and anxiety. The result shows up in classroom practice. the author warns: changing the syllabus constantly. assigning more work to students. not following the topic sequence. and inconsistency in what gets taught.

The argument then moves from individual habits to emotional regulation as a factor in learning. McLean and Jones (2025) are cited for research on educators’ ability to develop emotional regulation skills and the possible impact that has on students’ learning processes. The author is careful not to frame it as an instruction to hide emotions. Instead. they suggest that acknowledging goals as learning experiences—including the ones that succeed and the ones that don’t—can help faculty keep their course design human rather than frantic.

But the pressure doesn’t stay personal. Another important aspect of toxic productivity, the piece says, expands into the institutional realm. If an institution. department. or office doesn’t set healthy parameters—work expectations. deliverables. and key performance indicators—faculty are left with vague expectations. In that environment, toxic conditions can affect the teaching-learning experience, the professor’s vocation, and students’ futures.

Samuels-White (2025) is referenced to support the idea that institutions need to remember faculty are humans and need flexibility to both support and be supported. When learning ecosystems build toxic patterns, the author says, learning won’t occur.

There’s a sharp personal consequence embedded in the argument as well. When the job becomes centralized in one thing only, faculty lose perspective: breaks, conversations, being someone’s mentor or colleague, attending a family event—or simply finding time “to just be.”

The article treats that as more than a lifestyle complaint. It calls for faculty to teach to make a change, not to lose themselves in the process. The author argues that a vocation cannot be governed by expectations that harm; it has to thrive in spaces of grace. If that balance isn’t settled before stepping into a new role—an appointment. a chair position. a department change—priorities become “puppet strings.”.

The end result they describe is stark: rather than agents of change. educators can become addicted to competing instead of collaborating. bossing around instead of leading. overstepping instead of influencing. and becoming numb instead of living. The line is blunt—“Numb faculty can speak. but I don’t think they can teach”—and it lands because the piece has been building toward the classroom consequences all along.

Healthy productivity, the author insists, isn’t the enemy. Being productive can mean living as functional. The danger is when rhythms aren’t balanced and competition takes over enough to blind educators to the process itself.

The closing section frames the problem as something that can be challenged. It draws on the Christian prayer—“And lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil”—and then offers steps for faculty and institutions.

For faculty. the suggestions are to remind yourself that goals are open to change; that students expect a human mentor and not information machines; that education and learning are messy; that planning is good but not the end of the vocation; and that the best productivity activity is finding joy in who you are. what you do. and why you do it.

For institutions. the steps are to redefine and clarify faculty expectations; connect educational and faculty developers for faculty consultation; mentor faculty at every stage toward vocational management so they can design their future with joy; rethink faculty assessment tools for holistic development rather than fragmented achievements; and recognize personal and professional effort at the end of the term.

The author’s sign-off is simple but pointed: a call for a productive, healthy, calm, and relaxed semester.

The piece is written by 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. Rivera Rosado earned a PhD in Education from the University of Arizona Global Campus. researching the behavioral intention of technology integration in theological educators’ teaching practices. He is also the author of 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).

The references listed include McLean, L. & Jones, N. (March 2025). about 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.

higher education teaching faculty workload toxic productivity hyper-optimization emotional regulation student engagement course planning institutional expectations faculty wellbeing