The Role of Organizational Climate, and Work–Family Conflict in Burnout: The Case of Teachers

Abstract

Burnout is a major concern for the scientific and educational community, as it leads to harmful consequences, both at a personal and organizational level. Several studies showed that burnout is influenced by multiple factors, including organizational climate and work–family conflict. However, studies analyzing these three variables together in the educational sector are scarce. Thus, this study aimed to analyze whether the organizational climate influenced burnout through work–family conflict. We collected data in two-time points with 253 teachers. The results showed that only the organizational climate dimensions of involvement, control, autonomy, task orientation, and physical comfort were associated with burnout. Plus, only the physical comfort and autonomy climates significantly reduced burnout via the decreases in work–family conflict. Thus, these organizational climates’ dimensions seem to be essential factors to reduce not only work–family conflict but also burnout in the educational sector. This study tested the mediating role of work–family conflict on the link between organizational climate and burnout, with a group of teachers. Additionally, the data was collected during the pandemic crisis of COVID-19.

1. Introduction

Currently, the world of work is extremely volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA) [1]. The VUCA world influences the relationship between the external and internal organizational environment, increasing the difficulty to manage work–family conflicts that, consequently, may lead to burnout.

Kahn et al. [2] started to study the relationship between work and family and showed the existence of a conflict between both domains, which is a major source of stress. The boundary between professional and family domains can trigger conflict for individuals [3,4,5], affecting them and the organization [6]. Work–family conflict (WFC) has been described as a “form of inter-role conflict in which the role pressures from the work and family domain are mutually incompatible, such that participation in one [family] role makes the participation in the other more difficult [professional]” [4], p. 77. Thus, when individuals assume different roles, they tend to experience situations of conflict between them, because individuals have a limited number of resources and energy [7].

According to Bond et al. [8], globalization, as well as familiar changes, such as dual-work couples and single-parent families, led to both members having domestic and professional responsibilities. Therefore, it is not surprising to see significant increases in WFC, stress, and burnout. Burnout is characterized by the response that individuals give to situations of chronic occupational stress and indicates a state of emotional exhaustion [9]. This response can be considered an emotional reaction and promotes the loss of personal and social resources [10].

Burnout has been studied in the field of education, as it is a problem with psychosocial implications [11]. Educational workers are exposed to conflicting environments and great work demands, leading them to experience WFC. The lack of balance between work and family improves emotional exhaustion, one of the dimensions of burnout. Hence, the interaction between individuals and work, as well as the emergence of difficulties to balance their interaction, has been described as a worrying phenomenon [9], which highlights the relevance and purpose of this study.

The organizational climate was defined as the quality of the environment lived within an organization that influences workers’ behaviors [12]. Organizational climate is a measure of workers’ perceptions or feelings about the organization. The relationship between burnout and organizational climate was studied by Tomás [13] with health workers. This showed that burnout’s variation was related to some dimensions of organizational climate. Thus, both the organizational climate and burnout can directly affect organizations and worker–organization relationships.

Despite the importance of burnout, there are not many studies that relate organizational climate, WFC, and burnout together in the educational sector. Thus, this study aimed to clarify the relationship between these variables, among teachers. As such, we aimed to test whether WFC would mediate the relationship between organizational climate and burnout.

2. Theoretical Framework

2.1. The Relationship between Organizational Climate and Burnout

The organizational climate is the set of perceptions shared by workers about different aspects of the organizational environment [12]. It can be a source of organizational effectiveness which, in turn, leads to workers’ satisfaction [14]. Thus, the organizational climate seems to be an important management tool since the work environment is one of the variables that most influence the behavior of individuals in their workplace [15].

It arises from the workers’ perceptions, meaning that there may exist various organizational climates in one organization. For Lobo [16], this variability and diversity led to the development of different types of labor relations, influencing the workers’ organizational climate perceptions; thereby, organizational climate develops in the way workers relate to each other, and by the meaning attributed by them [17]. For Moos and Insel [18], the organizational climate is characterized by three dimensions: (a) relationship (refers to the relationships between workers and includes involvement, cohesion between colleagues, and perceived support from the supervisor); (b) personal development (includes autonomy to perform the tasks, task orientation, and work pressures), and (c) maintenance and change systems (is related to control over work, innovation; task clarity and physical comfort).

The organizational climate seems to significantly influence the individual and the organization. For example, Fiksenbaum [19] showed that organizational climate influenced WFC, and workers’ burnout, in which organizational climates oriented toward comfort and support allowed us to reduce both. Mesmer-Magnus and Viswesvaran [20] also showed that support and involvement climates minimized WFC and stress. Likewise, Zahoor et al. [21] showed that a goal-oriented and performance-oriented climate reduced WFC and, consequently, occupational stress. Thus, organizational climate, in addition to the implications at work, can also interfere with workers’ personal life, affecting WFC and their well-being and burnout [22].

Burnout was studied for the first time in the 1970s. It was considered a public health problem and was identified by the World Health Organization as an occupational disease, a change that took effect in January 2022.

Freudenberger [23] defined burnout as a state of physical or mental exhaustion, triggered by inadequate working conditions. Physical exhaustion can lead to exhaustion, fatigue, frequent headaches, gastrointestinal disturbances, decreased sleep, and shortness of breath; mental exhaustion can lead to the experience of anger, irritation, frustration, crying, and screaming.

According to Maslach and Jackson [24], burnout results from a long period, in which individuals are exposed to occupational stress, leading them to a “threshold” state, in which the individual feels tired and unable to become emotionally involved with work. Burnout includes three dimensions: (1) emotional exhaustion (exhaustion of physical and psychic resources due to emotional exhaustion and results in a lack of energy and enthusiasm for work), (2) depersonalization/cynicism (interpersonal distance, with decreased involvement emotional at work and the development of impersonal and dehumanized attitudes in the treatment of clients and colleagues), and (3) decreased self-efficacy (negative self-evaluation related to low productivity and feelings of ineffectiveness and incompetence, which promote professional dissatisfaction) [24]; but the most relevant is emotional exhaustion. However, emotional exhaustion, despite being the most relevant dimension for burnout, is not enough to explain it because it does not address critical aspects related to individuals and their work [9]. The main consequence of emotional exhaustion is depersonalization/cynicism, which can lead to negative attitudes and feelings towards others [24] and makes the individual withdraw emotionally and change the way they deal with the work. Depersonalization involves cynical and negative attitudes and feelings towards others at work (Maslach and Jackson, 1981), leading to detachment from work [9]. According to Maslach et al. [9], depersonalization is the interpersonal dimension of burnout. Finally, decreases in self-efficacy refer to a negative self-efficacy attitude, especially regarding working with others. There is a feeling of incapacity and, consequently, dissatisfaction with one’s performance at work [24].

Some professionals are more likely to develop burnout, as it is mostly linked to professions that deal directly with people, such as doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, and teachers. The teaching profession is an extremely relational activity, with strong affective involvement of teachers with their students, and their concern with their learning is a wear and tear factor, but also a factor of achievement, pleasure, and gratification. In the same sense, Marinho-Araújo and Almeida [25] showed that teachers experience a duality between knowledge and affect, as they are always involved with people, deal with complex interpersonal relationships, and, at the same time, must improve learning. For instance, Gomes et al. [26] showed that teachers with more hours of contact with students showed more occupational stress. Faria [27] analyzed the teachers’ organizational climate and certain job characteristics (instability) that led to WFC and stress. Likewise, Marques et al. [28] in a study with 777 teachers showed that 54% found their profession extremely stressful.

Teachers’ burnout seems to be related to social changes, constant reforms in educational politics, scarce resources, and several demanding roles [29]. According to Pinto et al. [30], the main sources of burnout for teachers are problems related to students, indiscipline, lack of motivation, as well as time pressure. Furthermore, less experienced teachers seem to be more volatile to burnout, due to time pressure and work overload. Studies are showing that burnout is present in teachers, regardless of the level of education [31]. Thus, educational settings seem to be an environment of special concern for the existence of burnout combined with organizational climate and WFC [29].

2.2. The Mediating Role of Work-Family Conflict

WFC arises when the pressure resulting from work is “carried over” to the family, leading to a mismatch between work and family [2,32]. This incompatibility may be related to time or demands [33]. Thus, WFC must be understood as a form of inter-role conflict, making the performance in one role hampered by the fulfillment of another role [4]. Hammig et al. [34] defined WFC as a conflict between the demands of work and those of the family, as well as the conflict between work and any responsibilities or expectations of personal life. According to Gutek et al. [35], the concept of WFC can be bidirectional, that is, there can be the conflict generated by the work that the individual carries to the family, and the inverse (that is, family–work conflict).

According to Geurts and Demerouti [36], WFC arouses consequences for five domains: physical, psychological, behavioral, attitudinal, and organizational. Additionally, for Allen et al. [37], there are three types of consequences: (1) work-related consequences (e.g., job satisfaction, organizational commitment, absenteeism, and job performance); (2) non-work-related consequences (e.g., life satisfaction, material satisfaction, family satisfaction, and family performance); and (3) stress-related consequences (e.g., general psychological tension, depression, burnout, and stress).

For Yanchusa et al. [38], WFC is directly related to the concept of the “emotional worker”, which was defined by Judge et al. [39] as an employee who needs emotions in the workplace. According to Noor and Zainuddin [40], the WFC is a mediator that leads the “emotional worker” to feel emotionally exhausted. It can be concluded that the “emotional worker” is the one who is more likely to feel the impact of the WFC. Thus, it appears that WFC is associated with higher levels of burnout, especially regarding emotional exhaustion.

Although WFC has negative psychological effects, such as anxiety, stress, or burnout [37]. Cortese et al. [41] suggested that organizational support reduces it, and improves the perception of work–family balance, which, in turn, leads to a significant increase in job satisfaction. Innstrand et al. [42] concluded that WFC significantly predicted burnout. To stop burnout, the authors suggested a balance between work and family, as well as “family facilitation”. Likewise, Mete and colleagues [43] showed a positive link between WFC to burnout, and the latter to performance. In this study, Mete et al. [43] also demonstrated that a negative organizational climate significantly increased burnout. Therefore, we hypothesized the following:

Hypothesis 1.

WFC will mediate the relationship between organizational climate dimensions and burnout (Figure 1).

3. Method

3.1. Participants and Procedure

First, the study was approved by the ethics committee of the researchers’ university before its implementation. After that, we requested authorization for the President of the Executive Council of a High School, to apply a questionnaire to the teachers at the school. We also briefly explained the study goals and sent the informed consent that ensured data confidentiality and anonymity. After being authorized, we received a list of teachers’ institutional emails. Then, we sent an email asking them to participate in the study. The email included the informed consent that explained that their participation was voluntary, the questionnaire was anonymous, and the data would be treated with confidentiality. We explained that we would collect data on two distinct moments, the first to measure the organizational climate, and the second (one week later) to measure WFC and burnout. The response rate was 100%, since, from the 253 teachers in the group, we obtained 253 valid responses. Data were collected in April 2020.

Overall, 253 teachers participated in the study, of which 67% were female. Most of them were aged between 50 and 59 years old (33%), followed by those aged between 40 and 49 years old (26%), then those between 31 and 39 years old (19%), those with more than 60 years old (12%), and those who were under 30 years old (10%). Most teachers were married (63%). The majority taught to the third cycle (57%), followed by those who taught to the first cycle (27%) and at last to the second cycle (16%). Teachers worked at the school for more than 10 years (41%), followed by those who had worked for less than 1 year (19%), those who worked between 3 and 9 years (18%), and last by those who worked there between 1 and 3 years (12%). Most teachers reported working between 40 and 50 h a week (62%) (see

Table 1. Sample characteristics.

Variable	%
Female	67%
Male	33%
Age between 50–59 years old	33%
Age between 40–49 years old	26%
Age between 31–39 years old	19%
More than 60 years old	12%
Less than 30 years old	10%
Married	63%
Working hours period between 40–50 h per week	62%
Tenure (more than 10 years)	41%
Tenure (less than 1 year)	19%
Tenure (between 3 and 9 years)	18%
Tenure (between 1 and 3 years)	12%
Third cycle teaching	57%
First cycle teaching	27%
Second cycle teaching	16%

Note. N = 253.

for a synthesis).

3.2. Measures

WFC. To measure WFC, we used the 19-item WFC questionnaire [44]. This measured the extent to which teachers experienced WFC (e.g., “Work makes me too tired or irritable to participate in or enjoy family life”). They answered the items using a 5-point Likert scale (1: never; 5: always). The scale’s Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88.

Burnout. To measure burnout, we used the 22-item Maslach Burnout Inventory [45]. It assessed the three dimensions of burnout: emotional exhaustion (e.g., “I feel emotionally drained from my work”), depersonalization (e.g., “I have become more callous toward people since I took this job”), and lack of personal fulfillment (e.g., “I have accomplished many worthwhile things in this job”). Teachers responded to the items using a 7-point Likert frequency scale (0: never; 6: every day). Cronbach’s alpha was 0.90.

Organizational climate. To measure the organizational climate, we used the Work Environment Scale [18]. This included 90 items that assessed three dimensions of climate, which, in turn, were divided into 10 sub-dimensions: (1) relationship: involvement, cohesion with colleagues, and supervisor support; (2) personal development (autonomy, task orientation, and work pressure); and (3) maintenance and change systems (clarity, control, innovation, and physical comfort). Responses were dichotomous (true or false). The scale showed a good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.83).

Control variables. We used sex and age as control variables because these variables have been shown to account for differences in burnout levels [44].

3.3. Data Analyses

First, we analyzed the internal consistencies, the descriptive statistics, and the correlations. Then, to test our mediation hypothesis, we used model 4 of the PROCESS macro [46]. PROCESS tests mediation through an indirect effect analysis using the bootstrap method with 5000 corrected samples. Through the analysis of the confidence intervals (CI), it is possible to avoid problems of the power of the indirect effect, coming from the distribution of the sample, as is the case of asymmetric samples [47].

4. Results

4.1. Descriptive Statistics

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, correlations and Cronbach’s alphas.

Variables	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
1.Burnout	2.65	0.86	-
2.WFC	3.16	0.47	0.56 **	-
3.Involvement	0.57	0.15	−0.29 **	0.02	-
4.Cohesion climate	0.47	0.12	−0.19 **	−0.08 *	0.15 *	-
5.Support climate	0.58	0.08	−0.36 **	−0.10 *	0.70 **	0.50 **	-
6.Autonomy	0.64	0.19	−0.51 **	−0.34 **	0.40 **	0.20 **	0.41 **	-
7.Task-oriented	0.64	0.14	−0.09 *	0.16 *	0.14 *	0.14 *	0.34 **	0.07	-
8.Job pressure	0.64	0.13	0.11 *	0.14 *	0.01	0.18 *	0.16 *	0.01	0.27 **	-
9.Clarity	0.65	0.13	0.02	0.02	−0.11 *	0.11 *	0.14 *	0.11*	0.24 **	0.41 **	-
10.Control	0.70	0.14	−0.01	−0.15 *	−0.13 *	0.08	−0.11 *	0.02	−0.03	0.26 **	0.16 *	-
11.Innovation	0.58	0.13	−0.09 *	0.09 *	0.29 **	0.18 *	0.29 **	0.01	0.42 **	0.24 **	0.04	−0.02	-
12.Physical comfort	0.59	0.11	−0.28 **	−0.34 **	0.24 **	0.16 *	0.38 **	0.31**	0.22 **	0.02	−0.04	0.01	0.13 *

Note. N = 253. * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.

shows the means, standard deviations, and correlations for all the variables.

4.2. Mediation Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1 suggested a mediating relationship between WFC in the relationship between the dimensions of organizational climate dimensions and burnout.

Cohesion climate. The results showed a non-significant indirect effect (0.04, 95% CI [−0.37, 0.47]). Thus, this hypothesis was not supported once a climate focused on cohesion did not influence burnout through WFC.

Involvement climate. The results showed a non-significant indirect effect (−0.41, 95% CI [−0.92, 0.02]). Hence, there is evidence that WFC did not mediate the relationship between an involvement climate and burnout.

Supervisor support climate. The results also showed a non-significant indirect effect (−0.30, 95% CI [−1.07, 0.41]), and thus allowed us to conclude that a supervisor supportive climate did not influence burnout through WFC.

Autonomy climate. The results showed that the indirect effect of the autonomy climate on burnout through WFC was −0.66 (p < 0.01), with a 95% CI [−1.12, −0.30], indicating, therefore, a significant mediating effect. As can be seen from Figure 2, the relationship between the autonomy climate and WFC (a; B = −0.82, p < 0.01), the relationship between WFC and burnout (b; B = 0.79, p < 0.01), and the indirect effect (c’; B = −2.31, p < 0.01) were significant. The total effect (c; B = −1.65 p < 0.01) between autonomy climate and burnout was also significant, revealing a partial mediation.

Task orientation climate. The results showed a non-significant indirect effect (0.58, 95% CI [−0.07, 1.35]) demonstrating that a task-oriented climate did not influence burnout through increases in WFC.

Work pressure climate. The results showed a non-significant indirect effect (0.50, 95% CI [−0.13, 1.15]), demonstrating thereby that WFC did not mediate the relationship between work pressure climate and burnout.

Task clarity climate. The results showed a non-significant indirect effect (0.07, 95% CI [−0.43, 0.55]). As such, we may conclude that WFC did not mediate the relationship between task clarity climate and burnout.

Control climate. The results demonstrated that the indirect effect was not significant (−0.53, 95% CI [−1.16, 0.10]); hence, WFC did not mediate the relationship between a climate of control and burnout.

Innovation climate. The results showed a non-significant indirect effect (0.35, 95% CI [−0.14, 1.03]). Hence, an innovation-focused climate did not influence burnout through an influence in WFC.

Physical comfort climate. The results showed that the indirect effect of the physical comfort climate on burnout through WFC was −1.45 (p < 0.01), with a 95% CI [−2.40, −0.68], indicating, therefore, a significant mediation effect. As can be seen from Figure 3, the relationship between physical comfort climate and WFC (a; B = −1.51, p < 0.01), WFC and burnout (b; B = 0.79, p < 0.01), and the indirect effect (c’; B = −2.25, p < 0.01) were significant. The total effect (c; B = −0.79 p < 0.01) was also significant, lending support to a partial mediation.

5. Discussion

This study explores the mediating role of WFC on the relationship between organizational climate and teachers’ burnout in the pandemic COVID-19 crisis.

First, we find evidence that only the autonomy and physical comfort climates negatively influence burnout by reducing WFC. When we consider autonomy, the results show that it reduces WFC, which consequently minimizes burnout. The relation between autonomy climate and WFC is consistent with what has already been demonstrated, for example, by the job characteristics model [48], which suggests the existence of five job characteristics that are crucial for motivation and satisfaction, including job autonomy. This is defined, in the model, by the degree to which the work allows the individual to have the initiative and ability to decide about the way and the moment in which s/he should perform job tasks. Several studies have highlighted that autonomy at work predicts positive outcomes, such as performance [49], and satisfaction [50], among others. Additionally, Gozukara and Çolakoğlu [51] demonstrated that autonomy reduced WFC, which in turn increased job satisfaction. Shall [52] also showed that, even in telework, autonomy was able to reduce WFC, and consequently, increased job satisfaction. Indeed, autonomy improves work-related time management, improving effectiveness and efficiency, and at the same time minimizing WFC and, consequently, burnout. Tomás [13] also showed that increases in autonomy and task orientation explain performance increases. Therefore, fewer hours of work and less WFC, which, in turn, leads to a lower source of stress, reduce the likelihood of burnout. Byron [3] also showed that those who spend more hours at work, end up with higher levels of WFC and, consequently, may be more vulnerable to burnout. People with greater autonomy spend less time at work, have greater occupational self-efficacy, and have less burnout. Similarly, Dau-Schmidt et al. [53] showed that workers who spend a lot of time performing their tasks, experience greater WFC, have more emotional exhaustion, and wish to spend more time with their families. According to Brough et al. [54], the impossibility of reconciling the personal and professional domains seems to be one of the causes of burnout. Therefore, in light of our results and the literature, we have evidence to conclude that greater autonomy leads to less WFC and, consequently, less burnout.

Moreover, the physical comfort climate seems to negatively influence burnout by decreasing WFC. Queiros [55] reported that emotional exhaustion and cynicism are reduced when workers have physical comfort at work. Thus, an individual’s comfort tends to improve his/her concentration on the tasks and diminishes the time used to perform the tasks, resulting in lower levels of WFC and burnout.

The findings also show that not all dimensions of organizational climate are related to WFC; only cohesion among colleagues, autonomy, task orientation, control, and physical comfort in organizational climates seem to influence WFC. First, we find evidence that cohesion between teachers seems to positively influence WFC; that is, the greater the cohesion, the greater the WFC. This result was surprising, as the relationship was expected to be negative. However, studies have shown that high cohesion with work colleagues can lead to negative outcomes such as group thinking [56]. Thus, working with colleagues and having a cohesive group can trigger WFC, as the person will tend to become more involved with the group, with work, even having to work overtime, or working on days that they were not supposed to, thereby generating WFC.

Second, the task orientation dimension is also positively associated with WFC; thus, the greater the task orientation climate, the greater the WFC. This result can also be justified by the focus that individuals put on their work tasks, insofar as, if it is too much, it can lead them to take up leisure time, or time to spend with their family, which will trigger WFC. For example, Zhao and Namsivayam [57] demonstrated that a chronic focus on work would not only trigger workaholism, but also led to greater WFC, and less job satisfaction. Torp et al. [58] also showed that workaholism triggered WFC in higher education professors.

Third, the control dimension seems to have a negative influence on WFC. In other words, the greater the teacher’s control, the less WFC is experienced. Some studies present results that are consistent with this one. For example, Beutell [59] showed that control, such as having tight deadlines, having controlled work schedules, and supervision of task completion, helped to reduce WFC. Perhaps this control acts as an organizational strategy that allows individuals not to procrastinate, not to occupy the time off work with counterproductive behaviors (e.g., being on social media while working), and, at the same time, forcing them to have work up to date. By having work on time, they will avoid occupying leisure/family time with work tasks.

Finally, the physical comfort dimension seems to negatively influence WFC. That is, the greater the physical comfort of the teachers, the less their WFC. It is also not surprising that positive physical working conditions, by allowing greater comfort, stimulate the necessary concentration for the tasks, lessening WFC. Several studies have demonstrated the importance of physical working conditions for the individual [60]. For example, Gallie and Russell [61] showed that working conditions weighed more heavily on WFC than family characteristics. Kelly et al. [62] also showed that the work’s physical context negatively predicted WFC, which in turn influenced health.

5.1. Limitations and Future Directions

This study has some limitations. First, the sample size can limit the generalizability of the results. Second, the fact that we limited the research to a specific group means that the results cannot be generalized to other groups or professional sectors. Third, the use of self-reported measures may also lead to cases of social desirability, in which teachers may have responded according to what they considered “ideal” rather than “actual”. Finally, the current pandemic crisis, during which the data were collected, may justify some of the results (or lack thereof), since, particularly in the education sector, teachers were facing the challenge of distance learning.

Currently, we are facing many changes regarding the educational system, which imposes different rhythms and work demands on teachers, so it makes even more sense to study the impact that this can have on their lifestyle, such as the use of time and whether working conditions can affect their health (physical and psychological). For this reason, future studies would study these variables. As the subject is quite current, but which still has few studies in education, it would be interesting to extend this study to other groups of schools and even to other professional groups to generalize the results.

Moreover, future studies would use other research designs, such as using daily or longitudinal studies that can consider not only inter-individual, but also intra-individual differences.

Furthermore, it is important to highlight and explore the instability experienced by this professional class. It would be important to review the geographical mobility to which many teachers are forced each year, to mitigate this instability. This could lead to greater involvement and identification of the teacher with the school and, consequently, to greater happiness at work. Thus, studying the impact of professional instability on the teacher’s identification and involvement, and consequently, on mental health would be an asset for the sector.

5.2. Practical Implications

According to the results, it is important to maintain good practices regarding the organizational climate that influences burnout through WFC, more specifically in terms of autonomy and physical comfort. As such, it seems to be important that the schools’ managers promote the necessary autonomy for the teachers so that they can carry out their work in a more proactive way and fulfill the pedagogical goals, and at the same time minimize the impact in the sphere of education. It will also be useful to promote a physical comfort climate so that teachers, in their activity, do not feel discomfort inherent to poor work environments and, thus, achieve better results due to a greater capacity for concentration on the tasks.

Nevertheless, it is important to emphasize that stimulating cohesion among colleagues can be good to a certain extent, as it seems to lead to a higher level of WFC. Thus, it would also be noted that the existence of some control from management can help teachers not only to fulfill their pedagogic goals, but also help them to monitor their task performance and prevent their WFC to a certain extent [63,64]. As such, control can be a directive strategy focused on goals, but also on the teacher. It would also be interesting to promote activities that improve the relationship between the organization and the teachers’ families to link the two roles positively and healthily, making use of workers’ time with both roles at the same time.

6. Conclusions

Using a sample of teachers, this study demonstrated that not all organizational climates influence WFC and burnout. Instead, the results showed that only the organizational climate dimensions of involvement, control, autonomy, task orientation, and physical comfort were associated with burnout. Moreover, only the physical comfort and autonomy climates significantly reduced burnout via decreases in work–family conflict. Thus, these organizational climates’ dimensions seem to be essential factors to reduce not only work–family conflict but also burnout in the educational sector.