Work‐life balance and burnout in financial planning profession
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study examines the work environment outcomes in the financial planning profession, job‐related burnout, and work‐life balance satisfaction, using a convenience sample of survey respondents employed in the financial planning profession. The study compares subgroups based on gender, job role, firm size, and their CFP® certification controlling for relevant factors such as type of industry, weekly working hours, work‐life conflict, the flexibility provided by the employer, and demographics. Results indicated that the women in smaller firms are more satisfied with work‐life balance. In general, smaller firm sizes are associated with lower personal accomplishment, higher satisfaction from work‐life balance, and lower impersonal response toward clients measured by Depersonalization scores of Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). MBI Depersonalization scores are higher for CEOs and owners of the firms. In addition, the CFP® certification is associated with greater satisfaction from work‐life balance. The results build on previous research to provide insight into aspects that can improve participation in the profession. Future research should find ways to attract diverse participants to improve success and satisfaction outcomes for all professionals and firm sizes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".