Quantitative Research

Burnout, Employee Engagement, and Coping in High-Risk Occupations

L

Jennifer Falkoski, PsyD

This study assessed whether there were any significant relationships among burnout,

type of coping, and employee engagement in a population of employees actively working

in the medical and mental health fields. It also evaluated preferred workplace motivators

across two overarching job categories: medical and mental health caregivers and admin­

istrative and supporting roles. The results showed that as employee burnout increased,

so did the use of more harmful coping mechanisms. The study also found an inverse

relationship between emotional exhaustion and employee engagement. Additionally,

employee engagement and personal accomplishment were positively related. Employee­

preferred workplace motivators across two job-overarching job categories were also

assessed. The highest-ranking employee-preferred workplace motivators identified in the

participant sample were nature of the work itself, responsibility, salary, relationship with

peers, and professional growth.

Burnout

Burnout is a phenomenon that has been

studied in organizations for more than 20

years. The applied research on burnout was

initially examined within industries that

had a high rate of interpersonal interaction

(Maslach & Leiter, 1997, 2008). More spe­

cifically, these industries included human

services, health care, and education. Over

the last two decades, research in this area

has expanded to all industries, including

international companies.

One downside to the extensive research

in this area is that the term "burnout" has

lost its meaning in the workplace (Maslach

& Leiter, 1997). People have become inured

to this term and expect burnout with

any type of job. Burnout's perception

as an inevitable state has made it increa­

singly more difficult to manage in the

workplace.

It is imperative that organizations con­

tinuously find ways to enhance protective

factors against burnout in the workforce,

especially because most companies are

dynamic in nature. Maslach and Leiter

(1997) cite several contemporary factors

that affect burnout in the workplace. These

factors include less intrinsic work, global

economics, increase in the use of technol­

ogy to run business operations, redistri­

bution of power, and failing corporate

citizenship. Employees who are experienc­

ing burnout also report feeling overloaded

at work, a lack of control over their own

work, unrewarded by their work, a lack of

community within the organization, unfair

/011mal of Psyc/10/ogical lssues in Orga11izatio11al Culture, Volume 2. Number,!, 2012 02012 Bridgepoint Education. lnc. and \VilL')' PL·rindicals, Inc

Pub!ishl'd onlinl' in \VilL')' Onlinl' Library (wikyunlindibr.iry.com), DOI: 10.1002/jpuc.20085 49

treatment, and conflicting personal values with

company values (Maslach & Leiter, 1997).

Burnout is a powerful demotivator in the

workplace. People experiencing burnout due to

chronic stress often experience and display nega­

tive feelings and attitudes toward their specific

job role and coworkers (Jenaro, Flores, & Arias,

2007). Employees experiencing burnout can also

feel physically and emotionally exhausted.

Coping

Coping strategies are methods of navigating various

environmental and intrapersonal stressors (Jenaro

et al., 2007). These strategies can be either adaptive

or maladaptive. These resources are crucial to the

prevention and management of burnout.

In an occupational setting, resources include

physical, psychological, social, or organizational

aspects of any given job within an organization

(Jenaro et al., 2007). In particular, these resources

help employees achieve work goals, foster per­

sonal development, and decrease overall job

demands. Adaptive coping skills have been shown

to reduce vulnerability to burnout and increase

occupational resiliency. Resiliency is a term used

to describe psychological endurance or hardiness

that aids individuals in dealing effectively with

negative life stressors through adaptive coping

skills (Jenaro et al., 2007).

Employee Engagement

Employee engagement is a term used to describe

the degree to which an employee works with

passion and feels a profound connection to the

company (Crabtree, 2004). He or she seeks new

ways to be innovative and helps propel the

company forward. Factors that contribute to

employee engagement include positive relation­

ship with supervisor, workplace friendships, an

50 Journal of Psychologicnl lssues in Orga11izatio11al Culture. Volume 2, Number 4, DOI: 10.1002/jpoc

element of selflessness in interpersonal relation­

ships at work, development of goals, and a clear

understanding of the requirements of the job.

Statement of Purpose

Most research in this area has focused on the neg­

ative effects of burnout in high-risk occupations,

but little research has focused on the resiliency.

The ideology of how resiliency is developed in

individuals and what workplace factors hinder or

foster this adaptive disposition is not well defined.

This study provides the field of organizational psy­

chology with insight into the relationships between

burnout, coping, and employee engagement, as

well as how these factors combined with employee­

preferred workplace characteristics can be aligned

to foster resiliency in employees.

Research Questions

Primarily this study aimed to investigate if there

were any relationships between burnout, employee

engagement, and type of coping mechanism for

people employed in the medical and mental health

fields. Additionally, years of active employment

and its relationship to burnout was assessed.

Finally, common themes regarding employee pre­

ferred workplace characteristics were assessed

with regard to job category.

Method

Sample

Data were collected from 268 participants who

completed four assessments online through

Surveymonkey.com. Of the 268 responses, eight

responses were completely eliminated for missing

data (N = 260). I recruited participants from among

employees working in outpatient treatment units

of public health care facilities, including both

medical and behavioral health. Treatment units \

I I I

I

level of employee engagement. This survey mea­

sures employee and workplace performance using

13 questions on a Likert scale. The Gallup Orga­

nization is the foremost institution studying

employee engagement, thus making this survey

an appropriate choice to examine employee

engagement.

Coping

To identify coping strategies that influence resil­

iency, the Brief COPE Dispositional Inventory

(Brief COPE) was used. This abbreviated, multidi­

mensional inventory assesses the various ways

that people respond to stress (Carver, Scheier, &

Weintraub, 1989). In this assessment, respondents

report the extent to which they perform the activi­

ties listed in the questionnaire items when they are

stressed out (Carver, 2007). This assessment is

available for fair use in an academic setting and

does not require the permission of the author

to use.

The Brief COPE has 14 subscales, with 28

items total. "The scales are: self-distraction, active

coping, denial, substance use, use of emotional

support, use of instrumental support, behavioral

disengagement, venting, positive reframing, plan­

ning, humor, acceptance, religion, and self-blame"

(Carver, 2007, p. 96).

The subscales in the Brief COPE were adjusted

from the original version. The Restraint Coping

and Suppression of Competing Activities were

omitted due to a lack of value in previous research,

as well as displaying redundancy to the Active

Coping subscale (Carver, 1997). In the abbreviated

version, the Positive Reinterpretation and Growth

subscale was renamed Positive Reframing. Fur­

thermore, the Focus on and Venting of Emotions

subscale was renamed Venting. The Mental

Disengagement subscale was renamed Self­

Distraction in the abbreviated version. Carver

52 Jourunl of Psychological Issues in Orga11izatioun/ Culture. Vulunll' 2. Number•I , DOI: 10.1002/jpoc

(1997) created a Self-Blame subscale because it

was found that self-blame is a predictor of poor

adjustment under stress.

In the complete version, although not strongly

intercorrelated, the scales do correlate in concep­

tual meaningful ways (Carver et al., 1989). For

example, one group reflected adaptive strategies.

More specifically, Active Coping and Planning

were linked with Positive Reinterpretation and

Growth (Positive Reframing) and Instrumental

and Emotional Social Support. Positive Reinter­

pretation and Growth (Positive Reframing) is cor­

related with acceptance as are other adaptive

strategies, but not as strongly (Carver et al., 1989).

A second group comprises scales with an

emphasis on maladaptive strategies (Carver et al.,

1989). In particular, these scales include Denial,

Behavioral Disengagement, Venting, and Sub­

stance Use and are all moderately correlated.

These scales tend to be inversely related to the

adaptive strategies. For example, Active Coping

and Planning are negatively correlated with Denial

and Behavioral Disengagement.

Workplace Motivators

Workplace motivators were assessed through an

inquiry on the demographic survey. "Workplace

motivators included for analysis in this study are

achievement, recognition and reward, nature

of the work itself, responsibility, advancement,

growth, company policy and administration, rela­

tionship with supervisor, salary, relationship(s)

with peers, relationship(s) with subordinates,

status, and security/safety" (Herzberg, 2003, p. 90).

This inquiry asked participants to identify

their top six preferred workplace motivators and

then rank in order of preference (1 = Most impor­

tant, 6 = Least important) their preferred type of

workplace motivators. These data were analyzed

using a job category and workplace motivator

I I I

filter in Surveymonkey.com and tabulated into an

overall frequency diagram by job category.

Procedures

After obtaining institutional review board (IRB)

approval, the demographic survey, Maslach

Burnout Inventory-Health Services Survey, Ql2,

and Brief COPE Dispositional Inventory were

loaded onto Surveymonkey.com. These were

online surveys; no paper forms of the surveys were

distributed. The online interface allowed complete

anonymity of the participants as no personal iden­

tifying information was collected. Informed

consent took place electronically as well. After the

completion of this project, all raw data gathered

directly from the participants were destroyed.

Data Analysis

A canonical correlation was conducted to assess

whether there were any relationships between

burnout, employee engagement, and type of

coping. Canonical analysis determines the rela­

tionship between a set of predictor variables and

a set of criterion variables; because two of the

three assessments used had multiple subscales,

this type of analysis was the most appropriate.

Figure 1

Participant Range of Burnout by Level

This is in contrast to using a standard regression

analysis that measures the relationship between a

single predictor and criterion variable. Workplace

motivators were assessed through frequency dia­

grams for each job category.

Hypothesis 1 (H1): There is a significant

relationship between level of burnout

and level of employee engagement.

The data analysis showed that there was a

significant relationship between these two vari­

ables (Wilks's lambda= .73, p < .001). The value of

multiple R, also referred to as the magnitude of the

canonical correlation, is .52 and the value of R2 is

.27. A significant, positive relationship was found

between employee engagement and the Personal

Accomplishment subscale (canonical coefficient=

.48). Additionally, a significant, negative relation­

ship was found between employee engagement

and the Emotional Exhaustion subscale of the

MBI-HSS (canonical correlation = .70; Figures 1

and 2).

Hypothesis 2 (Hi}: There are significant

relationship(s) between level of burnout

and type of coping skills.

Assessment of Burnout

Range of Experienced Burnout

Joumal of Psyclwlogica/ Issues i11 Orgm1izntio11a/ Culture. Volume 2, Numbl'r4, DOI: 10.1002/jpoc 53

Figure 2

Mean Scores on Employee Engagement

al Mean Values of Employee Engagement � 4.5-r-----�--------�-� ii 4.0- -• - -.- -- -- --E - 3.5- • •

• • � ai 3.0- , , • • ·� • • • : • • : •• o E 2 5 � ..... _. I\ -f • \ .,. • • • • ' - ';;; §, 2:0 �•,._.�•·•�.� ... �· � �. ':Jl!LA,:� Q) (11 • ·�,.. .. .�- .�,..· ... ,;.--,, ... ... c, 1.5 • 't• .�., • ----(#' -Y-./ •• ;.•= � �·�� 8 &i 1.0-,-• � -.. • ·�. • , -'- .. �� :. - - � 0.5- (11 0.0-1------,..�-........ ----,------...---� � 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Number of Participants

The data analysis showed that there were sig­

nificant relationships between these two variables

(Cluster 1: Wilks's lambda = .50, p < .001; Cluster

2: Wilks's lambda= .81, p < .003). The magnitude

of the Cluster 1 canonical correlation is .62 and

the squared value is .38. The magnitude of the

Cluster 2 canonical correlation is .38 and the

squared value is .14.

Regarding Cluster 1, significant, positive rela­

tionships were found between the Emotional

Exhaustion subscale of the MBI-HSS (canonical

coefficient = -.67) and the following subscales of

the Brief COPE: Self-Distraction (canonical coef­

ficient= -46), Denial ( canonical coefficient= -.40),

Behavioral Disengagement (canonical coefficient

= -.57), Venting (canonical coefficient= -.46), and

Self-Blame (canonical coefficient = -.53). In other

words, the canonical statistical analysis computed

which, if any, of the three MBI-HSS subscales were

related to which, if any, of the 14 subscales of the

Brief COPE. The analysis showed that Emotional

Exhaustion is positively related to Self-Distraction,

Denial, Behavioral Disengagement, Venting, and

Self-Blame.

Regarding Cluster 2, significant, positive rela­

tionships were found between the Personal

Accomplishment subscale of the MBI-HSS and

the following subscales of the Brief COPE: Denial

54 foumal of Psyc/10/ogical Issues i11 Orgnniwtiona{ Culture, Volume 2. Number4, DOI: 10.Jt)02fjpoc

(canonical coefficient = .66), Substance Use

(canonical coefficient = .53), Use of Emotional

Support (canonical coefficient = .47), Planning

(canonical coefficient = .65), and Humor (canoni­

cal coefficient= .52). In other words, the canonical

statistical analysis computed which, if any, of the

three MBI-HSS subscales were related to which, if

any, of the 14 subscales of the Brief COPE. The

analysis showed that personal accomplishment is

positively related to Denial, Substance Use, Use of

Emotional Support, Planning, and Humor.

Furthermore, significant, negative relation­

ships were found between the Personal Accom­

plishment subscale of the MBI-HSS and the

following subscales of the Brief COPE: Use of

Instrumental Support (canonical coefficient =

-.60) and Behavioral Disengagement (canonical

coefficient = -.92). In other words, the canonical

statistical analysis computed which, if any, of the

three MBI-HSS subscales were related to which, if

any, of the 14 subscales of the Brief COPE. The

analysis also showed that Personal Accomplish­

ment is negatively related to Instrumental Support

and Behavioral Disengagement.

Also with regard to Cluster 2, significant, pos­

itive relationships were found between the Deper­

sonalization subscale of the MBI-HSS and the

following subscales of the Brief COPE: Denial

(canonical coefficient = .66), Substance Use

(canonical coefficient = .53), Use of Emotional

Support (canonical coefficient = .47), Planning

(canonical coefficient= .65), and Humor (canoni­

cal coefficient= .52). In other words, the canonical

statistical analysis computed which, if any, of the

three MBI-HSS subscales were related to which, if

any, of the 14 subscales of the Brief COPE. The

results showed that the MBI-HSS subscale of Dep­

ersonalization is positively related to Denial, Sub­

stance Use, Use of Emotional Support, Planning,

and Humor.

In addition, significant, negative relationships

were found between the Depersonalization sub­

scale of the MBI-HSS and the following subscales

on the Brief COPE: Use of Instrumental Support

(canonical coefficient= -.60) and Behavioral Dis­

engagement (canonical coefficient =-.92). In other

words, the canonical statistical analysis computed

which, if any, of the three MBI-HSS subscales were

related to which, if any, of the 14 subscales of

the Brief COPE. The results showed that Deper­

sonalization is negatively related to Use of Instru­

mental Support and Behavioral Disengagement

(Figures 3-13).

Figure 3

Participant Range of Burnout by Level

Hypothesis 3 (H3): There are significant

relationships between type of coping skills

and level of employee engagement.

The data analysis showed that there was a

significant relationship between these two vari­

ables (Wilks's lambda = .75, p < .001). The value

of multiple R, also referred to as the magnitude of

the canonical correlation, is .50 and the value of

R2 is .25. A significant, positive relationship was

found between Employee Engagement and the

Behavioral Disengagement subscale of the Brief

COPE (canonical coefficient= .43). Additionally, a

Assessment of Burnout

2

Range of Experienced Burnout

Figure 4

Participant Responses on Self-Distraction Subscale

Coping: Self-Distraction (SD) 9-,-----....,...------------�---, 8 7

Q) 6 ,._ 5- 8 4

Cl) 3 2 1-

. -• • .._.__... • .... •--+--• • ·---

.. . ... _......... . . _._...... .... -·---·-

......... -· .. ... • • •• •

_ ...... .._._ ____ .......... _ .... _ ...... ____ ............__ ....... . .. . ....... . .... ........ .....

. .. ... . .. .... . . . ...

--------+-

0-f----..---------------<.-+-+---+,,--�---� 50 100 150 200 250 300

Number of Participants

Figure 5

Participant Responses on Denial Subscale

Coping: Denial (D)8-,----- -------��-- -----, 7 6 •

•

� 5 _.__.__. •- -• • 8 4 • • • • •• ... •• •• .. .... • en 3 •• •• • ............._. • • • •---+-----• • .... • .____.__.._ ............ -

2io---------·--------..... --------------

1- •

0-l----+o>+-�----....,·----,>-+----+,+------"'f'----�� 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Number of Participants

/oumal of Psychological Issues in Orgmtiwtionnl Culture. Vnluml'2. Numbl'r4 • DOI: 111.1002/jpnc 55

56

Figure 6

Participant Responses on Substance Use Subscale

Coping: Substance Use (SU) 9�------------------------, 8 7

• • 6 � 5 8 4 . .. .. . (/)3-• •

• •

• •• • ..

·- -··-·

2�---------------------------------- 1 0-1---·--·---·---·--�--+ .•-+

0 50 100 150 200 250 Number of Participants

Figure 7

Participant Responses on Emotional Support Subscale

-

300

Coping: Use of Emotional Support (ES) 9-,-----------�-------------, 8 .... • .. • • • • ... .. ... • •• 7 ........... -- ---- • .. . .. _..._

� 6 . . . ........ ........ ........... ... ..... . 0 5 ... ............... ............... ......... . . (.) 4- ........ .. _._ .. _ ... . ... . _........ • ... _ ......... . (/) 3 • • • • • • • .. • 2

1 . . ·-- --· .. .. _________._. - -- --·--

0+----... +--•.__.�-------.+----.. .._ •• �___________.., ________ ----1 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Number of Participants

Figure 8

Participant Responses on Instrumental Support Subscale

Coping: Use of Instrumental Support (IS) 9,----------------------� 8 ···--· 7 .. ·-

- -·--

•• •

-·

-·--·-

. .. .. ......

· -· -­

.. .

Q) 6' 0 5

..... . ...... _. .. __ .......... . ... _ ... _ .. • .... _ ........... _ ... .. .. ..... __. ... _.

0 4 .............. .............. . (/) 3 ---·-·-

- • ·-·-..... .

2· .. ...... __.. . ..... _ _.

. . ...... ....... .

.. _.__. ._

. ......... _.

·­

•

1 0 ·----�---�

0 50 100 150 200 250 Number of Participants

Figure 9

Participant Responses on Behavioral Disengagement

Subscale

300

Coping: Behavioral Disengagement (BD) ?�----------------------�

6 -· 5 ••

� 4· .. .

·-- --

.....

•

·---·

-·-· •• •• • +-------+-- . ......... .... . ... ... . .

/j, 3- •

_ ......... . .... __........ . ... ___... ... _. .... ... - --

2 .. +Ill II ....................................................... 1 0-1---·-�·-·

0 50

•

-----1'• ·----� ----i

100 150 200

Number of Participants

250 300

Joumnl of Psychological Issues in Orgn11iwtio11al Culture. Vulunll' 2. Number4 • DOI: JO.JfXJ2/jpuc

Figure 10

Participant Responses on Planning Subscale

Coping: Planning (P) 9-�------------------------� 8 .... ---+- • .... ______.. • _._... ---+ • .. .. ..

- 7 • • • • • .... • ••• . .. . • .. .. ....... . 6-• ... .... .. . . . . ... .. .... .... . .. .. . . . Q)

0 5 • • -•---+ ..... .. __.. .. __

.. . .... ...... .

_..

.. - - -0 (/)

4 ... . ... . ....... .. ... .. .... . . .. . .. ..... .. . 3 • _. • •• • .... --·. •-- 2 .. __..._. .. • -+-• . .. -•-.. --· • ·-·· 1 • 0 _..._ ... _..._ __ .,.... __ --.. -+-+-+.+-- --�----<

0 50

Figure 11

100 150 200

Number of Participants

Participant Responses on Self-Blame Subscale

250 300

Coping: Self-Blame (SB) 9� --�-- ----- --------------� 8 • •• 7

Q) 6

•

__._ . ·---

• • • • ...

•---

..

--- - -- . .... ... •

.... _ .... . . .. . • 0 5- • • 0 4- .. . .................. ................................. __

(j) 3 ...... ..... .......... ... .

. .. ... .. . . . .. . .... . 2 1

. ........... --·--· . - -· ... ...._ ...... _ ..... - - • •

0 -'----+-�..-.·----�-�-· .. •-+•----�----<

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Participants

Figure 12

Participant Responses on Venting Subscale

Coping: Venting (V) 9�------------------- ----, 8 7-•

---+-•- •--+- --- . -•- • • •• • • • • •

. • -- .... _._. . .. - -·· ... _ ..... - - f

6 .. _ ... 0 5- ... _.._.... ... ..... _ ....... _. ........ ·-·-· •• _.. .. __ _ o4 ..... . ........ .................................. .. .... .

··- ·-·· ... ----·

--· .. .. _ .... . ·-·

--+- ---·

.... _ ... ..... _ ...... _

• - -···. ••----+

(/) 3- 2 1 0 •----..-----<

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Participants

Figure 13

Participant Responses on Humor Subscale

Coping: Humor (H) 9�------�---��--------�---� 8 . - • • • . ... .. .. •• 7- •• _.__

. • --···. --· • •- ---+-•

6 .. •• •• •• • •• .. ... . .. ·- .. ...

• • .. •••

. ...

.. .. . .� 5 0 4 .. . · --- ••• ··-· •• _ .. _ ......... ... ... _... ... __ (/) 3 •• •• • • • • • • • . .... . . ........

2 1 o.

....................................... _ ... ·-· . • -- -

•----�----i

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Participants

I I I

significant, negative relationship was found

between Employee Engagement and the Use of

Emotional Support subscale of the Brief COPE

(canonical correlation= .70; Figures 14-16).

Hypothesis 4 (H4): There is a significant

relationship between years of active

employment in critical care areas in the

medical or mental health field and level

of burnout.

Figure 14

Mean Scores for Employee Engagement

Mean Values of Employee Engagement � 4.5-,-----------------�----,

... e 4.o � • - • ,E Ql 3.5 • • • · - •

(/) en 3 o ... •I • • • • • • • • � � . ........ I\ • • ' .-. • • • •• ·�o c: 2.5 'r,: : ···� t -� + \ fff!. �

: •

• • t •:

l/, W 2.0-�.-..... ,.. .. � •• '\... +;.• � ... ;,.J:_ -�· -

c: � 1.5 • ':• ••• .,. - -!I -..__• • .__',f+••\f'A :Jl � 1.0 ,.. • 4-

+ • • • • 4) ' .. • 4>. t.

:a; a. 0 5 � o:o 1----�-----�--�---�--�

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Participants

Figure 15

Participant Responses on Emotional Support Subscale

Coping: Use of Emotional Support (ES) 9..------------------------, 8 .... __________... • +---+-• ··-- ••• _. •• •

7 •-- . .... _.. ._.... -- • ··-· .. ···- - C) 6 -•-• . ..... _.. .. .... ----+ .... __ ......... ____.... • .... __. 0 5 ...................... ...... .. . ........ . . 0 4 ......... - ... ... . ........... .... _ .......... - (/) 3 • • • • • • • .. •

2 _.__. ... _____.__.__.. .. ............... • -- • -- 1 - - 01---..,._--,,4.-..a>----+--_...,>-++-----+-+---------l

0 50 100 150 200 250 Number of Participants

Figure 16

Participant Responses on Behavioral Disengagement

Subscale

6-

Q) 5

-+-

•• •

Coping: Behavioral Disengagement (BD)

• - -- • _______. •-- -- . ... . . . . •• • •• • .

300

0 4 -·- • _____. ....... _._ . . . ... ··· ··- (.) 3 ... ....... _. .... ...... .... _....,. ..... -· (/) 2 ..... -,, ....... . ...... . .................... _....

1 -- _ ____._ -+- -----+ - --- 0 ---+-+--+

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 Number of Participants

The data analysis showed that there is a sig­

nificant, negative relationship between the total

number of years in active employment and the

Depersonalization subscale of the MBI-HSS

(Pearson correlation = -.20, p < .01; Figures 17

and 18).

To address this hypothesis, a two-tailed

Pearson correlation analysis was used to deter­

mine whether there was a relationship between

any of the subscales of the MBI-HSS and the

demographic variable years of active employment

in the field.

Hypothesis 5 (H5): There are different work­

place motivators that are more effective in

motivating employees depending on their

job category within an organization.

Figure 17

Participant Scores of Number of Years of Active Work

Years of Active Work in Field 300.---------------------,

250 ·•·*·:.· !·: :·· •.. . . . 200 • I • ,,: , .. • I • .: !•• •• •••• ._!__ :. z 150 ''·

· ···

: ·. i, • • •• ;. •

100 • • • •• • • • • • .: ••• ,.. •• !.:

• .

. . .

so t•!:i • .•. • !• I ••• 0+--·�·�··�··=··��·�·-·_.:_·���c+--�•i-·�- -·�-�--a0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Number of Years

Figure 18

Range of Burnout on Depersonalization Subscale

Burnout: Depersonalization Subscale

MBIDP (Average), 160..------------:\40,�--------� 140 120 100

Z 80 60 40 20

MBIDP (Low) MBIDP (Average) MBIDP (High) Range of Depersonalization Scores

Joumnl of Psycliologicnl lssues i11 Orgn11izntio11nl Culture. Volume 2. Numbl'r 4, DOI: I0.1002/jpuc 57

The workplace motivators included for analy­

sis in this study were achievement, recognition

and reward, nature of the work itself, responsi­

bility, advancement, growth, company policy and

administration, relationship with supervisor,

salary, relationship(s) with peers, relationship(s)

with subordinates, status, and security and safety.

This research question was addressed by col­

lecting data as part of the demographic survey.

This inquiry asked participants to identify their

top six preferred workplace characteristics and

then rank in order of preference (1 = Most impor­

tant, 6 = Least important) their most preferred

type of workplace characteristics.

This data was analyzed by utilizing frequency

diagrams of the participants responses for each

motivator based on job category (Figures 19 and

20). Regarding the administrative and supporting

roles (ASR) job category, the identified top six

workplace motivators in order of preference were

nature of the work itself, responsibility, salary

(Rank 3 and 6), relationship with peers, and pro­

fessional growth. Regarding the medical and

mental health (MMHC) job category, the identi­

fied top six workplace motivators in order of pref­

erence were nature of the work itself, professional

Figure 19

Top Six Preferred Workplace Motivators by Administrative

and Supporting Role Category

25 20

z 15 10· 5· 0-

Administrative and Supporting Role (ASR) Top Six Preferred Workplace Motivators

Q) .c "" - Q) - "' 0:: Q) -" � 0 � s

:0 ·;;; C 0 0. "' Q)

a:

c <U <ii CJ)

Preferred Workplace Motivators

c <U <ii CJ)

58 Journal of Psychological Issues i11 Orga11iU1tio11al Culture, Volume 2. Number•I, DOI: I0.1002/jpoc

growth (Rank 2 and 3), relationship with peers

(Rank 4 and 5), and salary (Tables 1 and 2).

Discussion

Overall, the results show that as employee burnout

increased, so did the use of more harmful coping

mechanisms. In general, this type of coping

increases the number of risk factors that employ­

ees are exposed to, which simultaneously increases

emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. It is

a destructive cycle. For organizational leaders, this

is of particular significance because when employ­

ees reach high levels of depersonalization and

emotional exhaustion while simultaneously expe­

riencing a reduced level of personal accomplish­

ment, it can be difficult to not only reverse this

process but also compensate for the negative con­

sequences that both the organization and employee

have incurred. Moreover, as emotional exhaustion

increases, employee engagement decreases.

There are numerous negative consequences

resulting from low employee engagement. For

example, a loss of employee engagement has been

associated with a decrease in sales, profit, cus­

tomer satisfaction, workplace safety, and retention

Figure 20

Top Six Preferred Workplace Motivators by Medical and

Mental Health Caregivers Job Category

Q) .c "" - Q) - "' 0:: Q) -" � 0 �s

Medical and Mental Health Caregiver Top Six Preferred Workplace Motivators

rn en a� a:� :E Q) :E Q) cn G> cn a> C [l.. C [l..

� E -� E aj:': aj:': a: a:

Preferred Workplace Motivators

I

I I

g

i �

r � [ §" � s· 0 ,;: § §' 5· l Q :,

f '"

...

QI co

Table 1

Participant Responses on Preferred Workplace Motivators by Administrative and Supporting Role (ASR) Category

Top Six Workplace Motivators for ASR Overall (N = 45)

Company

Recognition Nature of the Professional Policy and Rel. With Rel. With Rel. With

Rank Achievement and Reward Work Itself Advancement Responsibility Growth Administration Supervisor Peers Subordinates Salary

1 26.7% (12) 0.0% (DI 46.7% (21) 0.0% (DI 2.2% (1) 6.7% (3) 2.2% (1) 0.0% (0) 4.4% (2) 2.2% 11) 4.4% 12)

2 11.1% (5) 2.2% (1) 11.1% 15) 2.2% (1) 20.0% (9) 15.6% 17) 6.7% (3) 8.9% 14) 2.2% 11) 6.7% 13) 8.9% (4)

3 11.1% 15) 2.2% (1) 4.4% 12) 4.4% 12) 8.9% 14) 8.9% (4) 2.2% 11) 13.3% 16) 11.1% 15) 11.1% 15) 17.8% (8)

4 11.1% (5) 2.2% (1) 4.4% (2) 0.0% IOI 6.7% 13) 17.8% (8) 6.7% 13) 15.6% 171 24.4% (11) 2.2% (1) 6.7% 13)

5 11.1% 15) 4.4% (2) 2.2% (1) 6.7% (3) 4.4% (2) 15.6% (7) 6.7% (3) 8.9% (4) 11.1% 15) 8.9% (4) 8.9% (4)

6 0.0% (DI 11.1% (5) 4.4% 12) 4.4% (2) 8.9% (4) 11.1% (5) 6.7% (3) 6.7% (3) 6.7% (3) 8.9% 14) 22.2% (10)

Note. The numbers in bold represent the top six preferred workplace characteristics for each overarching job category (medical and mental health caregivers and administrative and supporting roles).

Security/ Status Safety

0.0% (DI 4.4% 12)

2.2% (1) 2.2% (1)

2.2% (1) 2.2% (1)

0.0% IOI 2.2% (1)

6.7% (3) 4.4% (2)

2.2% (1) 6.7% (3)

en 0

�

5 � [ � �

0 ,;:

§

§" �­ §. Q :;;-

i � ,�

�

t

� e3 ;.

e

Table 2

Participant Responses on Preferred Workplace Motivators by Medical and Mental Health (MMHC) Role Job Category

Top Six Workplace Motivators for MMHC Overall IN= 165)

Company Recognition Nature of the Professional Policy and Rel. With Rel. With Rel. With Security/

Rank Achievement and Reward Work Itself Advancement Responsibility Growth Administration Supervisor Peers Subordinates Salary Status Safety

1 10.9% (18) 4.8% (8) 63.0% (104) 0.0% (DI 3.6% (6) 4.8% 18) 0.0% IOI 2.4% 14) 1.8% 13) 0.6% (1) 2.4% (4) 0.6% (1) 4.8% 18)

2 10.3% (17) 2.4% 14) 14.5% (24) 1.8% 13) 13.3% (22) 23.0% (38) 1.8% 13) 4.8% 18) 11.5% (19) 0.0% IOI 14.5% 124) 0.6% (1) 1.2% 12)

3 9.1% (15) 3.0% 15) 4.8% (8) 4.2% 171 13.3% 122) 15.8% (26) 6.1% (10) 9.7% (16) 14.5% 124) 1.8% 13) 13.3% 122) 0.6% (1) 3.6% (6)

4 7.3% (12) 3.6% 16) 5.5% 19) 4.2% 171 7.3% (12) 13.3% (22) 1.8% 13) 13.9% (23) 16.4% (27) 4.8% 18) 14.5% (24) 1.8% 13) 5.5% 19)

5 7.3% (12) 8.5% (14) 2.4% (4) 4.2% 171 7.3% (12) 7.3%(12) 6.1% (10) 13.3% (22) 17.6% (29) 7.9% (13) 8.5% (14) 3.0% (5) 6.7% (11)

6 4.3% 171 8.6% (14) 3.1% 15) 6.1% 110) 6.7% (11) 11.0% 118) 4.9% 18) 10.4% (17) 10.4% (17) 3.7% 16) 19.0% (31) 1.8% 13) 9.8% (16)

Note. The numbers in bold represent the top six preferred workplace characteristics for each overarching job category (medical and mental health caregivers and administrative and supporting roles).

rates (Coffman, 2000, 2003). Additionally, actively

disengaged employees may enact deliberate

attempts of sabotage that include bad-mouthing

other employees and the organization as a whole,

while simultaneously not completing assigned

work tasks (Crabtree, 2004). This attitude is

extremely toxic because it can permeate all levels

of an organization and poison other employees'

attitudes toward their work as well. This is usually

achieved through informal communication net­

works in an organization (Crabtree, 2004).

In contrast, as employee engagement in­

creases, so does personal accomplishment. The

results showed fewer relationships between em­

ployee engagement, personal accomplishment,

and coping mechanisms in general. One possible

explanation for this is that when employees are

doing well physically and psychologically, they

may not continually use adaptive coping mecha­

nisms that protect them from stressors, thereby

failing to create a positive cycle. Self-care and

other kinds of protective factors are not imple­

mented on a consistent basis. This does not prevent

the development and escalation of burnout and

other harmful consequences because of exposure

to chronic stressors. It is important that organiza­

tional leaders foster an organizational culture

that promotes the development of resiliency in

employees.

Resiliency instilled at a microlevel-promot­

ing resiliency in each employee-will permeate

the entire organization, creating a strong, interwo­

ven yet flexible system. One way that organiza­

tions have tried to do this is through wellness

programs. These types of programs encourage

employees to participate in activities they enjoy

doing, thus enhancing intrinsic life satisfaction.

Wellness benefit packages typically provide

employees with some form of monetary supple­

ment to engage in these activities and in doing so

decrease the economic burden of participation.

This type of employee benefit can be helpful in

promoting resiliency as the organization models

the importance of good self-care by taking specific

action to empower employees to be proactive in

navigating the work-life balance.

Instilling resiliency at the microlevel creates a

positive cycle between employees and the organi­

zation; increasing levels of employee engagement

and personal accomplishment inherently protects

employees against escalation of depersonalization

and emotional exhaustion. This is especially pow­

erful if the employees feel as though the company

truly cares about their well-being. Feeling cared

about in the workplace is a significant component

in achieving high levels of employee engagement.

This concept is reinforced with the fact that the

workplace motivator, relationships with peers,

was ranked in the top six employee preferred

workplace motivators in the participant sample

across both job categories.

A proactive stance in dealing with stressors

that involves positive coping mechanisms, includ­

ing consistent self-care, is crucial. This needs to be

modeled to employees in the workplace by the

presence of protective factors that promote their

well-being and enhance their engagement in the

organization. This helps employees balance the

different areas of their lives, but only as long as

the organization itself can be an inherent protec­

tive factor. A resilient organization continuously

promotes protective coping mechanisms with sys­

temic alignment and a flexible, innovative response

to a dynamic business environment.

Limitations

One of the limitations to this study was that the

specific job positions under the ASR and MMHC

job categories were too narrowly defined. This

type of inquiry dictates a tailored list of specific

Jou ma{ of Psychofogicn( Issues i11 Orgm1iurtio11al Culture. Voluml'2, Numbl:'r4, DOI: IO.I002/jpuc 61

job positions for the analysis to be an accurate

reflection of the sample population. Thus, this

type of inquiry needs to include an exhaustive list,

which also accounts for overlap of job positions

within each organization surveyed. In this study,

there was overlap in the ASR category with finance

and accounting listed as two separate job

positions.

Another limitation of this study is that most

of the participants were from the MMHC job

category. Although this allowed for an accurate

assessment of burnout, coping, and employee

engagement in high-risk occupations, it also

limited the generalizability of preferred workplace

motivators specific to the ASR job category.

Although preferred workplace motivators

were assessed, whether these motivators existed in

the participants' organization was not addressed.

In aligning company systems to foster a resilient

culture, managers and administrators must know

the degree to which employees feel their preferred

workplace motivators are present in their work

environment.

Areas for Future Research

One area for future research includes a thorough

analysis of specific job positions within industries

that qualify as high-risk occupations. Progressive

research in the area of workplace motivators on an

autonomous employee level is crucial in develop­

ing a resilient workforce. As preferred workplace

motivators are identified, additional analysis is

needed to determine the workplace motivators

present in the workplace.

Knowledge of employee-preferred workplace

motivators is not enough; for positive change to

occur, organizational leaders need to know which

motivators are present and which ones need to be

refined to foster employee resiliency. This research

could be performed using a Likert rating scale or

62 Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture. Volume 2. Numbcr4 • DOI: 10.1002/jpuc

a qualitative, appreciative inquiry focus-group

approach. Additionally, with regard to employees

who fall under the MMHC job category, an inquiry

of the relationship(s) they have with their

recipient(s) is a significant workplace motivator

that should be included in future analysis of this

particular population.

Future research should also include other

high-risk occupations and how employees in those

fields experience burnout and the effect this has

on their type of coping and engagement in the

workplace. For example, the employee popula­

tions of police officers and firemen should be

examined. These two populations present a new

variable to this area as employees in these fields

risk their lives to do their jobs well. More research

should be done to attempt to understand the effect

this pronounced stressor has on burnout, type of

coping, and employee engagement.

Future studies should also include an applica­

tion of fostering a microlevel resiliency in organi­

zations that are merging cultures. In other words,

merger and acquisition strategy should include

fostering resiliency in the cultural due diligence.

Along these lines, overarching societal cultural

differences have an effect on company culture. As

business in general becomes more globalized, the

need for a multilayer cultural alignment will

become crucial to a company's success. The appli­

cation of larger, societal cultural differences in

international corporate cultural integration is a

significant niche in the organizational psychology

field. +

References

Carver, C. S. (1997). You want to measure coping but

your protocol's too long: Consider the Brief COPE.

International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 4,

92-100.

I

I I I

Carver, C. S. (2007). COPE (brief version). Miami, FL: Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (1997). The truth

University of Miami. Retrieved from http://www.psy about burnout: How organizations cause personal

.miami.edu/faculty/ccarver/sclBrCOP E.html stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA:

Carver, C. S., Scheier, M., & Weintraub, J. (1989).

Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically based

approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

56, 267-283.

Coffman, C. (2000). Bleeding talent? Gallup Manage­

ment Journal. Retrieved from http://govleaders.org

I gallup _print2.htm

Coffman, C. (2003). Building a highly engaged work­

force. Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved from

http://govleaders.org/gallup_print.htm

Crabtree, S. (2004). Getting personal in the workplace.

Gallup Management Journal. Retrieved from http://

govleaders.org/gallup_article_getting_personal_print

. htm

Gallup Organization. (2006). Q12 meta-analysis.

Washington, DC: Author.

Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you moti­

vate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81, 87-96.

Jenaro, C., Flores, N., & Arias, B. (2007). Burnout and

coping in human service practitioners. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 38, 80-87.

J ossey-Bass.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (2008). Early predictors of job

burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychol­

ogy, 93, 498-512.

Richardsen, A. M., & Martinussen, M. (2004). The

Maslach Burnout Inventory: Factorial validity and con­

sistency across occupational groups in Norway. Journal

of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77,

377-384.

Shirom, A., & Melamed, S. (2006). A comparison of the

construct validity of two burnout measures in two

groups of professionals. International Journal of Stress

Management, 13, 176-200 .

Zalaquett, C. P., & Wood, R. J. (Eds.). (1997). Evaluat­

ing stress. London, England: The Scarecrow P ress.

Jennifer Falkoski has a PsyD in organizational leadership

from the University of the Rockies located in Colorado

Springs, Colorado. She currently lives in Jackson Hole,

Wyoming, and is president/CEO of the organizational

consulting firm, Balanced Business Consulting, LLC. Her

e-mail address is Jennifer. [email protected].

/oumal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, Volume 2. Nu111ber 1I, 001: 10.1002/jpnc 63