Burnout, employee engagement, and coping in ... - Wiley Online Library

Burnout, Employee Engagement, and Coping in High-Risk Occupations 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 administrative 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. Employeepreferred 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 specifically, 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 increasingly more difficult to manage in the workplace. It is imperative that organizations continuously 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 technology to run business operations, redistribution of power, and failing corporate citizenship. Employees who are experiencing 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

Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, Volume 2, Number 4, 2012 © 2012 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. and Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) • DOI: 10.1002/jpoc.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 negative 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 personal 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).

element of selflessness in interpersonal relationships 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 negative 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 psychology with insight into the relationships between burnout, coping, and employee engagement, as well as how these factors combined with employeepreferred 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 preferred workplace characteristics were assessed with regard to job category.

Method 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 relationship with supervisor, workplace friendships, an

50

Journal of Psychological Issues in Organizational Culture, Volume 2, Number 4 • DOI: 10.1002/jpoc

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

where participants worked included oncology, the emergency room, medical intensive care, and certified trauma centers. Other professionals from allied health care areas were included as well. These disciplines included radiologic technology, nutrition, and respiratory therapy. Support staff working in these outpatient facilities was also included to assess motivation across job categories. Participant Characteristics The participant group comprised 213 women and 32 men. The participants’ age ranged from 23 to 74 years old, with a mean of 45. The majority of the participants were Caucasian (95.9%), and nearly half had a master’s degree (45.9%). The average tenure actively working in either the medical or mental health field was 13.8 years; the majority of participants indicated they have a moderate amount of trust in the people who run their company (52.2%). All research participants were presented with an informed consent document before taking the survey. Trust in organization was assessed as a confounding variable that could have an impact on employee engagement. Job category, workplace motivators, and generational differences were also assessed. Instruments Used Demographic Questionnaire The items on the questionnaire included birth year, gender, ethnicity, highest level of education completed, job category, and a rating of preferred workplace motivators. These questions provide general insight into the participant population and enable data analyses of the relationships between the study’s primary variables—burnout, type of coping skills, employee engagement, and workplace motivators—with the demographic variables. Job category and workplace motivators were assessed in the demographic section of the survey

as opposed to a separate section in an attempt to reduce participant fatigue. Burnout The Maslach Burnout Inventory–Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) is a 22-item self-report measure used to evaluate level of burnout among professionals. The MBI-HSS has three subscales: Emotional Exhaustion (nine items), Depersonalization (five items), and Reduced Personal Accomplishment (eight items; Zalaquett & Wood, 1997). Each item is numerically scored and categorized as high, medium, or low with regard to level of burnout. Respondents rate each statement on a 7-point, fully anchored scale ranging from 0 (Never) to 6 (Every day). This MBI-HSS is a widely used tool to measure burnout in employees who work in high-stress, people-oriented fields. Research on this survey has demonstrated strong validity and reliability. Subscale scores of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization on the MBI positively correlate with an individual’s level of burnout (Richardsen & Martinussen, 2004). Personal accomplishment is negatively correlated with overall level of burnout, meaning that high scores of personal accomplishment reflect lower levels of burnout. The three subscales of burnout were deduced from labeling exploratory factor-analyzed items originally gathered to indicate the range of experiences associated with the phenomenon of burnout (Shirom & Melamed, 2006). Although burnout is considered one psychological syndrome, each of these variables should be measured independently because each facet has specific precursors and consequences. Employee Engagement The Q12 Survey, published by the Gallup Organization (2006), was used to assess each participant’s


51

level of employee engagement. This survey measures employee and workplace performance using 13 questions on a Likert scale. The Gallup Organization 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 resiliency, the Brief COPE Dispositional Inventory (Brief COPE) was used. This abbreviated, multidimensional 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 activities 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, planning, 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. Furthermore, the Focus on and Venting of Emotions subscale was renamed Venting. The Mental Disengagement subscale was renamed SelfDistraction in the abbreviated version. Carver

52


(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 conceptual 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 Reinterpretation and Growth (Positive Reframing) is correlated 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 Substance 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, relationship 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 important, 6 = Least important) their preferred type of workplace motivators. These data were analyzed using a job category and workplace motivator

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 diagrams for each job category.

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, Q12, 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 identifying 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.

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 variables (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 relationship was found between employee engagement and the Emotional Exhaustion subscale of the MBI-HSS (canonical correlation = .70; Figures 1 and 2).

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 relationship 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.

Hypothesis 2 (H2): There are significant relationship(s) between level of burnout and type of coping skills.

Figure 1 Participant Range of Burnout by Level 246 146 47

ig h)

te

(H

er a

M

BI

PA

PA

od (M

PA BI M

2

)

) ow (L

ig (H D BI

M

(M P D BI M

P

od

P D BI M

18

h)

) te er a

(L ow

)

ig h) (H EE

BI

EE BI M

M

BI

(M

EE

(L

ow

od er at e

)

)

35

BI

73

M

138

94

M

Number of Participants

Assessment of Burnout 300 250 200 150 100 50 0

Range of Experienced Burnout


53

Figure 2

Mean Scores for Employee Engagement

Mean Scores on Employee Engagement Mean Values of Employee Engagement

4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0

50

100 150 200 Number of Participants

250

300

The data analysis showed that there were significant 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 relationships 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 coefficient = −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 relationships were found between the Personal Accomplishment subscale of the MBI-HSS and the following subscales of the Brief COPE: Denial

54


(canonical coefficient = .66), Substance Use (canonical coefficient = .53), Use of Emotional Support (canonical coefficient = .47), Planning (canonical coefficient = .65), and Humor (canonical 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 relationships were found between the Personal Accomplishment 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 Accomplishment is negatively related to Instrumental Support and Behavioral Disengagement. Also with regard to Cluster 2, significant, positive relationships were found between the Depersonalization 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 (canonical 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 Depersonalization is positively related to Denial, Substance Use, Use of Emotional Support, Planning, and Humor.

Hypothesis 3 (H3): There are significant relationships between type of coping skills and level of employee engagement.

In addition, significant, negative relationships were found between the Depersonalization subscale of the MBI-HSS and the following subscales on 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 results showed that Depersonalization is negatively related to Use of Instrumental Support and Behavioral Disengagement (Figures 3–13).

The data analysis showed that there was a significant relationship between these two variables (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

Figure 3

Assessment of Burnout

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

246 146 2

(H

ig

at er od PA

BI

M

(M

BI M

h)

e)

) ow PA

(H P D

BI

P

M

M

M

BI

D

M

(M

BI M

(L

ig

at er od

P D

EE BI

18

h)

e)

) ow (L

ig (H

er od M

(M BI

EE

h)

e) at

ow (L EE BI M

47

PA

73

35

BI

138

94

)

Number of Participants

Participant Range of Burnout by Level

Range of Experienced Burnout

Figure 5

Participant Responses on Self-Distraction Subscale

Participant Responses on Denial Subscale

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Coping: Self-Distraction (SD)

Score

Score

Figure 4

0

50


250

300

8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Coping: Denial (D)

0

50


250

300


55

Figure 10

Participant Responses on Substance Use Subscale

Participant Responses on Planning Subscale

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Coping: Substance Use (SU)

Score

Score

Figure 6

0

50


250

300

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Coping: Planning (P)

0

50


Figure 11

Participant Responses on Emotional Support Subscale

Participant Responses on Self-Blame Subscale

Coping: Use of Emotional Support (ES)

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Score

Score

Figure 7

0

50


250

300

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

0

50


Participant Responses on Instrumental Support Subscale

Participant Responses on Venting Subscale

Score

Score

Figure 12

Coping: Use of Instrumental Support (IS)

0

50


250

300

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

300

250

300

250

300

250

300

Coping: Self-Blame (SB)

Figure 8

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

250

Coping: Venting (V)

0

50


Figure 9

Figure 13

Participant Responses on Behavioral Disengagement

Participant Responses on Humor Subscale

56

7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Coping: Behavioral Disengagement (BD) Score

Score

Subscale

0

50


250

300


9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Coping: Humor (H)

0

50


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

The data analysis showed that there is a significant, 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 determine 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 workplace motivators that are more effective in motivating employees depending on their job category within an organization.

Mean Scores for Employee Engagement

Mean Values of Employee Engagement 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0

50


250

300

Figure 17 Participant Scores of Number of Years of Active Work

Figure 15

Years of Active Work in Field

Participant Responses on Emotional Support Subscale

Score

N

Coping: Use of Emotional Support (ES) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

0

50


250

300 250 200 150 100 50 0

0

5

10

15

20 25 30 35 Number of Years

40

45

50

300

Figure 18 Figure 16

Range of Burnout on Depersonalization Subscale

Participant Responses on Behavioral Disengagement Subscale 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

N

Score

Coping: Behavioral Disengagement (BD) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

0

50


250

300

Burnout: Depersonalization Subscale MBIDP (Average), 146

MBIDP (Low), 73 MBIDP (High), 47

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


57

The workplace motivators included for analysis in this study were achievement, recognition and reward, nature of the work itself, responsibility, 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 collecting 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 important, 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 professional growth. Regarding the medical and mental health (MMHC) job category, the identified top six workplace motivators in order of preference were nature of the work itself, professional

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 employees 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 employees reach high levels of depersonalization and emotional exhaustion while simultaneously experiencing a reduced level of personal accomplishment, it can be difficult to not only reverse this process but also compensate for the negative consequences 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, customer satisfaction, workplace safety, and retention

Figure 19

Figure 20

Top Six Preferred Workplace Motivators by Administrative

Top Six Preferred Workplace Motivators by Medical and

and Supporting Role Category

Mental Health Caregivers Job Category

Preferred Workplace Motivators

58


38

26

27

29

31

Professional Growth

Professional Growth

Relationship(s) with Peers


Salary

120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Medical and Mental Health Caregiver Top Six Preferred Workplace Motivators 104

Nature of the Work Itself

10

Salary

7 Professional Growth


8 Salary

9

11

N

21

Responsibility

25 20 15 10 5 0


N

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

Preferred Workplace Motivators


59

11.1% (5)

11.1% (5)

0.0% (0)

4

5

6

11.1% (5)

4.4% (2)

2.2% (1)

2.2% (1)

2.2% (1)

0.0% (0)

4.4% (2)

2.2% (1)

4.4% (2)

4.4% (2)

11.1% (5)

46.7% (21)

4.4% (2)

6.7% (3)

0.0% (0)

4.4% (2)

2.2% (1)

0.0% (0)

8.9% (4)

4.4% (2)

6.7% (3)

6.7% (3)

6.7% (3)

15.6% (7) 11.1% (5)

6.7% (3)

2.2% (1)

6.7% (3)

2.2% (1)

17.8% (8)

8.9% (4)

15.6% (7)

20.0% (9) 8.9% (4)

6.7% (3)

2.2% (1)

6.7% (3)

8.9% (4)

15.6% (7)

13.3% (6)

8.9% (4)

0.0% (0)

6.7% (3)

8.9% (4)

8.9% (4)

2.2% (1)

24.4% (11) 11.1% (5)

11.1% (5)

6.7% (3)

2.2% (1)

Rel. With Subordinates

11.1% (5)

2.2% (1)

4.4% (2)

Rel. With Peers

6.7% (3) 2.2% (1)

22.2% (10)

0.0% (0)

2.2% (1)

2.2% (1)

0.0% (0)

Status

8.9% (4)

6.7% (3)

17.8% (8)

8.9% (4)

4.4% (2)

Salary

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).

11.1% (5)

11.1% (5)

2

3

26.7% (12)

1

Rank

Company Recognition Nature of the Professional Policy and Rel. With Achievement and Reward Work Itself Advancement Responsibility Growth Administration Supervisor

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

Table 1 Participant Responses on Preferred Workplace Motivators by Administrative and Supporting Role (ASR) Category

6.7% (3)

4.4% (2)

2.2% (1)

2.2% (1)

2.2% (1)

4.4% (2)

Security/ Safety

60


10.9% (18)

10.3% (17)

9.1% (15)

7.3% (12)

7.3% (12)

4.3% (7)

1

2

3

4

5

6

8.6% (14)

8.5% (14)

3.6% (6)

3.0% (5)

2.4% (4)

4.8% (8)

3.1% (5)

2.4% (4)

5.5% (9)

4.8% (8)

6.1% (10)

4.2% (7)

4.2% (7)

4.2% (7)

1.8% (3)

0.0% (0)

63.0% (104) 14.5% (24)

Advancement


6.7% (11)

7.3% (12)

7.3% (12)

13.3% (22)

13.3% (22)

3.6% (6)

Responsibility

6.1% (10)

15.8% (26)

11.0% (18)

7.3% (12)

4.9% (8)

6.1% (10)

1.8% (3)

1.8% (3)

23.0% (38)

13.3% (22)

0.0% (0)

Company Policy and Administration

4.8% (8)

Professional Growth

10.4% (17)

13.3% (22)

13.9% (23)

9.7% (16)

4.8% (8)

2.4% (4)

Rel. With Supervisor

7.9% (13)

17.6% (29)

3.7% (6)

4.8% (8)

16.4% (27)

10.4% (17)

1.8% (3)

0.0% (0)

0.6% (1)

Rel. With Subordinates

14.5% (24)

11.5% (19)

1.8% (3)

Rel. With Peers

3.0% (5) 1.8% (3)

19.0% (31)

1.8% (3)

0.6% (1)

0.6% (1)

0.6% (1)

Status

8.5% (14)

14.5% (24)

13.3% (22)

14.5% (24)

2.4% (4)

Salary

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).

Achievement

Rank

Recognition and Reward

Top Six Workplace Motivators for MMHC Overall (N = 165)

Table 2 Participant Responses on Preferred Workplace Motivators by Medical and Mental Health (MMHC) Role Job Category

9.8% (16)

6.7% (11)

5.5% (9)

3.6% (6)

1.2% (2)

4.8% (8)

Security/ Safety

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 networks in an organization (Crabtree, 2004). In contrast, as employee engagement increases, so does personal accomplishment. The results showed fewer relationships between employee 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 mechanisms that protect them from stressors, thereby failing to create a positive cycle. Self-care and other kinds of protective factors are not implemented 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 organizational leaders foster an organizational culture that promotes the development of resiliency in employees. Resiliency instilled at a microlevel—promoting resiliency in each employee—will permeate the entire organization, creating a strong, interwoven yet flexible system. One way that organizations 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 supplement 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 organization; increasing levels of employee engagement and personal accomplishment inherently protects employees against escalation of depersonalization and emotional exhaustion. This is especially powerful 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, including 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 protective factor. A resilient organization continuously promotes protective coping mechanisms with systemic 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


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 developing 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


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 populations 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 application of fostering a microlevel resiliency in organizations 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 application of larger, societal cultural differences in international corporate cultural integration is a significant niche in the organizational psychology field. N 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.

Carver, C. S. (2007). COPE (brief version). Miami, FL: University of Miami. Retrieved from http://www.psy .miami.edu/faculty/ccarver/sclBrCOPE.html 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 Management Journal. Retrieved from http://govleaders.org /gallup_print2.htm Coffman, C. (2003). Building a highly engaged workforce. 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 motivate 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.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (1997). The truth about burnout: How organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 498–512. Richardsen, A. M., & Martinussen, M. (2004). The Maslach Burnout Inventory: Factorial validity and consistency 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). Evaluating stress. London, England: The Scarecrow Press.

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 [email protected].


63