Part F
Outcomes
12
Burnout, Boredom and Engagement in the Workplace
WILMAR B. SCHAUFELI AND MARISA SALANOVA
Chapter Objectives
After studying this chapter, you should be able to:
- define and assess job burnout, boredom at work and work engagement;
- differentiate between âgoodâ and âbadâ ways of working hard;
- identify the main drivers of engagement as well as the causes of burnout and boredom;
- identify the major consequences of burnout, boredom and engagement;
- understand the psychological mechanisms that are involved in employee affective well-being.
This chapter is about how employees feel at work. In other words, it is concerned with their psychological well-being, which can be either negative or positive. For instance, employees may feel worn out, cynical or bored, or in contrast, they may feel enthused and full of pep. The way employees feel has not only to do with âwho they areâ â i.e. their personality â but also with âwhere they areâ â i.e. in their jobs. In essence, employee well-being results from the interaction between person and (work) environment. It depends on the interplay of person-related factors such as temperament and past experiences, and job-related factors such as job characteristics and interpersonal relations at work. More particularly, this chapter focuses on job burnout, boredom at work and work engagement. After a brief historical overview (Section 12.1), these three types of employee well-being are described in greater detail (Section 12.2) and a taxonomy is presented that allows a differentiation with workaholism and job satisfaction (Section 12.3). Next, the antecedents, consequences and correlates of burnout, boredom and engagement are discussed (Section 12.4), as well the role of individual differences (Section 12.5). Finally, psychological explanations for burnout, boredom and work engagement are discussed (Section 12.6), and the chapter closes with some overall conclusions (Section 12.7).
12.1 A Brief History
The practical and scientific interest in employee feelings at work developed relatively recently, although the first accounts date back over a century ago. Historically speaking the interest in employee feelings is intertwined with stress, in this context loosely defined as a physical, mental or emotional response to events or demands that cause bodily or mental tension. Strange as it may seem, both World Wars have contributed much to the interest in employee feelings. During World War I (1914â1918), the British government commissioned the Industrial Fatigue Research Board to come up with solutions to tackle the problem of industrial fatigue in ammunition factories, which caused many injuries and fatal accidents. At about the same time army physicians described âshell shockâ, an acute stress-reaction that resulted from the extreme demands to which soldiers were exposed in combat situations. During World War II (1940â1945), for the first time quantitative studies of the impact of war on the mental and emotional life of individuals (i.e. soldiers and civilians) were carried out (Stouffer, Suchman, de Vinney, Stra, & Williams, 1949). In the 1940s and 1950s the US Air Force funded a large laboratory research programme about the effects of stress on task performance. This programme was led by Richard Lazarus, who later developed his renowned stress and coping theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Throughout the 1960s and 1970s the field was dominated by the Institute of Social Research of the University of Michigan, where Kornhauser (1965) carried out a ground-breaking survey on the mental health of automotive workers. In Europe the British Tavistock Institute played a major role with a landmark study in the late 1940s on stress in British coalmines that uncovered the role of social and organizational factors, such as group norms. In the 1970s and 1980s Scandinavian job stress research was highly influential, particularly the work of Karasek and Theorell (1990), who conceived the well-known DemandâControlâSupport Model (see Chapter 3).
Initially, no sharp distinction was made between different kinds of mental strain and ill-being, and omnibus measures were used for their assessment. This changed, however, in the late 1970s when job burnout appeared on the scene. This notion entered science through the backdoor, so to speak. âBurnoutâ is a metaphor that was used by professionals, particularly those working in the human services such as health care, social work, psychotherapy and law enforcement, to describe a state of mental exhaustion. It has been argued that the emergence of burnout is rooted in the social and cultural changes that have taken place since the 1960s, such as the growth and bureaucratization of welfare institutions and the weakening of professional authority, both of which put considerable strain on human services professionals (Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2009). In fact, the history of burnout developed along two lines: a practical, interventionist tradition that focused on the assessment, prevention and treatment of burnout, and an academic research tradition that focused on identifying its causes and consequences, and uncovering its psychological underpinnings. Quite remarkably, both traditions developed relatively independently and only occasional overlap, for instance in case of the practical use of validated burnout measures and the scientific evaluation of interventions to prevent or to combat burnout. Meanwhile, âburnout businessâ is booming and over 6, 600 scientific articles have been published on the subject.
Although boredom at work was recognized as a topic worthy of scientific inquiry by the pioneer of applied psychology Hugo MĂŒnsterberg back in 1913, it is still investigated only occasionally. Traditionally boredom, which is conceived as a state of low arousal and dissatisfaction due to an unchallenging work situation, is investigated in relation to monotonous and repetitive work, for instance at assembly lines. The first empirical studies on boredom were carried out before and during World War II using a human factors perspective and focused on task performance in a laboratory setting. Boredom in organizations was not studied until the 1960s and 1970s, and currently fewer than 400 scientific studies have appeared.
Since the turn of the century, work engagement has emerged as the opposite of burnout, namely a state of mental energy. Like burnout, the notion of engagement was first used in practice in business settings by human resources-professionals and consultants because an organizationâs mental capital, that is, the cognitive and emotional fortitude and strength of its employees, is nowadays of increasing economic significance. For modern organizations, employeesâ mental fitness rather than their mere physical fitness provides a decisive competitive advantage. From a scientific point of view, the emergence of work engagement has been fostered by the rise of positive psychology, which studies human strength and optimal functioning, since the turn of the century. From 2000 till 2012 over 1,100 scientific publications were published on work or employee engagement (these terms are used interchangeably).
12.2 Defining and Assessing Burnout, Boredom and Engagement
In this section we will describe how the three different indicators of psychological well-being are generally defined and assessed.
Burnout
As mentioned earlier, burnout is a metaphor that is commonly used to describe a state or process of mental exhaustion, similar to the smothering of a fire or the extinguishing of a candle. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines âto burn outâ as âto fail, wear out, or become exhausted by making excessive demands on energy, strength, or resourcesâ.
Although various definitions of burnout exist, the most often cited academic definition comes from Maslach, Jackson and Leiter (1986, p. 1): âBurnout is a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who do âpeople workâ of some kind.â So burnout consists of three dimensions in this definition. Emotional exhaustion refers to the depletion or draining of emotional resources caused by interpersonal demands. Depersonalization points to the development of negative, callous and cynical attitudes towards the recipients of oneâs services. The term âdepersonalizationâ may cause some confusion since it is used in a completely different sense in psychiatry, namely to denote a personâs extreme alienation from self and the world. However, in Maslach and Jacksonâs definition, depersonalization refers to an impersonal and dehumanized perception of recipients, rather than to an impersonal view of self. Finally, lack of personal accomplishment is the tendency to evaluate oneâs work with recipients negatively. Burned-out professionals believe that their objectives are not achieved, which is accompanied by feelings of insufficiency and poor professional self-esteem. For a description of burnout see the story of Peter â a burned-out teacher (Work Psychology in Action box).
Initially, Maslach and Jackson claimed that burnout exclusively occurs among professionals who deal with recipients (e.g. students, pupils, clients, patients or delinquents) face-to-face. Hence, in their view burnout is restricted to the helping professions, at least initially. But in the 1990s the concept of burnout was broadened and defined as a crisis in oneâs relationship with work in general and not necessarily as a crisis in oneâs relationship with people at work (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). From that time onwards burnout was also investigated outside the human services. For that purpose, the three original burnout dimensions were redefined: exhaustion refers to fatigue irrespective of its cause, cynicism reflects an indifferent or distant attitude towards work instead of other people and lack of professional efficacy encompasses both social and non-social aspects of occupational accomplishment. In other words, burnout is a multidimensional construct that includes a stress reaction (exhaustion or fatigue), a mental distancing response (depersonalization or cynicism) and a negative belief (lack of accomplishment or efficacy).
Psychologically speaking these three components are related (see also Section 12.6). Exhaustion results from exposure to chronic stressors at work (e.g. work overload, emotional demands, interpersonal conflicts). In an attempt to prevent further energy depletion, employees distance themselves mentally from their work by developing depersonalizing or cynical attitudes. In doing so, their work performance is likely to dimi...