1 Engagement and Burnout in Organizational Development: Implications and Advancements Amy Caponetti and Michael Lane Morris University of Tennessee at Knoxville Keywords: engagement, burnout, work stress Stress at work is nothing new for most employees and employers. Taking on multiple roles at work can create confusion and frustration for even the most dedicated employees. For most organizations, retaining good employees and keeping them engaged can be a struggle at times. However, determining what drives an employee to be involved and engaged in ones’ work can be a positive and fruitful endeavor for any organization. Two areas more frequently being studied in academia are engagement and burnout in organizational development. Although, engagement has been a popular topic in the modern organizations, little formal, structured academic research has been completed (Macey and Schneider 2008). Prior research by Kahn (1990), Maslach (1982) and more recent work by Macey and Schneider (2008) have brought up some interesting questions regarding engagement and burnout. For example, are these bipolar ends of the same continuum or are they separate constructs completely? If they are separate then what components define each of these constructs? Historically there were a few early pioneers of the concept of burnout including Freudenberger (1980), Maslach (1982) and Pines and Aronson (1988). Maslach and Jackson (1981), Pines and Aronson (1988) and Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) have gone on to create models of burnout that although differing in variables that comprise burnout, do agree that the core of burnout is exhaustion. Maslach and Jackson’s theory shows

Copyright© 2010 Amy Caponetti & Michael Lane Morris

2 engagement as the polar opposite of burnout. This remains as a theme in current literature (Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma and Bakker 2001). Once research began on burnout in the work environment, the pioneers were Christina Maslach and Ayala Pines, who initially worked together on burnout research. At some point these two researchers took a different view of burnout and the theories and definitions behind burnout. Maslach and Jackson (1981) defined burnout as “…a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who do ‘people work’ of some kind.” (p99). This definition and subsequent theory allows for variables or constructs that define burnout and what Maslach calls the antithesis of burnout: engagement. Pines and Aronson (1988) define burnout similarly as “a state of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion caused by long-term involvement in situations that are emotionally demanding” p9, with no mention of engagement. In addition Pines and Aronson include only exhaustion as a measure and include more than just employees in ‘people work’. Both Maslach and Pines agree that the core component of burnout is exhaustion however. In addition, both of these researchers eventually developed burnout inventories, the Maslach Burnout Inventory by Maslach and Jackson (1981) and The Burnout Measure by Pines and Aronson (1988). The construct of engagement has multiple definitions as well. Kahn (1990) defined engagement as: “the harnessing of organization members selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves physically, cognitively and emotionally during role performance” p 694. Kahn goes on to report that engagement is found in situations offering more psychological safety and psychological meaningfulness

3 and availability. This definition would appear to suggest that engagement is a total body experience, involving physical and psychological connections to ones employment. Another definition comes from Rothbard (2001) which defines engagement as a psychological presence that involves two critical components: attention and absorption. This definition would seem to only involve a cognitive component into engagement such as an employee’s ability or willingness to give full attention and complete absorption to ones employment. Maslach (2001), as mentioned above, defines engagement as the opposite of burnout characterized by energy, involvement and efficacy. However, many researchers are coming to see engagement and burnout as two distinct concepts rather than opposite poles of a single variable. In fact, Schaufeli and Bakker (2003) chose not to use Burnout as a measure on their Utrecht work engagement scale due to the uncertainty of two measures being perfectly negatively correlated in that a person who is not considered ‘burned out’ is not necessarily considered ‘engaged’. Schaufeli and Bakker (2004) had multiple findings related to this topic: (1) negative correlation between burnout and engagement; (2) burnout is primarily predicted by job demands where engagement is predicted by job resources; (3) burnout is related to both health issues and intent to turnover, but engagement is only related to intent to turn over; and (4) burnout mediates job resources and turnover intention, where engagement mediates job resources and intent to turnover. Overall their findings indicate that whether opposite poles or separate constructs, these two variables must be dealt with individually and distinctly to reduce burnout and increase engagement.

4 Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker (2001) report another trend is viewing burnout as an erosion of engagement, rather than an opposite. Schaufeli, et al found that burnout and engagement are not opposites of each other, nor are they to be treated as separate constructs, but should be seen as something in between requiring different measurements. Schaufeli, et al during this research have identified two underlying factors of work related well being: (1) Activation and (.) Identification. For the main factors of burnout, exhaustion and cynicism can be shown with low activation and low identification. For the main factors of engagement, vigor and absorption can be seen as high activation and high identification. Schaufeli, et al goes on to report that burnout is characterized by reduced efficacy and engagement is characterized by absorption, which are not direct opposites of each other. This would make the research of engagement and burnout as opposite poles troublesome since some of the variables are considered opposites and some are not. Considering the research findings it would be of interest to see what results one would get when running the same data through instruments that measure as poles and instruments that measure these variables individually. Another issue is identifying the antecedents of engagement and burnout, if any. Multiple antecedents have been offered through the literature, including: meaningfulness, empowerment, work environment, resources and work experiences, just to name a few (Simpson, 2009). One common antecedent in the literature is that of work role stress. Multiple models have been proposed to define and measure stress and particularly work role stress. A few examples include: Person-Environment fit model originated by French, Rogers and Cobb (1970) and later delineated by Van Harrison (1978). Kahn and Quinn’s

5 Role-stress model (1970) and Ivancevich and Matteson’s (1980) Stress Diagnostic Survey which is designed to show which individual level stressors are sources of stress. Specifically using the Ivancevich and Matteson model, which is designed to show which individual level stressors are sources of stress, what would the results be. This model examines 5 individual level stressors: role conflict, role ambiguity, work overload, responsibility for people, and career development stressors. Rationale/Problem Statement Despite much research on the concepts of work role stress, engagement and burnout, these concepts are generally researched separately or at the most engagement and burnout are combined. By adding new dimensions to the burnout/engagement theories we hope to reveal the strengths or weaknesses of certain antecedents at predicting burnout and engagement. The work force has a need to retain engaged employees and to motivate employees who suffer from burnout. By defining some of these other variables and determining how extreme the impacts of these variables are, more employers can focus on retention. The research questions posed in this study are: 1.) What is the relationship between role related stress as measured by conflict, ambiguity and overload in predicting work engagement and work burnout? 2.) What is the relationship between role related stress as measured by conflict, ambiguity and overload in predicting work engagement and work burnout when mediated by satisfaction with my supervisor? The primary purpose of this research roundtable is to receive feedback on the research model (Figure 1) in addition to any suggestions/ideas for future research. The

6 secondary purpose is to gauge interest in and understanding of engagement and burnout in the work environment from an academic perspective.

Supervisor Satisfaction Work role Ambiguity Frequency & Intensity

Exhaustion

Work Burnout

Qualitative work role overload: Frequency and Intensity

Vigor Work Engagement

Quantitative work role overload: Frequency and Intensity

Dedication

Absorption

Work role Conflict Frequency and Intensity

Figure 1. Proposed conceptual model Methodology The method used to test these theories will include a diverse population from AgResearch within the University Of Tennessee Institute Of Agriculture. This population spans from field workers to faculty members and has potential to reveal some interesting differences within and between participant levels. The measures used will be: Stress Diagnostic Survey by Ivancevich and Matteson (1980); Satisfaction with my Supervisor measure by Scarpello and Vandenberg (1987), which will be included as a mediator; Burnout Measure by Pines and Aronson (1998); and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scales by Schaufeli, Salanova, Gonzalez-Roma, and Bakker (2001). Hierarchical regression will be used to run the data.

7 Implications for HR The implications for HR and research within are far reaching. Engaged employees are happier, more productive, and more loyal to their organization. Having engaged employees is a boost for the organization as well as the employee. By identifying the variables related to engagement, maybe we can determine how to increase engagement and decrease burnout within our work force. References Demerouti, E., Bakker, A.B., De Jonge, J., Janssen, P.P.M., & Schaufeli, W.B. (2001) Burnout and engagement at work as a function of demands and control. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 27, 279-286. French, J. R. P., Rogers, W., & Cobb, S. (1974). Adjustment as a person-environment fit. In Coelho, G. V., Hanburg, D. A. & Adams, J. F. (Eds.), Coping and adaptation: Interdisciplinary perspectives (316-333). New York: Basic Books. Freudenberger, H. J. & Richelson, G. (1980). Burnout: The high cost of high achievement. Garden City NY: Anchor Press. Ivancevich, J. M. & Matteson, M .T. (1980). Stress and work: A managerial perspective. Tucker, GA: Scott, Foresman and Company. Jernigan, I. E., & Beggs, J. M. (2005). An examination of satisfaction with my supervisor and organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35 (10), 2171-2192. Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.

8 Kahn, R. L., & Quinn, R. P. (1970). Role stress: A framework for analysis. In Mclean, A. (Ed). Mental health and work organizations (50-115). Chicago: Rand Mc Nally & Company. Knouse, S. B., Beard, J. W., Pollard, H. G., & Giacalone, R. A. (1996). Willingness to discuss exit interview topics: the impact of attitudes toward supervisor and authority. The Journal of Psychology, 130(3), 249-261. Ladany, N., Ellis, M. V., & Friedlander, M. L. (1999). The supervisory working alliance,trainee self efficacy, and satisfaction. Journal of Counseling and Psychology, 77, 447-455. Macey, W. H. & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30. Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Maslach, C. & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 2(2), 99-113. Pines, A. & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout: Causes and cures. New York, NY: The Free Press. Scarpello, V. & Vandenberg, R. J. (1987). The satisfaction with my supervisor scale: Its utility for research and practical applications. Journal of Management, 13(3), 447466. Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. (2003), UWES – Utrecht work engagement scale: test manual, Department of Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, available at: www.schaufeli.com

9 Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293-315. Schaufeli, W. B, Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2001). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92 Simpson, M. R. (2009). Engagement at work: A review of the literature. InternationalJournal of Nursing Studies, 46, 1012-1024. Van Harrison, R. (1978). Person-environment fit. In C. L. Cooper & Payne, R. (Eds.). Stress at work. New York: Wiley & Sons.