McCormack / Cotter Managing Burnout in the Workplace

A Guide for Information Professionals
1. Auflage 2013
ISBN: 978-1-78063-400-5
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: Adobe DRM (»Systemvoraussetzungen)

E-Book, Englisch, 224 Seiten

Reihe: Chandos Information Professional Series

Information professionals are under constant stress. Libraries are ushering in sweeping changes that involve the closing of branches and reference desks, wholesale dumping of print, disappearing space, and employment of non-professional staff to fill what have traditionally been the roles of librarians. Increasing workloads, constant interruptions, ceaseless change, continual downsizing, budget cuts, repetitive work, and the pressures of public services have caused burnout in many information professionals.Managing Burnout in the Workplace concentrates on the problem of burnout, what it is and how it differs from chronic stress, low morale, and depression. The book addresses burnout from psychological, legal, and human resources perspectives. Chapters also cover how burnout is defined, symptom recognition, managing and overcoming burnout, and how to avoid career derailment while coping with burnout. - Focuses on burnout in relation to information professionals and their work - Explores how burnout is identified and diagnosed and how it is measured in the workplace - Provides an overview of interdisciplinary research on burnout, incorporating studies from various areas

Nancy McCormack is a librarian and Associate Professor of Law at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, and a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. She teaches legal research to upper year and graduate students in the Law Faculty. Nancy has co-authored The Practical Guide to Canadian Legal Research and Updating Statutes and Regulations for All Canadian Jurisdictions.

Autoren/Hrsg.

McCormack, Nancy

Cotter, Catherine

Leseproben

2 Factors contributing to burnout
Abstract:
This chapter deals with the individual and socio-demographic factors which play a role in burnout. These factors include age or years of experience, personality, locus of control, marital status, gender, work–home interference and expectations. Environmental and organizational factors which could lead to burnout are also discussed including workload, underwork, type of work, physical environment, conflict, role conflict and role ambiguity, control, social support, reciprocity, social comparison and leadership style. Key words burnout age and experience personality gender work–home interference expectations workload and type of work physical environment conflict and support Introduction
People do not generally burn out in response to one stressful factor in the workplace but rather to a number of factors working in concert (Gabris and Ihrke, 1996). But which factors? Since Freudenberger and Maslach first began writing about the syndrome, researchers have sought to isolate the workplace conditions responsible for burnout, and many of these conditions have been identified and confirmed by empirical studies over the years. For example, it is now widely recognized that workload (quantitative and qualitative) correlates positively with burnout (Maslach and Leiter, 1997), as do excessive job demands (Burisch, 2006). Yet, despite such matters upon which there is agreement among researchers, there is much we still do not know. A number of studies, for instance, have provided us with mixed results in terms of whether certain socio-demographic factors might be responsible for burnout. Some researchers (Dillon and Tanner, 1995; Yildirim, 2008) have found no relation between the dimensions of gender, age or marital status and burnout, while others have determined that the relationship between these very dimensions is significant (Jackson, 1993; Cordes and Dougherty, 1993). Results such as these are confusing, to say the least, and remind us that more research is necessary to determine if, indeed, certain socio-demographic factors are significant, but only perhaps amongst certain groups or types of workers. What follows is a brief overview of the various potential causes of burnout which have been studied and the extent to which these have been linked to the syndrome. Individual and socio-demographic factors are discussed first; this will be followed by a consideration of those workplace conditions which researchers believe put individuals at greater risk for burnout. Individual and socio-demographic factors
Age or years of experience
Researchers have long attempted to determine whether age is a significant factor in employee burnout. Their findings are, however, mixed. Some studies have shown that age is significantly correlated with the three dimensions of burnout (Duffy et al., 2009), and that younger workers are more likely than their older counterparts to feel emotionally exhausted and to experience depersonalization (Williams, 1989). Why is this? One theory is that it is common for young people to enter certain professions or lines of work for which they are not suited. This lack of “fit” is likely to lead to higher rates of stress and burnout resolved only when these individuals leave the field to look for another line of work. This “natural selection” implies that older workers who remain in the job or profession are more temperamentally suited to the job or are likely to have developed successful coping skills and strategies along the way (Brewer and Shapard, 2004). A second theory to explain the difference in burnout scores between younger and older employees amongst certain groups of workers has to do with the amount of training or education required to do the job. Some workers are older than others when they enter the workplace. As a result, they have had more time to understand the pros and cons of their chosen profession, and have the maturity to handle better certain stressors. Individuals who enter the teaching profession, for instance, are generally younger when they start working than individuals who begin to practice medicine. The latter are more mature simply because it takes many more years of schooling and training to qualify as a physician. Hence the theory that, in those areas of employment in which professionals start working at a younger age, they are more likely to show higher rates of burnout than in the areas of employment in which professionals starting their careers are older (Brewer and Shapard, 2004). Nonetheless, neither of the above theories accounts for the results of some studies which indicate no difference in burnout scores between younger and older employees (Konert, 1997; Ahola et al., 2008), or which indicate that burnout does not decrease significantly with age (Schwartz et al., 2007). Clearly, more research is needed to determine when and why age comes up as a significant factor. If experience and age are two variables which are not always easily parcelled out, there also exists some uncertainty as to whether the number of years of experience at the job has any bearing on being at greater or lesser risk for burnout. Various studies have indeed suggested that workers who have not been on the job for a long time are more likely to experience burnout (Bennett and Michie, 1991; Kantas and Vassilaki, 1997; Brewer and Shapard, 2004). These results, however, are not universally shared. Other studies (Gaines and Jermier, 1983; Ray and Miller, 1994; Haddad, 1998) have found no difference in levels of burnout between workers who were new to the job and those who had many more years of experience. Once again, the research raises as many questions as it answers and invites more investigation to determine how reliable age and years of experience are as predictors of burnout. Personality
Workplace characteristics, far more than personality traits, are generally found to be the best predictors of burnout (Barber and Iwai, 1996; Thomsen et al., 1999). As Maslach and Leiter (1997) assert, research and consulting work provide clear and consistent evidence that the roots of burnout stretch far beyond the individual and into the work environment. Burnout does not result from a genetic predisposition to grumpiness, a depressive personality, or general weakness. It is not caused by a failure of character or a lack of ambition. It is not a personality defect or a clinical syndrome. It is an occupational problem. (p. 34) Yet despite such claims, theories do abound as to the types of individuals who are likely to burn out. These are said to include workaholics, enthusiastic high-achievers, and “type-A, driven, ‘stress junkie[s]’“ (Roberts, 1997). As Glouberman (2002) writes, [t] hose of us prone to burnout tend to start out as high-energy, ambitious and capable achievers. Whatever our calling in life, we manage to be the people who are enthusiastic, work hard and do whatever needs doing no matter what the cost. We often perceive ourselves as holding together situations which would fall apart without us. Sometimes this is true. Many of us think of ourselves as unlimited in our energy, even as “Supermen” or “Superwomen”. This is less a matter of pride than a statement of how our life requires us to be. (p. 55) Not everyone agrees, however, that enthusiastic over-achievers are most at risk. Some research indicates that employees who are sensitive and empathetic, or anxious and obsessive (Burke and Richardson, 1996) are more likely to burn out. The syndrome is also thought to occur more frequently among those employees who have unrealistic expectations about their career and accomplishments (Casserley and Megginson, 2009). Empirical work has been able to show that, in the human services professions, perfectionists are particularly at risk. Individuals who score higher on perfectionism are those who generally experience greater stress levels, and those stress levels, in turn, lead to a greater likelihood of burnout (D’Souza et al., 2011). As well, a study conducted by Casserley and Megginson (2009) found that individuals who derive a large part of their identity through their work and career and look for accolades or recognition in return are more liable to burn out. Casserley and Megginson interviewed 105 “high flyers” from the “high potential talent pool” at four different organizations. They discovered that employees who burn out set no boundaries between the job and home; personal sacrifices are viewed as part of the job as is the sacrifice of various physical and emotional needs. Casserley and Megginson’s “high flyer” study revealed that these same employees have a poorly developed reflexive ability, i.e., they just respond to external stimuli, but lack the ability to discuss, evaluate, and interpret and thereby take control and make choices. Individuals who eventually suffered from burnout had the benefit of hindsight to help them...