Burnout, Employee Engagement, and Coping in High-Risk Occupa.docx

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

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
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
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
/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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
rn en
a� a:�
:E Q) :E Q)
cn G> cn a>
C [l.. C [l..
� E -� E
aj:': aj:':
a: a:
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

Burnout, Employee Engagement, and Coping in High-Risk Occupa.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Burnout, Employee Engagement, and Coping in High-Risk Occupa.docx

Similar to Burnout, Employee Engagement, and Coping in High-Risk Occupa.docx (20)

More from jasoninnes20

More from jasoninnes20 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Burnout, Employee Engagement, and Coping in High-Risk Occupa.docx