We've all heard the statistics about burnout in the workplace. Just over fifty percent of all workers (including those of us in the health care industry) meet at least one of the three criteria (emotional exhaustion, cynicism, or reduced professional efficacy) for burnout, as defined by the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Burnout is frequently discussed in conjunction with engagement (more on engagement below), and to some extent, burnout can be thought of as the opposite of engagement. In other words, the employees who are most engaged are generally not the ones who suffer from burnout. Is that really a true statement, though?
I recently came across a great article by Emma Seppälä and Julia Moeller in Harvard Business Review that stated that 1 in 5 employees is highly engaged and at risk of burnout. They led a study conducted at the Yale Center for Emotional Intelligence that surveyed over 1,000 U.S. employees on both engagement and burnout. What they found may surprise you. Two out of every five employees surveyed reported high engagement and low burnout, which is what we would generally expect. Consistent with both the engagement and the burnout literature, these employees generally reported feeling positive emotions (motivation, happiness, etc) and low negative outcomes (a desire to leave their current job). Seppälä and Moeller labeled this group the optimally engaged group. However, one out of every five employees reported both high engagement and high burnout! These employees reported high levels of interest and motivation to succeed coupled with high degrees of stress, frustration, and a desire to leave their current job. Seppälä and Moeller labeled this group the engaged-exhausted group.
Importantly, half of the optimally engaged group (remember - high engagement and low burnout) reported having high resources, such as supervisor support, receiving recognition and/or rewards for doing a good job, and self-efficacy (confidence in their ability to do their job well). In addition, this subgroup also reported low demands, including low workload, not having to deal with a cumbersome bureaucracy, and jobs that didn't require high concentration or attention. In contrast, employees in the engaged-exhausted group rarely reported having either high resources or low demands.
All of this calls to mind the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Model, developed by Arnold Bakker and Evangelia Demerouti in the early 2000's (see "The Job Demands-Resources Model: State of the Art" published in the Journal of Managerial Psychology for a nice review):
The JD-R model is essentially a 2x2 table with "Resources" on the horizontal axis and "Demands" on the vertical axis. "Resources" are the physical, social, or organizational factors that help us to achieve our goals and reduce stress and include things such as strong co-worker relationships, autonomy, role clarity, opportunities for advancement, learning and professional development, and coaching/mentoring. "Demands" are the physical and emotional stressors that we experience at work and include things such as time pressures, a heavy workload, a stressful work environment, role ambiguity, poor leadership, and poor co-worker relationships.
According to the JD-R model then, if "Demands" are high and "Resources" are low, then employees experience burnout. In contrast, if "Resources" are high and "Demands" are low, then employees experience boredom. The "sweet spot" if you will is when both "Resources" and "Demands" are high. Based on Seppälä's and Moeller's research findings, there is an important caveat. Sixty-four percent of the employees in their engaged-exhausted group reported experiencing both high demands and high resources!
So what are we to conclude then? First, consistent with the JD-R model, we have to provide employees with the resources they need to do their jobs well, feel good about what they are doing, and recover from the normal everyday stresses that they will inevitably experience at work. Second, there is a cost to high work demands, even when the appropriate resources are provided. Seppälä and Moeller suggest ensuring that employee goals are realistic. It's important to realize that so-called "stretch goals" (the "moon shot" or what Jim Collins refers to as a "BHAG") can come with a cost. While chasing an ambitious goal or confronting a unique challenge can be incredibly motivating, employees tend to just simply give up if goals are too far out of reach. I personally like using SMART goals for this reason - ones that are specific, measurable, attainable (actionable), realistic, and time-limited. In addition, leaders should be mindful not to overload a particularly skilled or motivated employee who often get asked to do a lot of different projects because they are good at their jobs and usually successful in completing the work. Finally, intangible resources are just as important as tangible ones, like time and money. Building a culture of psychological safety, clarifying roles and responsibilities, developing cohesive teams, providing opportunities for professional growth and development (and career advancement) are equally important.
Seppälä and Moeller conclude, "The data is clear: engagement is key, it's what we should strive for as leaders and employees. But what we want is smart engagement - the kind that leads to enthusiasm, motivation, and productivity, without the burnout."
No comments:
Post a Comment