Abstract
Objective: Employee mental health is now moving into the fast lane as companies realize that presenteeism costs and mental ill-health related issues have a negative correlation to company productivity and overall engagement. Furthermore, burnout or mental exhaustion tends to significantly afflict the most productive and motivated employees within the company, so proactively identifying such risk is sustainably advantageous for continuous operations. The objective of the study is to examine the reliability and validity of the Risk for Burnout Measure to proactively identify an employee’s potential risk for burnout within a cohort from various companies in Sweden. The Study Design and Setting: Empowerment for Participation (EFP) batch of assessments, consisting of 110 questions, is used to measure employee motivation, stress, defense routines and motivational positioning or adaptability on an individual and aggregate level within a company. This study looks at the reliability and validity of a composite of thirty questions extracted from the EFP batch to effectively measure the status of an individual in relation to a potential risk for Burnout or Mental Exhaustion Syndrome. N = 69 is a cohort of personnel from three small companies and an unbound group (employed but not belonging to a group from a company). Originally, the EFP battery was used to proactively monitor, track and identify (in a preventive context) measures that enhance individual wellbeing and engagement in a company population. Results: EFP showed excellent reliability (α = 0.929 based on Standardized Items) and statistically significant Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (95% confidence interval (CI = 0.950; p < 0.001)), as well as an internal validity of 92.8% and an external validity of 91.2%. Significant correlations with normal distributions for degrees of Risk for Burnout were found within the cohort: No Evidence (31.9%), Low Risk (44.9%), Moderate Risk (18.8%), High Risk (4.3%), and Burned-out (0%) where diagnoses or and the use of SSRI anti-depressives highly correlated to 95.7% within the High Risk group (CI = 0.950; p < 0.001). Conclusion: The findings indicate that the Risk for Burnout derived from the EFP Batch of Assessments is an excellent tool for companies to predict employee distribution Risk for Burnout within their operational environment. Providing companies with the knowledge to predict mental exhaustion prior to affliction, affords companies the ability to proactively launch preventative measures thereby staving off an inevitable diagnosis. Providing company Occupational Health departments with a practical early identification tool to sustainably manage employee risk reduces presenteeism costs, improves psychological well-being, and helps to enhance engagement at work.
Highlights
Burnout is a term first used in the 1970s by Herbert Freudenberger, Ph.D., a Psychoanalyst and Psychologist (Freudenberger, 1974, 1975, 1977)
This study looks at the reliability and validity of a composite of thirty questions extracted from the Empowerment for Participation (EFP) batch to effectively measure the status of an individual in relation to a potential risk for Burnout or Mental Exhaustion Syndrome
The present study indicates that the EFP Burnout Inventory (EFPRB) is a reliable and valid measure to assess the Risk for Burnout in employees
Summary
Burnout is a term first used in the 1970s by Herbert Freudenberger, Ph.D., a Psychoanalyst and Psychologist (Freudenberger, 1974, 1975, 1977). Research in more than 4550 studies have linked work stress to lower levels of wellbeing and engagement (Cotton 2003; Levi et al, 1999); few studies (Burke & Mikkelsen, 2006) have empirically examined the association between self-expectancy and external demands in relation to burnout. Michelsen and Thorsteinsdottir (2010) measured the relationship between stress, motivational adaptiveness and engagement of personnel at Rexam, Ball Corporation, in Sweden; Koopman et al (2002) introduced the Stanford presenteeism scale in relation to the health status and employee productivity; and Seppäla & Moeller (2018) showed how burnout is commonly associated to conflicts between individual self-expectancies and demands Research in more than 4550 studies have linked work stress to lower levels of wellbeing and engagement (Cotton 2003; Levi et al, 1999); few studies (Burke & Mikkelsen, 2006) have empirically examined the association between self-expectancy and external demands in relation to burnout. Michelsen and Thorsteinsdottir (2010) measured the relationship between stress, motivational adaptiveness and engagement of personnel at Rexam, Ball Corporation, in Sweden; Koopman et al (2002) introduced the Stanford presenteeism scale in relation to the health status and employee productivity; and Seppäla & Moeller (2018) showed how burnout is commonly associated to conflicts between individual self-expectancies and demands
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
