Popular in Professional

Business

The Allegory of the Favela: The Multifaceted Effects of Socioeconomic Mobility

University of Pennsylvania Leandro S. Pongeluppe

Architecture

Connecting Cities and Nature

University of Virginia Timothy Beatley

Human Rights Law

Human Rights and Corruption: Problems and Potential of Individualising a Systemic Problem

Max Planck Institute Anne Peters

Finance

Chinese Exchange Rate Policy: Lessons for Global Investors

University of California San Diego Michael Melvin

Law

A statistical approach to law school citation rankings

University of Virginia Joshua Fischman

Education

Firm Performance Pay as Insurance against Promotion Risk

Stockholm School of Economics Alvin Chen

Job demands and burnout

View more insights in Professional - Business

View more figures from University of Ljubljana

View the page of Matej Cerne

Read the Study

Next in Business

The Making of the “Good Bad” Job: How Algorithmic Management Manufactures Consent Through Constant and Confined Choices

Lindsay Cameron | University of Pennsylvania

Achieving Mutual Understanding Without Saying a Word

Xiao-Ping Chen | University of Washington

Do high job demands help employees to stay challenged at work, or do they challenge their well-being? Matej Černe discusses

Image courtesy of interviewee. January 29, 2024

Log-in or Sign-up to Faculti
Currently viewing this subject insight as a guest. You have insight(s) remaining for this month. Login to view 8000+ figures on the platform.

Generating Workspace...

Export as PDF

The study examines the relationship between job demands and employee burnout, questioning whether high job demands help maintain engagement or negatively impact well-being. Burnout is highlighted as a serious workplace concern with numerous negative consequences, including health issues and decreased performance.

The research focuses on the "Job Demands-Resources" (JDR) model, emphasizing the complex interaction of job demands across different organizational levels and the role of contextual factors. It identifies both competitive pressure and collective trust within units as influential factors in moderating the relationship between job demands and burnout.

The findings suggest that job demands can be perceived as either a hindrance or a challenge, with high levels of collective trust serving as a protective resource against burnout in the face of both individual and organizational demands. The study proposes that fostering unit-level trust can help individuals better cope with stressors, thereby mitigating burnout risk.

The research employs a large sample of over 5,000 employees nested within various organizational units to analyze these dynamics. Results indicate that burnout is lowest when there is high collective trust and low competitive pressure.

The study concludes that organizations can effectively manage job demands without necessarily reducing them, as long as supportive resources, like trust, are present. It emphasizes the importance of context and perception in understanding job demands, advocating for management practices that encourage trust and communication to enhance employee resilience and well-being.

Language:

Export as PDF

X-TIMESTAMP-MAP:LOCAL=00:00:00.000,MPEGTS=900000

00:00.145 --> 00:03.325
In this study, we basically focus on a key research

00:03.605 --> 00:05.685
question with regards to the relationship

00:05.685 --> 00:07.445
between job demands and burnout.

00:07.625 --> 00:09.965
So basically, we, in the background, is a question

00:09.985 --> 00:12.925
of whether high job demands actually help employees

00:12.945 --> 00:14.285
to stay challenged at work,

00:14.745 --> 00:16.925
or do they actually challenge their wellbeing?

00:17.705 --> 00:20.245
So burnout obviously is a very pressing matter,

00:20.425 --> 00:21.565
in workplace.

00:21.745 --> 00:24.685
So we are, after basically understanding the link

00:24.685 --> 00:26.605
between job demands and burnout,

00:27.345 --> 00:31.085
and especially we want to consider a multi-layered nature

00:31.145 --> 00:32.925
of the context in organizations.

00:33.505 --> 00:37.005
We saw that in the literature, in the, in theory,

00:37.105 --> 00:39.045
but also practice the understanding

00:39.185 --> 00:40.765
of this is quite limited.

00:41.465 --> 00:42.885
Um, and this is important

00:42.955 --> 00:46.125
because burnout has been associated with the number

00:46.305 --> 00:49.965
of potentially negative, issues, health problems,

00:50.315 --> 00:53.805
decreased work performance, absenteeism, turnover,

00:53.805 --> 00:57.525
disengagement in, in the, in our workforce,

00:57.545 --> 00:58.565
social withdrawal.

00:58.995 --> 01:02.765
From a societal perspective, it's actually, a big issue.

01:02.985 --> 01:05.445
Um, it's a public health issue pretty much

01:05.555 --> 01:09.445
with quite high levels of prevalence from, somewhere

01:09.445 --> 01:13.645
around 4% to 18% we see, in the contemporary workforce

01:13.785 --> 01:16.925
and the cost of burnout with regards to absenteeism,

01:16.995 --> 01:20.125
with regards to, people not being as engaged

01:20.145 --> 01:21.845
and as productive as they could be.

01:22.225 --> 01:24.685
Uh, these consequences are basically measured

01:24.745 --> 01:25.965
in, in billions.

01:26.065 --> 01:29.005
Um, but it's not really clear how at work,

01:29.025 --> 01:30.325
job demands relate to burnout.

01:30.545 --> 01:33.405
Um, so for example, specifically competitive pressure,

01:33.865 --> 01:36.765
it has been described in previous studies as undesirable.

01:37.025 --> 01:40.405
So in this case, it could be regarded as a hindrance demand.

01:40.555 --> 01:43.765
However, in some instances, in some studies,

01:43.835 --> 01:46.605
they have also shown that it's positively related

01:46.625 --> 01:48.805
to motivation and engagement and performance.

01:49.185 --> 01:52.485
So we could also, see it as a challenge demand.

01:52.865 --> 01:55.925
So basically, job demands in themselves represent a

01:55.925 --> 01:59.565
double-edged sort as, as we called it, in that regards

01:59.635 --> 02:02.605
that these outcomes need to be examined in more details,

02:03.445 --> 02:05.725
specifically across different organizational levels

02:06.265 --> 02:08.605
and in, competitive,

02:08.875 --> 02:10.965
interactive interplay, role.

02:11.425 --> 02:13.365
So in this regard, we wanted

02:13.365 --> 02:15.645
to study the contextual boundary conditions

02:15.745 --> 02:17.965
of these relationship in the background,

02:18.065 --> 02:21.045
or we derived mostly on the theoretical framework

02:21.385 --> 02:23.125
of the job demands resources.

02:23.265 --> 02:26.165
Uh, JDR, it's been developed by Arnold Barker

02:26.185 --> 02:27.245
and Ava and Maru.

02:27.505 --> 02:29.845
Um, let's say one of the most, well-known,

02:30.405 --> 02:32.885
researchers in the field of organizational psychology,

02:32.885 --> 02:34.885
organizational behavior,

02:35.225 --> 02:38.445
and studies supplying this model have done actually a lot in

02:38.445 --> 02:41.365
explaining how individual level characteristics as well

02:41.365 --> 02:43.365
as personal factors relate to burnout.

02:43.905 --> 02:45.925
Uh, because this is one of the two conceptual

02:46.375 --> 02:47.845
paths in this model.

02:48.265 --> 02:51.085
Uh, the, so-called health impairment, path.

02:51.425 --> 02:55.165
The other path is basically, the motivational path.

02:55.385 --> 02:58.085
So with regards to how the balance of job demands

02:58.085 --> 03:00.165
and resources leads to motivation

03:00.165 --> 03:02.645
and engagement, the health impairment,

03:02.755 --> 03:05.445
path basically says that when demands

03:05.445 --> 03:07.405
and resources are in misbalance,

03:07.625 --> 03:10.565
so they're not in alignment, that leads to burnout.

03:10.985 --> 03:12.085
So the health impairment

03:12.085 --> 03:13.285
pathway, so this is what we're after.

03:13.745 --> 03:16.405
Um, and JDR actually also proposes

03:16.585 --> 03:18.925
or, let's say highlights

03:19.145 --> 03:21.885
or, indicates a multi-level approach

03:22.155 --> 03:24.485
that considers nested, that considers factors

03:24.585 --> 03:26.165
beyond the individual level.

03:26.515 --> 03:29.325
However, very few studies have, up

03:29.325 --> 03:32.205
to this point actually included these moderating variables

03:32.205 --> 03:33.365
across different levels

03:34.025 --> 03:35.565
and see how they interact

03:35.565 --> 03:37.405
with job demands at the individual level

03:37.505 --> 03:38.685
in an interactive manner.

03:39.025 --> 03:41.165
And this is very important because this is basically

03:41.165 --> 03:42.445
organizational realities.

03:42.445 --> 03:45.965
You cannot view an individual, workplace

03:46.185 --> 03:49.045
or job demands at the individual level in isolation.

03:49.545 --> 03:52.365
Um, because organizational level job demands

03:52.425 --> 03:55.685
and resources, they are perceived as such by employees,

03:55.865 --> 03:57.725
and they interact with demands

03:57.725 --> 03:59.445
and resources at the individual level,

03:59.865 --> 04:03.205
and thereby obviously they influence also employee health

04:03.305 --> 04:05.205
and wellbeing in many ways.

04:05.425 --> 04:08.085
So basically with these calls in the literature,

04:08.085 --> 04:09.445
with regards to,

04:09.445 --> 04:13.805
using JDR in a more systematic multi-level approach,

04:13.915 --> 04:15.645
this is where we proposed basically

04:15.645 --> 04:18.085
that organizational level competitive pressure

04:18.345 --> 04:22.205
and unit level, collective trust together act

04:22.305 --> 04:23.925
as job demands or resources

04:23.945 --> 04:27.085
or are actually perceived as such by, mps

04:27.305 --> 04:30.365
and interplay with job demands at the individual level in,

04:30.425 --> 04:31.445
predicting burnout.

04:32.115 --> 04:34.085
This is the gist, of this study.

04:34.345 --> 04:36.925
Uh, the three-way interaction, well,

04:36.925 --> 04:39.645
in the background I mentioned the double-edged sword where,

04:39.745 --> 04:40.925
these hindrance

04:40.945 --> 04:43.605
and challenge of demands inhibit inconsistent

04:43.605 --> 04:44.885
relationships with outcomes.

04:45.145 --> 04:48.645
So we are after these, preventative interplay effects

04:48.835 --> 04:51.605
that where job resources at,

04:51.605 --> 04:54.765
different levels in the organization can mitigate job

04:54.795 --> 04:57.085
demands on strain, stress burnout, right?

04:57.545 --> 04:59.365
Um, so in this respect,

04:59.665 --> 05:03.445
we focused on trust in organizational units first,

05:03.445 --> 05:07.245
and this is specifically important when job demands are,

05:07.595 --> 05:10.925
high, and we argue that unit level collective trust

05:11.065 --> 05:12.605
as perceived by,

05:13.045 --> 05:15.925
employees then change individual perspectives on,

05:15.985 --> 05:17.605
on highly demanding work tasks

05:17.905 --> 05:21.085
and basically leverage their effect on, on burnout.

05:21.665 --> 05:25.965
So we know that in line with the JDR framework,

05:25.975 --> 05:29.285
these job resources are specifically important when job

05:29.285 --> 05:31.445
demands at individual level are high.

05:32.105 --> 05:35.405
So when you see, when the individuals employees see,

05:35.505 --> 05:37.925
shared, unit level collective trust,

05:38.475 --> 05:39.525
they are more likely

05:39.545 --> 05:41.445
to perceive their work goals as attainable.

05:41.945 --> 05:46.645
Um, they, see their coworkers reciprocal commitments

05:46.665 --> 05:48.405
to the mutual goal,

05:48.555 --> 05:51.165
receive cooperation help, support.

05:51.585 --> 05:54.965
So basically they, that helps this, this is viewed

05:54.985 --> 05:56.845
as a resource that helps,

05:56.885 --> 06:00.325
Individuals respond more resiliently to job demands,

06:00.325 --> 06:01.405
such as work overload.

06:01.705 --> 06:04.285
Um, because basically the collective atmosphere

06:04.425 --> 06:08.485
of codependence co reliance collaborative climate,

06:08.635 --> 06:11.765
emerges in, in this regard even when the job demands

06:11.765 --> 06:12.885
are, high.

06:13.105 --> 06:15.885
So that gives individuals kind of a sense of security

06:15.915 --> 06:19.045
that they can rely on their colleagues, on their coworkers,

06:19.645 --> 06:22.125
actually reduces the need for monitoring,

06:22.185 --> 06:23.405
the other party as well.

06:23.665 --> 06:27.005
And this kind of reduces the negative effects of job demand.

06:27.185 --> 06:29.565
So that is the first part, the first element kind of

06:29.565 --> 06:33.645
of the three-way interplay is the moderating role of trust.

06:34.425 --> 06:38.765
And then the other, element is even higher at the,

06:38.995 --> 06:40.565
it's at the organizational level,

06:40.745 --> 06:43.285
and this is competitive pressure that,

06:43.605 --> 06:45.845
conceptually is actually perceived

06:46.125 --> 06:47.245
externally from the firms.

06:47.515 --> 06:51.365
However, we argue in our study, in our paper,

06:51.395 --> 06:53.565
that this competitive pressure,

06:54.025 --> 06:55.445
is also perceived internally

06:55.585 --> 06:58.845
or translated internally as perceived by the employees

06:59.115 --> 07:02.205
because, to, to sustain this competitive pressure

07:02.205 --> 07:05.525
that is externally induced, work basically needs

07:05.525 --> 07:07.725
to be intensified in that regard to keep up

07:07.725 --> 07:10.405
with the new developments in the industry,

07:10.405 --> 07:13.245
to maintain the competitive advantage at the firm level.

07:13.665 --> 07:16.085
And we argue that employees also perceive that.

07:16.105 --> 07:17.805
And this is also supported by,

07:18.025 --> 07:19.805
by our study, by our appearance.

07:20.225 --> 07:24.085
And this actually invokes, employees, fear

07:24.105 --> 07:26.085
of job loss, fear of

07:26.145 --> 07:28.885
or say, decreased the perceived job security,

07:29.475 --> 07:31.765
increased internal competition as well.

07:32.305 --> 07:35.205
Um, and actually we, propose

07:35.345 --> 07:38.445
and, also test in our three-way, interaction

07:38.635 --> 07:40.965
that the remedy for this is, the,

07:40.985 --> 07:44.165
the externally imposed competitive pressure is trust,

07:44.425 --> 07:46.245
at the unit level.

07:46.505 --> 07:47.605
So basically when we see

07:47.925 --> 07:50.485
that demands are high at the individual level, as well

07:50.485 --> 07:51.885
as at the organizational level,

07:52.155 --> 07:54.765
unit level trust can, mitigate that.

07:55.025 --> 07:57.325
And this is because these strong social ties

07:57.325 --> 07:58.445
that I've been explaining

07:58.465 --> 08:01.005
and high levels of internal trust,

08:01.605 --> 08:05.365
mitigate the escalating, external pressure so

08:05.435 --> 08:07.445
that there's a collaborative climate.

08:07.745 --> 08:10.845
Um, and this magnitude of competitive pressure

08:11.065 --> 08:14.125
by those strong social ties help collaboration

08:14.195 --> 08:15.565
basically decreases.

08:15.825 --> 08:18.885
And this is very much in line with JDR, as well

08:19.155 --> 08:20.525
because this argues

08:20.525 --> 08:23.285
that employees will feel energized even when they have job

08:23.395 --> 08:26.805
demands, when those job demands are also being

08:27.035 --> 08:28.645
accompanied by resources.

08:28.985 --> 08:32.725
And as we crucially propose in this study, trust

08:32.865 --> 08:36.605
as the unit level is a key level resource mitigating is

08:36.885 --> 08:39.525
negative effects of both competitive pressure at the

08:39.525 --> 08:40.645
organizational level as well

08:40.645 --> 08:43.005
as job demands at the individual level,

08:43.265 --> 08:46.685
the proposed three-way interaction, actually,

08:46.985 --> 08:50.365
conceptualizes four different scenarios with regards

08:50.425 --> 08:51.925
to the levels of burnout.

08:52.585 --> 08:56.685
Uh, so we propose that the lowest, con the condition

08:56.685 --> 08:57.805
with the lowest,

08:57.805 --> 09:00.965
burnout would be when there is low competitive pressure

09:01.185 --> 09:02.445
and high collective trust.

09:02.465 --> 09:04.125
And this is the ideal basically,

09:04.125 --> 09:07.525
where high job demands are buffered by high,

09:07.525 --> 09:08.845
trust at the organizational level,

09:09.065 --> 09:12.245
and there is no need to additional buffer,

09:12.355 --> 09:14.765
demands at the organizational level With regards

09:14.765 --> 09:15.925
to competitive pressure.

09:16.265 --> 09:18.525
On the other hand, we propose,

09:18.815 --> 09:22.885
which is scenario one in the figure that, the,

09:22.885 --> 09:26.645
burnout would be highest when we have both high competitive

09:26.885 --> 09:29.525
pressure as well as low, collective trust.

09:29.945 --> 09:33.165
So in that regard, collective trust cannot buffer the

09:33.275 --> 09:36.445
demands imposed by at the individual level as well

09:36.445 --> 09:37.845
as at the organizational level

09:37.985 --> 09:39.525
as perceived by the employees.

09:40.185 --> 09:42.125
In our paper, we did,

09:42.265 --> 09:45.565
we basically did a multi-level analysis, of,

09:45.575 --> 09:47.645
quite a huge sample in, in this field.

09:47.745 --> 09:51.565
Uh, so we had more than 5,000 employees, from Germany,

09:52.225 --> 09:55.805
that are part of, of this study, collected

09:55.805 --> 09:58.565
by our colleagues, in Germany and Switzerland.

09:58.785 --> 10:00.405
Um, the, this sample,

10:00.545 --> 10:03.765
so these employees are nested into almost 3000 work units,

10:04.305 --> 10:07.725
where we, ask them, basically about the level

10:07.725 --> 10:10.605
of their collective trust in these units as well.

10:11.105 --> 10:14.685
And, that, that all happens in 89 German organizations.

10:14.985 --> 10:18.125
So there's three levels of nested, in this regard.

10:18.185 --> 10:20.405
So how employees are nested into work units

10:20.625 --> 10:21.885
and then into firms.

10:22.505 --> 10:26.125
And we also had two sources of data, so employees as well

10:26.125 --> 10:28.525
as human resource managers,

10:28.595 --> 10:32.325
because they reported on some control variables about their

10:32.325 --> 10:35.605
firms as well as the competitive pressure that we were

10:35.605 --> 10:38.405
after, in the study at the organizational level.

10:39.025 --> 10:42.605
So because we had nest data, we applied, multi-level,

10:42.965 --> 10:44.605
confirmatory factor analysis,

10:44.605 --> 10:48.125
then random coefficient modeling with HLM,

10:48.625 --> 10:50.605
and, the multi-level analysis

10:50.825 --> 10:53.205
of these three-way cross level interactions.

10:53.705 --> 10:56.005
Um, first confirmed that at the individual level,

10:56.265 --> 10:58.165
job demands were related to burnout,

10:58.665 --> 11:02.165
but then also at the unit level, that collective trust,

11:02.435 --> 11:05.605
like we proposed moderates this link between job demands

11:05.605 --> 11:10.445
and burnout, and specifically, we found that in the case

11:10.445 --> 11:13.525
of high job demands, burnout was lowest in the condition

11:13.525 --> 11:15.045
of high collective trust

11:15.105 --> 11:18.085
and low competitive pressure, pretty much as we would,

11:18.185 --> 11:19.645
expect.

11:19.945 --> 11:21.765
And that means that this is the context

11:21.795 --> 11:25.205
that is most suitable to successfully outbalance,

11:25.315 --> 11:26.845
high levels of job demand.

11:27.185 --> 11:30.005
So basically that means that, high levels

11:30.065 --> 11:31.765
of job demands can be strenuous.

11:32.075 --> 11:34.005
They can contribute to stress and burnout.

11:34.545 --> 11:36.365
Um, and in from that,

11:36.385 --> 11:38.365
we can derive many different also

11:38.365 --> 11:39.845
occupational health issues.

11:40.425 --> 11:45.005
Um, however, and specifically as the, the other elements

11:45.005 --> 11:46.765
of our three-way interaction have shown,

11:46.815 --> 11:50.205
especially when these job demands get accumulated from

11:50.205 --> 11:52.805
various levels within the organization,

11:52.805 --> 11:56.245
That may turn into the most harmful, job stressors

11:56.385 --> 11:59.405
and that can really cause serious issues on the long run.

11:59.415 --> 12:03.205
Right? Um, such as burnout, and, health impairment.

12:03.725 --> 12:06.845
I would say that our study basically adds another layer

12:06.945 --> 12:11.205
of complexity in comprehending the, the interplay,

12:11.205 --> 12:13.765
that needs to be considered when looking at the

12:13.765 --> 12:18.005
organizational reality of contextual factors that unfold,

12:18.265 --> 12:19.845
across different levels

12:20.055 --> 12:22.485
where we cannot view individual level

12:22.485 --> 12:24.245
workplace in isolation.

12:24.585 --> 12:27.085
Um, and we have actually shown that organizations don't need

12:27.085 --> 12:28.365
to necessarily reduce,

12:28.985 --> 12:31.085
reduce job demands at the individual level.

12:31.545 --> 12:33.765
Um, however, this is only possible

12:34.065 --> 12:37.045
to actually impose job demands at the individual level when

12:37.045 --> 12:39.365
they're not matched with job resources at the individual

12:39.365 --> 12:43.125
level when we have high, mutual trust in units.

12:43.545 --> 12:45.845
Um, and this is, this supports such a condition,

12:46.105 --> 12:49.965
and that only can take place when this is not also

12:50.285 --> 12:52.285
reinforced by competitive pressure at the

12:52.305 --> 12:53.445
organizational level.

12:53.785 --> 12:55.285
So it's quite complex, right?

12:55.545 --> 12:58.805
We can, we have to view organizational level competitive

12:59.045 --> 13:01.685
pressure in combination with job demands at,

13:01.685 --> 13:04.685
different levels and in certain there cumulative combined

13:04.685 --> 13:07.125
effects in a more systemic embedded manner.

13:07.265 --> 13:10.005
And this is something that we propose also kind of

13:10.005 --> 13:11.245
for the research going forward.

13:11.385 --> 13:14.925
And this is something that, we see our study kind

13:14.925 --> 13:16.765
of shifting the logic in,

13:16.765 --> 13:19.085
organizational behavior research generally.

13:19.505 --> 13:21.805
Um, so that means practically

13:21.915 --> 13:25.645
what might be considered an energizing job demand at the

13:25.645 --> 13:29.005
individual level can actually turn into a hindrance job

13:29.005 --> 13:31.845
demand when combined with effects at

13:31.865 --> 13:33.685
and across, multiple levers.

13:34.175 --> 13:37.245
Hence our notion of the double-edged sword with regards

13:37.265 --> 13:38.325
to job demands, right?

13:38.785 --> 13:39.845
Um, and employees

13:39.905 --> 13:43.805
and organizations can actually do a lot, to proactively

13:44.315 --> 13:46.925
cope with, such high demands,

13:46.945 --> 13:49.685
by mobilizing resources in units, specifically

13:50.345 --> 13:53.765
by keeping demands at higher organizational levels,

13:54.095 --> 13:57.205
under control, thereby kind of ensuring healthy

13:57.425 --> 13:59.325
and the most safe work environments.

13:59.825 --> 14:02.605
Um, so we, we can say that an overload

14:02.605 --> 14:05.685
of job demands definitely positively predicts burnout, not

14:06.105 --> 14:09.605
so managers first need to be very careful with regards to,

14:09.945 --> 14:12.085
distributing demands across jobs.

14:12.745 --> 14:16.005
Um, management also needs to be mindful how these demands,

14:16.005 --> 14:20.205
and they can be, mental, physical, emotional work,

14:20.645 --> 14:22.765
pressure work, ambiguities,

14:22.975 --> 14:25.165
quick changes in tasks, uncertainty.

14:25.505 --> 14:28.005
So they need to be adjusted to particular employees

14:28.005 --> 14:31.125
because they will feel them, perceive them differently.

14:31.225 --> 14:33.805
So that is very important that the specific employee

14:33.865 --> 14:36.325
and the specific work situation is considered.

14:36.905 --> 14:39.165
And then of course, the key implication is

14:39.165 --> 14:40.965
that these job demands should not be viewed

14:41.065 --> 14:42.245
in our isolation.

14:42.695 --> 14:44.205
Contextual cues matter,

14:44.465 --> 14:46.805
and not necessarily just in an objective manner,

14:47.065 --> 14:49.325
but how employees at the individual level

14:49.765 --> 14:50.845
perceive them. And

14:50.965 --> 14:54.485
Definitely as we have shown mutual trust, in teams

14:54.585 --> 14:56.845
or in units can help,

14:56.845 --> 14:59.525
these employees effectively cope with these demands.

14:59.945 --> 15:01.445
Um, to stimulate that,

15:01.725 --> 15:04.325
managers should use open communication systems,

15:04.765 --> 15:06.045
feedback systems,

15:06.725 --> 15:09.285
stimulate participative decision making,

15:09.825 --> 15:11.485
do a delegation of control.

15:11.745 --> 15:14.885
So not to impose control, just top down,

15:15.025 --> 15:16.925
and specifically facilitate the climate

15:17.105 --> 15:20.005
of information sharing to facilitate trust.

Job Demands and Burnout: A Complex Relationship

00:00:00 - In this study, we basically focus on a key research question with regards to the relationship between job demands and burnout. So basically, we, in the background, is a question of whether high job demands actually help employees to stay challenged at work, or do they actually challenge their wellbeing? So burnout obviously is a very pressing matter, in workplace. So we are, after basically understanding the link between job demands and burnout, and especially we want to consider a multi-layered nature
00:00:33 - We saw that in the literature, in the, in theory, but also practice the understanding of this is quite limited. and this is important because burnout has been associated with the number of potentially negative, issues, health problems, decreased work performance, absenteeism, turnover, disengagement in, in the, in our workforce, social withdrawal. From a societal perspective, it's actually, a big issue.
00:01:05 - with quite high levels of prevalence from, somewhere around 4% to 18% we see, in the contemporary workforce and the cost of burnout with regards to absenteeism, with regards to, people not being as engaged and as productive as they could be. these consequences are basically measured in, in billions. but it's not really clear how at work, job demands relate to burnout. so for example, specifically competitive pressure,
00:01:37 - So in this case, it could be regarded as a hindrance demand. However, in some instances, in some studies, they have also shown that it's positively related to motivation and engagement and performance. So we could also, see it as a challenge demand. So basically, job demands in themselves represent a double-edged sort as, as we called it, in that regards that these outcomes need to be examined in more details, specifically across different organizational levels
00:02:08 - interactive interplay, role. So in this regard, we wanted to study the contextual boundary conditions of these relationship in the background, or we derived mostly on the theoretical framework of the job demands resources. JDR, it's been developed by Arnold Barker and Ava and Maru. let's say one of the most, well-known, researchers in the field of organizational psychology, organizational behavior, and studies supplying this model have done actually a lot in
00:02:41 - as personal factors relate to burnout. because this is one of the two conceptual paths in this model. the, so-called health impairment, path. The other path is basically, the motivational path. So with regards to how the balance of job demands and resources leads to motivation and engagement, the health impairment, path basically says that when demands and resources are in misbalance, so they're not in alignment, that leads to burnout.

Understanding Job Demands and Collective Trust Dynamics

00:03:12 - pathway, so this is what we're after. and JDR actually also proposes or, let's say highlights or, indicates a multi-level approach that considers nested, that considers factors beyond the individual level. However, very few studies have, up to this point actually included these moderating variables across different levels and see how they interact with job demands at the individual level in an interactive manner. And this is very important because this is basically
00:03:42 - You cannot view an individual, workplace or job demands at the individual level in isolation. because organizational level job demands and resources, they are perceived as such by employees, and they interact with demands and resources at the individual level, and thereby obviously they influence also employee health and wellbeing in many ways. So basically with these calls in the literature, with regards to, using JDR in a more systematic multi-level approach,
00:04:15 - that organizational level competitive pressure and unit level, collective trust together act as job demands or resources or are actually perceived as such by, mps and interplay with job demands at the individual level in, predicting burnout. This is the gist, of this study. the three-way interaction, well, in the background I mentioned the double-edged sword where, these hindrance and challenge of demands inhibit inconsistent relationships with outcomes.
00:04:48 - that where job resources at, different levels in the organization can mitigate job demands on strain, stress burnout, right? so in this respect, we focused on trust in organizational units first, and this is specifically important when job demands are, high, and we argue that unit level collective trust as perceived by, employees then change individual perspectives on,
00:05:17 - and basically leverage their effect on, on burnout. So we know that in line with the JDR framework, these job resources are specifically important when job demands at individual level are high. So when you see, when the individuals employees see, shared, unit level collective trust, they are more likely to perceive their work goals as attainable. they, see their coworkers reciprocal commitments
00:05:48 - receive cooperation help, support. So basically they, that helps this, this is viewed as a resource that helps, Individuals respond more resiliently to job demands, such as work overload. because basically the collective atmosphere of codependence co reliance collaborative climate, emerges in, in this regard even when the job demands are, high. So that gives individuals kind of a sense of security that they can rely on their colleagues, on their coworkers,

Trust's Role in Managing Job Demands and Burnout

00:06:22 - the other party as well. And this kind of reduces the negative effects of job demand. So that is the first part, the first element kind of of the three-way interplay is the moderating role of trust. And then the other, element is even higher at the, it's at the organizational level, and this is competitive pressure that, conceptually is actually perceived externally from the firms. However, we argue in our study, in our paper,
00:06:54 - is also perceived internally or translated internally as perceived by the employees because, to, to sustain this competitive pressure that is externally induced, work basically needs to be intensified in that regard to keep up with the new developments in the industry, to maintain the competitive advantage at the firm level. And we argue that employees also perceive that. And this is also supported by, by our study, by our appearance. And this actually invokes, employees, fear
00:07:26 - or say, decreased the perceived job security, increased internal competition as well. and actually we, propose and, also test in our three-way, interaction that the remedy for this is, the, the externally imposed competitive pressure is trust, at the unit level. So basically when we see that demands are high at the individual level, as well as at the organizational level, unit level trust can, mitigate that.
00:07:57 - that I've been explaining and high levels of internal trust, mitigate the escalating, external pressure so that there's a collaborative climate. and this magnitude of competitive pressure by those strong social ties help collaboration basically decreases. And this is very much in line with JDR, as well because this argues that employees will feel energized even when they have job demands, when those job demands are also being
00:08:28 - And as we crucially propose in this study, trust as the unit level is a key level resource mitigating is negative effects of both competitive pressure at the organizational level as well as job demands at the individual level, the proposed three-way interaction, actually, conceptualizes four different scenarios with regards to the levels of burnout. so we propose that the lowest, con the condition with the lowest,
00:09:01 - and high collective trust. And this is the ideal basically, where high job demands are buffered by high, trust at the organizational level, and there is no need to additional buffer, demands at the organizational level With regards to competitive pressure. On the other hand, we propose, which is scenario one in the figure that, the, burnout would be highest when we have both high competitive pressure as well as low, collective trust.

Impact of Job Demands on Employee Burnout

00:09:33 - demands imposed by at the individual level as well as at the organizational level as perceived by the employees. In our paper, we did, we basically did a multi-level analysis, of, quite a huge sample in, in this field. so we had more than 5,000 employees, from Germany, that are part of, of this study, collected by our colleagues, in Germany and Switzerland. the, this sample,
00:10:04 - where we, ask them, basically about the level of their collective trust in these units as well. And, that, that all happens in 89 German organizations. So there's three levels of nested, in this regard. So how employees are nested into work units and then into firms. And we also had two sources of data, so employees as well as human resource managers, because they reported on some control variables about their
00:10:35 - after, in the study at the organizational level. So because we had nest data, we applied, multi-level, confirmatory factor analysis, then random coefficient modeling with HLM, and, the multi-level analysis of these three-way cross level interactions. first confirmed that at the individual level, job demands were related to burnout, but then also at the unit level, that collective trust,
00:11:05 - and burnout, and specifically, we found that in the case of high job demands, burnout was lowest in the condition of high collective trust and low competitive pressure, pretty much as we would, expect. And that means that this is the context that is most suitable to successfully outbalance, high levels of job demand. So basically that means that, high levels of job demands can be strenuous. They can contribute to stress and burnout.
00:11:36 - we can derive many different also occupational health issues. however, and specifically as the, the other elements of our three-way interaction have shown, especially when these job demands get accumulated from various levels within the organization, That may turn into the most harmful, job stressors and that can really cause serious issues on the long run. Right? such as burnout, and, health impairment. I would say that our study basically adds another layer
00:12:11 - that needs to be considered when looking at the organizational reality of contextual factors that unfold, across different levels where we cannot view individual level workplace in isolation. and we have actually shown that organizations don't need to necessarily reduce, reduce job demands at the individual level. however, this is only possible to actually impose job demands at the individual level when

Navigating Job Demands and Trust in Organizations

00:12:39 - level when we have high, mutual trust in units. and this is, this supports such a condition, and that only can take place when this is not also reinforced by competitive pressure at the organizational level. So it's quite complex, right? We can, we have to view organizational level competitive pressure in combination with job demands at, different levels and in certain there cumulative combined effects in a more systemic embedded manner.
00:13:10 - for the research going forward. And this is something that, we see our study kind of shifting the logic in, organizational behavior research generally. so that means practically what might be considered an energizing job demand at the individual level can actually turn into a hindrance job demand when combined with effects at and across, multiple levers. Hence our notion of the double-edged sword with regards
00:13:38 - and employees and organizations can actually do a lot, to proactively cope with, such high demands, by mobilizing resources in units, specifically by keeping demands at higher organizational levels, under control, thereby kind of ensuring healthy and the most safe work environments. so we, we can say that an overload of job demands definitely positively predicts burnout, not so managers first need to be very careful with regards to,
00:14:12 - management also needs to be mindful how these demands, and they can be, mental, physical, emotional work, pressure work, ambiguities, quick changes in tasks, uncertainty. So they need to be adjusted to particular employees because they will feel them, perceive them differently. So that is very important that the specific employee and the specific work situation is considered. And then of course, the key implication is that these job demands should not be viewed
00:14:42 - Contextual cues matter, and not necessarily just in an objective manner, but how employees at the individual level perceive them. And Definitely as we have shown mutual trust, in teams or in units can help, these employees effectively cope with these demands. to stimulate that, managers should use open communication systems, feedback systems, stimulate participative decision making, do a delegation of control.
00:15:17 - and specifically facilitate the climate of information sharing to facilitate trust.

Faculti AI can make mistakes

Research

Policy

Analysis