CC BY
34International Annual Edition of Applied Psychology: Theory, Research, and Practice Volume 2, Issue 1, 2015.
THE IMPACT OF BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT ON JOB INSECURITY
Anna Y. Smirnova
Saratov State University, Saratov, Russia anna-smirnova-sgu@mail .ru
Abstract
The objective of this study is to investigate the impact of burnout and work engagement on job insecurity (JI): qualitative JI, quantitative JI, cognitive JI, and affective JI. Participants were 680 employees, 64 % (434) of the sample was male, and 36 % (246) of the sample was female, mean age 32,6 years. The measures used in the present study are: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, W. Schaufeli, A. Bakker; the Job Insecurity Scale (by J. Hellgren, M. Sverke, K. Isaksson, 1999, the Russian-language version by A. Smirnova, 2015), the Job Insecurity Scale (by H. De Witte 2000, 2012, the Russian-language version by A. Smirnova, 2015); the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti E. et. al. 1998, 2005, 2007, 2010) the Russian-language version by A. Smirnova, 2015). Correlations and maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analyses (using SPSS and AMOS respectively) are applied to test the hypotheses.
Key Words: burnout, work engagement, qualitative job insecurity, quantitative job insecurity, cognitive job insecurity, affective job insecurity.
Currently the major economic transformation has taken place in the world. The steadily increasing variability of economic development compels the organizations to adapt to new conditions constantly. The changes taken place in the organizations allow to improve organizational effectiveness and competitive ability, but at the same time, are often combined with large workforce reductions [16]. Organizational changes appear to be a stress for the personnel as often comprise threats of job loss or risk of highly valued aspects of job loss. That leads to a number of the negative psychological impact connected with the emotional reaction of the employee to the mentioned threats, and changes of an emotional condition, work attitudes, in
particular, perceived of job insecurity. It should be noted, that job insecurity has received considerable research attention for the last three decades [16, 17], so there is a set of studying of job insecurity in psychological literature. There are three approaches to JI : unidimensional (JI is conceived as a result of cognitive estimation of job loss threats); this is the most widely used approach, less often researchers pay attention to the analysis of JI as the multidimensional construct (containing cognitive and affective, or qualitative and quantitative components of JI) [17]. At the same time, multicomponent approaches are the most heuristic, and they allow to understand the nature of a phenomenon, its causes and consequences [16, 17].
The relevance of the research presented in this article consists of the investigating the impact of burnout and work engagement on job insecurity (JI) in general and the impact of burnout and work engagement on qualitative and quantitative components of JI, cognitive and affective components of JI.
The purposes of the research are:
to identify the features of impact of burnout and work engagement on qualitative JI; to identify the features of impact of burnout and work engagement on quantitative JI; to identify the features of impact of burnout and work engagement on cognitive JI, and to identify the features of impact of burnout and work engagement on affective JI. It should be pointed out that similar studies are sometimes found in the literature, but they are made on a non-Russian sample [9, 11, 22].
In view of the inconsistency between the JI definitions existing in Psychological Science [16, 17, 20] it is necessary to define JI for the purpose of our research. JI is a specific emotional state caused by a combination of perceived threat of job loss in the future (quantitative JI), or perceived threat of job's feature loss (qualitative JI) based on subjective perception of action of an objective stress-factor (threat of job loss), and also on an evaluation of own personal resources as insufficient for overcoming this situation. This state has as a consequences
destructive influence on an employee's job performance, well-being and job attitudes
[4].
The present research based on the analyses of the studies of the following authors: in multidimensional (cognitive and affective) approaches to JI issue (S. Ashford, I. Borg, C.M. Brotheridge, H. De Witte, D. Elizur, J. Hellgren, G.-H. Huang, J.K. Ito, C.J. Kenig, C. Lee., X. Niu, J. Pienaar, T. Staufenbiel, M. Sverke, A. Smirnova), in qualitative and quantitative approaches (L. Greenhalgh, J. Hellgren, C. Louis-Guerin, Z. Rosenblatt, E. Roskies, M. Sverke, C. Fournier); regarding research of professional burnout: H.J. Freundenberger, B. Perlman, E. Hartman, E. Demerouti, K. Mostert, A. Bakker, S. Jackson, C. Maslach, W.B. Schaufeli, A.A.M. Pines, A. Shirom, T.I. Ronginskaya, V.E. Orel, N.E. Vodopyanova; regarding research of work engagement: W.B. Schaufeli, A.B. Bekker, E. Demerouti, K. Mostert, M. Salanova. Z.S. Byrne, W.A. Kahn, M. Karina, M. Salanova, W.B. Schaufeli, I.J.H. Van Emmerik, D. Xanthopoulou).
The measures used in the present study are: Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, W. Schaufeli, A. Bakker [21]; the Job Insecurity Scale (J. Hellgren, M. Sverke, K. Isaksson. 1999 [16]), the Russian-language version by A. Smirnova, 2015 [8]), the Job Insecurity Scale, H. De Witte 2000, 2012 [20], the Russian-language version by A. Smirnova, 2015 [3]; the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory, E. Demerouti et. al. 1998, 2005, 2007, 2010 [12, 13, 18], the Russian-language version by A. Smirnova, 2016 [6]). The applied methods of the statistical analysis are correlations and maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analyses (using SPSS and AMOS respectively).
Participants were 680 employees, 64 % (434) of the sample were male, and 36 % (246) of the sample were female, mean age 32,6 years.
Hypotheses
1. The JI influences on burnout and work engagement.
2. The burnout and work engagement influence on job insecurity (JI).
To test the hypotheses structural equation modeling (SEM) is used. To investigate the features of impact of burnout and work engagement on cognitive JI, affective JI, qualitative JI and quantitative JI and the opposite influence four theoretical models are made.
Model 1 - The Model of influence of cognitive (qualitative and quantitative) and affective components of JI on work engagement and burnout;
Model 2 - The Model of influence of cognitive JI on work engagement and burnout mediated by affective JI;
Model 3 - The Model of influence of burnout and work engagement on JI;
Model 4 - The Model of influence of work engagement and burnout on affective component of JI mediated by cognitive JI (in qualitative and quantitative aspects).
Results of SEM analysis showed that the hypothesized models number 1 and number 4 fit adequately to the data (see Table 1). All fit indices (the chi-square, DF, p, CMIN/DF, GFI (ACFI) and CFI, RMSEA, NFI, TLI) have acceptable values [1]. The hypothesized models number 2 and number 3 fit worse to the data in comparison with models number 1 and 4 (see Table 1). Some fit indices (the chi-square, DF, p, CMIN/DF, GFI (ACFI) and CFI, RMSEA, NFI, TLI) have unacceptable values [1, 15]. In conclusion, results of series CFA provide evidence for models 1 and 4 acceptability. The relationships in the models are as predicted. The standardized solutions of the models are graphically shown in Figure 1 (model 1) and Figure 2 (model 4).
Table 1. The results of CFA for the four models take in the analysis
Fit Indices Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
2 ji f) 30,715 (6) 153,867 (16) 47,427 (14) 47,445 (16)
x2/df=..... 5,119 9,617 3,388 2,965
CFI 0,991 0,951 0,988 0,989
GFI 0,989 0,948 0,983 0,983
(ACFI) (0,934) (0,883) (0,957) (0,962)
RMSEA 0,078 0,113 0,059 0,054
(HI 90 =) (0,106) (0,129) (0,078) (0,072)
NFI 0,989 0,946 0,983 0,983
RFI 0,950 0,906 0,967 0,971
TLI 0,950 0,915 0,976 0,981
Figure 1. The Model of the influence of Figure 2. The Model of the influence of work cognitive (qualitative and quantitative) and engagement and burnout on an affective
affective components of JI on work component of JI mediated by a cognitive JI (in engagement and burnout (1). qualitative and quantitative aspects) (4).
Thus, it is possible to conclude that levels of work engagement and burnout have impact on JI, on the basis of cognitive estimation of the threats of job loss (or important loss features loss) - cognitive JI. In turn, cognitive JI causes the affective JI. Our findings in this aspect are close to S. Ashford et. all. approach to the nature of
JI [17], and R. Lazarus and S. Folkman theory. Professional burnout reduces qualitative JI (E = -0,081, p < 0,035), but not quantitative JI (E = 0,029, p < 0,456, not significantly). This can be accounted for by the reduction of professional achievements peculiar to burnout [12, 14, 18, 19]. Work engagement influences over estimation of threats of job loss (in general, E=-0,273, p < 0,001), using reducing an estimation of probability of these threats, specially the estimation of probability of important feature of job loss (-0,396, p < 0,001). The available result allows to assume that work engagement is characterized by bigger stability than job insecurity. Engaged personnel estimate threats of job loss lower than unengaged personnel; on the other hand, the opposite explanation of available results are possible. Engaged employees put more efforts and therefore are rated high by employers, and exposed to dismissals less often, and, thus, the job situation for them may contain less threats of job loss or important job feathers loss, and this, in turn, influences JI level.
On the other hand, the opposite process has taken place also. The level of job insecurity, peculiar to the employee, influences the level of work engagement and burnout. In such case, the influence of cognitive JI and affective JI are parallel. This findings are contrary to R. Lazarus and S. Folkman theory, and the process (S. Ashford) approach to JI which are also based on R.S. Lazarus and S. Folkman theory [17]. In our opinion, the received data allow to define affective JI (the emotional state caused by a combination of perceived threat of job loss (quantitative JI), or perceived threat of job's feature loss (qualitative JI) as a "parallel" process, along with cognitive estimation of job situation. The concepts of process approach (S. Ashford) to JI about the JI temporary organization, assume primacy the cognitive JI. In our opinion, the primacy of cognitive JI is true only for an initial stage of JI, on later stage it is necessary to consider the cognitive and affective JI as parallel constructs, and cognitive JI (the estimation and categorization of a job situation) is rather a cause of the affective JI, whereas, affective JI is the psychological content of JI itself. It should be noted that S. Ashford et. all. mentions bigger stability of the affective JI in comparison with cognitive JI and a higher level of affective JI perceived by
109
employees who had already experienced JI in the past. The results of present research also testify the affective JI influences on employees and their job attitudes irrespective of cognitive JI. The cognitive JI and affective JI are differently determined and have different consequences, their dynamics and interrelation should be analyzed separately in the longitudinal study.
The qualitative (cognitive) JI has more impact on the analyzed outcomes (Table 2). The most decreases determined by the qualitative (cognitive) JI demonstrate vigor (UWES), dedication (UWES), identification (OLBI), adsorption demonstrates much smaller decreases determined by the qualitative JI.
Table 2. The impact of job insecurity on burnout and work engagement
Dependent Variables Independent Variables Standardized Regression Weights P
OLBI - Exhaustion/Vigor Cognitive JI 0,078 0,125
OLBI - Disengagement Cognitive JI 0,062 0,222
UWES -Vigor Cognitive JI -0,087 0,064
UWES - Dedication Affective JI 0,027 0,523
UWES -Absorption Qualitative JI -0,289 0,001
OLBI - Exhaustion/Vigor Affective JI 0,001 0,979
OLBI - Disengagement Affective JI 0,008 0,866
UWES - Vigor Affective JI -0,033 0,448
UWES - Absorption Affective JI 0,015 0,733
OLBI - Exhaustion/Vigor Qualitative JI -0,113 0,008
OLBI - Disengagement Qualitative JI -0,144 0,001
UWES - Vigor Qualitative JI -0,323 0,001
UWES - Dedication Qualitative JI -0,327 0,001
UWES - Dedication Cognitive JI -0,114 0,016
UWES - Absorption Cognitive JI -0,094 0,051
It should be pointed out that reciprocal influence of professional burnout and JI
is expressed weaker than the reciprocal influence of JI and work engagement. As we
found out in our previous studies, qualitative JI makes bigger negative impact on
work engagement than quantitative JI. Wherein, loss of career opportunities and the
content of the work changes lead to the greatest decrease in vigor and dedication, the
110
content of the work changes and professional competence applicability reduction lead to the greatest decrease in absorption [3, 4]. Threat of job loss reduces vigor. This findings conform to the rules of the social exchange theory (T.S. Bateman, A.P. Brief, R.M. Steers) and the theory of interdependence (H.H. Kelly, G.W. Thibaut), the organizational support theory (R. Eisenberger, R. Huntington, S. Hutchison, D. Sowa, L.M. Shore, T.H. Shore) in which job performance is a result of efforts/rewards balance (job security is a part of this balance), theories of the psychological contract (E.W. Morrison, S.L. Robinson) [7] in which the threat of job loss assessed as violation of this contract by employer, in turn, this violation leads to an employee's job performance decreases. Perceived organizational support [7], high self-esteem of employability [2, 3, 4], work-family/family-work conflict [5] partly mediate the interrelation of JI and work engagement.
References
[1] Nasledov A.N. (2013). IBM SPSS Statistics 20 and AMOS: Professional Statistical Data Analysis. St-Petersburg. 416 p.
[2] Smirnova A.Yu. (2015). [Digital resources] Upravleniye uvlechennostyu personala rabotoy v protsesse organizatsionnykh izmeneniy [Management of Staff's Work Dedication in the Process of Organizational Changes] APRIORI. Series: Human Sciences. № 4, Retrieved from http://apriori-journal.ru/journal-gumanitarnie-nauki/last-number.
[3] Smirnova A.Yu. (2015). Dvukhkomponentnaya model' sub"yektivnoy nezashchishchennosti v sfere truda v zarubezhnykh issledovaniyakh : psikhologicheskoye soderzhaniye i diagnostika fenomena [Two-component Model of Job Insecurity in International Studies: Psychological Content and Phenomenon Diagnosis]. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya Ser . Filosofiya . Psikhologiya. Pedagogika [Academic journal. Saratov University News. New Series. Series. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy.]. Issue. 4. (in print).
[4] Smirnova A.Yu. (2015). Vliyaniye perezhivaniya subyektivnoy nezashchishchennosti v sfere truda na uvlechennost personala rabotoy (kachestvennyy i kolichestvennyy aspekt) [Influence of Job Insecurity Experience on Staff's Dedication (Qualitative and Quantitative aspects)]. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsenta RAN. [Proceedings of the Samara Scientific Center of the RAS]. № 4 (in print).
[5] Smirnova A. Yu. (2015). Nacheniye rolevogo konflikta v perezhivanii sub"yektivnoy nezashchishchennosti v sfere truda [Role Conflict Significance in Job Insecurity Experience]. (in print).
[6] Smirnova A.Yu. (2016). Znacheniye professional'nogo vygoraniya v perezhivanii sub"yektivnoy nezashchishchennosti v sfere truda [Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: Mental Change Diagnosis of the Labour Subject in Continuum: Engagement Professional Burnout]. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya Ser. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Pedagogika [Academic journal. Saratov University News. New Series. Series. Philosophy. Psychology.
[7] Smirnova A. Yu. (2015). Rol organizatsionnoy podderzhki v professional'nom razvitii personala [Role of the Organizational Support in the Staff Professional Development]. Akmeologiya [Acmeology]. № 4. (in print).
[8] Smirnova A. Yu. (2015). Subyektivnaya nezashchishchennost' v sfere truda: operatsionalizatsiya i izmereniye [Job Insecurity: Operationalization and Measurement]. Materialy Yubileynoy konferentsii "Ot istokov - k sovremennosti" (130 let organizatsii psikhologicheskogo obshchestva pri Moskovskom universitete) [Anniversary Conference Proceedings "From the Origins to the Today's World" (130 years of the Psychological Society at Moscow University)], September, 29 - October, 1 2015, Moscow. (in print).
[9] Buitendach J.H., Bosman J., & Rothmann S. (2005). Job Insecurity, Burnout and Work Engagement: The Impact of Positive and Negative Affectivity. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31 (4), 48-56.
[10] Byrne Z.S. et al. (2011). The engaged employee face of organizations. The new faces of organizations in the 21st century. T. 1. 93-135
[11] £etin C., & Turan N. (2013). The Relationship Between Qualitative Job Insecurity and Burnout. European Journal of Research on Education, Special Issue: Human Resource Management. 21-28.
[12] Demerouti E., & Bakker A.B. (September, 2007). Measurement of Burnout and Engagement. The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: A Good Alternative to Measure Burnout (and Engagement). Utrecht-Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 25 p.
[13] Demerouti E., Mostert K., & Bakker A. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: a thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. Vol. 15 (3). 209-222.
[14] Demerouti E., Nachreiner F., Bakker A.B., & Schaufeli W.B. (2001). The Job Demands-Resources Model of Burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. 86. No. 3. 499-512.
[15] Harrington D. Confirmatory factor analysis. - Oxford University Press: 2009. 122 p.
[16] Hellgren J., Sverke M., & Isaksson K.A. (1999). Two-Dimensional Approach to Job Insecurity: Consequences for Employee Attitudes and Well-Being. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. № 8. 179-195.
[17] Huang G.-H., Niu X., Lee C., & Ashford S.J. (2012). Differentiating cognitive and affective job insecurity: Antecedents and Outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior. Vol. 33. 752769.
[18] Jonathon R.B. Halbesleben, & Demerouti E. (2005). The construct validity of an alternative measure of burnout: Investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory. Work & Stress: An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations. No.19 (3). 208220.
[19] Maslach C., & Jackson S.E. (1981). The Measurement of Experienced Burnout. Journal of Occupational Behavior. Vol. 2.99-113.
[20] Pienaar J., De Witte H., Hellgren J., & Sverke M. (2013). The Cognitive/Affective Distinction of Job Insecurity: Validation and Differential Relations. Southern African Business Review. № 2. 1-22.
