Burnt to a crisp? Understanding drivers of burnout amongst New Zealand workers
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/EBHRM-07-2021-0132 |
| Published date | 03 December 2021 |
| Date | 03 December 2021 |
| Pages | 174-188 |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour,Global HRM |
| Author | Jarrod Haar |
Burnt to a crisp? Understanding
drivers of burnout amongst New
Zealand workers
Jarrod Haar
Management Department, Faculty of Business and Law,
Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
Abstract
Purpose –Job burnout is a popular topic for researchers and a pressing issue for employees and employers.
However, the most popular measure has become widely critiqued, and a new construct –the Burnout
Assessment Tool (BAT) –has been offered as a better way to assess burnout.
Design/methodology/approach –The study uses data from 1,022 employees across a wide range of
occupations,sectors and industries.Confirmatoryfactor analysis (CFA) andodds ratio calculationsare explored.
Findings –The present psychometric properties of the BAT construct are supported. Overall, 11.1% of
employees met the high burnt-out risk threshold. Determinants of burnt-out risk were explored, with
significant findings from high perceptions of organizational support, large firm-size, young age and long work
hours found. No gender differences. The odds ratio provides greater insights into the risks associated with
factors, especially working 55þhours/week, which resulted in 580% higher risk of burnt-out risk.
Research limitations/implications –The findings highlight the danger of burnt-out risk and provide a
useful benchmark for those exploring the burnt-out risk rate.
Originality/value –The BAT has not been tested in New Zealand across a sample of employees. Given the
large size and breadth of employees, this provides useful generalizability to the BAT-NZ. The determinants
tested here are all unique to the literature and provide new insights.
Keywords Burnout Assessment Tool, Burnt-out, Determinants, New Zealand, Psychometric properties
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Schaufeli et al. (2019) define job burnout as “a work-related state of exhaustion that occurs
among employees, which is characterised by extreme tiredness, reduced ability to regulate
cognitive and emotional processes, and mental distancing”(p. 29). Job burnout is an important
factor to examine because it can have serious consequences due to strong links with poor
mental health (Schaufeli et al., 2019;Sakakibara et al., 2020;Schaufeli et al., 2020a,b) including
meta-analytic support (Koutsimani et al., 2019). Further, burnout has meta-analytic support to
important workplace outcomes including job satisfaction (Alarcon, 2011) and absenteeism,
turnover and job performance (Swider and Zimmerman, 2010). Hence, workers experiencing
burnout are less able to work and perform.
While job burnout is a critical issue, there have been strong critiques of the most popular
construct:Maslach Burnout Inventory(MBI) and what it does and does not measure.Schaufeli
et al. (2019,2020a,b) has led the critique and offered an alternative: the Burnout Assessment
Tool (BAT). Importantly, the BAT allows researchers to assess burnout more accurately and
create an antecedent of wellbeingoutcomes. The new BAT construct hasalready been widely
tested acrossEuropean countries. However,its psychometric propertieshave only begun to be
used in different cultures. For example, De Beer et al. (2020) tested the BAT on a sample of
Japanese workers, while Haar (2021) has shown good psychometric propertiesusing a sample
of managersfrom New Zealand. New Zealand is important to explore becauseemployers have
legislatedrequirements to ensure worker wellbeing (Haar, 2021) but the prevalence of burnout
is poorly understood.Importantly, the BAT includesa cut-off criterion for assessingburnt-out
risk –the severest form o f burnout.
EBHRM
10,2
174
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/2049-3983.htm
Received 2 July 2021
Revised 10 November 2021
Accepted 16 November 2021
Evidence-based HRM: a Global
Forum for Empirical Scholarship
Vol. 10 No. 2, 2022
pp. 174-188
© Emerald Publishing Limited
2049-3983
DOI10.1108/EBHRM-07-2021-0132
To continue reading
Request your trial