Burnout and Stress at Work - All Your Questions Answered
An incredible reaction to our recent webinar with Dr. Jennifer Hynes discussing Burnout and Stress at Work. We were so engrossed with Jennifer’s excellent presentation that we ran out of time for audience questions. We received quite a few questions during the live session so Jennifer has kindly gone through each and every one of them and provided a considered, evidence based reply.
If you missed the webinar you can watch the replay below (highly recommended) and you can read through the in-depth questions and answers below that again. A huge thank you to Dr. Hynes for the considerable time and effort she has dedicated to this.
Questions and Answers
How can an organisation accurately measure levels of burnout and stress in their workplace?
Careful selection or design of instruments. From a scientific perspective, widely used tools have been tested for validity through exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. They are also tested for reliability by testing them across borders, organisations and groups of people. In combination this makes an instrument reliable and in plain English ‘it measures what it says on the tin’. It is not expected that an organisation, especially, smaller ones would have these skills or the programmes to conduct such analyses. This is why research has found that organisations, despite their best intentions, often fail to accurately measure the variables they wish to. You could upskill in house or outsource.
Are there baselines to compare against?
Eurofound conduct studies across the EU regularly on topics relating to workplace well-being.
They published this burnout report in 2018.
Some other resources are:
Eurofound - Health and Wellbeing at Work
The ESRI – Stress and Working conditions: Ireland perspective.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work: calculating costs and risks of burnout.
Irish College of General Practitioners: Burnout amongst GPs.
What tools and techniques could you recommend for gathering data on stress and burnout?
In terms of techniques, you have two options: qualitative or quantitative. Do you want to reach a large group quickly? Or do you want to understand the problems more intricately?
Several tools exist for quant. Within the academic literature the following feature prominently:
· Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) GS- general scale, several versions exist for specific occupations. (see https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1015630930326)
· The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). (see https://www-tandfonline-com.dcu.idm.oclc.org/doi/full/10.1080/02678370500297720)
· The QEEW. An extensive tool- you can select sections. (see https://skb.nl/qeew)
For qual, you could conduct interviews and focus groups but beware that employees are hesitant to share if they perceive any risk to them. You have the option of structured interviews or semi-structured interviews. How you construct the questions may be based on observations in the office and from the literature as an example. I have experience using both quant and qual and both methods have their pros and cons.
What are the common traits of companies with an exceptional culture?
First, I would look at what a strong culture is. SHRM note that when a culture is strong the following occur:
1. “Employees know how top management wants them to respond to any situation
2. Employees believe that the expected response is the proper one,
3. Employees know that they will be rewarded for demonstrating the organisation's values”
So, from that the following are needed:
· From an employee relations perspective, a great company is one which fosters positive relationships, builds trust and embraces employee voice.
· From a leadership perspective, it is one where leaders have good communication skills, good interpersonal skills and an ability to see the bigger picture. They lead with empathy, compassion and humility.
· From an organisational behaviour/psychology point of view, they are companies which recognise individual differences and varying motivations. They have systems and rules of the game in place which reflect this understanding. A good review on motivation: Kanfer, R., Frese, M., & Johnson, R. E. (2017). Motivation related to work: A century of progress. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 338-355. Or Nohria, N., Groysberg, B., & Lee, L. (2008). Employee motivation: A powerful new model. Harvard business review, 86(7/8), 78.
· From an occupational health perspective, they are companies which ensure adequate resources for employees to achieve goals. They challenge employees through demands and they provide resources to obtain gaols. They recognise the need to replenish->their employees are not constantly operating at the max.
· From a learning perspective, they are psychologically safe places to work. See: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
· From a HR perspective, the PM and RM systems are transparent, aligned to organisational values
What role, if any, does genetics play in stress?
Yes, genetics play a role, see: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0749597811001117 [Open access summary for media: https://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/19/health/health-genes-stress/index.html]
Some studies have looked at personality traits and correlations with stress:
· Burgess, L., Irvine, F., & Wallymahmed, A. (2010). Personality, stress and coping in intensive care nurses: a descriptive exploratory study. Nursing in critical care, 15(3), 129-140.
Summary:
· Openness and extraversion were associated with less perceived stress from the ‘patients and relatives' dimension of the NSI
· negative correlations between conscientiousness and the ‘workload stress' and stress from lack of ‘confidence and competence’ dimensions of the NSI.
· Certain personality traits may have a buffering effect on workplace stress.
· ACTION: Pre‐employment screening to identify staff that exhibit personality and coping traits associated with low perceived stress may be considered as part of the recruitment strategy to address problems relating to stress, sickness and retention.
· In this study, they look at trait NA (negative affect).
“individuals with trait negative affect, which refers to the greater propensity to experience more intense and frequent negative emotions (Clark, Watson, & Mineka, 1994), may inadvertently elicit more negative events in their lives, especially interpersonal events that confer the greatest risk for disorder (Hammen, 2005).”
· In this study, negative affectivity (NA) and positive affectivity (PA) interacted to predict occupational strain.
What influences people to become part of high self-esteem group 2?
Insecure high self-esteem is a combination of high explicit (conscious reflection and evaluation) and low implicit (spontaneous and unconscious evaluation) self-esteem (Jordan et al., 2003). Simply put, their self-evaluations are not spontaneous. In contrast, individuals with secure high self-esteem have both high explicit and high implicit self-esteem (ibid.).
From: Jordan, C. H., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Hoshino-Browne, E., & Correll, J. (2003). Secure and defensive high self-esteem. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(5), 969.
https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu.edu/dist/2/43662/files/2017/02/jordan2003-v9ceom.pdf
A summary of points from:
Twenge, J. M. (2000). The age of anxiety? The birth cohort change in anxiety and neuroticism, 1952–1993. Journal of personality and social psychology, 79(6), 1007.
· sociocultural environment
· personality is most susceptible to the larger environment during the childhood years
· childhood is the time of the greatest societal influence
· children's anxiety strongly reflects what is happening in the society at large
· low social connectedness- Societies with low levels of social integration produce adults prone to anxiety
· high environmental threat- threats can be physical (such as violent crime) or more psychological (worry): this connects nicely with the slides about gaining and protecting resources (Hobfoll)
· Very interesting point: “Many of these changes (both in social connectedness and in threat) stem from the increasing individualism and freedom of American society. As Schwartz (2000) has noted, too much freedom can lead to poor outcomes, in which we are paralysed by our choices and then blame ourselves when things do not go well. Our greater autonomy may lead to increased challenges and excitement, but it also leads to greater isolation from others, more threats to our bodies and minds, and thus higher levels of free-floating anxiety” (p. 1017).
· Socially anxious patients showed relatively low implicit self-esteem (Glashouwer, Vroling, de Jong, Lange, & de Keijser, 2013) in: Glashouwer, K. A., Vroling, M. S., de Jong, P. J., Lange, W. G., & de Keijser, J. (2013). Low implicit self-esteem and dysfunctional automatic associations in social anxiety disorder. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 44(2), 262-270.
So, how we are conditioned in an environment through stimuli and the comparisons we make in society have an impact on implicit self-esteem. See more on: Core self-evaluations (CSE) https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2009-02973-012 and https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2011-29855-004
I am planning a wellbeing programme for my organisation and am wondering how best to gather baseline data given that next year we will not be a “normal” year either?
Good question. Let’s assume you use a measurement tool such as the MBI-GS (for burnout) and UWES (for work engagement). You can compare your data against averages from multiple studies across the world over various time points. From that you can get a sense of where your staff/colleagues are and identify any areas with ‘problematic’ scores. E.g. the UWES manual has averages from the validity studies: https://www.wilmarschaufeli.nl/publications/Schaufeli/Test%20Manuals/Test_manual_UWES_English.pdf
· A baseline from next year, 2021, would be T1 (time 1) in a longitudinal piece of data analysis- it does not have to be the ‘go to perfect year’ for any future comparisons. The data collected will guide the responses you make. This will change year after year as people come and go and the company changes. Before you roll out any survey, if you have access, I would recommend a literature review to identify empirical studies on stress/burnout/well-being during the COVID period-many have been published this year. However, COVID will not always be with us (hopefully), so general issues non COVID related should also be considered in your survey.
Is there any known framework or structure to help organisation to deal with stressed employees? And is there any differentiation between people stressed and people blaming everything on stress?
· Work related stress guide (HSA)
· HSE Policy for Prevention and Management of Stress in the Workplace
· Individual differences certainly have an impact on how a person feels in terms of stress. You may have two employees with the exact same work situation, but one is stressed and the other is not. This relates to coping mechanisms-resilience. Resilience can be learned and acts as a buffer against stress. So, it may indeed appear that person X is more stressed. By blaming everything- do you mean poor performance, errors etc.? It could be that their poor outcomes are a result of stress which stems from a lack of resources and excessive demands but of course there is also the possibility that a person uses that term to their advantage (or perhaps it is not WRS ( work related stress)- it could be stress in other areas of life). The most objective way to test this is to conduct surveys and audits to identify if the team/dept or organisation have a stress problem. If the results suggest otherwise, it could be that this individual is facing stressors elsewhere. Wellbeing is social, financial, psychological and physical-there may be issues elsewhere. The best approach is to try to identify what these may be. I am recommending a process of elimination systematic approach.
As HR Professional how do you "convince" your bosses and organisation that there is a problem of stress and burnout at work if they don’t want to acknowledge the problem?
· What makes you think there is a problem- have you noticed absenteeism rates, high turnover rates, or increased presenteeism? I would attempt to approach this using an evidence-based strategy. This could be, if permitted, via the roll out of a survey and a preparation of a report. If this is not approved you could collate what data you have e.g. HR metrics on sick dates, turnover rates, exit interviews etc. There are a number of studies showing negative correlations between stress and burnout and organisational outcomes. It hits profits and efficiency.
· Why, in your experience, do they not acknowledge the problem? Are their focuses elsewhere? Is it cultural-do you work for an MNO? Are there any members of leadership open to ideas? They could be ‘champions’ of the research/change plan and help HR to gain buy in.
· Organisational polices, systems and ways of doing things set the tone regarding what behaviours are rewarded and which ones are punished. Managers play a role in the formation of the climate. Stress in an organisation can often stem from poor management: https://www.cipd.co.uk/about/media/press/rise-stress-poor-management
· To complement the evidence-based method of surveying and collecting data, leadership training based on best practice could also be introduced to erode the barriers which exist.
How do we get people to accept that dealing with stress is a dual responsibility? We can offer all the training, look at all aspects the employer can control but still dealing with 'victim' mode - sometimes think it’s about making it ok to show how you are experiencing things?
· Absolutely, in terms of the Big 5 personality tests, it may be that the person has low levels of openness and agreeableness and high levels of neuroticism. They may also have an external locus of control and feel they have no power over their own life, when they have. They may also score low in some areas of PsyCap: https://www.mindgarden.com/136-psychological-capital-questionnaire#horizontalTab5
· Personality is defined as “enduring configuration of characteristics and behaviour that comprises an individual’s unique adjustment to life, including major traits, interests, drives, values, self-concept, abilities, and emotional patterns. Personality is generally viewed as a complex, dynamic integration or totality shaped by many forces, including hereditary and constitutional tendencies; physical maturation; early training; identification with significant individuals and groups; culturally conditioned values and roles; and critical experiences and relationships” (APA, 2020) at https://dictionary.apa.org/personality
· Personality is therefore argued to be quite stable. However, there are a few options open to companies:
In institutional theories, the organisation has the power to set the tone and rules of the game. The rules of the game are schemas and norms of behaviour. In conditioning theories, behaviour is modelled through rewards. When people behave in a certain way the company can reward it. So, the rules and norms can guide behaviour. The recruitment and selection and induction strategies are used to select those suitable (there are many studies on personality types and job outcomes) and the induction socialises people. In social theories, individuals aim to avoid being outliers (this will impact their core self-evaluations and affect) and therefore they model behaviour based on social acceptance.
Based on this, a good strategy would be to gain buy in from a cohort (and build on it) that stress is a dual responsibility. You could develop a buddy and champion system. This normalises the chat about stress- it creates new norms of behaviour and that behaviour can be rewarded by the organisation, hence the organisation conditions the behaviour. As people come and go, over time this becomes a new norm. You can use multi-channel methods of message delivery to ensure that the messages reach all e.g. intranet, emails, posters, workshops, events etc. You will also need to ensure that policies support this new way.
Could you setup stress buddies instead? And maybe you just share you're stressed and someone can escalate if they're worried
· Yes, good idea: see my comments above. Sony ran a programme where staff would rate their energy and through organisational buy in, employees could inform colleagues about energy levels. When somebody felt they lacked the energy they were able to communicate that and the request was delayed until they were in a better position to respond (see: https://hbr.org/2010/06/the-productivity-paradox-how-sony-pictures-gets-more-out-of-people-by-demanding-less)
· I’d like to add that leaders and managers need to support this-they have the power to destroy efforts if they don’t see the value the system.
Thank you Jennifer for sharing all your knowledge and research. I would be interested in your thoughts on the HSA Work Positive tool to measure stress.
Quite a comprehensive evidence-based tool developed in collaboration with Wellhub (links to Ulster University). Appears quite user friendly. A limitation could be a lack of personal touch or the use of interviews and focus groups. To my knowledge it seems quite cross sectional i.e. you cannot identify any causes or outcomes - perhaps this is something you can add on. It is useful for organisations to go beyond descriptive statistics (averages) and identify causes and effects. For example, if you invest money and time into an intervention, it is very helpful to collect pre intervention data and then post intervention data to measure the impact of said intervention e.g. regression analysis.
Next Steps?
At the end of the webinar we briefly touched on the importance of establishing a wellbeing baseline at your organisation. I completely forgot to mention the excellent Work Positive tool so I’m delighted to give it a mention above. This is a completely free, government supported, psychosocial risk management resource that you can use to survey your colleagues. It's an excellent starting point.
If you're looking for a little more support in this area, if you want to ask the right questions, to use correct data gathering techniques and to identify correlations and next steps then Jennifer and I can help.
To see how our evidence based analysis can provide your organisation with the opportunity to gain priceless information from employees that can inform HR and wellbeing strategies for your organisation then click here for more details.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Brian Crooke is a wellbeing educator, speaker and adviser supporting Irish organisations to promote and sustain wellbeing within their workplaces.
He is the founder of the Workplace Wellbeing Ireland community and is the Course Director with responsibility for the design and delivery of the Postgraduate Certificate in Workplace Wellness at Tangent, Trinity College Dublin.
Brian is the host of The Work Well Podcast.
In his spare time Brian is bringing free resistance training to every county and community in Ireland through his parkHIIT project.
If you'd like to chat more about the above then please reach out: brian@workwellireland.ie