Individuals experience occupational stress when burdened by a devastating flurry of daily activities that isolates them socially. It results in unresolved anxiety and pointlessness due to deprived quality time with family, making the individuals feel that modern life is not worth living. Occupational stress is an issue of concern for most organizations and poses profound implications (Lukan et al., 2022). It has several negative impacts as it results in severe psychological and physical effects on individuals and affects organizations’ productivity. Occupational stress has attracted study by various scholars to establish its cause and how it can be avoided.
Most studies focus on etiology, measurement, and tertiary interventions (Newton & Teo, 2013). Human resource management interventions enhance an individual’s coping capacity and organizational changes. A conducive work environment gives employees ample time, making them more productive. Some of the changes include job enlargement and enrichment, increased worker participation in decision making, and the creation of a supportive work environment. Although the interventions are effective, most organizations are discouraged from implementing them (Newton & Teo, 2013). The main reason most small organizations are deterred from adopting the global changes in occupational stress management is the cost of it and the small number of employees who exhibit stress that might affect their productivity. However, it is crucial to cope with occupational stress at macro and micro levels. The macro-level involves structural, organizational, and political factors, while the micro-level includes triadic, individual, and dyadic factors.
Occupational stress is a complex subject that can only be clearly explained using a systematic model. There are various theories used to explain occupational stress, and recent studies also establish the cause of the failure of occupational rehabilitation. A systematic framework provides a heuristic explanation for the losses and an effective model based on subsequent interventions. According to Kenny’s model, the understanding of occupational stress and its interventions is informed by family therapy, cybernetics, communication theory, and current theories of occupational stress that use systemic epistemology (Duman et al., 2018).
Theories of Occupational Stress
Some of the theories that explain occupational stress include:
Psychological Theories
The medical model explains the causes of occupational injury and illness more clearly. The model emphasizes individuals, treatment, and technological intervention, unlike other models that focus on groups, prevention, and environmental change. The medical model controls how illnesses and occupational injuries are defined and managed. However, the model is criticized because it focuses on treating the sick and injured workers rather than creating a healthy working environment (“Supplemental Material for Job Complexity and Hazardous Working Conditions: How Do They Explain Educational Gradient in Mortality?,” 2019). The approach was meant to strengthen the belief that workplace injuries are accidents that can not be prevented.
Occupational, industrial, and healthy psychology exhibit weakness since they adopt a managerial orientation similar to the medical model. The history of psychological theories of occupational stress and occupational injury blames victims and intervenes based on the latest scapegoat. Those who support the model blame equipment, job, worker, and management. Personality is considered the vital mediator of stress reactivity. Even though some events are more stressful, stressors vary from one person to another. Most of the theories agree that personality influences performance and wellbeing. The relationship between personality and the environment is complex and dynamic. According to Hobfoll, there is an over-emphasis on environmental factors (Ravikumar, 2022). He believes that personality should be looked into to establish its role in the etiology of occupational stress.
Sociological Theories
Industrial sociologists argue that the social organization of the workplace is the primary determinant of illness, occupational injury, and stress. The theories reject the medical model’s perception of health and illness and view it individualistic, reductionist, and interventionist as subjects are considered unique and independent of social, cultural, economic, and political processes and structures (Jackson et al., 2021). The theories argue that the institutionalized conflicts of interest between productivity and safety, power structures, labor process, the social division of labor, politics, and industrial relations are the leading causes of occupational illness and stress. The social approaches rely on the relationship between capital and labor as the determinant of occupational health and safety responsibilities for occupational stress.
Systematic Theories
Systematic theories’ approach to occupational stress considers situations when the environmental conditions are adverse or when the personality is highly damaged (Case-Smith, 2009). In these situations, the relational context to the other is ignored. The situations are analyzed case by case since they need special solutions from individual to political.
Person-Environment Fit Theories
The theories were used initially as precursors to dynamic, systematic theories. The P-E theories help understand the adjustment process between the employees and the work environment (Deschênes, 2020). Based on the theories, occupational stress is defined as work characteristics responsible for distress to an individual because of inconsistency between one’s attributes and abilities and the workplace demands.
Professional Burnout
Professional burnout is a social problem that has been there for many years. Its expressions are dependent on the researcher from various countries, periods, and languages. The condition is triggered by a working environment that subjects individuals to stress (Lubbadeh, 2020). Occupational stress is costly to an individual and the organization at large. It is associated with adverse outcomes such as absenteeism, mental problems such as insomnia, and health complications such as cardiovascular issues (Gedvilienė & Didžiulienė, 2020). Due to the adverse effects of professional burnout, various intervention programs have been adopted to enhance employees’ quality of life and prevent organizational losses.
Professional burnout is in the form of cynicism, exhaustion, and professional efficacy (Golonka et al., 2019). Exhaustion is the most common form of professional burnout studied by scholars and represents stress, and physical and emotional exhaustion weaken the employee’s efficiency. Cynicism is a cold and skeptical attitude towards customers and lacks personal attributes when dealing with individuals. On the other hand, professional inefficiency involves employees’ tendency to see themselves negatively, often seen in how they work and interact with their colleagues.
History of Professional Burnout
The term “Burnout” was first introduced by American psychologist Hebert Freudenberger and was put to educational use in 1974 (Vicente et al., 2013). Herbert used the term “Burnout” to define steady emotional and physical depletion and reduced commitment and productivity. Freudenberger identified long working hours and harsh working conditions as the leading cause of occupational burnout. When the employees work hard for long with little accomplishments, they experience burnout.
Studies by Christine Maslach and her colleagues have attracted more scholars to embrace the concept of professional burnout (Kim & Lambie, 2018). Maslach studied the idea of various professions. Maslach and her team first came across the concept during an interview with human service workers in California. As a result, she became interested in looking into ideas such as “dehumanization” as used by some human service workers (Vicente et al., 2013). Maslach established that workers often feel exhausted through the interview, resulting in a negative attitude. Made Maslach defined it as a “syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment, that can occur among individuals who work with people in some capacity”(Vicente et al., 2013).
The Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) was developed as a self-reporting instrument to evaluate professional burnout amongst various professionals (Vicente et al., 2013). MBI has inspired more researchers to study the impact of burnout on workers’ productivity. Most studies focus on human service professionals because they are believed to be susceptible to psychological abuse since their jobs call for interaction with the people. The studies have established that psychological tension caused by practices of human services professionals has many adverse effects. However, burnout depends on the work environment and is experienced in health services and other workplaces such as business, telecom, IT, sports, and corporate. MBI has undergone modification over the years, resulting in a more refined version that applies to all occupations.
Gender Difference in Occupational Stress and Professional Burnout
Most studies support the hypothesis that gender influences the level of occupational stress and professional burnout. Females are more susceptible to occupational stress and burnout than males since they experience difficulties in their workplaces that affect their personal and family life. Several studies attribute the high levels of stress and dissatisfaction to work conditions, the behavior of clients, and the work-family interface (Redondo-Florez et al., 2020). The disparity between stress and burnout in males and females stems from gender-specific stressors and how females deal with issues related to the work environment.
Recent studies have established that females have high levels of emotional exhaustion compared to male workers. One of the explanations is that females might lack or cannot use effective psychological-coping resources necessary for dealing with workplace challenges. Early studies also show higher levels of emotional exhaustion in females (Artz et al.,2021). Due to various intervening factors such as job description, workload, and social support, it is difficult to interpret the difference in occupational stress and professional burnout between males and females.
Women often feel overlooked at the workplace and are deprived of pay rise and promotions despite having the same qualifications and experience as men. They think that they are discriminated against based on gender, thus increasing their occupational stress and burnout. In cases such as women giving birth, they are left with childcare responsibilities which make them less productive at the workplace. Men are seen as more effective and flexible since they can travel more frequently for work.
During difficult times, such as the Covid-19 pandemic, women are more affected since they take up extra responsibilities at home, affecting their productivity at work (Ravikumar, 2022). For example, after daycares were closed, most women became default caregivers while keeping up with their job responsibilities. As a result, the women feel extremely unmotivated at the workplace as they spend much of their time trying to remain on an accelerating treadmill. Some women feel that they receive less trust when compared to men. When having extra responsibilities at home, women think that other employees feel they can not do a good job. During this period, most women feel that they are losing it in their career and have little they can do. Therefore, they are subjected to more occupational stress and burnout.
According to recent research, occupational stress and burnout among women are huge concerns (Artz et al.,2021). Most women are stressed for work-related reasons as compared to men. An analysis conducted on workplace culture found that more than 23% of employed mothers are more likely to experience burnout than fathers in similar employment. It is estimated that 2.35 million employed mothers in the US experience occupational stress and burnout (Artz et al.,2021). Experts argue that there is no particular reason why women experience occupational stress and burnout more than men. However, they attribute the trend to gender norms and societal structures. For example, workplace inequalities are linked to traditional gender roles.
Low income amongst female workers is linked to high-stress levels and poor mental health. The existing job conditions are seen as unfavorable to women and explain the higher burnout incidences among women. Women are more vulnerable to occupational stress and burnout since they are deprived of promotion. They end up taking up minor positions with less authority that expose them to more frustration and stress. Moreover, women’s anxiety and burnout are rampant since single-parent families are more likely to be headed by women. Women are also subject to child-related strains and are likely to spend much of their time doing domestic takes that lower self-esteem and trigger burnout.
Age Difference in Occupational Stress and Professional Burnout
Age is a key factor that affects occupational stress and burnout. Most studies support the hypothesis that younger and new employees are more likely to experience stress and burnout than old and experienced employees (Hsu, 2018). At the beginning of their careers, professionals use much of their energies trying to impress their employers and meet their initial objectives. They come across intense and stressful demands that they have to overcome in the process.
A huge gap between goals and materialization result in job dissatisfaction among junior employees (Marchand et al.,2018). Lack of job satisfaction results in less effort and involvement among young employees. Junior employees’ difficulties are often seen in activating effective coping techniques to minimize occupational stress and burnout. Experienced challenges at the beginning of a career are linked to adaptation to the profession and might have long-lasting repercussions.
Research shows that young staff members report more occupational stress and burnout than those between 31 and 40 (Rozman et al., 2019). Staff under 30 years experience more stress and burnout expressed through disengagement from their profession and emotional exhaustion. The concept explains that older employees are at a point where career development does not bother them, unlike young employees keen to impress their employees.
Levels of Burnout Among Workers
Levels of professional burnout vary from one individual to another. Factors such as demographic factors influence the level of burnout amongst professionals (Golonka et al., 2019). Burnout is characterized by emotional exhaustion, reduced personal accomplishment, and a feeling of cynicism. There is a question of whether burnout, depression, and anxiety are similar constructs since they seem to have the same features. However, most research has established a disagreement on how the factors overlap. Nonetheless, there is a relationship between burnout and depression, yet there is no conclusive overlap between burnout and anxiety and burnout and depression.
Ethic stress acts as a unique form of role stress related to burnout, and individuals in direct practice are very vulnerable (Imboden, 2020). For example, social educators and supervisors believe that ethical decision-making influences social work practice. There is a need to develop, deliver, and advocate for particular supports and training to reduce the impacts of stress related to ethics.
The level of burnout determines the level of engagement amongst employees. Employees who experience high levels of burnout are more likely to be less engaged in their work (Leiter, 2021). Burnout, therefore, results in disruption that affects the organization’s productivity. Factors such as age, gender, and occupation are some of the key factors determining burnout among employees. Therefore, the effect of the elements should be studied when addressing the levels of engagement amongst the employees.
Occupation stress and professional burnout is interesting topic that needs to be studied in depth. The topic is important since various factors influence them. Employees need to be comfortable in their workplace for them to be productive. Job satisfaction often leads to reduced stress and burnout, and job dissatisfaction results in reduced engagement amongst employees, thus resulting in reduced productivity. Hence, this research will look into the hypotheses that older adult workers are likely to experience high levels of burnout, female workers experience high levels of burnout, and older adult female workers are more likely to experience higher levels of burnout. The study will establish whether the hypotheses are true or false. Various works of literature will be analyzed.
References
Artz, B., Kaya, I., & Kaya, O. (2021). Gender role perspectives and job burnout. Review of Economics of the Household. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11150-021-09579-2
Case-Smith, J. (Ed.). (2009). Relationships among Physiology, Stress, Behavior, and the Environment. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 29(4), 146–147. https://doi.org/10.3928/15394492-20090914-01
Deschênes, A. A. (2020). Satisfaction with work and person–environment fit: are there intergenerational differences? An examination through person–job, person–group and person–supervisor fit. International Journal of Organization Theory & Behavior, 24(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijotb-02-2020-0025
Duman, A., Ecaterina, M., Bratu, E., Mardare, I., Minca, D., Stanca, M., & Balaceanu, A. M. (2018). Perceived ocupational stress among the staff from an academic medical institution in Romania. European Journal of Public Health, 28(suppl_4). https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/cky218.273
Gedvilienė, G., & Didžiulienė, R. (2020). The Interaction between Teachers’ Professional Burnout and Professional Satisfaction. Pedagogika, 137(1), 66–82. https://doi.org/10.15823/p.2020.137.4
Golonka, K., Mojsa-Kaja, J., Blukacz, M., Gawłowska, M., & Marek, T. (2019). Occupational burnout and its overlapping effect with depression and anxiety. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health. https://doi.org/10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01323
Hsu, H. C. (2018). Age differences in work stress, exhaustion, well-being, and related factors from an ecological perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(1), 50. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16010050
Imboden, R. A. (2020). Exploring the relationship between ethics, stress and burnout. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 17(1), 16-24.
Jackson, E., Jones, P., & Sharma, P. (2021). Introducing June’s theme: Sociological theories. The Sociological Review Online. https://doi.org/10.51428/tsr.hudc6217
Kim, N., & Lambie, G. W. (2018). Burnout and Implications for Professional School Counselors. The Professional Counselor, 8(3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.15241/nk.8.3.277
Leiter, M. P. (2021). Assessment of workplace social encounters: Social profiles, burnout, and engagement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3533. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073533
Lubbadeh, T. (2020). Job burnout: A general literature review. International Review of Management and Marketing, 10(3), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.32479/irmm.9398
Lukan, J., Bolliger, L., Pauwels, N. S., Luštrek, M., Bacquer, D. D., & Clays, E. (2022). Work environment risk factors causing day-to-day stress in occupational settings: A systematic review. BMC Public Health, 22(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-12354-8
Marchand, A., Blanc, M. E., & Beauregard, N. (2018). Do age and gender contribute to workers’ burnout symptoms? Occupational Medicine, 68(6), 405–411. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqy088
Newton, C., & Teo, S. (2013). Identification and occupational stress: A stress-buffering perspective. Human Resource Management, 53(1), 89–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21598
Ravikumar, T. (2022). Occupational stress and psychological wellbeing during COVID 19: Mediating role of positive psychological capital. Current Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-02861-1
Redondo-Flórez, L., Tornero-Aguilera, J. F., Ramos-Campo, D. J., & Clemente-Suárez, V. J. (2020). Gender differences in stress- and burnout-related factors of university professors. BioMed Research International, 2020, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/6687358
Rožman, M., Grinkevich, A., & Tominc, P. (2019). Occupational stress, symptoms of burnout in the workplace and work satisfaction of the age-diverse employees. Organizacija, 52(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2019-0005
Supplemental Material for Job Complexity and Hazardous Working Conditions: How Do They Explain Educational Gradient in Mortality? (2019). Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000171.supp
Vicente, C. S., Oliveira, R. A., & Maroco, J. (2013). Factorial validity of the maslach burnout inventory (mbi- hss) among portuguese professionals. Psicologia, Saúde & Doenças. https://doi.org/10.15309/13psd140110
