Search for a command to run...
The phase model of burnout (Golembiewski, Boudreau, Munzenrider, and Luo, 1996) permits for the first time informed estimates of the incidence of this modern disease. This article focuses on data about burnout in public work--in 13 U.S. work sites, in 11 Canadian sites, and in 10 global studies conducted in sites ranging from China to Taiwan (see Appendix A for summary details). For limited purposes, the public-sector incidences of the burnout also will be compared with two panels of nonpublic work settings--63 in North America and 9 from global sites. This survey has four major components. In turn, it describes the phase model; it reports on a program testing the reliability and validity of the phase model; and, using data from 34 sites, it estimates how many people have which degrees of burnout in public-sector organizations, worldwide. Then, the article addresses a number of significant implications of the phase model for the practice of public management. Essentials of the Phase Model Uniquely, the phase model proposes to place each individual into one of eight phases of burnout from I (least advanced) through VIII (most advanced). The model's rationale rejects the common convention of estimating stress by focusing on the number and severity of stressors at work. Rather, the phase model focuses on the ways individuals experience whatever stressors they encounter. Why? Our approach builds on two common observations.(1) Individuals differ widely as to the number and intensity of stressors with which they can comfortably cope--not only are there differences between people at any one time, but also at different points in time for any one person. Moreover, one stressor can energize some people, while it herniates others. Consequently, the phase model focuses on this question: Are the stressors one now experiences too much, whatever their number and severity? Major Components of the Model Our operational definition builds on responses to items in the Maslach Burnout Inventory, or MBI (Maslach and Jackson, 1982, 1986). The MBI is a simple paper-and-pencil instrument which asks respondents: How are things at work, relative to your comfortable coping attitudes and skills? Ratings along a seven-point scale assess how much each item is like or unlike the respondent. For each respondent, these MBI ratings generate three scores: * Depersonalization, where high scores indicate a marked tendency to think of others as things or objects, to distance self from others. * Personal Accomplishment (Reversed), where low scores indicate a person who reports doing well on a worthwhile job. * Emotional Exhaustion, where high scores estimate how dose each individual is to the end of the rope in emotional terms. In sum, high scores on emotional exhaustion are seen as contributing more to burnout than inadequate personal accomplishment. Moreover, both arc seen as more virulent than depersonalization. Generating the Phase Model Based on each MBI score, every individual gets three high or low assignments, using norms derived from a large population of federal employees operating under considerable stress (Golembiewski, Boudreau, Munzenrider, and Luo, 1996, 51-57).(2) Directly, then, the phase model takes the form depicted in Figure 1. Individuals in Phase I present this profile of features: they deal with individuals as sentient, valuing beings; they see themselves as doing well on jobs that are socially worthwhile; and they have a surplus or slack of emotional resources for coping with more stressors than they am experiencing. Figure 1 Phase Model of Burnout Phases of Burnout I II III IV V VI VII Depersonalization Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Hi Lo Personal Accomplishiment Lo Lo Hi Hi Lo Lo Hi (Reversed) Emotional Exhaustion Lo Lo Lo Lo Hi Hi Hi Phases of Burnout VIII Depersonalization Hi Personal Accomplishiment Hi (Reversed) Emotional Exhaustion Hi Individuals in Phase VIII present a sharp contrast. …