Organizational Stressors As Predictors of Burnout

The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community

Dissertations

Fall 12-2020

Organizational Stressors as Predictors of Burnout

Kristen Albritton

Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations

Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons, Business and Corporate Communications Commons, Community College Leadership Commons, Educational Administration and Supervision Commons, Educational Leadership Commons, Higher Education Commons, Human Resources Management Commons, Industrial and Organizational Psychology Commons, Organizational Behavior and Theory Commons, and the Organization Development Commons

Recommended Citation Albritton, Kristen, "Organizational Stressors as Predictors of Burnout" (2020). Dissertations. 1849. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1849

This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community

Dissertations

Fall 12-2020

Organizational Stressors as Predictors of Burnout

Kristen Albritton

Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations

ORGANIZATIONAL STRESSORS AS PREDICTORS OF BURNOUT

Kristen B. Albritton

A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School, the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Interdisciplinary Studies and Professional Development at The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Approved by:

Dr. Heather M. Annulis, Committee Chair Dr. Jonathan Beedle Dr. H. Quincy Brown Dr. John J. Kmiec, Jr.

December 2020

Kristen B. Albritton

2020

Published by the Graduate School

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study is to determine if organizational stress, measured by role conflict and role ambiguity, predicts burnout among employees. A review of the

related literature identified variables that demonstrate a relationship with burnout,

supported by the Maslach (1998) theory of burnout and Katz and Kahn’s (1966)

organizational role theory. The researcher also examined whether organizational level

and demographic variables (gender, education level, and job tenure) moderate the

relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout.

The study follows a non-experimental, cross-sectional design using data collected

from a survey. Results of linear regression analyses reveal role conflict and role

ambiguity predict burnout. A series of Baron and Kenny moderation analyses (Baron &

Kenny, 1986) show that organizational level is not a moderating factor in the

relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout. In addition, only

education level (Associate’s degree) emerged as a moderator in the relationship between

role conflict and burnout.

Findings from this study emphasize the importance of understanding and

addressing role conflict and role ambiguity, in order to prevent employee burnout, within

organizations. Findings also suggest that organizations should include staff at all levels of

the organization in burnout assessment and remediation efforts, including additional

resources for employees to obtain skills that may have been absent from their previous

education. Future research considerations include qualitative methods, additional

industries or organizational structures, and predictive qualities of other related variables.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation to the Department of

Human Capital Development. From the very first class, the Gulf Park Campus has been my home away from home. I would like to extend a special thank you to the faculty, staff, and students who have been my HCD family. They have made USM a wonderful place to learn and grow. As challenging as this journey has been, I would not change a thing, and I am humbled to have shared this experience with such exceptional people.

I would like to thank Dr. Heather Annulis, the Chairperson of my dissertation committee. I so appreciate the many hours she spent both working with me and reviewing my work. Dr. Annulis is a great inspiration to me, both personally and professionally. She has been my coach, cheerleader, mentor, and champion throughout the last three years.

Dr. Annulis is also an extraordinary friend.

I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, Drs. Brown,

Lunsford, Kmiec, and Beedle. Thank you for the time and dedication in reading and providing feedback on the manuscript, and especially for the reassurance along the way.

Dr. Gaudet, thank you for your counsel and encouragement. Thank you for reminding me that money is, in fact, not the only thing that matters. Above all, I thank you for allowing me to be a part of this truly special program.

Lastly, I must acknowledge the faculty and staff of the Alabama Community

College System. Thank you for taking the time respond to the survey, making this research possible. I thank you for your trust, and for allowing me to collect your data and tell your story.

DEDICATION

Words cannot adequately express my love and appreciation for my family. Thank you to my Mom and Dad, Susan and the late Tony Byars. Nothing that I have today would be possible without your perseverance and love for each other. You taught my brother and me that anything is possible with hard work, and indeed, it is.

Thank you to my children, Grace, Aidan, and Adalyn, for understanding when I had to travel, or miss a game, or was too busy to play. Mommy is finally done!

Finally, thank you to my husband and best friend, Greg Albritton. You have sacrificed and been there for everyone when I could not, all while being my biggest supporter. Thank you for your love, your encouragement, your strength, and your never wavering belief that I can do anything. We did it!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...... iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

DEDICATION ...... v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ...... xiii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... xv

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Background of the Study ...... 2

Statement of the Problem ...... 4

Purpose of the Study ...... 6

Significance of the Study ...... 6

Research Objectives ...... 6

Conceptual Framework ...... 7

Burnout ...... 8

Organizational Stress ...... 8

Organizational Level ...... 9

Work Environment...... 10

Organizational Performance ...... 10

Theoretical Foundation ...... 11

Assumptions ...... 11 vi

Delimitations of the Study ...... 12

Definition of Terms...... 12

Burnout ...... 13

Exhaustion...... 13

Role expectations ...... 14

Summary ...... 14

CHAPTER II - LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 15

Burnout ...... 15

Definition of Burnout ...... 15

Theory of Burnout...... 18

Emotional Exhaustion ...... 19

Cynicism ...... 20

Inefficacy ...... 20

Burnout process ...... 20

Factors Contributing to Burnout ...... 22

Workplace Stress ...... 22

Individual Factors ...... 24

Organizational Factors ...... 28

Consequences of Burnout ...... 31

Physical Effects ...... 32 vii

Organizational Effects ...... 33

Organizational Stress ...... 34

Organizational Theory ...... 34

Organizational Level ...... 35

Organizational Role Theory ...... 37

Role Conflict ...... 40

Role Ambiguity ...... 46

Summary ...... 52

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY ...... 54

Research Design...... 54

Research Objectives ...... 55

Variables ...... 55

Population and Sample ...... 57

Instruments ...... 59

Oldenburg Burnout Inventory ...... 60

Role Conflict/Role Ambiguity Questionnaire ...... 61

Demographic Questionnaire ...... 62

Data Collection ...... 63

Consent to Participate ...... 64

Maximizing Response Rate ...... 64 viii

Data Analysis ...... 66

Research Objective One ...... 67

Research Objective Two and Three ...... 67

Research Objectives Four through Seven ...... 68

Assumptions for hierarchical multiple regression ...... 69

Moderation analyses ...... 70

Summary ...... 72

CHAPTER IV - RESULTS ...... 73

Results of Data Collection ...... 73

Missing and Excluded Responses ...... 73

Outliers ...... 74

Results of Statistical Analysis ...... 74

Research Objective One ...... 76

Research Objective Two ...... 78

Research Objective Three ...... 81

Research Objective Four ...... 83

Research Objective Five ...... 86

Research Objective Six ...... 89

Research Objective Seven...... 94

CHAPTER V – FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 101 ix

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations ...... 101

Finding 1 ...... 101

Conclusion ...... 102

Recommendations ...... 103

Finding 2 ...... 104

Conclusion ...... 104

Recommendations...... 105

Finding 3 ...... 106

Conclusion ...... 106

Recommendations ...... 107

Discussion ...... 107

Limitations of the Study...... 108

Recommendations for Future Research ...... 110

Conclusion ...... 111

APPENDIX A – Reprint License for Figure 2 ...... 114

APPENDIX B – Reprint License for Figure 3 ...... 116

APPENDIX C - Permission to Reprint Figure 4...... 120

APPENDIX D - Permission to Reprint Figure 5 ...... 121

APPENDIX E - Researcher’s Instrument ...... 124

APPENDIX F - Oldenburg Burnout Inventory permission ...... 128 x

APPENDIX G - The Role Conflict/Role Ambiguity Questionnaire Permission ...... 129

APPENDIX H – IRB Approval Letter ...... 130

APPENDIX I – Introduction Email ...... 131

APPENDIX J - Invitation to Participate ...... 132

APPENDIX K – Follow-up Email ...... 133

REFERENCES ...... 134

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Survey Map Aligning Research Objectives and Survey Questions ...... 63

Table 2 Data Collection Plan ...... 65

Table 3 Data Analysis Plan ...... 66

Table 4 Predictor, Criterion, and Moderator Variables ...... 69

Table 5 Psychometric Properties for Scales...... 75

Table 6 Characteristics of Participants ...... 76

Table 7 Role Conflict Predicting Employee Burnout ...... 80

Table 8 Role Ambiguity Predicting Employee Burnout ...... 83

Table 9 Variance Inflation Factors for Multicollinearity ...... 84

Table 10 Moderating Effect of Organizational Level on Role Conflict and Burnout ...... 86

Table 11 Variance Inflation Factors for Multicollinearity ...... 87

Table 12 Moderating Effect of Organizational Level on Role Ambiguity and Burnout .. 89

Table 13 Variance Inflation Factors for Multicollinearity ...... 90

Table 14 Moderating Effect of Gender, Education, and Tenure on Role Conflict and

Burnout ...... 92

Table 15 Variance Inflation Factors for Multicollinearity ...... 95

Table 16 Moderating Effect of Gender, Education, and Job Tenure on Role Ambiguity and Burnout ...... 97

xii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1. Conceptual framework ...... 9

Figure 2. Leiter-Maslach process model ...... 18

Figure 3. Process model of burnout ...... 22

Figure 4. Modified version of the Cherniss process model of burnout...... 29

Figure 5. A theoretical model of factors involved in taking organizational roles...... 39

Figure 6. Scatterplot between role conflict and burnout...... 79

Figure 7. Normal P-P plot with role conflict predicting burnout...... 79

Figure 8. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role conflict predicting burnout...... 80

Figure 9. Scatterplot between role ambiguity and burnout...... 81

Figure 10. Normal P-P plot with role ambiguity predicting burnout...... 82

Figure 11. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role ambiguity predicting burnout...... 82

Figure 12. Normal P-P plot with role conflict, organizational level, and role conflict*organizational level predicting burnout...... 84

Figure 13. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role conflict, organizational level, and role conflict*organizational level predicting burnout...... 85

Figure 14. Normal P-P plot with role ambiguity, organizational level, and role ambiguity*organizational level predicting burnout...... 87

Figure 15. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role ambiguity, organizational level, and role ambiguity *organizational level predicting burnout...... 88

xiii

Figure 16. Normal P-P plot with role conflict, gender, education, and job tenure, role conflict*gender, role conflict*education, role conflict*job tenure predicting burnout. ... 91

Figure 17. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role conflict, gender, education, and job tenure, role conflict*gender, role conflict*education, role conflict*job tenure predicting burnout...... 91

Figure 18. Normal P-P plot with role ambiguity, organizational level, and role ambiguity*organizational level predicting burnout...... 96

Figure 19. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role ambiguity, organizational level, and role ambiguity *organizational level predicting burnout...... 96

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

OLBI Oldenburg Burnout Inventory

RCRAQ Role Conflict/Role Ambiguity Questionnaire

VIF Variance Inflation Factor

WHO World Health Organization

CHAPTER I - INTRODUCTION

During 2019, the World Health Organization (WHO) formalized researchers’ conclusions that burnout is an occupation phenomenon caused by persistent stress in the workplace (Jones-Schenk, 2019). The WHO’s International Classification of Diseases defined burnout as a distinct syndrome, rather than a form of exhaustion (World Health

Organization, 2019). Burnout describes an individual employee’s negative and extreme response to job stress (Maslach et al., 2001). Maslach and Jackson (1981) describe burnout as the physical and psychological reaction to overwhelming job stressors that may occur when an employee cannot effectively deal with stress. Stressors that lead to burnout are often frequent, intense, ongoing, and unmanageable. Unaddressed, burnout can result in serious psychological and physiological problems, such as depression and high blood pressure (Traunmüller et al., 2019). Burnout can also negatively affect the output and productivity of individuals, teams, and entire organizations (Barkhuizen et al.,

2014), impeding performance at all organizational levels (Nazari et al., 2016).

Elevated work stress is common among human service occupations that involve intense employee-client relations (Dyrbye et al., 2018; Maslach, 2017; Maslach et al.,

2010; Maslach & Goldberg, 1998; Maslach & Jackson, 1981). Heavy workloads, limited resources, and expectations for quick turnarounds can contribute to stressful working conditions that eventually lead to burnout. Imbalances between employees and their work environments can occur when individuals lack effective strategies to manage job stress

(Maslach et al., 2001). Such imbalances can contribute to burnout, characterized by emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy (Dyrbye et al., 2018; Jones-Schenk, 2019;

Maslach, 2017; Maslach et al., 2001; Traunmüller et al., 2019). 1

Role conflict and role ambiguity are added stressors that can contribute to

burnout. Role ambiguity occurs when employees are not adequately aware of

professional expectations, which can result from unclear work expectations or poorly

defined measures of performance (Al-Kahtani & Allam, 2016). Conversely, role conflict arises when work expectations do not align with the job description assigned to an employee. For example, the work environment may require employees to perform multiple, conflicting roles, making it challenging to complete all job duties (Al-Kahtani

& Allam, 2016).

Despite research documenting the connection between burnout, role conflict, and role ambiguity, it is unclear how role conflict and ambiguity may predict burnout, and whether organizational level and demographic variables moderate these relationships

(Gabel Shemueli et al., 2016; Nazari et al., 2016; Schmidt et al., 2014; Schulz, 2013;

Vesty et al., 2018). This introductory chapter includes a presentation of the background of the current study, the problem and purpose, significance, and research objectives. A conceptual framework is presented, followed by assumptions, delimitations, key terms, and a chapter summary.

Background of the Study

Burnout is widely recognized in many industries and can have numerous adverse workplace effects, including low morale, decreased work performance, weakening of personal and professional relationships, and physical and mental illness (Maslach et al.,

2001). Leiter and Maslach (2016) identify the decline in teamwork, professional relations, and failure of psychological and physical health as the immediate effects of employee burnout. Untreated, burnout can have permanent mental and physical health

consequences (Singh et al., 2012) For example, victims of burnout experience higher

levels of physical and psychological morbidity (Maslach et al., 2001). Burnout can also present significant human capital risks. Employees who experience burnout are more likely to have lower levels of job satisfaction and leave their positions (Leiter & Maslach,

2016).

Katz and Kahn (1978) first hypothesized that burnout might be related to the organizational stressors of role conflict and role ambiguity. Specifically, these organizational stressors associate with job dissatisfaction and work stress (Beehr &

Drexler, 1986; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Rizzo et al., 1970). Research also indicates that role

ambiguity and conflict can be detrimental to the work environment and contribute to

employee turnover (Chang, 2008; Mosadeghrad, 2013). Moreover, role conflict and role

ambiguity decrease engagement within teams and organizations (Netemeyer et al., 1990;

Tang & Chang, 2010).

Researchers investigating work environment variables consistently identify role

conflict and role ambiguity as top stressors within organizations (Bucurean & Costin,

2011; Rahim, 2010; Rothmann & Essenko, 2007; Schmidt et al., 2014). Kahn et al.

(1964) offer an organizational stress construct to quantify role conflict and role ambiguity.

Role conflict refers to incompatible role demands, experienced concurrently, such that the individual cannot reconcile inconsistencies among them. Role ambiguity describes the absence of well-defined and reliable directions regarding one’s job duties and

responsibilities. Katz and Kahn also note that organizational stress occurs at all levels of

an organization’s hierarchy, (Kahn et al., 1964).

Schulz (2013) suggests that role conflict and role ambiguity are often used interchangeably to refer to unclear work responsibilities among employees who work in related departments and divisions of an organization. According to Al-Kahtani and Allam

(2016), role conflict arises when work expectations do not align with the job description assigned to an employee, or when structured work processes and expectations are inconsistent and lead to unrealistic expectations (Mañas et al., 2018). Individuals performing more than one role within an organization often experience high levels of role conflict, making it difficult to produce work assignments effectively. Conversely, role ambiguity occurs when the expectations for employees are not clearly defined, compounded by a lack of the organizational processes necessary to achieve anticipated outcomes (Mañas et al., 2018).

The effectiveness of any workforce depends on the clarity of workers’ roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines (Rahim, 2010). According to Ablanedo-Rosas et al.

(2011), employees often carry responsibilities outside of their job descriptions. Further, they frequently experience work uncertainties and unrealistic expectations for completion of tasks, such as the amount of time or resources required. Consequently, these employees regularly work long hours and struggle with work-life balance. An unsatisfactory work environment, in concert with other variables, such as role conflict and role ambiguity, contributes to high levels of professional stress and eventual burnout

(Ablanedo-Rosas et al., 2011).

Statement of the Problem

According to a 2018 report by Gallup, 53% and 13% of U.S. workers are either not engaged or actively disengaged, respectively (Crabtree, 2018). Disconnected

employees contribute to annual productivity losses as high as $600 billion for U.S. organizations (Gallup Inc, 2017). Experiences within the work environment influence employees’ feelings of well-being, impacting levels of engagement (Shuck et al., 2013).

Early burnout research reveals that although employees may initially feel protected and engaged with their work, burnout occurs when adverse conditions lead to disengagement

(Maslach et al., 2001). The disconnect between employees and employers can result in job dissatisfaction that can eventually lead to burnout (Mosadeghrad, 2013). Leiter and

Maslach’s research reveals employees who suffer from burnout exhibit low levels of productivity, efficiency, and work quality (Leiter & Maslach, 2016).

Alam et al. (2015) argue that existing research on organizational stressors, role conflict, and role ambiguity remains inadequate. Blom et al. (2016) recommend further research into burnout at different levels of organizational responsibility. Olivares-

Faúndez et al. (2014) report correlations between burnout, role conflict, and role ambiguity among healthcare workers, concluding that additional research is needed to examine relationships between these factors among other occupational groups.

Engaged employees positively affect productivity, creativity, and other performance metrics (De Clercq & Belausteguigoitia, 2019; Kompaso & Sridevi, 2010;

Mérida-López et al., 2017; Schepers et al., 2016). Conversely, a workforce suffering from symptoms of burnout, particularly when linked to role conflict and ambiguity, demonstrates reductions in performance (Alessandri et al., 2018; Amilin, 2017; Mañas et al., 2018; Palomino & Frezatti, 2016; Schepers et al., 2016; Urien et al., 2017).

Employees’ inabilities to manage job stressors create significant human capital risks, preventing an engaged and thriving workforce. A reduction in employee burnout may

lead to improved organizational productivity and performance, creating financial benefits

for organizations (Akar, 2018; Alessandri et al., 2018; Schepers et al., 2016).

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to determine if organizational stress, measured by role conflict and role ambiguity, predicts burnout among employees. Also, the researcher examined whether organizational level and demographic variables (gender, education level, and job tenure) moderate the relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout. Findings may provide organizational leaders with information needed to reduce burnout among employees, while also informing the development of burnout

interventions aimed at early detection and prevention.

Significance of the Study

The proposed study may contribute new understandings of the relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout. Organizational leaders may use this

information to reduce burnout and its effects on employees’ psychological and physiological health. Reductions in employee burnout may also lead to organizational improvements. This topic is significant to other human service specializations, such as counseling, social work, non-profit management, and criminal justice, because individuals within each of these professions experience higher levels of burnout. The higher rate of burnout among helping professionals results from intense client interactions, especially among those working with difficult situations and within complex environments

(Schaufeli, Leiter, et al., 2009).

Research Objectives

The following seven objectives guide the research that follows:

RO1: Describe the demographics of participants (gender, education level,

professional role, hours worked per week, job tenure, organizational

tenure, and type of work tenure).

RO2: Determine if role conflict predicts employee burnout.

RO3: Determine if role ambiguity predicts employee burnout.

RO4: Determine if organizational level of employees moderates the relationship

between role conflict and burnout.

RO5: Determine if organizational level of employees moderates the relationship

between role ambiguity and burnout.

RO6: Determine if demographic variables of employees (gender, education level,

and job tenure) moderate the relationships between role conflict and

burnout.

RO7: Determine if demographic variables of employees (gender, education level,

and job tenure) moderate the relationships between role ambiguity and

burnout.

Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework explains the factors, variables, or concepts to be studied, along with the presumed relationships between them (Ravitch & Riggan, 2016). A review of the related literature identified variables that demonstrate a relationship with burnout, supported by the Maslach (1998) theory of burnout and Katz and Kahn’s (1966) organizational role theory. Based on the literature and supporting empirical studies, a conceptual model for this study emerged, depicted in Figure 1. This section discusses variables, including role conflict and role ambiguity, organizational level, performance,

and work environment, depicted in the study’s conceptual framework and their connectedness to burnout.

Burnout

According to Maslach et al. (2001), burnout is “a prolonged response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job” (p. 397). Burnout is a reaction to strain that can occur when an employee lacks resources to cope with work-related stress

(Maslach et al., 2001). Exhaustion is the most familiar characteristic of job burnout, categorized by physical or emotional weariness (Leiter & Maslach, 2016).

Depersonalization describes an adverse, uncaring, or unreasonable disconnect between co-workers and the work environment, and may also manifest as a lack of interest or cynicism (Maslach et al., 2001). Diminished personal accomplishment describes feelings of uselessness or poor self-efficacy related to burnout (Maslach et al., 2001).

Organizational Stress

Organizational stress is defined as strain generated by situations in the work environment (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Two types of organizational stressors that can

contribute to burnout are role conflict and role ambiguity (Schaufeli, Leiter, et al., 2009).

Roles are the structural elements that define an individual’s behaviors within a professional position (Getzels & Guba, 1957). Role conflict refers to incompatible role demands, experienced concurrently, such that the individual cannot reconcile inconsistencies among them. Role ambiguity describes the absence of well-defined and reliable expectations for an employee’s performance (Kahn et al., 1964). Figure 1 depicts role conflict and role ambiguity as independent variables.

Work Environment

Employees

(RO1)

Organizational Stress

Role Conflict Role Ambiguity

Organizational Organizational Level RO2 RO3 Level (RO4) (RO5)

Demographic Demographic Variables Variables (RO6) (RO7)

Burnout

Organizational Performance

Figure 1. Conceptual framework

Organizational Level

An employee’s level within a hierarchical organization can also contribute to burnout (Erera, 1992; Garton, 2017). That is, leaders and subordinates in different organizations may have different experiences, job requirements, work environments, and interpersonal interactions that affect their susceptibility to burnout. In this way, 9

organizational level may influence the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict,

and burnout. In addition, demographic variables (gender, education level, and years of

professional experience) may also influence the relationships amongst role ambiguity,

role conflict, and burnout.

Work Environment

Maslach et al. (2001) suggested that burnout arises only in the context of the work

environment. The work environment includes interactions with persons, organizations, and institutions experienced as part of the job; therefore, not limited to the immediate physical environment of an organization. Burnout stems from emotional strain associated

with physical and social interactions in the work environment, in which the needs of

others are placed before one’s own, leading to emotional exhaustion. Exhaustion from poor physical environments or challenging social interactions can manifest as job burnout.

Organizational Performance

Employee burnout may affect organizational performance. Burnout can contribute

to high job turnover, cynicism towards customers, and reduced job performance (Leiter,

1991). Burnout can spread through organizations and have damaging effects on

organizational performance (Oktay, 1992; Schaufeli et al., 2017; Simendinger & Moore,

1985). Employees suffering from burnout may experience bickering between staff and

amongst functional departments (often in the form of conflict), stagnation in innovation,

and a defensive posture to new and inventive work processes, or a lack of vision

(Bucurean & Costin, 2011; Mañas et al., 2018; Schepers et al., 2016). Most of these

effects occur when an organization concentrates on resolving crises rather than

completing its mission, or when leaders employ reactive problem-solving rather than

proactive planning (Simendinger & Moore, 1985).

Theoretical Foundation

Figure 1 depicts a conceptual visualization of the foundational theories of the study. For the purposes of this study, the multidimensional theory of burnout, as defined

by Maslach (1988), provides the basis for the dependent variable, burnout, characterized

by emotional exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy. Imbalances between employees and

their work environments can occur when job stress becomes unmanageable, contributing

to burnout (Maslach et al., 2001).

The study includes measurement of role conflict and role ambiguity, the

components of organizational stress, to determine if a relationship exists with burnout.

According to Katz and Kahn (1978), in identifying and analyzing sources of

organizational stress and its effects on individuals, it is necessary to understand the

relationship between the individual, the position, and the organization as a whole, as well

as the organizational processes which potentially cause stressful situations.

Organizational role theory provides the study with a basis for examining stress in the work environment, its antecedents, and consequences for the individual and the organization.

Assumptions

Assumptions are aspects of a study presumed valid in order to conduct an investigation (Vogt, 2005). This study relies on four assumptions. First, the researcher

assumes that participants responded openly and honestly to the research survey.

Participants provided accurate and unbiased responses because (a) there is no incentive to

misrepresent responses, and (b) the provision of anonymity provides participants with an

assurance that there will be no possible repercussions for forthcoming responses. Second,

it is assumed that participant selection criteria are appropriate. The representativeness of

the study is assumed based on the selection criteria constructed from the characteristics

required to ensure individuals possess the knowledge and experience required to answer

the survey questions. Third, the researcher assumes selected instruments are valid

measures of the study variables and applicable to the identified sample, using only

existing, validated study instruments. Lastly, the researcher assumes that individuals

participated in this study out of goodwill with no ulterior motives; this assumption is

accepted because incomplete responses were not included in the sample.

Delimitations of the Study

Delimitations are researcher-defined boundaries that limit the scope and outline

the parameters of a study (Roberts, 2004). The scope of this study is limited by choices

made by the researcher due to interest in improving practices within a particular industry,

and stress occurrence specific to functional roles within the work environment. The

relevance of the results could vary due to shifting demographics, skillsets, and organizational structures. This work’s emphasis includes predictors of burnout experienced by individuals in non-teaching roles within higher education. Although other

occupations may also experience professional burnout linked to role conflict and role

ambiguity, the study does not examine other occupations.

Definition of Terms

The definitions that follow explain terms that appear throughout this study.

Burnout is a three-dimension construct, initially described as involving emotional

exhaustion, depersonalization, and lack of personal accomplishment. When individuals

lack coping resources, work-related stress can result in burnout (Maslach et al., 2001).

Depersonalization is an adverse, uncaring, or unreasonable disconnect to co-

workers and the work environment. This dimension of burnout may also reveal itself as a

lack of interest or cynicism (Maslach et al., 2001).

Exhaustion is the most common measurement of burnout, illustrated by physical

or emotional weariness (Leiter & Maslach, 2016).

Organizational level refers to the amount of authority one holds within a company, categorized as top, middle, and bottom (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Organizational stress describes the relationship between the characteristics of the work or the workplace (stressors) and adverse states of individual health or well-being,

including negative psychological, physiological, or behavioral consequences (Kahn et al.,

1964).

Organizational stressors are factors inherent to job requirements or work

environments that place physical or psychological demands on an individual. Role

conflict and role ambiguity are the primary organizational stressors emphasized in

organizational stress research (Kahn et al., 1964).

Personal accomplishment manifests as a feeling of usefulness and the sense of being a capable employee (Maslach et al., 2001).

Role ambiguity is the absence of regular and consistent communication regarding expectations required for a person to perform his role successfully (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Role behavior is the behavior of a person occupying a specific role (Katz & Kahn,

1978).

Role conflict is the concurrent, unpredictable incidence of multiple role behaviors for an individual (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Role expectations are the behaviors, anticipated by a person’s role-set or colleagues, that should or should not be a function of the individual’s role (Katz & Kahn,

1978).

Roles are the structural elements that define an individual’s behavior when occupying a position (Getzels & Guba, 1957).

Work environment is the social and physical environment surrounding the employee. The environment can consist of tangible and intangible signs that prompt the employee to respond positively or negatively, based on internal principles (Karsli &

Baloglu, 2006).

Summary

This chapter introduced the proposed study by providing information regarding the problem, purpose, research objectives, key terms, and study limitations. The conceptual framework offers a graphic representation of the association between the variables, as found in the related research regarding higher education, burnout, its causes, and consequences. Findings from this study may provide information to help organizational leaders understand factors that contribute to burnout, improving early detection and prevention.

CHAPTER II - LITERATURE REVIEW

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the existing literature on the subject of

burnout, organizational stress, role conflict, and role ambiguity, and then to provide a

theoretical framework for the study. The review includes a review of professional and

academic literature to contextualize the need for this study. The chapter closes with a

summary and transition to Chapter 3.

Burnout

Chronic work-related stress can result in job burnout. According to Maslach

(1998), burnout is a prolonged response to chronic professional stress that consists of

emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of personal

accomplishment. Burnout is common in human service occupations and often affects

employees’ well-being (Maslach et al., 2001). Emotional exhaustion is the feeling of depleted emotional and mental energy, while depersonalization is a state of emotional

detachment. Feelings of reduced personal accomplishment are the result of failures to

meet one's desired goals (Maslach, 1998). Burnout can result in low job satisfaction,

increased absenteeism, and low levels of professional performance (Maslach et al., 1997).

In tight labor markets, burnout can also create increased turnover, as individuals seek out opportunities with other organizations to find relief from burnout in their current jobs

(Chan et al., 2015).

Definition of Burnout

Burnout is a psychological response to prolonged periods of work stress

(Halbesleben & Demerouti, 2005). Burnout develops from sustained exposure to organizational factors, such as scarcity of support, role conflict, role ambiguity, increased

workloads, and the inability to cope with professional stress (Lewandowski, 2003).

Employee burnout can be detrimental to organizations (Maslach & Pines, 1977) and

negatively affect individual co-workers and clients (Mclean & Andrew, 1999).

Herbert Freudenberger (1974) first presented the concept of burnout in the early

1970s and 1980s. Freudenberger studied burnout because he noticed his colleagues were

increasingly exhausted and displayed a lack of motivation at work. He describes burnout

as feeling drained from excessively trying to achieve idealistic expectations, a complete lack of physical and mental fitness, and exhaustion. According to Freudenberger, burnout

is a feeling of physical and emotional depletion, exhaustion, or failure that results from

unrealistic expectations – whether self- or socially-imposed. Burnout can make an

individual feel ineffective, exhausted, and distant from work, impeding productivity and

success (Freudenberger, 1974).

Freudenberger (1975) reports that burnout is acute in helping professions. He

reasons that helping professionals must first confront the problems of society, then the

needs of the individuals seeking assistance, and finally, their own needs. He believes that

burnout is more prevalent among helping professions because of the personality traits and

motivations that attract certain people to these professions.

The process of emotional exhaustion begins when individuals begin to feel

pressure to address the needs of their clients, their personal needs, and the demands of

their employing organizations. When the state of exhaustion becomes chronic, various

physical signs of stress appear; among those cited by Freudenberger are fatigue, inability

to recover from lingering illness, frequent headaches, gastrointestinal distress, and

sleeplessness. Behaviorally, workers experiencing emotional exhaustion develop habits

that progress from irritability and suspiciousness to paranoia. At this point, affected

workers develop cynical attitudes toward their work and clients. Freudenberger also indicates that emotional exhaustion can prompt increased drug and alcohol abuse

(Freudenberger, 1974, 1975). Freudenberger's work was influential in developing an awareness of burnout, its progression, and its consequences. He based his ideas on

observations and experiences with a limited sample of workers in the helping professions.

Dr. Christina Maslach (1978) and colleagues conducted extensive, systematic

research on burnout at the University of California, Berkeley (Schaufeli, Leiter, et al.,

2009). Initially, Maslach used learned defense strategies to help workers in demanding

occupations cope with stressors and dissatisfaction in their work environments (Maslach

et al., 2001). Maslach and Jackson (1981) conducted extensive interviews with healthcare

employees, such as doctors, nurses, mental health professionals, and hospice therapists.

Maslach (1978) found that most helpers enter these professions to respond to recognized needs among people with particular problems. Initially, people who enter these fields view themselves as dedicated and committed people. Many times, high levels of dedication and commitment can lead workers to take on too many intense responsibilities for an extended period of time.

Maslach and Jackson (1981) developed three overall themes from their research.

Several workers reported being emotionally tired and weary during sessions, which fostered irritation and cynicism toward their patients. In addition to their feelings of emotional exhaustion, the practitioners experienced feelings of inadequacy and incompetency. Based on their early research, Maslach and Jackson developed an index to measure the phenomenon they referred to as burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).

Theory of Burnout

While explanations and frameworks of burnout differ, the literature reveals several commonly accepted theories, as well as one that is widely recognized (Schaufeli,

Leiter, et al., 2009). Maslach and Goldberg (1998) identify several commonalities among the models: (a) burnout can occur at an individual or organizational level; (b) burnout is a psychological and physiological state that affects outlook, motivations, and expectations;

(c) burnout is a harmful experience that causes personal distress and discomfort, dysfunctional relationships, and, if unaddressed, leads to lasting consequences. In summary, varying models recognize burnout as a worker's state of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and inefficacy.

Although there are other accepted models of burnout, practitioners report extensive utilization of the three-factor model proposed by Leiter and Maslach (Leiter &

Maslach, 1988; Maslach, 2017). Leiter and Maslach’s (1988) model (see Figure 2) represents sequential progression, in which one dimension of burnout leads to the development of another. In this model, emotional exhaustion leads to cynicism, which results in inefficacy.

Figure 2. Leiter-Maslach process model. Adapted from Leiter and Maslach (Leiter &

Maslach, 1988). Reprinted from R. Sharma and S. Cooper (2016), "Models of Burnout",

Executive Burnout, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 143-161. Reprinted with permission (See Appendix A).

Leiter and Maslach (1988) suggest that burnout progresses over time, draining an individual’s physical and emotional resources, often without their awareness. Employees either move toward rewarding careers through increased professional efficacy or toward burnout through a personal reaction to persistent stressors in their work environments.

Leiter and Maslach’s (1988) study on hospital nurses demonstrates the sequential nature of the elements of burnout. Findings reveal that (a) nurses’ stressful interactions with superiors result in feelings of emotional exhaustion, (b) high levels of emotional exhaustion results in cynicism or depersonalization, and (c) unaddressed cynicism leads to a reduced sense of efficacy or personal accomplishment. As Maslach and Schaufeli

(1993) explain, burnout begins with prolonged exposure to job stress. That stress places strains on workers and results in tension, irritability, and fatigue. Workers then cope with the prolonged stress by detaching themselves and becoming cynical, which results in a reduced sense of personal accomplishment.

Emotional Exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion is the fundamental individual stress dimension of burnout, characterized by feelings of emotional and physical depletion, and overextension (Maslach et al., 2001). Exhaustion is the most reported and studied component of burnout, characterized by a sense of physical or emotional weariness

(Leiter & Maslach, 2016). Emotional exhaustion experienced from job burnout results in actions (i.e., creating emotional or cognitive barriers or distances from work to help cope with stress (Leiter & Maslach, 2016). Prolonged workplace stress caused by several actors can lead to emotional exhaustion (Maslach et al., 2001). In addition to emotional exhaustion, cynicism can result in burnout.

Cynicism. Cynicism, or depersonalization, is the dimension of burnout that often results from emotional exhaustion, formed as a defense against exhaustion.

Depersonalization describes detachment from one’s work and co-workers, along with a

sense of cynicism and disconnect. Depersonalization also results in cognitive distancing

when workers become indifferent or cynical because of emotional exhaustion (Maslach et

al., 2001). According to Maslach et al. (2001), distancing is often a direct reaction to exhaustion, indicating a clear relationship between emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. Cynicism can foster inefficacy, the third dimension of burnout.

Inefficacy. Lack of personal accomplishment, or inefficacy, characterizes the self- appraisal dimension of burnout, described as feelings of ineptitude, lack of achievement, and low levels of productivity on the job. The inefficacy component of burnout manifests in feelings of lacking the ability to complete job tasks or experiencing a lack of fulfillment from one’s work. A reduced sense of personal accomplishment can impede job effectiveness and motivation, hindering individuals’ work performance (Maslach et al., 2001).

Burnout process

Leiter and Maslach (1988) hypothesize that emotional exhaustion initially occurs as a response to overwhelming work strains. Increased exhaustion leads to depersonalization as helping professionals attempt to separate from their clients to manage feelings of emotional fatigue. Finally, exhaustion and strained working relationships with internal and external customers can reduce the sense of personal accomplishment as employees become disengaged from their work (Büssing & Glaser,

2000; Cordes & Dougherty, 1993).

Leiter refined the burnout model (see Figure 3) based on longitudinal data from his previous work (Leiter, 1991, 1993). Instead of the linear model for the progression of burnout, Leiter concluded that depersonalization is a function of emotional exhaustion, while diminished personal accomplishment is a function of the work environment. It is essential to recognize an individual’s perception of their workplace and the interactions within it as a basis for the development of burnout (Maslach et al., 2001; Maslach &

Jackson, 1981).

Burnout causes an employee to feel unproductive, drained, and disengaged because of workplace experiences. As a result, burnout can create unproductive relationships with work. (Schaufeli, Leiter, et al., 2009). Maslach (2017) writes that while burnout is a condition framed in the work environment, other aspects impact its onset.

Demographic variables and personality traits associate with the development of burnout.

Research shows that employees who exhibit lower levels of resilience, less engagement in day-to-day activities, a depressed sense of control, and an aversion to change tend to experience more prevalent burnout symptoms (Maslach et al., 2001).

Figure 3. Process model of burnout. Reprinted from “Burnout as a developmental

process: Consideration of models”, by M. Leiter (1993), Professional burnout: Recent

developments in theory and research (pp. 237–250). Taylor & Francis. Reprinted with

permission (See Appendix B).

Factors Contributing to Burnout

Workers contend with increasing levels of job-related stress, which contributes to

burnout (Jawahar, 2012). Research indicates that burnout associates with work-related factors such as professional settings or extended work hours or a lack of social support from co-workers (Kay-Eccles, 2012). Other causes of burnout are internal, such as

individuals’ sense of optimism, locus of control, and feelings of self-efficacy (Alarcon et al., 2009). Research shows that individual factors such as age, ability to manage stress, personality, and coping styles may also lead to burnout (Blix et al., 1994).

Workplace Stress. The ability to manage workplace stress is essential to employees’ overall health and well-being. Chronic work stress can lead to several physical ailments, such as high blood pressure, increased cholesterol, diabetes, ulcers, 22

substance abuse, depression, and headaches (Colligan & Higgins, 2006). A study by

Kivimaki and Kawachi (Kivimaki & Kawachi, 2015) reveals that individuals exposed to chronic workplace stress are at a 10% to 40% increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease. In a study on the relationship between workplace stress and alcohol consumption, Frone (2016) reports that chronic stress significantly correlates with heavy alcohol consumption among men and women. In addition to its physical effects on the body, chronic workplace stress has psychological consequences, including anxiety, irritability, and anger (Israel et al., 1989).

Chronic workplace stress can contribute to decreased worker productivity and increased absenteeism (Levin-Epstein, 2002) Workplace stress can also result in detrimental changes to individuals’ personalities and behaviors, which contribute to burnout (Colligan & Higgins, 2006) According to Dyck (2001), the effects of workplace stress cost businesses approximately 10% of their annual revenues. Research by Goh,

Pfeffer, and Zenios (2016) attributes approximately 120,000 annual deaths and 5% to 8% of annual healthcare costs to workplace stress. An analysis of costs related to chronic workplace stress in Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Sweden, Switzerland, the

United Kingdom, and the United States reveals costs as high as $187 billion (Hassard et al., 2018). Most (70% to 90%) of the healthcare costs reported by Hassard et al. (2018) stem from losses in productivity; medical costs were responsible for the remaining 10% to 30%.

Workplace stress can also lead to employee burnout and turnover, which can be detrimental to organizations. Many researchers substantiate the relationship between burnout and turnover. For example, Oyeleye et al. (2013) investigated the relationships

between workplace incivility, stress, burnout, and turnover intentions among acute care

nurses. Mulki et al. (2008) investigated the ways stress, conflict, trust, and job

satisfaction moderate the relationship between ethical climates and turnover intentions

among health department employees.

Morrison’s (2008) research confirms that negative workplace relationships create

stress that impedes workers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment, while

increasing turnover intentions. DeTienne, Agle, Phillips, and Ingerson (2012)

investigated the effect of moral stress on two stress-related factors (employee fatigue and

job satisfaction) and turnover. Arshadi and Damiri (2013) examined the relationship

between occupational stress, job performance, and turnover intentions, and the way

organization-based self-esteem moderates those relationships.

Burnout is an individual employee’s negative and extreme response to job stress

(Maslach et al., 2001). Maslach and Jackson (1981) explain that burnout is an employee’s

physical and mental reaction to overwhelming job stressors when they lack the necessary

resources to deal with stress effectively. In the workplace, stress is more than an

emotional or physiological response to a situation; it is the result of interactions between

individuals and demands within their organizational environments (Long, 1995). When

workplace demands exceed an individual’s real or perceived abilities to meet them, stress

can result (Kolbell, 1995). As Colligan and Higgins (2006) explain, the causes of

workplace stress can significantly influence how individuals cope with and respond to

stressors.

Individual Factors. Shoji et al. (2016) conducted a methodical analysis of the

connection between self-efficacy and burnout. The scholars analyzed 57 studies

conducted with samples of teachers, healthcare providers, and other professionals. The

researchers conclude that significant relationships between burnout and self-efficacy exist across the samples examined, but the strength of the relationships varies according to profession and age. For example, the relationship between burnout and self-efficacy was stronger among samples of teachers. Older and more experienced professionals were less likely to experience burnout with poor self-efficacy, suggesting that experience may improve individuals’ self-efficacy beliefs, which may serve as a protective mechanism against burnout. Consequently, Shoji et al. suggest that offering training to improve employees’ feelings of professional self-efficacy might help to reduce risks of burnout.

Findings from Alessandri et al.’s (2018) research support results reported by Shoji et al. (2016). The researchers investigated how self-efficacy beliefs about emotion management mediate the relationship between emotional stability and burnout.

Alessandri et al. assessed a sample of 416 military cadets two months after entering a military academy and then again one year later. Results reveal that cadets’ self-efficacy beliefs about their abilities to manage their emotions mediated the relationship between emotional stability and burnout, even after controlling for other personality factors, such as age, gender, education, and previous military experience. Therefore, findings indicate that self-efficacy might be protective against the effects of burnout.

According to Beaton (2017), burnout often appears when individuals are under- stimulated. It can surface from working closely and continuously with individuals, allowing few opportunities for retreat (Maslach et al., 1996). Particular personality types are frequently affected by burnout when combined with working conditions and situational pressures (Cherniss, 1992). Maslach (2017) posed that measuring success or

failure in terms of principles as opposed to pay scales, profits, or status symbols, is a

common characteristic in occupations with a high incidence of burnout. She hypothesizes that people who work in the helping professions are likely to be idealistic and highly motivated to improve the conditions around them; however, these professionals lack a

clear path to effect positive changes in their own lives. Helping professionals often enter their occupations with high expectations, but soon become disillusioned.

According to Schaufeli and Enzmann (1998), burnout is more common among people with advanced education, possibly because increasingly educated individuals are ambitious in seeking career accomplishments. However, education is not a predictor of burnout. Highly educated individuals might have significant expectations and, therefore, may experience significant distress from unmet expectations, leading to frustration and burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). In connection with the length of employment at a particular organization or time in a given position, employees who are new to a profession are more likely to experience burnout (Blix et al., 1994). Conversely, no clear evidence suggests the number of years in an occupation correlates with burnout (Maslach et al., 2001).

In addition to education level, age may also predict burnout. For example,

Schaufeli et al. (2009) observed a higher occurrence of burnout among employees under the age of 40, with limited work experience. Those who struggle with burnout symptoms early in their lives typically change careers, leaving behind those who are more resilient against burnout behind. The older an employee is, the less likely they are to experience emotional exhaustion. Older employees have more experience balancing demands than their younger colleagues, who often juggle family and career building along with other

pressures. Adverse working conditions, low wages, lack of resources, and inexperienced leadership can also cause young employees to experience disappointment (Barkhuizen et al., 2014; Blix et al., 1994). All of the above factors may increase psychological fatigue and feelings of personal failure (Barkhuizen et al., 2014; Blix et al., 1994; Maslach et al.,

2001).

Blix et al. (1994) report results about gender’s influence on burnout. Researchers contend that females, despite the same working conditions as males, report lower levels of depersonalization. Females show more attention to their clientele and display more compassion in interpersonal relationships. Males in education show higher

depersonalization and have high expectations for organizational support (Blix et al.,

1994). Women in professions with higher human contact and interaction tend to

experience burnout more often than men in the same professions (Maslach & Jackson,

1981). For example, nurses are statistically more likely to be women, placing them at higher risk for emotional exhaustion (Maslach et al., 2001; Schaufeli, Leiter, et al., 2009).

Early investigative work centered on the causes and consequences of burnout as it relates to the individual (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993; Maslach, 2003). As the research in the field matured, studies expanded to include the effects of burnout on organizations

(Schaufeli, Leiter, et al., 2009). When the business impact of employees’ sustained job stress became evident, research into the organizational antecedents and consequences of burnout became prevalent (Schaufeli, Leiter, et al., 2009).

Several work environment or organizational factors can contribute to workplace stress. These factors include a toxic work environment, overload, isolation, barriers to career advancement, complicated relationships with co-workers and managers, bullying,

and harassment (Colligan & Higgins, 2006). Two significant forms of workplace stress are role conflict and role ambiguity (Colligan & Higgins, 2006).

Organizational Factors. Although individual factors are possible precursors to burnout, organizational factors are more common predictors of burnout (Maslach et al.,

2001). Katz and Kahn (1978) reported on organizational role theory. Organizational stressors are characteristics of a workplace that cause strain. Role conflict and role ambiguity are the primary organizational stressors emphasized in organizational stress research. Roles help create boundaries for employees and employers. However, roles also represent expectations of individuals and the organization, providing a link for the individual to the organization, and vice versa. Social organizations can create problematic, contradictory, or unmanageable demands on role incumbents. These demands can be functional or dysfunctional and can result in organizational stress.

Cherniss (1980) studied the influence of individual roles and organizational design on workplace stress and burnout. The researcher describes human services workers’ perceptions of their work roles. For many, work is a personal calling that entails taking responsibility for the welfare of others, requiring them to interact effectively with students, patients, and other clients. At times, workers are unable to carry out their tasks because of perceived interferences from internal and external environments. According to

Cherniss, workers may attribute this interference to bureaucratic aspects of the organization, which reduces their autonomy. To further compound the problem, helping professionals are often unaware of the effects their efforts have on clients. The lack of feedback leads many helping professionals to question their effectiveness and competence.

Cherniss (1980) considers how the organizational environment affects workers’

perceptions and experiences (see Figure 4). He examines role structure from a job characteristics perspective, studying the extent to which workers’ tasks were sufficiently stimulating and meaningful. Favorable characteristics of the job include feedback and information from supervisors and clients, which help increase predictability and control,

lessen role ambiguity, and ultimately reduce burnout. Also, task identity and significance

help workers understand their roles in relation to others. The organizational design, or the

power structure, determines autonomous and collective decision-making. Since a

hierarchical power structure often reduces staff autonomy and control, helplessness and

burnout may result.

Figure 4. Modified version of the Cherniss process model of burnout. Reprinted from “A

longitudinal examination of the Cherniss model of psychological burnout.”, by R. Burke

& E. Greenglass, 1995, Social Science & Medicine, 40(10), 1357–1363. Reprinted with

permission (See Appendix C). 29

Cherniss (1992) identifies eight work situations that lead to burnout: (a) workload, stimulation, (b) non-existent onboarding, (c) clear expectations regarding customer contact, (d) lack of self-sufficiency, (e) poor leadership, (f) poor social environment, and

(g) agreement with institutional goals. The researcher notes these situations might result from life changes, poor job fit, substandard job performance, a general aversion for the tasks involved, and misalignment between personal and institutional values.

According to Akar (2018), high quality of work-life allows workers to create organizational identities, increase their work performance, and enjoy higher levels of job satisfaction, while decreasing absenteeism, turnover intentions, and burnout. In Akar’s research on the relationships between quality of work-life, burnout, affective commitment, and organizational commitment, the scholar purports that quality of work- life significantly and negatively correlates with burnout. That is, employees with low quality of work-life were statistically more likely to experience professional burnout.

Interpersonal conflicts and organizational support are additional predictors of burnout (Leiter & Maslach, 2016). Some researchers state that negative social interactions are the most threatening cause of burnout (Leiter & Maslach, 2016).

According to Leiter and Maslach (2016), workplace relationships can become adversarial due to organizational politics, contradictory work ethics, or disagreements about functional aspects of a job. These relationships, therefore, are linked to an increase in the elements of the burnout construct: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and decreased effectiveness at work (M. Leiter & Maslach, 2016).

Workers who receive social support from supervisors and co-workers are less likely to experience burnout. Carrilio and Eisenberg (1984) conducted a longitudinal field

experiment to investigate the relationship between co-worker support and burnout.

Among service providers in a family agency, the researchers report that those organized in a decentralized team structure were able to work more effectively with their clients than those of the control group, organized in a centralized, hierarchical structure. The team workers were able to cover and provide emotional outlets for each other, and as a result, felt more comfortable in client interactions than individuals in the control group, who felt detached from their clients. Additionally, those in teams reported greater autonomy and peer support than the control group workers.

Schaufeli et al. (2009) note that a sense of organizational trust influences the incidence of burnout. Employees expect to receive some confidence in their job security, in exchange for a job well done. When an employee senses an imbalance in this commitment, it creates an environment that allows burnout tendencies to take root. The researchers confirm that perceived organizational support had a substantial effect on emotional exhaustion and depersonalization (Schaufeli, Leiter, et al., 2009).

Leiter and Maslach (2016) cite a difference between the effects of a work environment that lack social support and one in which subordinates perceived decreased support from supervisors. The researchers describe a cyclical relationship in which employees who disconnected from colleagues experienced more deficient performance evaluations subsequently, creating unpleasant relationships and intensifying strains. Both stressors increased the probability of burnout and heightened depersonalization, leading to individual and organizational consequences.

Consequences of Burnout

Burnout is consistently related to negative outcomes at individual and

organizational levels. These outcomes include anxiety, depression, disturbed mood

(Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012; Hillhouse et al., 2000), reduced job performance (Bakker &

Heuven, 2006), and increased absenteeism (Schaufeli, Bakker, et al., 2009). Burnout can

also have detrimental mental consequences. Salvagioni et al.’s (2017) systematic review

reveals that the psychological effects of burnout include insomnia, depression, use of

psychotropic or antidepressant medications, and hospitalization for mental disorders.

Burnout correlates with several affective consequences, as well. For example, an

association exists between burnout and reduced job satisfaction (J. Lee et al., 2011),

which can contribute to reduced organizational commitment (Gunlu et al., 2010), and

increased turnover intentions. The effects of burnout are not just mental and emotional; burnout can also have profound physical effects on the body.

Physical Effects. Burnout can result in poor physical outcomes. The emotional exhaustion component of burnout more strongly relates to the physical effects than the other two components. This is likely because the physiological effects of emotional exhaustion mirror those of prolonged stress (Maslach et al., 2001). In addition, the link between exhaustion and physical symptoms is due to sleeplessness, headaches, and gastrointestinal issues that undermine rest and recovery (Leiter, 2005).

Salvagioni et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review to examine the physical, psychological, and occupational consequences of burnout. The researchers analyzed results from 36 studies and report that burnout was a significant predictor of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, musculoskeletal pain, prolonged fatigue, headaches, gastrointestinal distress, respiratory illness, severe illness, hypercholesterolemia, and early death. These findings echo those from previous researchers, who report that burnout

significantly associates with poor sleep (Ekstedt et al., 2006) and increased risks for cardiovascular disease (Melamed et al., 2006).

Organizational Effects. In addition to its effects on individual workers, burnout can significantly impact entire organizations. Burnout can vary by job type and industry, but in any profession, it can produce low levels of employee satisfaction, work quality, productivity, and morale (Chan et al., 2015). Professional burnout can result in absenteeism, increased turnover intentions, or actual turnover (Maslach et al., 2001).

Among burned out individuals who do not leave their jobs, burnout can contribute to reduced productivity, low satisfaction, and reduced organizational commitment (Maslach et al., 2001). For example, Malik et al. (2017) surveyed a sample of teachers and contend that burnout accounted for nearly one-fifth (19.2%) of sick days.

Burnout can also spread throughout organizations, having a contagious effect that perpetuates through employees’ interactions at work (Maslach et al., 2001). Therefore, employees experiencing burnout can foster burnout among their co-workers. Because burnout is also associated with absenteeism and turnover, the costs associated with burnout are similar to those associated with turnover (Chan et al., 2015). The estimated annual costs of burnout total $136.4 billion (Ricci et al., 2007).

Pines (1993) states that although stress remains common in the workplace, only those who need to feel productive and of significance to their organization experience burnout. Thus, a person without this motivation can experience stress, but not burnout.

Moreover, unlike stress, which occurs in numerous types of situations, burnout occurs most often in work-related situations resulting from the emotional demands placed upon

an individual. People are known to succeed in stressful situations if they perceive their

work as important (Pines, 1993).

Burnout is an experience of stress that is prolonged; that is, burnout occurs over

time, whereas stress can occur instantly. Often, burnout happens before an individual

realizes the latent stress and erosion that has occurred because the process is time-

intensive (Maslach & Schaufeli, 1993). The longitudinal nature of burnout makes it particularly dangerous. Burnout represents a breakdown in workers’ adaptation to long-

term stress, which can result in malfunction and permanent damage (Brill, 1984). In this

way, organizational stress contrasts from burnout based on the duration of the exposure

and whether or not workers adapt to the stressors.

Organizational Stress

Katz and Kahn (1978) interpret organizational psychology as the social

psychology of organizations. In organizational psychology, organizational stress occurs

when characteristics of the work environment, known as stressors, harm an employee's

physical, emotional, or intellectual well-being. Stressors lead to strain, or adverse

consequences to the individual, which, in turn, causes difficulties for the organization.

These strains include excessive sick leave and high turnover, poor morale and low

motivation, decreased productivity, and reduced creativity (Beehr, 2014; Jackson &

Schuler, 1985; Kahn, 1974; Katz, 1980; Zaccaro et al., 1987)

Organizational Theory

Management theorist Henri Fayol (1949) began speaking of the unity of

command and unity of direction before the turn of the century. Unity of command refers

to the idea that an employee should receive direction from one supervisor only. When

violated, Fayal believed the principle of unity of command left workers in a perpetual

state of confusion. A state of confusion is destructive to both workers and organizations.

Evidence exists to support the notion that multiple lines of authority accompany role

conflict and loss of organizational effectiveness and efficiency.

Frank (1958) hypothesizes that in the presence of conflicting standards, workers

must determine the priority of responsibilities, and are more likely to choose those that

provide the most personal benefit. Unity of direction describes one plan for the group of

activities, essential to the unity of action. Failure to adhere to this principle can create

conflict in direction, which is also destructive to the worker and the organization. When

workers attempt to cope with role conflict, they tend to engage in a variety of

dysfunctional reactions, including withdrawal, avoidance, and the reduction in levels of

communication (Kahn et al., 1964).

Unity of command and unity of direction are two components of classical

organization theory that have implications for role conflict and ambiguity in complex

organizations (Kahn et al., 1964). Rizzo et al. (1970) describe the chain of command

principle as a hierarchical organizational structure. There is a direct and single flow of

authority from the top down. Theoretically, this structure provides more defined roles and

expectations as well as more effective control and coordination.

Organizational Level

Theorists characterize the nature of organization level by a number of

measurements, such as work tenure, functional role, social stature, and scope of

responsibility. Nealey and Fiedler (1968) define organizational level in terms of supervisory authority. The first-level supervisor has entry-level, operational subordinates

while the second-level manager supervises first-level supervisors and so on. They commented, however, that defining an employee’s organizational level is frequently more complex than simply moving upward in the hierarchy. Their research highlighted many cases in which employees functioned concurrently at one or more levels in the hierarchy, as well as split positions, where multiple employees had joint responsibility for one set of functions.

Similarly, Lawler and Rhode (1976) state that each organization must function on at least three distinct but overlapping levels, each having a somewhat different emphasis and focus. They label the three organizational levels as operating, managerial, and strategic. The operating level’s tasks involve the development, use, and procurement of resources to deliver the organization’s goods, services, or ideas. The managerial level personnel perform two basic functions: supervision of the operating level and mediating between this level and customers, both internal and external. Those at the strategic level steer the managerial level and make sure it operates properly within the bounds of the larger social system.

Although, organizations support varied hierarchies across reporting lines and business functions, contemporary research findings support the foundational theories of

Katz and Kahn (Kaiser et al., 2011). The organizational theorists state in 1978 that although there were many hierarchical levels within organizations, most could be collapsed into three higher order levels (Kaiser et al., 2011). Katz and Kahn (1978) asserted that top, middle, and bottom level employees exhibit substantially different patterns of performance, leadership, and behaviors within the organization. The skills appropriate at one level may be irrelevant or even dysfunctional at another level. Each

level of the hierarchy calls for different intellectual styles, different levels and types of

knowledge, and different affective characteristics.

Organizational Role Theory

Organizational stress can also result from employees’ roles within an

organization. Role theory represents a bridge between the organizational environment

and the individual (Katz & Kahn, 1978) The concept of a role, according to Biddle and

Thomas (1966) is the central idea in role theory. Individuals occupy societal positions;

their role performance in these positions follows social norms, demands, and rules, by the

role performances of others in their respective positions, and by the individual's

capabilities and personality. Roles serve as the boundary between the individual and the

organization, while also representing expectations for both. They serve as a means to link organizations with individuals (Biddle & Thomas, 1966; Katz & Kahn, 1978).

Organizational roles are the structural elements that define an individual’s behavior when occupying a position (Getzels & Guba, 1957). A role describes a set of

behavioral expectations relative to a position within a specific social construct or

structure (Rizzo et al., 1970). Expectations define the behaviors required of a person

filling a role, or by others who relate to the role (Rizzo et al., 1970). In the workplace,

professional roles develop via job requirements, written communications from

supervisors, or verbal discussions.

According to Kahn et al. (1964), role theory suggests that individuals in work

organizations occupy offices. Office, or status, is a relational concept defining an

individual’s position relative to others in an organization or social system. The position’s

activities make up the role of the individual occupying the office (focal person). Since the

organization is a system of interdependent actions, the person performing a given role, or focal person, interacts with a group of people within or outside his social system, known as his role-set. The roles of the focal person and his role-set are interdependent, meaning that the performance of the focal person is dependent on the performance of his role-set,

and vice versa.

Members of the role-set have role expectations, the appropriate behaviors

expected of the focal person in their role. The expectations of the role-set are communicated (sent) to the focal person. The focal person is the target of the role- sending process, intended to bring about alignment with the expectations of the role-set.

Along with the sent role, there is a received role, which includes the focal person's perception of the message. The pressure associated with the received role will influence the role behavior and role performance of the focal person.

Kahn and Kahn (1978) propose a model (Figure 5) identifying factors affecting organizational roles. The model suggests that organizational factors (circle E) affect the individual's expectation regarding the role behavior of themselves and others. These expectations determine the nature and content of the sent role. The role-set conveys its expectations to the focal person in the form of norms, or pressures, to act in a certain way. The focal person receives these sent role pressures, interprets them, and reacts. If the focal person perceives the sent role pressures as clear, there may be few problems.

However, if the focal person perceives the pressures to be conflicting or ambiguous, they may act in a manner not expected by their role-set.

Personal attributes (circle F) and interpersonal relationships (circle G) also have an impact on how the received role differs from sent roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Personal

attributes refer to the person's motives, values, fears, and propensity to act in specific

ways. These personal attributes affect the sent role by influencing the role sender's

selection of the sent role and the focal person's perception of the sent role. Interpersonal relationships within the environment affect the communication of the sent role and its interpretation by the focal person.

Organizational role theory suggests that social organizations can place difficult, conflicting, or impossible demands on role incumbents (Katz & Kahn, 1978). These demands can be functional or dysfunctional and can result in role stress. Organizational theorists have conceptualized role conflict and role ambiguity as forms of role stress.

Figure 5. A theoretical model of factors involved in taking organizational roles.

Reprinted from The Social Psychology of Organizations (p. 196), by D. Katz and R. L.

Kahn (1978), Wiley. Reprinted with permission (See Appendix D).

As indicated by Rizzo et al. (1970), inconsistency between professional and organizational standards can cause an individual to find irregularities in the behaviors expected of them. Jackson and Shuler (1985; 2014), suggest that commitment may

partially determine the experienced levels of ambiguity and conflict. Those who have a

desire to succeed within an organization are adept at determining others’ expectations of

them and thereby reducing role ambiguity. They are also less susceptible to person-role

conflict because they are more likely to conform to the values of the organization in order

to meet professional goals.

Jackson and Schuler suggested that role conflict and role ambiguity be regarded

as separate constructs because they impact organizations differently, a result supported by

empirical observations. In examining role conflict as a separate dimension, Jackson and

Schuler propose that the examination should distinguish among the various types of role

conflict empirically and theoretically identified. The scholars reason that each type of

role conflict might possess a unique relationship to variables and outcomes.

Role Conflict

Role conflict is a regular occurrence in all social systems (Bertrand, 1971; Biddle,

1986; C. D. Cooper et al., 2018; Hellriegel & Slocum, 2008). Throughout social science

history, scientists define role conflict in different ways. Some define role conflict as

incompatible expectations experienced by individuals in the work environment, whether

they are aware of the conflict or not (Biddle, 1986; Katz & Kahn, 1978). Others use role

conflict to describe situations in which the individual perceives incompatible expectations

(Morris et al., 2017). Bertrand (1971) defines two types of role conflict. The first occurs when an organizational model calls for immoral, improper, or unethical behavior by the standards of the social norm. The second type of role conflict is behavioral, characterized by an individual's inability to perform two roles at once. According to (Weinberg et al.,

2015), role conflict occurs if an individual lacks the necessary skills or the personality required for optimal performance in a role.

The misalignment between sent role expectations and individual behavior, based on the incumbent’s self-concept of what he should or should not do, defines the concept of person-role conflict discussed by House and Rizzo (1972) and Biddle (1986). In cases where the expectations of the sent role differ from the values and beliefs of the focal person, person-role, or intra-role, conflict may develop. The individual is at odds with external expectations and internal values and belief systems. The authors note that individuals could experience other forms of role conflict. Person-role conflict, however, is the result of the interaction of the external role-set and the individual's internal self- concept of the role.

Kopelman et al. (1983) define role conflict as the degree to which individuals experience pressure within one role that does not align with pressures for another role.

Role conflict occurs when there is a conflict between the requirements of an individual’s roles and their abilities to perform those roles. According to Ebbers and Wijnberg (2017), role conflict occurs when individuals deal with incompatible or inconsistent work demands.

At given points in time, role senders may impose pressures on the focal person to perform different kinds of roles (Katz & Kahn, 1978). To the extent that these role pressures motivate the focal person, they will experience psychological conflict, created by the conflicting expectations (Kahn et al., 1964). Sent role conflict is defined as the coinciding occurrence of two or more sets of pressures or behavior expectations, such that compliance with one would make compliance with the other difficult.

Kahn et al. (1964) propose four basic types of role conflict. Intra-sender conflict occurs when expectations from a single member of a role-set are incompatible or contradictory. When expectations from one sender are incompatible with those from other senders, inter-sender conflict arises. Inter-role conflict happened when the sent expectations for one role conflict with those for another role. Finally, person-role conflict occurs when role requirements violate the needs, values, or capacities of the focal person.

Miles and Perreault (1976) support these definitions of role conflict. The used a comprehensive model that relates role conflict to its antecedents and consequences. The scholars were able to show that when compared to antecedents (integration and boundary spanning activities) and consequences (job-related tension and job satisfaction), distinct conflict types were isolated (person-role conflict, inter-sender conflict, intra-sender conflict, and overload).

As Rizzo et al. (1970) explain, several factors cause role conflict. Possible factors include conflict between an individual's internal values or standards and the behaviors required to perform their role; conflict between the resources, time, or capabilities of an individual's roles; conflict between the roles of different people, which may be incompatible; conflicting expectations and organizational demands, in the form of requests from others; and incompatible organizational policies or evaluation standards. In professional settings, employees often experience several expectations from their co- workers, themselves, and their leaders. When these expectations do not align, conflict can occur (Belias et al., 2015). Organizations should try to reduce role conflict and role ambiguity because of the associated negative consequences, including dissatisfaction,

reduced organizational commitment, anxiety, and poor performance (Ebbers & Wijnberg,

2017).

Role conflicts are inevitable, but they can be productive in some cases (Hellriegel

& Slocum, 2008). However, Kahn et al. (1964) contend role conflict and its related pressures are harmful for the organization as a social system and detrimental to the person experiencing the role conflict. Belias et al. (2015) wrote that individuals in high conflict roles experience more internal conflicts, reduced job satisfaction, and decreased confidence in supervisors and organizations. Kahn et al. (1964) believe a typical reaction to role conflict is social and emotional withdrawal, resulting in diminished communication. Social relationships with an individual’s co-workers decline during role conflict episodes, along with the decline of perceptions regarding the job and the organization.

Researchers simultaneously study the effects of role conflict on individuals and organizations. For example, Belias et al. (2015) examine the relationships between role conflict, job satisfaction, and autonomy among a sample of Greek banking employees.

The researchers surveyed participants to assess for six dimensions of satisfaction, conflict, and autonomy. Results reveal that role conflict negatively correlated with satisfaction, and that autonomy moderates this relationship.

In another study, Amilin (2017) examined the effect of role conflict and role ambiguity on the performance of accountants. The researchers also examined the moderating effects of emotional quotient. Survey data were collected from 122 accountants to examine role conflict, role ambiguity, and emotional quotient. Findings reveal that role conflict negatively affected accountants' performance, while role

ambiguity had no significant effects. The researchers report that emotional quotient moderates the relationship between role conflict and performance, suggesting that accountants with better emotional quotients can manage their emotions, which may reduce the harmful effects of role conflict on their performance. Emotional quotient did not moderate the relationship between role ambiguity and performance.

In a similar study, Afifah et al. (2015) examined the relationships between role conflict, self-efficacy, and emotional quotient. The researchers surveyed 145 auditors from 29 accounting firms. The analysis reveals that role conflict was negatively associated with auditor performance and that emotional quotient moderated this relationship. Similar to recommendations by Amilin (2017), Afifah et al. (2015) recommended training to help improve auditor’s emotional quotient, as this may improve their work performance when work conflict exists.

Some research indicates role conflict can have a positive effect on employee performance. For example, Schepers et al. (2016) conducted a study to understand how role conflict may create improvements in employee performance. The researchers purport that role conflict can prompt performance improvements among employees, but only when they have a propensity for learning, as well as supportive managers. However, without supportive managers and an orientation toward learning, role conflict is usually detrimental to employee performance.

Researchers also examine the effects of role conflict among education personnel.

For example, Eckman (2004) examined the ways gender influences the relationship between role conflict, role commitment, and job satisfaction. Participants included 327 female high school principals located in three states. Data collected via survey reveals

that role conflict had a significant and negative relationship with job satisfaction for the

group of principals. The researchers also found that younger principals experienced more

role conflict and that the longer individuals served as principals, the less role conflict they

experienced, and subsequently, the higher their levels of job satisfaction. The researchers

found that female principals might experience more role conflict as they struggle to

balance their professional roles and demands with those of their families and personal

relationships.

In another study, Cervoni & DeLucia-Waack (2011) investigated the relationship

between role conflict, role ambiguity, time spent on the American School Counselor

Association recommended duties, and job satisfaction among high school counselors. The analysis reveals role conflict is a strong predictor of job satisfaction. Because of multiple

and often conflicting demands, high school counselors may feel pressure to make

decisions regarding which services to provide and how to provide them under the

constraints of limited resources and time.

Celik (2013) studied burnout among vice principals, specifically examining how

role conflict and role ambiguity affect burnout and job performance, both directly and

indirectly. Data collected via survey consisted of the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the

Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity Questionnaire, and the Job Performance Scale.

Findings reveal that both role conflict and role ambiguity significantly affect job

performance. Role conflict directly increased job performance, while role ambiguity

directly decreased job performance. Of the three burnout dimensions, emotional

exhaustion fully mediated the relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity, and job

performance. Personal accomplishment partially mediated the relationship between role

ambiguity and job performance, and depersonalization partially mediated the relationship

between role conflict and job performance. These findings reveal the different ways the

three burnout dimensions may influence the effects of role conflict and role ambiguity on

the job.

Role Ambiguity

Role ambiguity is the absence of clear and consistent communication regarding

expectations required for a person to perform their role successfully (Katz & Kahn,

1978). Role ambiguity occurs when behavioral expectations are unclear. The absence of

ambiguity is essential to organizational success on many levels (Mañas et al., 2018).

Rizzo et al. (1970) explain role ambiguity as the lack of clear behavioral requirements of

a role, which creates guidelines for expected behaviors.

Kahn et al. (1964) describe role ambiguity as the lack of clarity in understanding

actions required to achieve individual goals. Palomino & Frezatti (2016) define role ambiguity as a responsible individual’s uncertainty about appropriate actions. A lack of information about responsibilities, expectations of performance, and expectations of behaviors can contribute to role ambiguity (J. W. Lee et al., 2010). Essentially, role

ambiguity can occur when an individual lacks the information needed to perform their

duties (Fisher, 2001).

According to Fisher (2001), in order to avoid role ambiguity, organizations should

provide relevant expectations regarding the performance of a role; crucial activities for

fulfilling the duties of a position and the best strategies for fulfilling those duties; an

awareness of the consequences of succeeding or failing at carrying out expected duties;

an understanding of awards or punishments related to satisfactory or unsatisfactory

performance of expected roles; and opportunities to advance. Role ambiguity induces

stress and leads to coping mechanisms, such as withdrawal, hostility, or aggressive behavior (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2008; McGrath, 1976).

David Lee (2017) explains that two elements that may reduce role ambiguity are clarity and predictability, which can be difficult to achieve in complex social systems.

Without these elements, ambiguity may become a significant source of frustration and anxiety, limiting an individual's effectiveness and productivity. According to Lee (2017), role ambiguity can stem from organizational complexity, rapid organizational change, or managerial philosophies. As the size of an organization increases, the division of labor also becomes more complex. If an organization’s size and complexity begin to exceed an individual's comprehension, they are more likely to experience role ambiguity.

Ambiguity causes emotional strain and leads to withdrawal, creating a situation that is not

conducive to the communication needed to form or maintain close, supportive social

relations (Kahn et al., 1964).

According to McGrath (1976), ambiguity originates from varied areas within the

purview of an individual's responsibilities. He hypothesizes ambiguity correlates with the extent of one's responsibilities, such as limits of one's authority, job security, and professional opportunities. Like Kahn, et al. (1964), McGrath credits role ambiguity for interpersonal strain, reduced job satisfaction, declines in self-esteem, and a reduction in positive feelings for co-workers. McGrath, in contrast to Kahn and his associates, hypothesizes that ambiguity would initially enhance rather than decrease communication.

However, he found that role ambiguity worsens over time, as information transfer within an organization becomes increasingly limited.

Erera (1992) agrees that role ambiguity relates to social support. For example, a

role can generate social support when there is a lack of information about one’s

professional responsibilities. An individual may cope with role ambiguity by seeking

more information. Consequently, this type of behavior increases an individual’s

communication with others and further develops their interpersonal relationships.

Conversely, role ambiguity may reduce the number of communication channels and

cause a focal person to withdraw from the senders. Withdrawals have a direct effect on

interpersonal relationships, causing deteriorations to trust, respect, and affection for the

role sender.

Role ambiguity can have several effects on employees and organizations. For

example, high levels of role ambiguity can lead to exhaustion, burnout, and depression

(Schmidt et al., 2014; Singh et al., 2012). As Mañas et al. (2018) explain, if established guidelines do not exist in the workplace, employees must rely on their experiences to make decisions. Decisions based on individuals’ varying levels of experience, rather than systematic, organization-wide approaches, can lead to mistakes and adverse outcomes.

Ambiguity regarding an employee’s expected objectives can lead to doubts about performance, uncertainties about performance assessments, and a lack of clarity regarding the consequences associated with objectives (Rogalsky et al., 2016).

Alternatively, when clarity on roles and expectations exist, employees perform their work with more accuracy and efficiency (Mañas et al., 2018).

Researchers describe role ambiguity as an affective state that can influence individuals and organizations in many ways. For example, role ambiguity can undermine the individual, team, and organizational performance (Doherty & Hoye, 2011; Ortqvist &

Wincent, 2006; Sakires et al., 2009). When individual employees experience the harmful effects of role ambiguity, those effects can spread throughout an organization via emotional contagion (Mañas et al., 2018).

Palomino and Frezatti (2016) examined the effects of role conflict and role ambiguity on the job satisfaction of 114 Brazilian controllers. The researchers assessed role conflict and role ambiguity using Rizzo et al.'s (1970) questionnaire and job satisfaction using Tarrant and Sabo's (2010) instrument. The analysis reveals that role

conflict and role ambiguity both negatively associate with job satisfaction.

In another study, Mañas et al. (2018) investigated the effect that role ambiguity

had on affective engagement and extra-role performance among a sample of 706

employees of a multinational company. Extra-role performance describes behaviors and

actions that exceed communicated performance and behavioral expectations (Mañas et

al., 2018). Mañas et al.’s (2018) findings reveal that role ambiguity negatively associates

with extra-role performance, and that affective engagement mediates this relationship.

Overall, the researchers report that high role ambiguity had a strong influence on

employee functioning.

The lack of certainty about how to perform a job can also create negative feelings

that increase individuals’ likelihood of leaving their jobs (Schmidt et al., 2014; Trepanier

et al., 2013). For example, De Clercq and Belausteguigoitia (2019) examined the ways

role ambiguity may affect turnover intentions. The researchers surveyed 764 employees

of a large Mexican pharmaceutical distributor. The survey assessed respondents’ turnover

intentions, innovation propensity, goodwill trust, and procedural justice. The analysis

reveals that role ambiguity positively associates with increased turnover intentions;

however, this relationship diminished when higher levels of procedural justice, goodwill trust, and innovation propensity were present. Role ambiguity is likely to increase employees’ turnover intentions when they lack access to specific resources, such as finding joy from creating solutions to challenging work situations or drawing on trustworthy relationships with co-workers.

Other factors can influence the impact of role ambiguity on workers. For example,

Urien et al. (2017) investigated the relationships between role ambiguity, job satisfaction, and group cohesion. Participants included 537 blue collars workers employed by a multinational company, organized into groups. Findings reveal that role ambiguity negatively associates with job satisfaction. Although the researchers expected higher levels of group cohesion to buffer the harmful effects of ambiguity on job satisfaction, results indicate that group work could have an opposite effect.

Certain personality factors, such as creativity, may protect against the adverse effects of role ambiguity. For example, Grobelna (2015) investigated the relationship between creativity and role ambiguity among a sample of hotel employees. The researchers hypothesize that the expectation that staff members provide individualized treatment to hotel guests might make it difficult for them to have clear role expectations in all situations. Thus, the ability and willingness to seek creative solutions in the absence of clear roles may buffer against the potentially harmful effects of role ambiguity. Results reveal that employee creativity significantly and negatively associates with role ambiguity; that is, creative employees did not feel their roles were ambiguous, even if they lacked clear role expectations in all circumstances. The scholars explain that creative

employees with higher intellect are more likely to be creative on the job, thus mitigating

the harmful effects of role ambiguity.

The effects of role ambiguity may not always be negative. For example, Sayers et

al. (2015) conducted a study to examine the roles of Australian nurse educators in terms

of practice and performance standards. The researchers conducted a cross-sectional online survey. Results reveal that nurses had high levels of job satisfaction, despite significant role ambiguity. The researchers suggest clarifying nurses’ roles, providing validation of their performance, and having supportive managers can help circumvent the harmful effects of role ambiguity.

Role ambiguity studies in education settings have primarily focused on the ways role ambiguity affects employees. For example, Kanchika et al. (2015) examined the ways role ambiguity can cause stress, which prompts aggression in teachers. Results reveal that high levels of role ambiguity associate with hostility and physical aggression caused by occupational stress. In another study, Liu and Liu (2017) report that role ambiguity creates professional stress among new teachers, which increases their turnover

intentions. Mérida-López, Extremera, and Rey (2017) found that role ambiguity was

negatively associated with teachers’ vigor and dedication, but that emotional intelligence

could help boost engagement when role ambiguity was significantly present. In a study

on burnout among special and general education teachers, Moss (2015) contends that role

ambiguity leads to a reduced sense of personal accomplishment. In another study, Yaacob

and Long (2015) found that role ambiguity causes reduced job satisfaction among

teachers. Sana and Aslam (2018) report that role ambiguity positively correlates with

work-family conflict among higher education teachers. The researchers also report that

male teachers scored higher on role ambiguity than did female teachers.

Patton (2019) found that role ambiguity significantly and positively associates with reduced job satisfaction among elementary, middle, and high school counselors.

Curran and Prottas (2017) examined the relationships between role stressors (role ambiguity, role conflict, and role overload), engagement, and work behaviors among a sample of 349 postsecondary staff working in 17 U.S. institutions. The researchers report that perceptions of higher role ambiguity associate with lower levels of work engagement and organizational citizenship behaviors. Of the three role stressors examined, role ambiguity had the most significant and adverse effects.

Summary

Research indicates that chronic job stress has many damaging effects on individuals, such as burnout. Several specific work-related stressors can contribute to burnout, including long work hours (Lim et al., 2010) and a lack of social support from co-workers (Kay-Eccles, 2012) Burnout consistently leads to adverse outcomes at individual and organizational levels. These outcomes include anxiety, depression, disturbed mood (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012; Hillhouse et al., 2000), reduced job performance (Bakker & Heuven, 2006) increased absenteeism (Schaufeli et al., 2009), reduced job satisfaction (J. Lee et al., 2011), and reduced organizational commitment

(Gunlu et al., 2010).

Two specific types of organizational stress that can contribute to burnout are role conflict and role ambiguity (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Role conflict and role ambiguity are types of role stress resulting from the interaction between role senders and focal persons

within their work environment (Kahn et al., 1964). Role conflict describes the degree to

which individuals experience pressure within one role that does not align with demands for another role (D. R. Cooper & Schindler, 2013). Role ambiguity is the absence of clear and consistent communication regarding expectations required for a person to perform their role successfully (Katz & Kahn, 1978).

This chapter provided an overview of the theoretical framework for this study, as well as the analysis and synthesis of existing, relevant research. The summary demonstrates that while much is known, inadequacies in current research create the need for this study. The following chapter includes details of the proposed method and design, including the sample, data collection, and analysis strategies. Chapter 4 presents the results of the investigation. Chapter 5 presents findings, conclusions, and recommendations resulting from the study.

CHAPTER III - METHODOLOGY

The purpose of this quantitative research is to determine the relationship of burnout to the organizational stressors, role conflict and role ambiguity. The study also determines whether the relationships between the variables differ across organizational levels (top, middle, bottom; (Kaiser et al., 2011; Katz & Kahn, 1978; Shebeeb Al‐Ajmi,

2007; Williams, 2011) and other demographics. A review of the current literature supports the existence of significant relationships among these variables; the dynamic nature of the work environment lends credibility to the need for this research.

The first section of this chapter describes the research design used for the study.

The second section describes the population and sample selected for the study. Next, methods of data collection are described, followed by a discussion of the research instruments, including measures of reliability for each instrument. The final section details the statistical procedures appropriate to meet the research objectives.

Research Design

The nature of the proposed research is quantitative. Quantitative research is appropriate for examining relationships between variables (D. R. Cooper & Schindler,

2013), which is the goal of this research. This research follows a cross-sectional design using data collected from surveys. As discussed later in this chapter, the researcher performed a series of regression analyses to examine each of the research objectives.

The instrument used to collect data for this study is a quantitative survey. Surveys are useful for collecting information about a human population in which the researcher makes direct contact with the units of the study (individuals, organizations, communities;

Warwick & Lininger, 1975). The use of quantitative surveys involves surveying a sample to gauge the feedback of a population (Panke, 2018).

Research Objectives

The following seven objectives guide the research that follows:

RO1: Describe the demographics of participants (gender, education level,

professional role, hours worked per week, job tenure, organizational

tenure, and type of work tenure).

RO2: Determine if role conflict predicts employee burnout.

RO3: Determine if role ambiguity predicts employee burnout.

RO4: Determine if the organizational level of employees moderates the

relationship between role conflict and burnout.

RO5: Determine if the organizational level of employees moderates the

relationship between role ambiguity and burnout.

RO6: Determine if demographic variables of employees (gender, education level,

and job tenure) moderate the relationships between role conflict and

burnout.

RO7: Determine if demographic variables of employees (gender, education level,

and job tenure) moderate the relationships between role ambiguity and

burnout.

Variables

A review of the related literature identified variables that demonstrate a relationship with burnout, supported by the Maslach (1998) theory of burnout and Katz and Kahn’s (1966) organizational role theory. For this study, the researcher selected

variables based on research regarding higher education, burnout, its causes, and

consequences. In addition to burnout, role conflict, and role ambiguity, the study

variables include: organizational level, gender, education level, job tenure, organization

tenure, and type of work tenure.

According to Schaufeli and Enzmann (1998), burnout is more common among

people with advanced education, possibly because increasingly educated individuals are

ambitious in seeking career accomplishments. In connection with the length of

employment at a particular organization or time in a given position, employees who are

new to a profession are more likely to experience burnout (Blix et al., 1994). Blix et al.

(1994) report contradicting results about gender’s influence on burnout, depending on the

industry studied. An employee’s level within a hierarchical organization can also

contribute to burnout (Erera, 1992; Garton, 2017).

Employee roles were classified using the College and University Personnel

Association-Human Resources (CUPA-HR) salary surveys for Administrators,

Professionals, and Staff in Higher Education (CUPA-HR - College and University

Professional Association for Human Resources, 2020). Faculty, or those providing instruction, are included in CUPA-HR’s salary survey for Faculty. Faculty positions were not included as part of this study. Using CUPA-HR’s descriptions of these categories and the relevant positions included in each, the researcher identified three broad organizational levels:

Top – consists of common positions listed in the survey for Administrators:

Dean, Assistant/Associate Vice President, and Vice President.

Middle – consists of common positions listed in the survey for Professionals:

Department Chair, Director, and Assistant Director.

Bottom - consists of common positions listed in the survey for Staff: Manager,

Team Lead/Supervisor, and other staff (Shebeeb Al‐Ajmi, 2007).

Population and Sample

A study population describes the entire group from which data will be obtained

(Banerjee & Chaudhury, 2010) A study sample describes the portion of the population

that will be studied to gather information that can be applied to the wider population

(Webster, 1985). For this study, the population is non-teaching staff members of

postsecondary institutions (such as non-teaching staff at higher education institutions).

Although researchers have conducted few studies on the stress experienced by

administrative professionals, such as non-teaching staff in higher education, evidence

indicates administrative professionals may experience high-stress levels with significant

consequences (Shafi et al., 2016).

Research also indicates that employees of postsecondary institutions are prone to

increased levels of job stress. According to Barkhuizen et al. (2014), academic employees affected by the upswing in workplace stress include administrators, faculty, and support staff, irrespective of their roles. Teaching and non-teaching professionals are at risk for job burnout because of their exchanges with one another and their interactions with student populations; both require constant person to person engagement (Maslach et al., 2001).

While researchers tend to focus on the stress experienced by educators, at all levels, incidence of work-related stress is also increasing among non-teaching, administrative, and support professionals in higher education (Schulz, 2013). According to Schulz (2013), work-

related stressors differ between teaching faculty and non-teaching staff based on roles.

Tasks for administrative staff and other non-academic employees usually include

ensuring the operational continuity of institutions. In addition to a diverse population, the

needs of both students and teaching faculty place pressures on non-teaching and administrative staff. While carrying out job responsibilities, administrative and support personnel must often consult with other stakeholders before implementing intended changes, further increasing job stress. Non-teaching staff in higher education often juggle multiple roles, resulting in requirements to please many stakeholders.

Historically, non-teaching staff at postsecondary institutions have rated second in levels of job stress, with only nurses reporting higher levels of stress (Olivares-Faúndez et al., 2014). Increases in employee stress may be attributable to growing consumer demands and technological changes (Baseman et al., 2018). Regulatory and policy-level changes at postsecondary institutions, alongside growing competition within the field of higher education, may also contribute to increasing stress among non-teaching staff

(Barkhuizen et al., 2014; Blix et al., 1994). As stress increases, the need to understand causes and to determine mitigation strategies intensifies (Baseman et al., 2018).

For these reasons, the population of focus for this study consists of all non- teaching full-time employees of 15 community colleges located in one U.S. state. In

2017, the population’s state was recognized by Gallup as having the highest percentage of engaged employees in the nation (Gallup Inc, 2017) For this particular state, the number of non-teaching staff totals approximately 1,000. To be eligible to participate in this research, individuals had to be (a) at least 18 years old, (b) employed full-time, and

The sampling strategy for this study is non-random, convenience, and purposive.

Non-random sampling is a strategy in which the odds of selection for a sample are not equal for all members of a population (Uprichard, 2011). Convenience sampling is a non- random strategy that utilizes easily accessible members of a target population who meet practical criteria outlined for an investigation (Etikan et al., 2016). Purposive samples are those that possess specific characteristics or qualities selected by a researcher (Etikan et al., 2016). Sampling was convenient because the researcher used participants from academic institutions, who were accessible using publicly posted information. In addition, the sample is purposive because, to complete the survey, participants met the aforementioned inclusion criteria.

Sample size analyses were conducted for simple linear regression and moderation analysis, which comprised of multiple linear regressions. The sample size analyses were conducted using G*Power 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al., 2009). The analyses were conducted using a medium effect size (f2 = 0.15), an alpha of .05, and a power of .80 (Cohen, 1992). For the simple linear regression, a sample of at least 55 participants is required. For the multiple linear regression with two predictors (the moderation analyses), a sample of at least 68 participants is required. A sample large enough to meet the more stringent size guidelines, 68 participants was required for the study.

Instruments

According to Creswell (2014), the survey is an appropriate and efficient means of data collection for quantitative data. Also, when the respondents are familiar with the information sought, and when the researcher has prior knowledge of the problems and the range of responses likely to emerge, a survey is a suitable research design. The researcher

used a Qualtrics (Qualtrics, 2020) student account, issued by The University of Southern

Mississippi, to collect data via an online survey consisting of three instruments: the

Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (Demerouti et al., 2010), the Role Conflict/Role Ambiguity

Questionnaire (Rizzo et al., 1970), and a demographic questionnaire (see Appendix E).

Although other instruments were considered for measuring burnout, role conflict, and

role ambiguity, the OLBI and the RCRAQ scales were selected because of low expense,

ease of use, strong validity, and shorter lengths.

Oldenburg Burnout Inventory

The researcher assessed burnout using the English version of the OLBI

(Demerouti et al., 2010). Although the most popular burnout instrument is the original

Maslach Burnout Inventory, now known as the MBI: Human Services Survey (MBI-

HSS; Maslach & Jackson, 1981), other professionals have criticized the psychometric properties of the MBI-HSS (Demerouti et al., 2001). For example, Halbesleben and

Demerouti (2005) argue that the MBI only measures affective exhaustion and that wording of some of the items are one-directional, meaning that they are all phrased negatively or positively. The factorial validity of the MBI-HSS is questioned because of one-directional items, indicating that the instrument may not measure the intended dimension. Accordingly, the researcher chose the OLBI, developed to overcome the psychometric issues of the MBI (Reis et al., 2015) for the proposed study.

The OLBI (Demerouti et al., 2010) consists of 16 items; eight of which measure exhaustion, and eight that measure disengagement. Each of the subscales includes four positively worded items and four negatively worded items. Participants respond to each item using a four-point, Likert-type scale that ranges from 1 (strongly agree) to 4

(strongly disagree). The reliability of both subscales is strong; the Cronbach’s alphas for

the exhaustion scale is .87, and the Cronbach’s alpha for the disengagement scale is .81

(Reis et al., 2015). Researchers have confirmed the factorial validity of the OLBI in the

United States (Halbesleben & Demerouti, 2005). In addition, the convergent validity of

the OLBI and MBI have been confirmed among U.S. samples (Halbesleben &

Demerouti, 2005). The test-retest reliability of the OLBI has also been confirmed

(Demerouti & Bakker, 2008). Items 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, and 15 measure disengagement,

while items 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 16 measure exhaustion. The following items are

reverse-scored: 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, and 16 (Demerouti et al., 2010). Scores are

computed as the average of the eight items for each subscale. According to both the

creators of the MBI (Maslach et al., 2010) and the OLBI (Peterson et al., 2008),

exhaustion and disengagement measurements fall on a continuum. Results are relative to

the resulting scores of other individuals or groups. There is no cost associated with using

this instrument, but written permission is indicated in Appendix F.

Role Conflict/Role Ambiguity Questionnaire

The second instrument used was the Role Conflict/Role Ambiguity Questionnaire

(Rizzo et al., 1970), which assesses role conflict and role ambiguity. Role conflict

describes the degree to which expectations associated with a job are in conflict or

incompatible with other demands (Lester et al., 2014). Role ambiguity refers to the

degree to which an individual is unclear about the expectations associated with his or her

role and performance (Lester et al., 2014). The RCRAQ consists of 14 items: eight that

gauge role conflict and six that gauge role ambiguity. The instrument uses a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (completely true) to 7 (completely false) to measure each item. The

RCRAQ is scored based on an average of the summative score of each dimension

(Schuler et al., 1977). High role ambiguity scores indicate feelings of comfort with a role, while low scores indicate ambiguity. High role conflict scores suggest higher levels of conflict. In terms of reliability, the six role ambiguity scores had an alpha coefficient of

0.73, while the eight role conflict items had an alpha coefficient of 0.88. Items 1, 3, 5, 8,

10, and 13 measure role ambiguity, and the remaining items measure role conflict (Lester et al., 2014).

The RCRAQ has been independently verified and tested for reliability. In a two- sample study, Rizzo et al. (1970) report internal reliability coefficients of .816 and .820 for role conflict and .780 and .808 for role ambiguity. Murphy and Gable (1988) reported reliability coefficients of.81 for both scales. Schwab et al.’s (1983) work revealed alpha estimates of .86 for role ambiguity and .85 for role conflict. Khan, Yusoff, Khan, Yasir, and Khan (2014) examined the validity of the RCRAQ; sufficient construct validity was noted. Further examination via confirmatory factor analysis revealed good fit and adequate convergent validity. Written permission to use this instrument is indicated in

Appendix G.

Demographic Questionnaire

Finally, the researcher collected information regarding the moderating factors via a researcher-developed demographic questionnaire. In addition to providing data required for the moderating factors, this questionnaire also allowed the researcher to collect descriptive statistics to characterize the sample. The information depicted in Table 1 was collected: gender, education level, professional role, hours worked per week, job tenure, organizational tenure, and type of work tenure.

Table 1

Survey Map Aligning Research Objectives and Survey Questions

Research Research Objective Objective Questions RO1 Describe the demographics of participants Q1-Q7 (gender, education level, hours worked per week, job tenure, organizational tenure, and type of work tenure). RO2 Determine if role conflict predicts employee Q8-Q23, Q2, Q4, Q6, burnout. Q7, Q9, Q11, Q12, Q14 RO3 Determine if role ambiguity predicts Q8-Q23, Q1, Q3, Q5, employee burnout. Q8, Q10, Q13 RO4 Determine if the organizational level of Q3, Q8-Q23, Q2, Q4, employees moderates the relationship between Q6, Q7, Q9, Q11, role conflict and burnout. Q12, Q14 RO5 Determine if the organizational level of Q3, Q8-Q23, Q1, Q3, employees moderates the relationship between Q5, Q8, Q10, Q13 role ambiguity and burnout. RO6 Determine if demographic variables of Q1, Q2, Q4-Q7, Q8- employees (gender, education level, and job Q23, Q2, Q4, Q6, tenure) moderate the relationships between Q7, Q9, Q11, Q12, role conflict and burnout. Q14 RO7 Determine if demographic variables of Q1, Q2, Q4-Q7, Q8- employees (gender, education level, and job Q23, Q1, Q3, Q5, tenure) moderate the relationships between Q8, Q10, Q13 role ambiguity and burnout.

Data Collection

Prior to any form of data collection, the researcher engaged in a series of requests and approvals. First, the study gained approval from The University of Southern

Mississippi’s Institutional Review Board (IRB; see Appendix H). The researcher completed an IRB application to obtain research approval. The objective of this process is to ensure all research involving human participants is conducted in an ethical manner.

Consent to Participate

The researcher used publicly available campus email addresses to distribute the

study invitation to employees (see Appendix I). The invitation email described the

purpose of the study, participation requirements, the anonymous and voluntary nature of participation, and provided the researcher's contact information. The email invited

interested participants to click on an embedded link, which redirected them to the study

survey. Before participants could access the survey, they were required to read an online

informed consent form and indicate their consent to participate by clicking a button that

states, "Yes, I consent." The survey routed individuals who provided consent to the first

question of the study survey, and those who refused to provide consent to a screen

thanking them for their time and interest. Notification to the participants included an

assurance that the researcher would make every effort to keep their participation and the

information provided in the instrument confidential. The online survey was estimated to

take no more than ten minutes to complete.

Maximizing Response Rate

An examination of behavioral and psychological literature by Rosenthal and

Rosnow (2009) led to best practices to increase response and thus reduce bias in

experimental and quasi-experimental studies. Among their suggestions was to make

participation as appealing as possible, explicitly stating the importance of the research,

using monetary incentives, and having support from a person of high status. Sauermann

and Roach (2013) and Dillman (2011) report that follow-ups and monetary incentives are

the only methods that increase response rates in regular or electronic mail surveys.

According to Dillman (2011), response rates are a function of both the design of the survey instrument and its implementation. Implementation procedures have a much greater influence, and multiple contacts with respondents are the primary factor in improving response rates. Dillman also notes that the second most important factor is the

use of incentives to encourage participation. Accordingly, the researcher sent a reminder

email approximately one week after the initial email (see Appendix J). Also, respondents

were given the option to enter a raffle for one of ten $50 Visa gift cards (see Appendix

K). If the respondent replied in the affirmative, they were redirected to a second survey to

facilitate the collection of contact information, separate from the study’s anonymous

survey. The collected contact information was only used for notification to the

respondent who were chosen as recipients of a gift card. Table 2 presents the data

collection plan:

Table 2

Data Collection Plan

Week Task

Week Zero Obtain IRB approval and administer pilot study.

Week One Request permission to survey employees

Week Two Distribute online survey via email, through Institutional Research, to all public higher education, non-teaching staff

Week Three Distribute reminder via email, through Institutional Research, to all public higher education, non-teaching staff

Week Four and Five Gather survey results, download data to SPSS Determine gift card recipients and email gift cards

Week Six and Seven Complete data analysis

Data Analysis

Following the removal of cases with missing data, the researcher calculated

average scores for role ambiguity, role conflict, and burnout. Descriptive statistics were calculated for the composite scores. Means and standard deviations are reported to describe how the participants in the sample scored on the scales included in the instrument.

Prior to conducting the statistical analyses required to address the research objectives, the researcher tested the normality of participant data for role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout. The researcher conducted three Shapiro-Wilk tests for normality to determine if the data for the variables were normally distributed. The Shapiro-Wilk test assesses the null hypothesis stating the distribution of data is similar to a normal data distribution (Field, 2013). A p value of .05 or greater indicates that the assumption is met, and normality has not been violated (Field, 2013). Stevens (2009) indicated that the potential for inflation of Type I error rate, because of non-normal data, is minimal for F tests with a large sample. Sample sizes greater than 50 may be considered robust against violations in normality (Stevens, 2009). Table 3 presents the data analysis plan.

Table 3

Data Analysis Plan

Research Objective Data Scale Statistical Test RO1 Gender Nominal Frequency Distribution Education Level Ordinal Frequency Distribution Job, Organization, & Ordinal Frequency Distribution Work Tenure

RO2 Burnout (DV) Interval Simple Linear Role Conflict (IV) Interval Regression

Table 3 (continued).

Research Objective Data Scale Statistical Test Burnout (DV) Interval Simple Linear RO3 Role Ambiguity (IV) Interval Regression RO4 Burnout (DV) Interval Hierarchical Multiple Role Conflict (IV) Interval Linear Regression Organization Level (MV) Ordinal

RO5 Burnout (DV) Interval Hierarchical Multiple Role Ambiguity (IV) Interval Linear Regression Organization Level (MV) Ordinal

RO6 Burnout (DV) Interval Hierarchical Multiple Role Conflict (IV) Interval Linear Regression Gender Nominal Education Level Ordinal Job, Organization, & Ordinal Work Tenure (MVs)

RO7 Burnout (DV) Interval Hierarchical Multiple Role Ambiguity (IV) Interval Linear Regression Gender Nominal Education Level Ordinal Job, Organization, & Ordinal Work Tenure (MVs)

Research Objective One

A series of tests were conducted to address each of the research objectives for this study. To address Research Objective One, exploratory data analysis was used to examine the trends in gender, education, and work experience. Frequencies and percentage distributions was calculated on the demographics (see Table 4).

Research Objective Two and Three

To address Research Objectives Two and Three, simple linear regressions were used to determine the strength of the relationship between role ambiguity, role conflict, 67

and burnout (see Table 5). Simple linear regressions are appropriate when researchers intend to analyze predictive relationships between a continuous independent variable

(predictor) and a continuous dependent variable (criterion) (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2006).

For Research Objective Two, the predictor variable is role conflict, and the criterion variable is burnout.

For Research Objective Three, the predictor variable is role ambiguity, and the criterion variable is burnout. The researcher reports the R-squared coefficient to quantify the variation in the criterion variable accounted for by the predictor variable (see Table

6). An alpha level of .05 was used to determine if a statistically significant predictive relationship exists between the predictor variables and the criterion variables. If a statistically significant result is found, the researcher reports the beta coefficient to specify the change in the criterion variable for every one-unit change in the predictor variable (Pallant, 2013).

Research Objectives Four through Seven

To address Research Objectives Four through Seven, the researcher conducted

Baron and Kenny's (1986) moderation analyses. The Baron and Kenny (1986) moderation analysis consists of hierarchical regression analyses to evaluate the regulating effect of a third variable on the association between a predictor variable and a criterion variable (Aiken & West, 1991). Table 4 presents the predictor, criterion, and moderating variables included in the analyses. Moderating variables potentially influence the association between a predictor variable and a criterion variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Table 4

Predictor, Criterion, and Moderator Variables

Research Objective Predictor Variable Moderator Variable Criterion Variable 4 Role conflict Organizational level Burnout 5 Role ambiguity Organizational level Burnout Role conflict Gender, education Burnout 6 level, job tenure Role ambiguity Gender, education Burnout 7 level, job tenure

Assumptions for hierarchical multiple regression. The assumptions of simple linear regression were first tested prior to conducting the analyses for Research

Objectives 4-7. The assumptions of the analysis are linearity and homoscedasticity. The assumption of linearity assumes that the association between the predictor variable and the criterion variable can be graphically represented in a straight line (Pagano, 2008).

Homoscedasticity assumes that the error term is similar for all values of the predictor variable (Field, 2013). A residual scatterplot was examined to assess if these assumptions were met (Stevens, 2009).

The assumptions of multicollinearity and homoscedasticity were tested prior to conducting the analyses. For the assumption of multicollinearity to be met, the predictor variables cannot be highly correlated with each other (Pallant, 2013). According to Miles

(2005), multicollinearity can be examined by measuring tolerance or the Variance

Inflation Factor (VIF). A variable’s tolerance is a measure of collinearity equal to 1-R- squared. In multiple regression, a small tolerance value indicates that the variables under

investigation are too closely correlated. Research suggests that a tolerance value less than

0.1 indicates that multicollinearity may be a factor.

Multicollinearity indicates that the predictor variables might represent similar or

identical constructs, which potentially inflates the results of the regression analysis

(Pallant, 2013). For this study, VIF values were calculated and examined to determine if multicollinearity is present between the predictor variables (see Tables 8 through 11;

Stevens, 2009). Marquardt and Snee (1975) define the VIF for each term in a regression

model as a measure of the collective impact of the intercorrelations on the variance of the

coefficient of that term. The VIF measures the degree of correlation between a given predictor and the other predictors in a model and is the inverse of the measure of tolerance, hence, it is calculated as 1/(1 - R-squared). If the VIF values are greater than

10, the assumption of multicollinearity is violated (Stevens, 2009).

Finally, homoscedasticity was assessed through the examination of a scatterplot of the residual values versus the predicted values. According to Stevens (2009), the assumption of homoscedasticity is met if the points on the residual scatterplot are randomly distributed and approximately evenly distributed around zero. Evely distributed plots indicates that a predicted model is more likely to be representative of the population.

Moderation analyses. Baron and Kenny (1986) report that a moderator variable, like gender or education level, typically applies its effect on another predictor variable, by establishing its range of maximum effectiveness in regard to a given outcome variable.

For example, the gender of a subject may determine some amount of variance role

conflict accounts for when measuring burnout. A moderation analysis, as depicted in the

model below (see Figure 6) measures the effect of the interaction between the

independent variable and the moderating variable in explaining the dependent variable.

Baron and Kenny (1986) outlined four cases for testing the effects of moderating

variables depending upon the classification of the moderator and the predictor variable as

categorical or continuous. This study utilized the model for a categorical moderator and a continuous independent variable. In this case, Baron and Kenny report that researchers should measure moderation with regression coefficients rather than correlations, because a regression model is not affected by fluctuations in variances. Regression coefficients are not influenced by independent variable differences or by errors in the dependent variable measurement.

The moderation analyses for this study were conducted using hierarchical

multiple linear regressions in SPSS (IBM Corp., 2017). As described by Baron and

Kenny (1986), the analysis occured in two steps, or blocks. The first block included the predictor variable and the moderator predicting the criterion variable. In the second step, an interaction term was tested in the regression model. The interaction term was created by combining, through multiplication, the predictor variable and the moderator variable.

To create an interaction term, the predictor and moderator variables were centered by subtracting the sample mean for each variable from individual scores on the variable.

The centered predictor variable and the centered moderator variable are then multiplied to create the interaction term. For moderation to occur, the predictor and moderator variables must predict the criterion variable. In addition, the interaction term must be statistically significant to establish moderation (Baron & Kenny, 1986).

Summary

Similar to the simple linear regression analysis, the p value and R-squared value are reported along with the p value for the R-squared change to evaluate the moderation analysis. An alpha level of .05 is reported to indicate statistical significance. R-squared values vary between 0 and 100 and show the percentage of variation in the criterion variable that is attributable to the regression model. For moderation to be supported, block 2 must account for more variation in the criterion variable than block 1 (Baron &

Kenny, 1986).

This section presents the methodology and procedures used for this study. It contains information regarding the population and sample of the study and the survey instruments used. It also discusses the reliability and validity of the survey instruments, presents a description of their construction and administration, and describes the data

collection procedures and analysis plan. Chapter IV presents data analysis and results.

Chapter V presents the study’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

CHAPTER IV - RESULTS

The purpose of this study was to determine if organizational stress, measured by role conflict and role ambiguity, predicts burnout among employees. Also, the researcher

examined whether organizational level and demographic variables (gender, education

level, and job tenure) moderate the relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity,

and burnout. In this chapter, the statistical findings of the data collection and analyses are

presented.

The chapter begins with pre-analysis data screen to adjust for missing responses,

inclusion criteria, and outliers. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the trends in

the variables of interest. To address the research objectives, descriptive statistics, linear

regressions, and moderation analyses were performed. Statistical significance for all

inferential statistical analyses was evaluated at the accepted level, α = .05.

Results of Data Collection

To be eligible to participate in this research, individuals met the following

criteria: (a) at least 18 years old, (b) employed full-time, and (c) be a non-teaching staff

member. Data was collected via surveys consisting of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory

(OLBI) and the Role Conflict/Role Ambiguity Questionnaire (RCRAQ). The study

variables include role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout.

Missing and Excluded Responses

A total of 424 employees responded to the invitation to participate and consented

to take the survey questionnaire. Of the total, 29 participants did not respond to any

portion of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and the Role Conflict/Role

Ambiguity Questionnaire (RCRAQ), and were subsequently removed. A total of 132

participants did not meet the inclusion criteria due to their role as faculty members

(providing instruction) or working less than 20 hours per week.

Outliers

Grubbs (1969) states that an outlier observation, is one that appears to deviate

markedly from the other members of the sample in which it occurs. Stevens (2012)

reports that there are several approaches to identifying the outliers in linear regression

analysis. Such data points are important to the researchers because when they exist, the

estimates of the regression model parameters are likely not representative of the dataset.

If such errors are not corrected, they may result in misinterpretations or false

generalizations. Outliers should be addressed in order for sample estimates to accurately

estimate population parameters, and to avoid inflated error terms and reduced power.

The variables of interest for this study – role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout

– were created through an average of the respective items comprising each of the scales.

Outliers were examined through standardization of the scores, in which z-scores exceeding + 3.29 standard deviations from the mean were removed from further analysis

(Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). Four outliers were identified on the role ambiguity

questionnaire and were removed from further analysis. After all the reductions, the final

sample consisted of 259 participants.

Results of Statistical Analysis

Burnout scores had an average of 2.13 (SD = 0.45, Min = 1.00, Max = 3.38). Role conflict scores ranged from 1.00 to 7.00, with an average of 3.97 (SD = 1.44), and role ambiguity scores ranged from 1.00 to 5.00, with an average of 2.18 (SD = 0.88). A series of Shapiro-Wilk tests were used to explore the normality assumption. The findings of the

Shapiro-Wilk tests were statistically significant for role conflict scores (p = .001) and role ambiguity scores (p < .001), indicating that the assumption of normality was not met for role conflict and role ambiguity. Stevens (2009) indicated that violations of normality are not problematic when the sample size exceeds 50 cases. The finding of the Shapiro-

Wilk test was not statistically significant for burnout scores (p = .400), indicating that the assumption of normality was met for burnout.

Cronbach's alpha tests of reliability and internal consistency were then conducted on the three scales. The Cronbach's alpha represents the average association between each pair of items and the number of items in a scale (Brace, Kemp, & Snelgar, 2012).

The alpha values were assessed and the values were interpreted through the guidelines suggested by George and Mallery (2016) where α > .9 Excellent, >.8 Good, >.7

Acceptable, >.6 Questionable, >.5 Poor, <.5 Unacceptable.

The items for OLBI had a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.82, indicating good reliability. The items for Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity had Cronbach's alpha coefficients of 0.85 and 0.75, indicating good and acceptable reliability, respectively.

Table 5 presents the descriptive statistics for each scales.

Table 5

Psychometric Properties for Scales

Cronbach’s Variable M SD Min Max α

Role conflict 3.97 1.44 1.00 7.00 .84 Role ambiguity 2.18 0.88 1.00 5.00 .75 Burnout 2.13 0.45 1.00 3.38 .89

Research Objective One

RO1: Describe the demographics of participants (gender, education level,

professional role, hours worked per week, job tenure, organizational tenure, and type of

work tenure).

To address Research Objective One, descriptive statistics were used to describe

the demographic makeup of the sample. A majority of the sample consisted of females (n

= 160, 61.8%). The most prevalent degree among participants was a Master's degree (n =

122, 47.1%), and more participants identified their primary role as department chair, assistant director, or director (n = 117, 45.2%), than any other. A majority of participants worked more than 20 hours per week (n = 246, 95.0%). Most participants had been in

their current job, institution, and type of work for 10 or more years (n = 101, 39.0%; n =

131, 50.6%; n = 170, 65.6%, respectively). Frequencies and percentages of the

demographics are presented in Table 6.

Table 6

Characteristics of Participants

Variable n % Cumulative % Gender Female 160 61.8 61.8 Male 95 36.7 98.5 Non-binary 2 0.8 99.2 Prefer not to say 2 0.8 100.0

Education High school degree or equivalent (e.g. GED) 2 0.8 0.8 Some college, no degree 6 2.3 3.1 Associate degree (e.g. AA, AS) 18 6.9 10.0

Table 6 (continued).

Variable n % Cumulative % Bachelor’s degree (e.g. BA, BS) 47 18.1 28.2 Master’s degree (e.g. MA, MS, Med) 122 47.1 75.3 Professional degree (e.g. MD, DDS, DVM) 7 2.7 78.0 Doctorate (e.g. PhD, EdD) 57 22.0 100.0

Organizational level Department Chair 32 12.4 12.4 Dean 21 8.1 20.5 Staff 88 34.0 54.4 Team Lead/Supervisor 15 5.8 60.2 Manager 11 4.2 64.5 Asst Director 10 3.9 68.3 Director 75 29.0 97.3 Vice President 7 2.7 100.0

Job tenure Less than 1 year 17 6.6 6.6 1-3 years 50 19.3 25.9 4-5 years 45 17.4 43.2 6-10 years 46 17.8 61.0 More than 10 years 101 39.0 100.0

Organizational tenure Less than 1 year 13 5.0 5.0 1-3 years 41 15.8 20.8 4-5 years 33 12.7 33.6 6-10 years 41 15.8 49.4 More than 10 years 131 50.6 100.0

Industry tenure Less than 1 year 4 1.5 1.5

Table 6 (continued).

Variable n % Cumulative % 1-3 years 16 6.2 7.7 4-5 years 23 8.9 16.6 6-10 years 46 17.8 34.4 More than 10 years 170 65.6 100.0

Research Objective Two

RO2: Determine if role conflict predicts employee burnout.

To address Research Objective Two, a simple linear regression was conducted to

determine the relationship between role conflict and employee burnout. The predictor

variable corresponded to role conflict, and the criterion variable to employee burnout.

Prior to analysis, the assumption of linearity was tested with an association between role

conflict and employee burnout. The assumption was met since there appeared to be an

inverse association between the two variables (see Figure 6). The assumption of

normality was visually examined with a normal probability plot (Tabachnick & Fidell,

2013). The assumption of normality was met because the data closely followed the

diagonal trend line (see Figure 7). The assumption of homoscedasticity was verified visually with a residuals scatterplot. The assumption of homoscedasticity was met due to the random scatter of data in the plot (see Figure 8).

Figure 6. Scatterplot between role conflict and burnout.

Figure 7. Normal P-P plot with role conflict predicting burnout.

Figure 8. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role conflict predicting burnout.

The result of the linear regression model was statistically significant, F(1, 257) =

62.05, p < .001, R2 = 0.19, indicating there is a significant relationship between role conflict and employee burnout. The R2 value suggested that approximately 19% of the variance in employee burnout could be explained by role conflict. With every one-unit increase in role conflict score (decrease in feelings of role conflict), employee burnout scores decreased by approximately 0.14 units. Table 7 summarizes the results of the regression model.

Table 7

Role Conflict Predicting Employee Burnout

Variable B SE β t p

Role conflict -0.14 0.02 -.44 7.88 .000

2 Note. F(1, 257) = 62.05, p < .001, R = 0.19

Research Objective Three

RO3: Determine if role ambiguity predicts employee burnout.

To address Research Objective Three, a simple linear regression was conducted to

determine the relationship between role ambiguity and employee burnout. The predictor variable corresponded to role ambiguity. The criterion variable corresponded to employee burnout. The assumption of linearity was tested with an association between role ambiguity and employee burnout. The assumption was met as there appeared to be a positive association between the two variables (see Figure 9). The assumption of normality was met because the data closely followed the diagonal trend line (see Figure

10), and the assumption of homoscedasticity was met due to the random scatter of data in the plot (see Figure 11).

Figure 9. Scatterplot between role ambiguity and burnout.

Figure 10. Normal P-P plot with role ambiguity predicting burnout.

Figure 11. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role ambiguity predicting burnout.

The result of the simple linear regression model was statistically significant, F(1,

257) = 85.49, p < .001, R2 = 0.25, indicating there is a significant relationship between 82

role ambiguity and employee burnout. The R2 value suggested that approximately 25% of the variance in employee burnout could be explained by role ambiguity. With every one-

unit increase in role ambiguity score (more feeling of ambiguity), employee burnout

scores increased by approximately 0.26 units. Table 8 summarizes the results of the

regression model.

Table 8

Role Ambiguity Predicting Employee Burnout

Variable B SE β t p

Role ambiguity 0.26 0.03 .50 9.25 .000

Note. F(1, 257) = 85.49, p < .001, R2 = 0.25

Research Objective Four

RO4: Determine if the organizational level of employees moderates the relationship

between role conflict and burnout.

To address Research Objective Four, a moderation analysis was conducted to

determine whether organizational level moderated the relationship between role conflict

and burnout. The predictor variable corresponded to role conflict. The criterion variable

corresponded to burnout. The moderating variable in this analysis was organizational

level, and was dummy coded with "Top" as the reference group.

A hierarchical linear regression was performed with role conflict*organizational level input into the second step of the model. Prior to analysis, the assumptions for

absence of multicollinearity, normality, and homoscedasticity were tested on the model.

Table 9 shows the absence of multicollinearity assumption was met because the variance inflation factors are below 10 (Stevens, 2009). The variance inflation factor (VIF) 83

measures the degree of correlation between a predictor and the other predictors in a model (Marquardt & Snee, 1975). The assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity were affirmed through examination of the scatterplots (see Figures 12 and 13).

Table 9

Variance Inflation Factors for Multicollinearity

Variable VIF

Role conflict 1.05 Organization level (reference: Top) Middle 2.84 Bottom 2.90

Figure 12. Normal P-P plot with role conflict, organizational level, and role conflict*organizational level predicting burnout.

Figure 13. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role conflict, organizational level, and role conflict*organizational level predicting burnout.

The results of first step of the regression model were collectively significant, F(3,

255) = 21.52, p < .001, R2 = 0.20, indicating there was a significant relationship between

role conflict, organizational level, and burnout. The R2 value suggested that

approximately 20% of the variance in burnout could be explained by role conflict and

organizational level. The results of second step of the regression model were also

collectively significant, F(5, 253) = 12.82, p < .001, R2 = 0.20, indicating there was a

significant relationship between role conflict, organizational level, role

conflict*organizational level, and burnout. The R2 value (20%) did not change between steps one and two, suggesting the interaction of role conflict*organizational level did not contribute much variance to the model. Neither of the role conflict*organizational level

interaction terms were statistically significant in the model; this finding suggested that

organizational level was not a significant moderator in the relationship between role

conflict and burnout. Table 10 summarizes the results of the regression model. 85

Table 10 Moderating Effect of Organizational Level on Role Conflict and Burnout Variable B SE β t p

Step 1: Role conflict -0.15 0.02 -.46 -8.00 .000 Organization level (reference: Top) Middle -0.04 0.09 -.05 -0.49 .622 Bottom 0.04 0.09 .05 0.49 .623 Step 2: Role conflict -0.15 0.07 -.47 -2.30 .022 Organization level (reference: Top) Middle -0.07 0.27 -.08 -0.25 .801 Bottom 0.03 0.27 .03 0.11 .909 Role conflict*Middle -0.01 0.07 .03 0.10 .919 Role conflict*Bottom 0.00 0.07 .02 0.05 .960 Note. Step 1: F(3, 255) = 21.52, p < .001, R2 = 0.20; Step 2: F(5, 253) = 12.82, p < .001, R2 = 0.20

Research Objective Five

RO5: Determine if the organizational level of employees moderates the relationship between role ambiguity and burnout.

To address Research Objective Five, a moderation analysis was conducted to determine whether organizational level moderated the relationship between role ambiguity and burnout. The predictor variable corresponded to role ambiguity. The criterion variable corresponded to burnout. The moderating variable in this analysis was organizational level, and was dummy coded with "Top" being the reference group.

A hierarchical linear regression was performed with role ambiguity*organizational level being input into the second step of the model. Prior to analysis, the assumptions for absence of multicollinearity, normality, and 86

homoscedasticity were tested on the model. Table 11 shows the absence of

multicollinearity assumption was indicated because the variance inflation factors were below 10. The assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity were met based on examination of the scatterplots (see Figures 14 and 15).

Table 11

Variance Inflation Factors for Multicollinearity

Variable VIF Role ambiguity 1.00 Organization level (reference: Top) Middle 2.84 Bottom 2.84

Figure 14. Normal P-P plot with role ambiguity, organizational level, and role ambiguity*organizational level predicting burnout.

Figure 15. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role ambiguity, organizational level, and role ambiguity *organizational level predicting burnout.

The result of first step of the regression model was collectively significant, F(3,

255) = 28.54, p < .001, R2 = 0.25, indicating a significant relationship between role

ambiguity, organizational level, and burnout. The R2 value suggested that approximately

25% of the variance in burnout could be explained by role ambiguity and organizational

level.

The result of second step of the regression model was also collectively significant,

F(5, 253) = 17.21, p < .001, R2 = 0.25, indicating there was a significant relationship

between role ambiguity, organizational level, role ambiguity *organizational level, and burnout. The R2 value (25%) did not change between steps one and two, suggesting the

interaction of role ambiguity*organizational level did not contribute much variance to the

model. Neither of the role ambiguity*organizational level interaction terms were

statistically significant in the model. This finding suggested that organizational level was

not a significant moderator in the relationship between role ambiguity and burnout. Table

12 summarizes the results of the regression model.

Table 12

Moderating Effect of Organizational Level on Role Ambiguity and Burnout

Variable B SE β t p

Step 1: Role ambiguity 0.26 0.03 .50 9.22 .000 Organization level (reference: Top) Middle -0.06 0.08 -.07 -0.76 .447 Bottom -0.06 0.08 -.06 -0.67 .507 Step 2: Role ambiguity 0.22 0.10 .42 2.24 .000 Organization level (reference: Top) Middle -0.11 0.25 -.12 -0.45 .657 Bottom -0.20 0.24 -.22 -0.84 .402 Role ambiguity*Middle 0.02 0.11 .06 0.20 .840

Role ambiguity*Bottom 0.07 0.11 .19 0.65 .515 Note. Step 1: F(3, 255) = 28.54, p < .001, R2 = 0.25; Step 2: F(5, 253) = 17.21, p < .001, R2 = 0.25

Research Objective Six

RO6: Determine if demographic variables of employees (gender, education level, and job tenure) moderate the relationships between role conflict and burnout.

To address Research Objective Six, a moderation analysis was conducted to determine whether gender, education, and job tenure moderated the relationship between role conflict and burnout. The predictor variable corresponded to role conflict. The criterion variable corresponded to burnout. The moderating variable in this analysis corresponded to gender, education level, and job tenure. Gender was dummy coded with 89

“Male” as the reference group. Education level was dummy coded with “No degree” as

the reference group. Job tenure was dummy coded with “Less than 1 year” as the reference group.

A hierarchical linear regression was performed with role conflict*gender, role conflict*education level, and role conflict*job tenure being input into the second step of the model. Prior to analysis, the assumptions for absence of multicollinearity, normality, and homoscedasticity were tested on the model. The absence of multicollinearity assumption was met because the variance inflation factors were below 10 (see Table 13).

Based on examination of the scatterplots, the assumptions of normality and

homoscedasticity were met (see Figures 16 and 17).

Table 13 Variance Inflation Factors for Multicollinearity Variable VIF Role conflict 1.10 Gender (reference: Male) Female 1.09 Other gender 1.06 Education (reference: No degree) Associate degree 3.23 Bachelor's degree 5.86 Master's degree 9.11 Professional degree 1.90 Doctorate degree 6.74 Tenure (reference: Less than 1 year) 1 to 3 years 3.26 4 to 5 years 3.07

Table 13 (continued).

Variable VIF 6 to 10 years 3.13 More than 10 years 4.30

Figure 16. Normal P-P plot with role conflict, gender, education, and job tenure, role conflict*gender, role conflict*education, role conflict*job tenure predicting burnout.

The result of first step of the regression model was collectively significant, F(12,

246) = 7.09, p < .001, R2 = 0.26, indicating there was a significant relationship between

role conflict, gender, education, tenure, and burnout. The R2 value suggested that approximately 26% of the variance in burnout could be explained by role conflict, gender, education, and tenure. The result of second step of the regression model was also collectively significant, F(23, 253) = 4.22, p < .001, R2 = 0.29, indicating there was a

significant relationship between role conflict, gender, education, job tenure, role

conflict*gender, role conflict*education, role conflict*job tenure, and burnout. The R2

value (29%) only increased 3% between steps one and two, suggesting the interaction

terms with role conflict and the demographics did not contribute much variance to the

model. The interaction term, role conflict*Associate degree (t= -2.03, p = .044), was statistically significant. This finding indicates that education moderates the relationship between role conflict and burnout. Neither of the interaction terms, role conflict*gender or role conflict*job tenure, were statistically significant in the model; this finding suggests that gender and job tenure are not significant moderators in the relationship between role conflict and burnout. Table 14 summarizes the results of the regression model.

Table 14

Moderating Effect of Gender, Education, and Tenure on Role Conflict and Burnout

Variable B SE β t p Step 1: Role conflict -0.14 0.02 -.43 -7.55 .000 Gender (reference: Male)

Table 14 (continued).

Variable B SE β t p Female 0.08 0.05 .09 1.53 .128 Other gender 0.08 0.21 .02 0.40 .689 Education (reference: No degree) Associate degree 0.20 0.18 .11 1.13 .260 Bachelor’s degree 0.17 0.16 .14 1.06 .291 Master’s degree 0.19 0.15 .21 1.28 .200 Professional degree -0.04 0.21 -.01 -0.18 .856 Doctorate degree 0.04 0.16 .03 0.24 .812 Job Tenure (reference: Less than 1 year) 1 to 3 years -0.00 0.11 -.00 -0.01 .996 4 to 5 years 0.03 0.12 .02 0.25 .800 6 to 10 years 0.12 0.12 .10 1.00 .318 More than 10 years 0.18 0.11 .19 1.66 .097 Step 2: Role conflict 0.05 0.17 .14 0.26 .796 Gender (reference: Male) Female -0.14 0.16 -.15 -0.87 .387 Other gender 0.09 0.50 .02 0.17 .862 Education (reference: No degree) Associate degree 1.51 0.68 .85 2.22 .028 Bachelor’s degree 0.68 0.66 .58 1.04 .301 Master’s degree 0.95 0.64 1.05 1.47 .142 Professional degree 0.94 0.80 .34 1.18 .238 Doctorate degree 0.89 0.66 .81 1.36 .176 Job Tenure (reference: Less than 1 year) 1 to 3 years -0.09 0.32 -.08 -0.27 .788 4 to 5 years 0.06 0.31 .05 0.18 .855 6 to 10 years 0.15 0.33 .12 0.45 .657

Table 14 (continued).

Variable B SE β t p More than 10 years 0.33 0.28 .35 1.15 .250 Role conflict*female 0.06 0.04 .30 1.53 .128 Role conflict*other gender -0.00 0.11 -.00 -0.02 .982 Role conflict*Associate degree -0.36 0.18 -.81 -2.03 .044 Role conflict*Bachelor degree -0.16 0.17 -.66 -0.93 .355 Role conflict*Masters degree -0.20 0.17 -.95 -1.20 .233 Role conflict*Professional degree -0.26 0.20 -.40 -1.30 .195 Role conflict*Doctorate degree -0.20 0.17 -.83 -1.33 .183 Role conflict*1 to 3 years exp 0.02 0.07 .10 0.33 .744 Role conflict*4 to 5 years exp -0.00 0.07 -.00 -0.02 .987 Role conflict*6 to 10 years exp -0.01 0.08 -.02 -0.08 .939 Role conflict*More than 10 years exp -0.03 0.07 -.15 -0.52 .606 Note. Step 1: F(12, 246) = 7.09, p < .001, R2 = 0.26; Step 2: F(23, 235) = 4.22, p < .001, R2 = 0.29

Research Objective Seven

RO7: Determine if demographic variables of employees (gender, education level, and

job tenure) moderate the relationships between role ambiguity and burnout.

To address Research Objective Seven, a moderation analysis was conducted to

determine whether gender, education, and job tenure moderated the relationship between

role ambiguity and burnout. The predictor variable corresponded to role ambiguity. The

criterion variable corresponded to burnout. The moderating variable in this analysis

corresponded to gender, education level, and job tenure. Gender was dummy coded with

“Male” as the reference group. Education level was dummy coded with “No degree” as

the reference group. Job tenure was dummy coded with “Less than 1 year” as the reference group.

A hierarchical linear regression was performed with role ambiguity*gender, role

ambiguity*education level, and role ambiguity*job tenure being input into the second

step of the model. Prior to analysis, the assumptions for absence of multicollinearity,

normality, and homoscedasticity were tested on the model. The absence of

multicollinearity assumption was met due to the variance inflation factors being below 10

(see Table 15). The assumptions of normality and homoscedasticity were indicated via examination of the scatterplots (see Figures 18 and 19).

Table 15

Variance Inflation Factors for Multicollinearity

Variable VIF

Role ambiguity 1.07 Gender (reference: Male) Female 1.08 Other gender 1.07 Education (reference: No degree) Associate degree 3.30 Bachelor's degree 5.89 Master's degree 9.39 Professional degree 1.91 Doctorate 6.84 Job Tenure (reference: Less than 1 year) 1 to 3 years 3.29 4 to 5 years 3.10 6 to 10 years 3.16 More than 10 years 4.31

Figure 18. Normal P-P plot with role ambiguity, organizational level, and role ambiguity*organizational level predicting burnout.

Figure 19. Residuals scatterplot to test homoscedasticity with role ambiguity, organizational level, and role ambiguity *organizational level predicting burnout.

The result of the first step of the regression model was collectively significant,

F(12, 246) = 9.13, p < .001, R2 = 0.31, indicating a significant relationship between role 96

ambiguity, gender, education, tenure, and burnout. The R2 value suggested that approximately 31% of the variance in burnout could be explained by role ambiguity, gender, education, and tenure. The results of the second step of the regression model were also collectively significant, F(23, 253) = 4.97, p < .001, R2 = 0.33, indicating a significant relationship between role ambiguity, gender, education, tenure, role ambiguity*gender, role ambiguity*education, role ambiguity*job tenure, and burnout.

The R2 value (33%) only increased 2% between steps one and two, suggesting the interaction terms with role ambiguity and the demographics did not contribute much variance to the model. None of the interaction terms, role ambiguity*gender, role ambiguity*education, role ambiguity*job tenure, were statistically significant in the model; this finding suggests that gender, education, and tenure are not significant moderators in the relationship between role ambiguity and burnout. Table 16 summarizes the results of the regression model.

Table 16

Moderating Effect of Gender, Education, and Job Tenure on Role Ambiguity and Burnout

Variable B SE β t p

Step 1: Role ambiguity 0.25 0.03 .49 8.91 .000 Gender (reference: Male) Female 0.08 0.05 .08 1.49 .137 Other gender -0.03 0.20 -.01 -0.14 .887 Education (reference: No degree) Associate degree 0.01 0.17 .00 0.03 .976 Bachelor’s degree -0.09 0.15 -.08 -0.61 .544 Master’s degree -0.03 0.15 -.03 -0.20 .843

Table 16 (continued).

Variable B SE β t p Professional degree -0.18 0.20 -.07 -0.90 .371 Doctorate degree -0.11 0.15 -.10 -0.75 .453 Job Tenure (reference: Less than 1 year) 1 to 3 years 0.07 0.11 .06 0.62 .535 4 to 5 years 0.14 0.11 .12 1.26 .209 6 to 10 years 0.20 0.11 .17 1.82 .070 More than 10 years 0.27 0.10 .29 2.66 .008 Step 2: Role ambiguity 0.51 0.34 .98 1.47 .142 Gender (reference: Male) Female 0.24 0.15 .25 1.58 .116 Other gender -0.84 0.94 -.23 -0.89 .372 Education (reference: No degree) Associate degree -0.04 0.55 -.02 -0.07 .949 Bachelor’s degree 0.27 0.54 .23 0.49 .625 Master’s degree 0.19 0.52 .21 0.37 .714 Professional degree -0.15 0.80 -.06 -0.19 .847 Doctorate degree 0.28 0.54 .26 0.52 .601 Job Tenure (reference: Less than 1 year) 1 to 3 years 0.29 0.31 .25 0.93 .355 4 to 5 years 0.16 0.31 .13 0.50 .616 6 to 10 years 0.39 0.32 .33 1.24 .215 More than 10 years 0.27 0.29 .29 0.94 .347 Role ambiguity*female -0.07 0.06 -.21 -1.17 .244 Role ambiguity*other gender 0.31 0.37 .21 0.83 .409 Role ambiguity*Associate degree -0.06 0.33 -.09 -0.19 .847 Role ambiguity*Bachelor degree -0.23 0.33 -.43 -0.71 .480 Role ambiguity*Master’s degree -0.16 0.32 -.47 -0.50 .619

Table 16 (continued).

Variable B SE β t p Role ambiguity*Professional degree -0.07 0.45 -.05 -0.15 .879 Role ambiguity*Doctorate degree -0.25 0.33 -.52 -0.76 .448 Role ambiguity*1 to 3 years exp -0.10 0.13 -.21 -0.83 .408 Role ambiguity*4 to 5 years exp -0.01 0.12 -.02 -0.08 .935 Role ambiguity*6 to 10 years exp -0.09 0.13 -.17 -0.70 .488 Role ambiguity*More than 10 years exp -0.01 0.11 -.01 -0.04 .966 Note. Step 1: F(12, 246) = 9.13, p < .001, R2 = 0.31; Step 2: F(23, 235) = 4.97, p < .001, R2 = 0.33

Summary

The purpose of this study is to determine if organizational stress, measured by role conflict and role ambiguity, predict burnout among employees. In this chapter, the statistical findings of the data collection and analyses were presented. The chapter began with a pre-analysis data screen to adjust for missing responses, inclusion criteria, and outliers. The final sample size consisted of 259 participants. Descriptive statistics were used to describe the trends in the variables of interest. Cronbach's alpha of the test of reliability indicated that each scale met the acceptable threshold.

To address Research Objective One, frequencies and percentages were used to describe the trends of the demographic variables. The most prevalent groups for each demographic variable were identified. To address Research Objective Two, a linear regression was conducted to examine the association between role conflict and burnout.

Results indicated a significant association between role conflict and burnout. To address

Research Objective Three, a linear regression was conducted to examine the association

between role ambiguity and burnout. Results indicated a significant association between

role ambiguity and burnout.

To address Research Objective Four, a hierarchical linear regression was used to

test whether organizational level moderated the relationship between role conflict and

burnout. There was not sufficient evidence to support that organizational level moderated the relationship between role conflict and burnout. To address Research Objective Five, a

hierarchical linear regression was used to test whether organizational level moderated the

relationship between role ambiguity and burnout. There was not sufficient evidence to

support that organizational level moderates the relationship between role ambiguity and

burnout.

To address Research Objective Six, a hierarchical linear regression was used to

test whether gender, education, and tenure moderated the relationship between role

conflict and burnout. There is evidence that education (role conflict*Associate degree)

significantly moderates the relationship between role conflict and burnout. There is not

sufficient evidence to support that gender and tenure moderate the relationship between

role conflict and burnout.

To address Research Objective Seven, a hierarchical linear regression was used to

test whether gender, education, and tenure moderated the relationship between role

ambiguity and burnout. There is not sufficient evidence to support that gender, education,

and tenure moderate the relationship between role ambiguity and burnout. The next

chapter presents connections between findings based on the statistical analysis and

existing literature, in addition to recommendations for future research.

100

CHAPTER V – FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study was designed to determine if organizational stress, measured by role

conflict and role ambiguity, predicts burnout among employees. Also, the researcher

examined whether organizational level and demographic variables (gender, education

level, and job tenure) moderate the relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity,

and burnout. To be eligible to participate in this research, individuals met the following

criteria: (a) at least 18 years old, (b) employed full-time, and (c) be a non-teaching staff member. Data was collected via surveys completed by a non-random purposive sample of

259 participants. The survey consisted of the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and

the Role Conflict/Role Ambiguity Questionnaire (RCRAQ). The study variables include

role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout.

This chapter provides a discussion of the results presented in Chapter 4. The

chapter begins with the researcher’s interpretations and related recommendations,

followed by a discussion on theoretical implications. Finally, recommendations for future

research emerging from this investigation are provided.

Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Findings from this study support the literature review presented in Chapter 2.

Three findings generated from the statistical analysis are presented, along with practical implications. Also included are a number of strategies meant to address the researcher’s conclusions.

Finding 1: Role conflict and role ambiguity are predictors of burnout.

Participants indicated the incidence of burnout regardless of demographics.

101

Demographics include gender, level of education, years of experience in their work, and organizational level.

Conclusion. When employees cannot reconcile inconsistencies between groups of expected role behaviors, they will likely experience conflict. Role ambiguity occurs when there is a lack of clear, consistent information regarding an employee’s goals, responsibilities, and authority. The combination or singular presence of either role stressor, in the form of conflict or ambiguity, can lead an employee to experience burnout.

These findings echo results reported by previous researchers. For example, Xu

(2019) found that role conflict predicted burnout among Chinese university teachers; specifically, role conflict correlated with the emotional exhaustion and depersonalization components of burnout. Among a sample of mental health nurses, Konstantinou et al.

(2018) found role conflict was a significant predictor of burnout. Role conflict has also been indicated as a predictor of burnout among police (Kwak et al., 2018), nurse educators (Fong, 1990), and social workers (Travis et al., 2016).

Other researchers report similar findings when studying role ambiguity. For example, Wu et al. (2019) examine stress, ambiguity, and burnout among construction project managers and report that role ambiguity significantly and negatively correlates with burnout. Among a sample of college faculty, Mitra and Hassan (2018) emphasize that role ambiguity and role conflict are both predictors of job burnout. Research shows role ambiguity also predicts burnout among nurses (Akkoç et al., 2020), truck drivers

(Semeijn et al., 2019), and college faculty (Sabagh et al., 2018).

102

Recommendations. Organizations seeking to reduce burnout and turnover among employees should take steps to address role ambiguity and role conflict. Several strategies may be implemented to reduce role stress, including improved onboarding, training, and professional development, along with clearly defining organizational policies, procedures, and practices. Leaders should also periodically evaluate employees to ensure issues of role conflict and ambiguity are not present.

Relying solely on individual efforts to manage role stress may be insufficient.

Innovative administrative approaches are necessary to balance productivity with a minimum amount of role stress for workers. Based on prior research (Adekola, 2012;

Mañas et al., 2018; Schaufeli et al., 2017), this administrative plan should include the following strategies:

1. Development of clear organizational and individual goals for performance,

including explicit definition of roles.

2. Establishment of role models and mentors to answer questions, discuss

conflict, give immediate feedback, help plan workload, share materials,

interpret policies, and collaborate on projects.

3. Establishment of open communication within the organization which

encourages clarity, problem-solving, and accountability.

4. Evaluation of time and resource allocation among tasks.

5. Changes in evaluation and reward systems, making promotional criteria

unambiguous and career paths more attainable.

6. Development of leaders’ abilities to effectively differentiate and integrate

functional activities within the organization.

103

7. Create a mechanism for staff to provide recommendations for addressing

issues of role stress.

Finding 2: Organizational level was not a moderator in the relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), moderating variables intensify or buffer the association between the independent and dependent variables. Moderation occurs when the interaction of the independent variable and the moderating variable explains a change in the dependent variable. In this study, organization level did not have an effect on the relationship between the independent and dependent variable.

Conclusion. Organizations should include staff at all levels of the organization when assessing for and addressing the presence of role stressors and the incidence of burnout. Two objectives of this study are to determine whether organizational level of employees moderated the relationship between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout.

Results of moderation analyses reveal organizational level is not a significant moderator in the relationship between role conflict and burnout or the relationship between role ambiguity and burnout. The results of the data analysis indicate that organizational level did not strengthen or change the direction of the relationship between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout.

Previous researchers examine a number of moderators in the relationship between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout, including work stress (Soelton et al., 2020), mindfulness (Park & Nam, 2020), and culture (Pratiwi et al., 2019). The effects of role ambiguity and role conflict on burnout have been examined among professional levels, but it does not appear that previous researchers examined the moderating role of

104

organizational level in the relationship between these variables. Similarly, the relationship between work experience and burnout have been examined (Duli, 2016);

however, professional level and work experience are distinct constructs.

Recommendations. Organizational leadership should be made aware of the

problems associated with burnout through seminars, workshops, or professional certifications. Appropriate material includes information on managing time,

communicating, planning, finding leisure time, reducing stress, and recognition of

burnout symptoms. Support systems, such as affinity groups or communities of practice

should be encouraged to assist in coping with burnout (Schaufeli et al., 2017).

The need for intervention at all levels of an organization does not preclude the

need for interventions designed specifically for the primary roles of employee groups.

Targeted professional development, concentrating on sensitivity, self-awareness, and

communication should be conducted for individuals whose jobs require engagement in

sustained person to person interaction to help overcome feelings of indifference or

negativity towards clients and co-workers.

Leaders should understand the burnout process as experienced throughout the

organizational hierarchy. For example, to the extent that support is necessary for building

commitment and preventing job stress, lack of support from supervisors and managers

could adversely affect the work perceptions, attitudes, and the performance of

subordinates (Leiter & Maslach, 2016). Thus, the toxicity of burnout within departments

and workgroups may begin with leaders experiencing burnout themselves, who are then

consequently unable to offer support to subordinates. Lack of support from leadership has

been shown to lead to burnout in subordinates (Leiter, 1993). Leaders and human capital

105

professionals could benefit from future research examining the etiology of the burnout

process and its effects on productivity among individual work units, departments, and

offices.

Finding 3: Education, at the Associate’s degree level, moderates the relationship

between role conflict and burnout. According to Baron and Kenny (1986), moderating

variables intensify or buffer the association between the independent and dependent

variables. Moderation occurs when the interaction of the independent variable and the moderating variable explains a change in the dependent variable. In this study, education

at the Associate degree level strengthened the association between role conflict and

burnout.

Conclusion. Among the levels of education examined, only the Associate’s degree

category, the lowest option of postsecondary education for this study, was indicated as a

moderator between role conflict and burnout. This finding supports previous research

studying education level in relation to burnout. Schaufeli and Enzmann (1998) report

burnout is more common among people with advanced education, possibly because

increasingly educated individuals are ambitious in seeking career accomplishments.

Highly educated individuals might have significant expectations and suffer from

frustration and burnout if they are unmet (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).

More recently, de Paiva et al. (2017) report that lower educational level associates with burnout. Among health care workers in Iran, Kabir et al. (2016) contends workers with lower levels of education are more prone to burnout. Among teachers, burnout decreases as educational level increases (Nuri et al., 2017).

106

Recommendations. Based on this finding, organizations can provide additional

resources for employees to obtain skills that may have been absent from their previous

education. Many of these skills are included in Bachelor’s and Master’s programs, but may not be available to employees who have achieved an Associate’s degree. These skills include time management, problem-solving, goal setting, and conflict resolution.

Suggested strategies for organizations, derived from prior research (Ahola et al.,

2017; Erasmus et al., 2015; Greer & Wethered, 1984; Hanaysha, 2016), to address

burnout in employees educated at the Associate’s degree level include:

1. Developing job descriptions that are descriptive and delineate roles

2. Setting clear, but attainable expectations during the onboarding process

3. Teaching employees appropriate ways to actively pursue goals within the

policies and procedures of the organization

4. Developing criteria and techniques to measure work performance in ways

that increase opportunities for success, in addition to data-driven metrics

Discussion

This study was based on Maslach and Leiter’s (1998) theory of burnout, as well

as organizational role theory. Findings from the current investigation have theoretical

implications, as discussed below.

Rizzo et al. (1970) argue that inconsistencies between professional and

organizational standards can cause an individual to find irregularities in the behaviors

expected of them. Two common types of inconsistencies include role conflict and role

ambiguity. Role conflict describes incompatible expectations experienced by individuals

in the work environment, whether aware of the conflict or not (Biddle, 1986; Katz &

107

Kahn, 1978), while role ambiguity is defined as the absence of clear and consistent communication regarding expectations required for a person to perform their role successfully (Katz & Kahn, 1978). Both role ambiguity and role conflict can cause frustration, stress, and anxiety, which may increase risks for burnout and turnover.

Burnout is a psychological and physiological state that affects outlook, motivations, and expectations, and which causes personal distress and discomfort (Maslach & Goldberg,

1998).

In the current study, findings indicate role conflict and role ambiguity are predictors of burnout among non-teaching staff in higher education. This finding expands upon the theory of burnout, contributing evidence of the predictive roles of role ambiguity and conflict among a previously unstudied sample.

Among the moderators examined in the relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout, education level (Associate’s degree) was the only demographic factor emerging as a moderator. This factor only moderated the relationship between role conflict and burnout. Previous researchers report that lower education level associates with burnout, so the moderating role of the Associate’s degree factor (the lowest level of education examined) aligns with previous scholarship. The moderating role of education level in the relationship between role conflict and burnout in this study expands upon

Rizzo et al.’s (1970) theory and warrants future investigation on moderating factors in the relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout.

Limitations of the Study

Limitations are factors that impact a study and remain outside of a researcher’s control (Roberts, 2004). The researcher presumes that exposure to adverse working

108

conditions leads to burnout, but the goal of this study is not to confirm a causal

explanation of results. This study examines the possible relationships between burnout,

role conflict, role ambiguity, organizational level, and several demographic factors. The

researcher does not investigate alternative explanations, such as stressors outside of the

work environment, individual personality traits, and overall physiological and

psychological well-being.

The lack of objective measures may limit findings from this investigation. The

participants self-reported levels of burnout, role conflict, and role ambiguity through

survey instruments. The use of a single data collection method, particularly one that relies

solely on self-reports, may present threats to the validity of measures (Shadish et al.,

2002). Additionally, because of its cross-sectional design, the study cannot provide

evidence to determine if job characteristics influence the development of burnout, or if

burnout influences the perception of job characteristics. Specifically, individual

assessments of occupational role and clarity of responsibilities may be particularly

sensitive to affective state, which is outside the scope of this research. For example, an

individual’s perceptions of role clarity may vary by relationships with managers and co-

workers. In addition, data collection took place during the Covid-19 pandemic, which may have influenced participants’ perceptions, consequently affecting responses to the survey instrument.

Some limitations may affect the generalizability of study results, which describes the degree to which findings apply to a broader population (Kukull & Ganguli, 2012).

Because of the voluntary nature of the study, generalizability is limited by the sample of participants who chose to complete the survey. Experts also note that biased responses

109

could result if participants perceive the study’s subject is burnout, which can have a negative implication (Maslach et al., 2001).

Finally, the anonymous nature of the online survey prevented the researcher from checking the eligibility of each participant. It is unlikely that ineligible individuals would have participated because inclusion criteria were not made known to participants; however, this is an unavoidable limitation of research when utilizing anonymous, online surveys (Shadish et al., 2002).

Recommendations for Future Research

Findings from the current study direct possible opportunities for future research.

First, this research could be replicated with a larger sample, using a non-random sampling strategy in order to produce generalizable results. Future researchers should attempt to obtain a representative sample of the current population of postsecondary non- teaching staff, as the lack of representativeness remains a limitation in the current research.

Future researchers could also conduct a follow-up investigation using a qualitative method. Findings from qualitative data, such as interviews, focus groups, or questionnaires, may illuminate the causes of role conflict and role ambiguity. In addition, additional research may reveal how these role stressors can be most effectively addressed in the work environment.

Another opportunity for future research is to examine the predictive effects of burnout, resulting from role conflict and role ambiguitiy, on other variables, such as organizational commitment or intent to leave. Such investigation would assist

110

organizational leaders in developing targeted interventions for staff members most likely

to experience burnout.

Researchers may also replicate the current study using other instruments. The

current research used the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and the Role

Conflict/Role Ambiguity Questionnaire (RCRAQ) to assess the variables of burnout, role

conflict, and role ambiguity. The use of other instruments may help improve the validity

of findings regarding the relationships between these variables. Finally, future

investigators may examine differences in organizational settings and characteristics to see

how organizational factors may contribute to role conflict and role ambiguity. For

example, researchers could explore whether differences exist between government and

for-profit organizations, or if organizational size or structure influence the role conflict,

role ambiguity, and burnout experienced by its workforce.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to determine if role conflict and role ambiguity

predicted burnout among employees. In addition, the researcher examined whether

organizational level and demographic variables (gender, education level, and job tenure)

moderated the relationships between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout. Data was

collected from a non-random sample of 259 non-teaching, full-time employees of public,

postsecondary institutions in one U.S. state. The study survey consisted of the Oldenburg

Burnout Inventory (OLBI) and the Role Conflict/Role Ambiguity Questionnaire

(RCRAQ). Results of linear regression analyses reveal role conflict and role ambiguity

predict burnout. Organizational level was not a moderating factor in the relationships

111

between role conflict, role ambiguity, and burnout. Only education level (Associate’s

degree) emerged as a moderator in the relationship between role conflict and burnout.

Gallup's 2018 State of the Global Workplace categorized workers worldwide into

three distinct groups: engaged, not engaged, and actively disengaged, or burned out. The

research found that 87 % of the world’s workforce and nearly 70 % of workers in the

United States are either not engaged or are burned out. Gallup reported that engaged

employees work with zeal and exhibit strong alliance to their organization. According to

the report, not engaged employees are doing what is necessary, but are not active

participants in the strategic outcomes of the organization. Employees experiencing

burnout, however, are more than apathetic. Job burnout occurs when an employee’s

exposure to environmental job stressors is frequent, intense, and ongoing, exhaserbated

by the absence of clear roles and responsibilities.

Findings from this study emphasize the importance of understanding and

addressing role conflict and role ambiguity, in order to prevent employee burnout, within organizations. Although additional research is needed to better understand the relationships between role ambiguity, role conflict, and burnout, as well as factors that may moderate these relationships, organizational leaders should begin addressing this issue without delay. Organizations should provide effective orientation and ongoing onboarding, training, development, and clear descriptions of goals to ensure staff understand their job responsibilities and are more equipped to respond when they encounter conflicts in the roles they perform. Addressing the human capital risk caused by role conflict and role ambiguity, leading to burnout, remains vital for supporting an engaged and prosperous workplace for employees; characteristics of a work environment

112

that fosters improved organizational productivity and performance, resulting in both immediate and future financial benefits for organizations.

Finally, the results of this and other burnout studies suggest that the workplace experience is far too complex for simple solutions. Maslach et al. (2001) suggests that burnout leads to an ineffectual connection between the employee and the organization, fueled by workplace experiences causing feelings of a lack of productivity, fatigue, and emotional detachment. Modern organizations must respond to rapid change, global health and economic uncertainty, and support employees as they face many obstacles at home and in the workplace. Leaders should not only seek to mitigate the effects of job stress and burnout, but should actively investigate what may be causing the negative experiences in the work environment. Organizational stress will always exist. Leaders have a responsibility to minimize employee stress and create work environments that support and sustain role competence and role clarity.

113

APPENDIX A – Reprint License for Figure 2

114

115

APPENDIX B – Reprint License for Figure 3

116

117

118

119

APPENDIX C - Permission to Reprint Figure 4

120

APPENDIX D - Permission to Reprint Figure 5

121

122

123

APPENDIX E - Researcher’s Instrument

124

125

126

127

APPENDIX F - Oldenburg Burnout Inventory permission

128

APPENDIX G - The Role Conflict/Role Ambiguity Questionnaire Permission

129

APPENDIX H – IRB Approval Letter

130

APPENDIX I – Introduction Email

Subject: Kristen Albritton, a Ph.D. candidate, needs your help

Dear [insert name],

In a few days you will receive an email invitation from me to participate in a web-based survey. I am writing in advance to ask you to look for this invitation in your inbox in the days to come. As a fellow higher education professional, I am asking you to complete a survey to help me study how organizational dynamics and personal characteristics affect employees’ views towards their work and their work environment. Your input is very important for higher education leaders and would be of great help to me! In addition, completion of the survey makes you eligible to win one of ten $50 Visa gift cards, if you so choose.

This, no more than 10-minute survey, is part of the research for my dissertation in the Department of Human Capital Development at The University of Southern Mississippi. Your participation is voluntary, your confidentiality is assured, and no one, including me, will see your responses along with personally identifiable information. The University of Southern Mississippi Institutional Review Board (IRB) has approved this project, IRB- 19-188.

Again, your responses will be an enormous help to me and my research and I thank you for your time and consideration. Should you have any questions regarding this research, please contact me directly at [email protected].

All the best,

Kristen Albritton Ph.D. Candidate The University of Southern Mississippi [email protected]

131

APPENDIX J - Invitation to Participate

Subject: Invitation to participate in Kristen Albritton’s dissertation research

Dear [insert name],

As a higher education professional, I am asking you to complete a survey to help me study how organizational dynamics and personal characteristics affect employees’ views towards their work and their work environment. You have been selected for this study because of your position at the institution and your input is very important for higher education leaders and would be of great help to me! This survey is part of the research for my dissertation in the Department of Human Capital Development at The University of Southern Mississippi. While your participation is voluntary, I respectfully ask for no more than ten minutes of your time to complete an electronic survey on how your work and your work environment make you feel.

All survey responses are anonymous, and no IP or email addresses are being collected. Only statistics will be reported in the data analysis. You may choose not to answer any question in this survey that makes you feel uncomfortable. Should you have any questions or need to contact me, I can be reached by email at [email protected]. The University of Southern Mississippi Institutional Review Board (IRB) has approved this project, IRB-19-188.

**If you are interested in registering to win one of ten $50 Visa gift cards, you will be asked to provide your email address once you have completed the survey. Your email address will not be associated with your answers to any survey questions. Gift card recipients will be chosen randomly and the cards will be distributed following the data collection period.

To access the survey electronically, please click on this link: ENTER SURVEY

Please complete the survey no later than June 19 to be included!

Thank you very much in advance for taking the time to participate in this survey.

All the best,

Kristen Albritton Ph.D. Candidate The University of Southern Mississippi [email protected] 132

APPENDIX K – Follow-up Email

Subject: Reminder – Action Required

Dear [insert name],

If you have not had an opportunity to complete the survey regarding how your work and your work environment make you feel, I respectfully ask again for no more than ten minutes of your day. Your time and responses are very important to me. To access the survey electronically, please click on this link:

ENTER SURVEY

If you who have already taken the time to complete the survey, thank you so much!

If you haven’t, there’s still time to register to win one of ten $50 Visa gift cards. If you choose to participate in the survey and register for the drawing, you will be asked to provide your email address, and that’s it! Your personal information will not be associated with your answers, and your participation in the drawing is anonymous. Gift card recipients will be chosen randomly and the cards will be distributed following data collection.

Please complete the survey no later than June 19 to be included!

Thank you very much in advance for taking the time to participate in this survey.

All the best,

Kristen Albritton Ph.D. Candidate University of Southern Mississippi [email protected]

The University of Southern Mississippi Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Subjects Research has approved this project, IRB-19-188.

133

REFERENCES

Ablanedo-Rosas, J. H., Blevins, R. C., Gao, H., Teng, W. Y., & White, J. (2011). The

impact of occupational stress on academic and administrative staff, and on students:

An empirical case analysis. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management,

33(5), 553–564. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2011.605255

Adekola, B. (2012). Work Burnout Experience among University Non Teaching Staff: A

Gender Approach. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and

Social Sciences, 2(1), 8.

Afifah, U., Sari, R. N., Anugerah, R., & Sanusi, Z. M. (2015). The effect of role conflict,

self-efficacy, professional ethical sensitivity on auditor performance with emotional

quotient as moderating variable. Procedia Economics and Finance, 31, 206–212.

https://doi.org/10.1016/s2212-5671(15)01222-8

Ahola, K., Toppinen-Tanner, S., & Seppänen, J. (2017). Interventions to alleviate burnout

symptoms and to support return to work among employees with burnout: Systematic

review and meta-analysis. Burnout Research, 4, 1–11.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2017.02.001

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting

interactions. Sage Publications, Inc.

Akar, H. (2018). The relationships between quality of work life, school alienation,

burnout, affective commitment and organizational citizenship: A study on teachers.

European Journal of Educational Research, 7(2), 169–180.

https://doi.org/10.12973/eu-jer.7.2.169

134

Akkoç, İ., Okun, O., & Türe, A. (2020). The effect of role‐related stressors on nurses’

burnout syndrome: The mediating role of work‐related stress. Perspectives in

Psychiatric Care. https://doi.org/10/ghd92x

Alam, S., Haerani, S., Amar, M. Y., & Sudirman, I. (2015). Role conflict and role

ambiguity in higher education. International Journal of Business and Management

Invention, 4(1), 1–7.

Alarcon, G., Eschleman, K. J., & Bowling, N. A. (2009). Relationship between

personality variables and burnout: A metaanalysis. Work and Stress, 23, 244–263.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370903282600

Alessandri, G., Perinelli, E., De Longis, E., Schaufeli, W. B., Theodorou, A., Borgogni,

L., Caprara, G. V., & Cinque, L. (2018). Job burnout: The contribution of emotional

stability and emotional self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Occupational and

Organizational Psychology, 91(4), 823–851. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12225

Al-Kahtani, N. S., & Allam, Z. (2016). A holistic approach to determine the relationship

of sociobiographical variables with role ambiguity and role conflict. International

Business Management, 10(15), 2795–2801.

Amilin, A. (2017). The impact of role conflict and role ambiguity on accountants’

performance: The moderating effect of emotional quotient. European Research

Studies Journal, 2A, 237–249. https://doi.org/10.35808/ersj/639

Arshadi, N., & Damiri, H. (2013). The relationship of job stress with turnover intention

and job performance: Moderating role of OBSE. Procedia: Social and Behavioral

Sciences, 84, 706–710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.06.631

135

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The Job Demands‐Resources model: State of the

art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328.

https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Bakker, A. B., & Heuven, E. (2006). Emotional dissonance, burnout, and in-role

performance among nurses and police officers. International Journal of Stress

Management, 13, 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.423

Banerjee, A., & Chaudhury, S. (2010). Statistics without tears: Populations and samples.

Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 19(1), 60. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-6748.77642

Barkhuizen, N., Rothmann, S., & van de Vijver, F. J. (2014). Burnout and work

engagement of academics in higher education institutions: Effects of dispositional

optimism. Stress and Health, 30(4), 322–332. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2520

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Baseman, J., Revere, D., Painter, I., Stangenes, S., Lilly, M., Beaton, R., Calhoun, R., &

Meischke, H. (2018). Impact of new technologies on stress, attrition and well-being

in emergency call centers: The NextGeneration 9-1-1 study protocol. BMC Public

Health, 18, 597. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5510-x

Beaton, C. (2017, September 1). A Little-Known Cause of Burnout. Psychology Today.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-gen-y-guide/201709/little-known-

cause-burnout

136

Beehr, T. A. (2014). Psychological Stress in the Workplace (Psychology Revivals).

Routledge.

Beehr, T. A., & Drexler, J. A. (1986). Social support, autonomy, and hierarchical level as

moderators of the role characteristics-outcome relationship. Journal of Occupational

Behaviour, 7(3), 207–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030070305

Belias, D., Koustelios, A., Sdrolias, L., & Aspridis, G. (2015). Job satisfaction, role

conflict and autonomy of employees in the Greek banking organization. Procedia:

Social and Behavioral Sciences, 175, 324–333.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.01.1207

Bertrand, A. L. (1971). Social organization;: A general systems and role theory

perspective. F. A. Davis Co.

Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent developments in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology,

12, 67–92. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.12.080186.000435

Biddle, B. J., & Thomas, E. J. (1966). Role theory: Concepts and research. Wiley.

Blix, A. G., Cruise, R. J., Mitchell, B. M., & Blix, G. G. (1994). Occupational stress

among university teachers. Educational Research, 36(2), 157–169.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0013188940360205

Blom, V., Bodin, L., Bergström, G., & Svedberg, P. (2016). Applying the demand-

control-support model on burnout in managers and non-managers. International

Journal of Workplace Health Management; Bingley, 9(1), 110–122.

http://dx.doi.org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/10.1108/IJWHM-06-2015-0033

Brace, N., Kemp, R., & Snelgar, R. (2012). SPSS for Psychologists. Routledge.

137

Brill, P. L. (1984). The need for an operational definition of burnout. Family &

Community Health, 6(4), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003727-198402000-

00005

Bucurean, M., & Costin, M.-A. (2011). Organizational stress and its impact on work

performance. Annals of Faculty of Economics, 1(special), 333–337.

Burke, R. J., & Greenglass, E. R. (1995). A longitudinal examination of the Cherniss

model of psychological burnout. Social Science & Medicine, 40(10), 1357–1363.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-9536(94)00267-W

Büssing, A., & Glaser, J. (2000). Four-stage process model of the core factors of burnout:

The role of work stressors and work-related resources. Work & Stress, 14(4), 329–

346. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370110041884

Carrilio, T. E., & Eisenberg, D. M. (1984). Using peer support to prevent worker burnout.

Social Casework, 65(5), 307–310.

Celik, K. (2013). The effect of role ambiguity and role conflict on performance of vice

principals: The mediating role of burnout. 51, 195–214.

Cervoni, A., & DeLucia-Waack, J. (2011). Role conflict and ambiguity as predictors of

job satisfaction in high school counselors. Journal of School Counseling, 9(1), n1.

Chan, S. H., Wan, Y. K., & Kuok, O. M. (2015). Relationships among burnout, job

satisfaction, and turnover of casino employees in Macau. Journal of Hospitality

Marketing & Management, 24, 345–374.

https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2014.911712

138

Chang, S. I. (2008). Work role stressors and turnover intentions: A study of it personnel

in South Korea. Zeitschrift Für Personalforschung / German Journal of Research in

Human Resource Management, 22(3), 272–290.

Cherniss, C. (1980). Professional burnout in human service organizations. Praeger

Publishers.

Cherniss, C. (1992). Long-term consequences of burnout: An exploratory study. Journal

of Organizational Behavior, 13(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030130102

Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical Power Analysis. Current Directions in Psychological

Science, 1(3), 98–101. https://doi.org/10/cxqf2s

Colligan, T. W., & Higgins, E. M. (2006). Workplace stress. Journal of Workplace

Behavioral Health, 21(2), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1300/j490v21n02_07

Cooper, C. D., Slocum, Jr, J. W., & Hellrigel, D. (2018). Mastering organizational

behaviour: Version 14.0.

Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2013). Business Research Methods. McGraw-Hill

Education.

Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A Review and an Integration of Research on

Job Burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 621–656.

https://doi.org/10.2307/258593

Crabtree, S. (2018). Global productivity hinges on human capital development.

http://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/225752/global-productivity-hinges-human-

capital-development.aspx

Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches. SAGE.

139

CUPA-HR. (2020). CUPA-HR - College and University Professional Association for

Human Resources. CUPA-HR. https://www.cupahr.org/

Curran, T. M., & Prottas, D. J. (2017). Role stressors, engagement and work behaviors: A

study of higher education professional staff. Journal of Higher Education Policy and

Management, 39(6), 642–657. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080x.2017.1377964

de Paiva, L. C., Canário, A. C. G., de Paiva China, E. L. C., & Gonçalves, A. K. (2017).

Burnout syndrome in health-care professionals in a university hospital. Clinics (Sao

Paulo, Brazil), 72(5), 305–309. https://doi.org/10/gfvn99

De Clercq, D., & Belausteguigoitia, I. (2019). Reducing the harmful effect of work

overload on creative behaviour: Buffering roles of energy-enhancing resources.

Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(1), 5–18.

https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12278

Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job

demands-resources model of burnout. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3),

499–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499

Demerouti, E., Mostert, K., & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A

thorough investigation of the independency of both constructs. Journal of

Occupational Health Psychology, 15(3), 209–222. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019408

Demerouti, Evangelia, & Bakker, A. B. (2008). The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: A

good alternative to measure burnout and engagement. Handbook of Stress and

Burnout in Health Care, 65–78.

Demerouti, Evangelia, Bakker, A. B., Vardakou, I., & Kantas, A. (2003). The convergent

validity of two burnout instruments: A multitrait-multimethod analysis. European

140

Journal of Psychological Assessment, 19(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-

5759.19.1.12

DeTienne, K. B., Agle, B. R., Phillips, J. C., & Ingerson, M.-C. (2012). The impact of

moral stress compared to other stressors on employee fatigue, job satisfaction, and

turnover: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business Ethics, 110(3), 377–391.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-011-1197-y

Dillman, D. A. (2011). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. John

Wiley & Sons.

Doherty, A., & Hoye, R. (2011). Role ambiguity and volunteer board member

performance in nonprofit sport organizations. Nonprofit Management & Leadership,

22(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.20043

Duli, S. (2016). Years of Work Experience, an Important Predictor of Burnout in Special

Education. American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and

Sciences, 17, 318–322.

Dyck, D. (2001). The toxic workplace. Benefits Canada, 25(3), 52.

Dyrbye, L. N., Meyers, D., Ripp, J., Dalal, N., Bird, S. B., & Sen, S. (2018). A Pragmatic

Approach for Organizations to Measure Health Care Professional Well-Being. NAM

Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.31478/201810b

Ebbers, J. J., & Wijnberg, N. M. (2017). Betwixt and between: Role conflict, role

ambiguity and role definition in project-based dual-leadership structures. Human

Relations; Studies towards the Integration of the Social Sciences, 70(11), 1342–

1365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726717692852

141

Eckman, E. (2004). Similarities and differences in role conflict, role commitment, and

job satisfaction for female and male high school principals. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 40(3), 366–387.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x03257835

Ekstedt, M., Soderstrom, M., Akerstedt, T., Nilsson, J., Sondergaard, H.-P., &

Aleksander, P. (2006). Disturbed sleep and fatigue in occupational burnout.

Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 32(2), 121–131.

https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.987

Erasmus, B. J., Grobler, A., & Van Niekerk, M. (2015). Employee Retention in a Higher

Education Institution: An Organisational Development Perspective. Progressio:

South African Journal for Open and Distance Learning Practice, 37(2), 33.

https://doi.org/10.25159/0256-8853/600

Erera, I. P. (1992). Supervisors can burn-out too. The Clinical Supervisor, 9(2), 131–148.

https://doi.org/10.1300/J001v09n02_12

Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of Convenience Sampling

and Purposive Sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics,

5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses

using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior

Research Methods, 41(4), 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10/b22kn7

Fayol, H. (1949). General and Industrial Management. Pitman.

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. SAGE Publications.

142

Fisher, R. T. (2001). Role Stress, the Type A Behavior Pattern, and External Auditor Job

Satisfaction and Performance. Behavioral Research in Accounting, 13(1), 143–170.

https://doi.org/10.2308/bria.2001.13.1.143

Fong, C. M. (1990). Role Overload, Social Support, and Burnout Among Nursing

Educators. Journal of Nursing Education, 29(3), 102–108.

https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-19900301-07

Frank, A. G. (1958). Goal ambiguity and conflicting standards: An approach to the study

of organization. Hum. Organ., 17(4), 8–13.

Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burn-out. The Journal of Social Issues, 30(1), 159–165.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1974.tb00706.x

Freudenberger, H. J. (1975). The staff burn-out syndrome in alternative institutions.

Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & Practice, 12(1), 73–82.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0086411

Frone, M. R. (2016). Work stress and alcohol use: Developing and testing a biphasic self-

medication model. Work and Stress, 30(4), 374–394.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2016.1252971

Gabel Shemueli, R., Dolan, S. L., Suarez Ceretti, A., & Nunez Del Prado, P. (2016).

Burnout and engagement as mediators in the relationship between work

characteristics and turnover intentions across two Ibero-American nations. Stress

and Health, 32(5), 597–606. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2667

Gallup Inc. (2017). State of the American Workplace.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/238085/state-american-workplace-report-

2017.aspx

143

Gallup Inc. (2018). State of the Global Workplace.

https://www.gallup.com/workplace/257552/state-global-workplace-2017.aspx

Garton, E. (2017, April 6). Employee Burnout Is a Problem with the Company, Not the

Person. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2017/04/employee-burnout-is-a-

problem-with-the-company-not-the-person

George, D., & Mallery, P. (viaf)92115668. (2010). SPSS for Windows step by step: A

simple guide and reference, 17.0 update (10th ed.). Boston : Allyn & Bacon.

http://lib.ugent.be/catalog/rug01:001424067

Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social Behavior and the Administrative Process.

The School Review, 65(4), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1086/442411

Goh, J., Pfeffer, J., & Zenios, S. A. (2016). The relationship between workplace stressors

and mortality and health costs in the United States. Management Science, 62(2),

608–628. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2115

Greer, J. G., & Wethered, C. E. (1984). Learned helplessness: A piece of the burnout

puzzle. Exceptional Children, 50(6), 524–530.

Grobelna, A. (2015). Role ambiguity: A problem or a challenge facing contemporary

hospitality industry: The critical role of employees’ creativity. 14(3), 77–98.

Grubbs, F. E. (1969). Procedures for Detecting Outlying Observations in Samples.

Technometrics, 11(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10/gddjjg

Gunlu, E., Aksarayli, M., & Sahin Percin, N. (2010). Job satisfaction and organizational

commitment of hotel managers in Turkey. International Journal of Contemporary

Hospitality Management, 22(5), 693–717.

https://doi.org/10.1108/09596111011053819

144

Hakanen, J. J., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict

depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective

study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 141, 415–424.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.02.043

Halbesleben, J. R. B., & Demerouti, E. (2005). The construct validity of an alternative

measure of burnout: Investigating the English translation of the Oldenburg Burnout

Inventory. Work & Stress, 19(3), 208–220.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02678370500340728

Hanaysha, J. (2016). Improving employee productivity through work engagement:

Evidence from higher education sector. Management Science Letters, 6(1), 61–70.

Hassard, J., Teoh, K. R. H., Visockaite, G., Dewe, P., & Cox, T. (2018). The cost of

work-related stress to society: A systematic review. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology, 23(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000069

Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W. (2008). Organizational behavior. Cengage Learning.

Hillhouse, J. J., Adler, C. M., & Walters, D. N. (2000). A simple model of stress, burnout

and symptomology in medical residents: A longitudinal study. Psychology Health

and Medicine, 5, 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/135485000106016

House, R. J., & Rizzo, J. R. (1972). Toward the measurement of organizational practices:

Scale development and validation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56(5), 388–396.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033444

IBM Corp. (2020). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (27.0) [Computer software].

Israel, B., House, J., Schurman, S., Heaney, C., & Mero, R. (1989). The relation of

personal resources, participation, influence, interpersonal relationships, and coping

145

strategies to occupational stress, job strains and health: A multivariate analysis.

Work and Stress, 3, 164–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678378908256942

Jackson, S., & Schuler, R. (1985). A meta-analysis and conceptual critique of research on

role ambiguity and role conflict in work settings. Organizational Behavior and

Human Decision Processes, 36, 16–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-

5978(85)90020-2

Jackson, S., Schuler, R., & Jiang, K. (2014). An Aspirational Framework for Strategic

Human Resource Management. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 1–56.

https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.872335

Jawahar, I. M. (2012). Mediating role of satisfaction with growth opportunities on the

relationship between employee development opportunities and citizenship behaviors

and burnout. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(9), 2257–2284.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00939.x

Jones-Schenk, J. (2019). Burnout 3.0. Journal of Continuing Education in Nursing, 50(8),

345–346. https://doi.org/10.3928/00220124-20190717-03

Kabir, M. J., Heidari, A., Etemad, K., Gashti, A. B., Jafari, N., Honarvar, M. R., Ariaee,

M., & Lotfi, M. (2016). Job Burnout, Job Satisfaction, and Related Factors among

Health Care Workers in Golestan Province, Iran. Electronic Physician, 8(9), 2924–

2930. https://doi.org/10.19082/2924

Kahn, R. L. (1974). Organizational development: Some problems and proposals. The

Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 10(4), 485–502.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002188637401000403

146

Kahn, R. L., Wolfe, D. M., Quinn, R. P., Snoek, J. D., & Rosenthal, R. A. (1964).

Organizational stress: Studies in role conflict and ambiguity. John Wiley.

Kaiser, R. B., Craig, S. B., Overfield, D. V., & Yarborough, P. (2011). Differences in

Managerial Jobs at the Bottom, Middle, and Top: A Review of Empirical Research.

Psychologist-Manager Journal (Taylor & Francis Ltd), 14(2), 76–91.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10887156.2011.570137

Kanchika, M., Iwasaki, S., Konish, A., Deguchi, Y., Kobayashi, Y., Nakada, A., & Inoue,

K. (2015). Aggression in teachers is related to role conflict and role ambiguity as

occupational stress. Osaka City Medical Journal, 61(2), 93–104.

Karsli, M. D., & Baloglu, M. (2006). A description and comparison of the levels of

anxiety among college administrators. Social Behavior and Personality, 34(6), 739–

745. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2006.34.6.739

Katz, D. (1980). The study of organizations (1st edition). Jossey-Bass.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1966). The social psychology of organizations. Wiley.

Katz, D., & Kahn, R. L. (1978). The social psychology of organizations (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Kay-Eccles, R. (2012). Meta-analysis of the relationship between coworker social

support and burnout using a two-level hierarchical linear model. Western Journal of

Nursing Research, 34, 1062–1063. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945912453684

Khan, A., Yusoff, R. B. M., Khan, M. M., Yasir, M., & Khan, F. (2014). Psychometric

analysis of role conflict and ambiguity scales in academia. International Education

Studies, 7(8). https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n8p104

147

Kivimaki, M., & Kawachi, I. (2015). Work stress as a risk factor for cardiovascular

disease. Current Cardiology Reports, 17(9), 630. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-

015-0630-8

Kolbell, R. M. (1995). When relaxation is not enough. In Lawrence R. Murphy, Joseph J.

Hurrell, Jr., S. L. Sauter, & G. P. Keita (Eds.), Job stress interventions (pp. 31–43).

American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10183-003

Kompaso, S., & Sridevi, M. S. (2010). Employee engagement: The key to improving

performance. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(12), p89.

https://doi.org/10.5539/ijbm.v5n12p89

Konstantinou, A.-K., Bonotis, K., Sokratous, M., Siokas, V., & Dardiotis, E. (2018).

Burnout Evaluation and Potential Predictors in a Greek Cohort of Mental

Health Nurses. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 32(3), 449–456.

https://doi.org/10/ggwhn7

Kopelman, R. E., Greenhaus, J. H., & Connolly, T. F. (1983). A model of work, family,

and interrole conflict: A construct validation study. Organizational Behavior and

Human Performance, 32(2), 198–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(83)90147-

Kukull, W. A., & Ganguli, M. (2012). Generalizability: The trees, the forest, and the low-

hanging fruit. Neurology, 78(23), 1886–1891.

https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e318258f812

Kwak, H., McNeeley, S., & Kim, S.-H. (2018). Emotional Labor, Role Characteristics,

and Police Officer Burnout in South Korea: The Mediating Effect of Emotional

Dissonance. Police Quarterly, 21(2), 223–249. https://doi.org/10/gdkqxm

148

Lawler, E. E., & Rhode, J. G. (1976). Information and Control in Organizations.

Goodyear Publishing Company.

Lee, D. (2017, August 23). 15 key factors in employees’ response to change. Ragan

Communications. https://www.ragan.com/15-key-factors-in-employees-response-to-

change/

Lee, J., Lim, N., Yang, E., & Lee, S. M. (2011). Antecedents and consequences of three

dimensions of burnout in psychotherapists: A meta-analysis. Professional

Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(3), 252–258.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023319

Lee, J. W., Rainey, H. G., & Young Han Chun. (2010). Goal ambiguity, work

complexity, and work routineness in federal agencies. The American Review of

Public Administration, 40(3), 284–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074009337620

Leiter, M. (1991). The dream denied: Professional burnout and the constraints of human

service organizations. Canadian Psychology, 32(4), 547–558.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079040

Leiter, M. (2005). Perception of risk: An organizational model of occupational risk,

burnout, and physical symptoms. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 18(2), 131–144.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10615800500082473

Leiter, M., & Maslach, C. (1988). The impact of interpersonal environment on burnout

and organizational commitment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 9(4), 297–

308. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030090402

Leiter, M., & Maslach, C. (2005). A mediation model of job burnout. In A.-S. G.

Antoniou & C. Cooper (Eds.), Research companion to organizational health

149

psychology. (2005-09845-036; pp. 544–564). Edward Elgar Publishing.

https://doi.org/10.4337/9781845423308.00046

Leiter, M., & Maslach, C. (2016). Latent burnout profiles: A new approach to

understanding the burnout experience. Burnout Research, 3(4), 89–100.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2016.09.001

Leiter, M. P. (1993). Burnout as a developmental process: Consideration of models.

Professional Burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research, 237, 250.

Lester, P. E., Inman, D., & Bishop, L. K. (2014). Handbook of tests and measurement in

education and the social sciences. Rowman & Littlefield.

Levin-Epstein, M. (2002). Tackle workplace stress to improve productivity, reduce

absenteeism. (Cover story). Staff Leader (Aspen Publishers Inc.), 15(12), 1.

Lewandowski, C. A. (2003). Organizational Factors Contributing to Worker Frustration:

The Precursor to Burnout. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 30(4), 175–185.

Lim, N., Kim, E. K., Kim, H., Yang, E., & Lee, S. (2010). Individual and work-related

factors influencing burnout of mental health professionals: A meta-analysis. Journal

of Employment Counseling, 47, 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-

1920.2010.tb00093.x

Liu, H., & Liu, Y. (2017). A study on the relationship between beginning teachers’ role

stress and career commitment. https://doi.org/10.2991/ammsa-17.2017.61

Malik, N. A., Bjorkqvist, K., & Osterman, K. (2017). Sick-leave due to burnout among

university teachers in Pakistan and Finland and its psychosocial concomitants.

European Journal of Soil Science, 4(4), 203–212.

150

Malinen, O.-P., & Savolainen, H. (2016). The effect of perceived school climate and

teacher efficacy in behavior management on job satisfaction and burnout: A

longitudinal study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 144–152.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.08.012

Mañas, M. A., Díaz-Fúnez, P., Pecino, V., López-Liria, R., Padilla, D., & José M.

Aguilar-Parra. (2018). Consequences of team job demands: Role ambiguity climate,

affective engagement, and extra-role performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 8.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02292

Mardhiah Yaacob, & Choi Sang Long. (2015). Role of Occupational Stress on Job

Satisfaction. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2 S1).

https://www.richtmann.org/journal/index.php/mjss/article/view/5867

Marquardt, D. W., & Snee, R. D. (1975). Ridge Regression in Practice. The American

Statistician, 29(1), 3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.1975.10479105

Maslach, C. (1978). The Client Role in Staff Burn-Out. Journal of Social Issues, 34(4),

111–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1978.tb00778.x

Maslach, C. (1993). Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In W.B. Schaufeli, C.

Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory

and research (pp. 19–32). Taylor & Francis.

Maslach, C. (1998). A multidimensional theory of burnout. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories

of organizational stress (Vol. 68, p. 85).

Maslach, C. (2003). Job burnout: New directions in research and intervention. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 12(5), 189–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-

8721.01258

151

Maslach, C., & Goldberg, J. (1998). Prevention of burnout: New perspectives. Applied &

Preventive Psychology, 7(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0962-1849(98)80022-

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of

Occupational Behaviour, 2(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030020205

Maslach, C., Jackson, S., & Leiter, M. (1997). Maslach burnout inventory (3rd ed.).

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Maslach, C., Jackson, S., & Leiter, M. (2010). Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd

ed). Mind Garden. https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/193437927

Maslach, C., & Pines, A. (1977). The burn-out syndrome in the day care setting. Child

Care Quarterly, 6(2), 100–113.

Maslach, C., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1993). Historical and conceptual development of

burnout. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, & T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout:

Recent developments in theory and research (pp. 1–16). Taylor & Francis.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of

Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397

McGrath, J. (1976). Sress and Behavior in Organizations. Handbook of Industrial and

Oranizational Psychology.

Mclean, J., & Andrew, T. (1999). Commitment, Satisfaction, Stress and Control Among

Social Services Managers and Social Workers in the UK.

https://doi.org/10.1300/J147v23n03_06

Melamed, S., Shirom, A., Toker, S., Berliner, S., & Shapira, I. (2006). Burnout and risk

of cardiovascular disease: Evidence, possible causal paths, and promising research

152

directions. Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), 327–353. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

2909.132.3.327

Merida-Lopez, S., & Extremera, N. (2017). Emotional intelligence and teacher burnout:

A systematic review. International Journal of Educational Research, 85, 121–130.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2017.07.006

Merida-Lopez, S., Extremera, N., & Rey, L. (2017). Contributions of work-related stress

and emotional intelligence to teacher engagement: Additive and interactive effects.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 14(10), 1156.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101156

Miles, J. (2005). Tolerance and Variance Inflation Factor. In B. Everitt & D. Howell

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science. American Cancer Society.

https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013192.bsa683

Miles, R. H., & Perreault, W. D. (1976). Organizational role conflict: Its antecedents and

consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 17(1), 19–44.

https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90051-9

Morris, J. H., Steers, R. M., & Koch, J. L. (2017). Influence of organization structure on

role conflict and ambiguity for three occupational groupings. Academy of

Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.5465/255478

Morrison, R. L. (2008). Negative relationships in the workplace: Associations with

organisational commitment, cohesion, job satisfaction and intention to turnover.

Journal of Management & Organization, 14(4), 330–344.

https://doi.org/10.5172/jmo.837.14.4.330

153

Mosadeghrad, A. M. (2013). Occupational stress and turnover intention: Implications for

nursing management. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 1(2),

169–176. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2013.30

Moss, Cassandra L., "Role Conflict and Role Ambiguity as Predictors of Burnout in

Special and General Education Co-teachers" (2015). Walden Dissertations and

Doctoral Studies. 44.

https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/44

Mulki, J. P., Jaramillo, J. F., & Locander, W. B. (2008). Effect of ethical climate on

turnover intention: Linking attitudinal and stress theory. Journal of Business Ethics,

78(4), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-007-9368-6

Murphy, C. A., & Gable, R. K. (1988). Validity and reliability of the original and

abridged role conflict and ambiguity scales. Educational and Psychological

Measurement, 48(3), 743–751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164488483023

Nazari, H., Jariani, M., Beiranvand, S., Saki, M., Aghajeri, N., & Ebrahimzadeh, F.

(2016). The Prevalence of Job Stress and its Relationship with Burnout Syndrome

among the Academic Members of Lorestan University of Medical Sciences. Journal

of Caring Sciences, 5(1), 75–84. PubMed. https://doi.org/10.15171/jcs.2016.008

Nealey, S. M., & Fiedler, F. E. (1968). Leadership functions of middle managers.

Psychological Bulletin, 70(5), 313–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026505

Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and

role ambiguity in a structural equations framework. The Journal of Applied

Psychology, 75(2), 148–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.148

154

Nuri, C., Demirok, M. S., & Direktör, C. (2017). Determination of Self-efficacy and

Burnout State of Teachers Working in the Special Education Field in Terms of

Different Variables. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 5(3), 160.

https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i3.2237

Oktay, J. S. (1992). Burnout in Hospital Social Workers Who Work with AIDS Patients.

Social Work, 37(5), 432–439. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/37.5.432

Olivares-Faundez, V. E., Gil-Monte, P. R., Mena, L., Jelvez-Wilke, C., & Figueiredo-

Ferraz, H. (2014). Relationships between burnout and role ambiguity, role conflict

and employee absenteeism among health workers. Terapia Psicologica, 32(2), 111–

120. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48082014000200004

Ortqvist, D., & Wincent, J. (2006). Prominent consequences of role stress: A meta-

analytic review. International Journal of Stress Management, 13, 399–422.

https://doi.org/10.1037/1072-5245.13.4.399

Oyeleye, O., Hanson, P., O’Connor, N., & Dunn, D. (2013). Relationship of workplace

incivility, stress, and burnout on nurses’ turnover intentions and psychological

empowerment. 43(10), 536–542. https://doi.org/10.1097/nna.0b013e3182a3e8c9

Pagano, R. R. (2008). Understanding statistics in the behavioral sciences. Cengage

Learning.

Pallant, J. (2013). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data analysis using IBM

SPSS. McGraw Hill.

Palomino, M. N., & Frezatti, F. (2016). Role conflict, role ambiguity and job satisfaction:

Perceptions of the Brazilian controllers. Revista ADM, 51(2), 165–181.

https://doi.org/10.5700/rausp1232

155

Panke, D. (2018). Research design & method selection: Making good choices in the

social sciences. SAGE.

Park, H. I., & Nam, S. K. (2020). From Role Conflict to Job Burnout: A Mediation

Model Moderated by Mindfulness. The Career Development Quarterly, 68(2), 129–

144. https://doi.org/10/ghd92t

Patton, D. (2019). Predictive Relationships Between School Counselor Role Ambiguity,

Role Diffusion, and Job Satisfaction [PhD Thesis]. Walden University.

Peterson, U., Demerouti, E., Bergström, G., Samuelsson, M., Asberg, M., & Nygren, A.

(2008). Burnout and physical and mental health among Swedish healthcare workers.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 84–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-

2648.2007.04580.x

Pines, A. M. (1993). Burnout: An existential perspective. In W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach,

& T. Marek (Eds.), Professional burnout: Recent developments in theory and

research (pp. 33–51). Taylor & Francis.

Pratiwi, I. Y., Ratnadi, N. M. D., Suprasto, H. B., & Sujana, I. K. (2019). The effect of

role conflict, role ambiguity, and role overload in burnout government internal

supervisors with tri hita karana culture as moderation. International Research

Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 6(3), 61–69.

https://doi.org/10.21744/irjmis.v6n3.630

Qualtrics. (2020). Qualtrics. In Qualtrics (XM) [Computer software]. Qualtrics.

https://www.qualtrics.com/

Rahim, M. A. (2010). Managing conflict in organizations. Transaction Publishers.

156

Ravitch, S. M., & Riggan, M. (2016). Reason & rigor: How conceptual frameworks

guide research. SAGE Publications.

Reis, D., Xanthopoulou, D., & Tsaousis, I. (2015). Measuring job and academic burnout

with the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI): Factorial invariance across samples

and countries. Burnout Research, 2(1), 8–18.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2014.11.001

Ricci, J. A., Chee, E., Lorandeau, A. L., & Berger, J. (2007). Fatigue in the U.S.

workforce: Prevalence and implications for lost productive work time. Journal of

Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 49(1), 1–10.

https://doi.org/10.1097/01.jom.0000249782.60321.2a

Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role Conflict and Ambiguity in

Complex Organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15(2), 150–163.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2391486

Roberts, C. M. (2004). The dissertation journey: A practical and comprehensive guide to

planning, writing, and defending your dissertation. Corwin Press.

Rogalsky, K., Doherty, A., & Paradis, K. F. (2016). Understanding the sport event

volunteer experience: An investigation of role ambiguity and its correlates. Journal

of Sport Management, 30, 453–469. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.2015-0214

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (2009). Artifacts in behavioral research: Robert

rosenthal and ralph l. rosnow’s classic books. Oxford University Press, USA.

Rothmann, S., & Essenko, N. (2007). Job characteristics, optimism, burnout, and ill

health of support staff in a higher education institution in south Africa. South

157

African Journal of Psychology. Suid-Afrikaanse Tydskrif Vir Sielkunde, 37(1), 135–

152. https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630703700110

Sabagh, Z., Hall, N. C., & Saroyan, A. (2018). Antecedents, correlates and consequences

of faculty burnout. Educational Research, 60(2), 131–156. https://doi.org/10/gf5d9c

Sakires, J., Doherty, A., & Misener, K. (2009). Role ambiguity in voluntary sport

organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 23, 615–643.

https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.23.5.615

Salvagioni, D. A. J., Melanda, F. N., Mesas, A. E., Gonzalez, A. D., Gabani, F. L., &

Andrade, S. M. (2017). Physical, psychological and occupational consequences of

job burnout: A systematic review of prospective studies. PLoS One, 12(10),

e0185781. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0185781

Sana, F., & Aslam, N. (2018). Effect of role ambiguity and role conflict in predicting

work-family conflict among teachers. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research,

33, 349–365.

Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2013). Increasing web survey response rates in innovation

research: An experimental study of static and dynamic contact design features.

Research Policy, 42(1), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.003

Sayers, J. M., Salamonson, Y., DiGiacomo, M., & Davidson, P. (2015). Nurse educators

in Australia: High job satisfaction despite role ambiguity. Journal of Nursing

Education and Practice, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.5430/jnep.v5n4p41

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job

demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness

158

absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 893–917.

https://doi.org/10.1002/job.595

Schaufeli, W. B., & Enzmann, Dirk. (1998). The burnout companion to study and

practice: A critical analysis. Taylor & Francis.

Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M., & Maslach, C. (2009). Burnout: 35 years of research and

practice. Career Development International, 14(3), 204–220.

https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430910966406

Schaufeli, W. B., Maslach, C., & Marek, T. (2017). Professional burnout: Recent

developments in theory and research. Routledge.

Schepers, J. J. L., Nijssen, E. J., & van der Heijden, G. A. H. (2016). Innovation in the

frontline: Exploring the relationship between role conflict, ideas for improvement,

and employee service performance. International Journal of Research in Marketing,

33(4), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2016.01.004

Schmidt, S., Roesler, U., Kusserow, T., & Rau, R. (2014). Uncertainty in the workplace:

Examining role ambiguity and role conflict, and their link to depression—A meta-

analysis. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(1), 91–106.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.711523

Schuler, R., & Jackson, S. (2014). Human resource management and organizational

effectiveness: Yesterday and today. Journal of Organizational Effectiveness: People

and Performance, 1(1), 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOEPP-01-2014-0003

Schuler, R. S., Aldag, R. J., & Brief, A. P. (1977). Role conflict and ambiguity: A scale

analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20(1), 111–128.

https://doi.org/10/cxqr33

159

Schulz, J. (2013). The impact of role conflict, role ambiguity and organizational climate

on the job satisfaction of academic staff in research-intensive universities in the UK.

Higher Education Research & Development, 32(3), 464–478.

https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2012.680209

Schwab, R. L., Iwanicki, E. F., & Pierson, D. A. (1983). Assessing role conflict and role

ambiguity: A Cross validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement,

43(2), 587–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316448304300231

Semeijn, J., de Waard, B., Lambrechts, W., & Semeijn, J. (2019). Burning rubber or

burning out? The influence of role stressors on burnout among truck drivers.

Logistics, 3(1), 6. https://doi.org/10/ghd92v

Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-

experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage

Learning.

Shafi, M., Baloch, S., Memon, A. S., & Fatima, H. (2016). Relationship amongst job

stress and chronic back-pain: A cross sectional study of teaching and administrative

staff. https://doi.org/10.5176/2251-2012_qqe16.29

Sharma, R., & Cooper, C. (2016). Executive burnout: Eastern and Western concepts,

models and approaches for mitigation (First edition). Emerald.

Shebeeb Al‐Ajmi, R. (2007). The effect of personal characteristics on conflict

management style: A study among public sector employees in Kuwait.

Competitiveness Review, 17(3), 181–192.

https://doi.org/10.1108/10595420710833589

160

Shoji, K., Cieslak, R., Smoktunowicz, E., Rogala, A., Benight, C. C., & Luszczynska, A.

(2016). Associations between job burnout and self-efficacy: A meta-analysis.

Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 29(4), 367–386.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2015.1058369

Shuck, B., Thomas, G., & Reio, J. (2013). Employee engagement and well-being: A

moderation model and implications for practice. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051813494240

Simendinger, E. A., & Moore, T. F. (1985). Organizational burnout in health care

facilities: Strategies for prevention and change. Aspen Publishers.

Singh, P., Suar, D., & Leiter, M. (2012). Antecedents, work-related consequences, and

buffers of job burnout among Indian software developers. Journal of Leadership &

Organizational Studies, 19(1), 83–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051811429572

Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences, 5th ed.

Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

Stevens, J. P. (2012). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Routledge.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Allyn &

Bacon, Inc.

Tang, Y.T., & Chang, C. H. (2010). Impact of role ambiguity and role conflict on

employee creativity. African Journal of Business Management, 4(6), 869–881.

https://doi.org/10.5897/AJBM.9000334

Tarrant, T., & Sabo, C. E. (2010). Role conflict, role ambiguity, and job satisfaction in

nurse executives. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 72–82.

https://doi.org/10.1097/NAQ.0b013e3181c95eb5

161

Traunmuller, C., Stefitz, R., Gaisbachgrabner, K., Hofmann, P., Roessler, A., &

Schwerdtfeger, A. R. (2019). Psychophysiological concomitants of burnout:

Evidence for different subtypes. Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 118, 41–48.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.01.009

Travis, D. J., Lizano, E. L., & Mor Barak, M. E. (2016). ‘I’m So Stressed!’: A

Longitudinal Model of Stress, Burnout and Engagement among Social Workers in

Child Welfare Settings. The British Journal of Social Work, 46(4), 1076–1095.

https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct205

Trepanier, S.-G., Fernet, C., & Austin, S. (2013). The moderating role of autonomous

motivation in the job demands-strain relation: A two sample study. Motivation and

Emotion, 37(1), 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9290-9

Uprichard, E. (2011). Dirty data: Longitudinal classification systems. The Sociological

Review, 59(s2), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2012.02058.x

Urien, B., Osca, A., & Garcia-Salmones, L. (2017). Role ambiguity, group cohesion and

job satisfaction: A Demands-Resources Model (JD-R) Study from Mexico and

Spain. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicologia, 49(2), 137–145.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlp.2015.09.014

Vesty, G., Sridharan, V., Northcott, D., & Dellaportas, S. (2018). Burnout among

university accounting educators in Australia and New Zealand: Determinants and

implications. Accounting and Finance, 58(1), 255–277.

https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12203

Vogt, W. P. (2005). Dictionary of statistics & methodology: A nontechnical guide for the

social sciences. SAGE.

162

Warwick, D. P., & Lininger, C. A. (1975). The sample survey: Theory and practice.

McGraw-Hill.

Webster, J. (1985). Introduction to Research in England and Wales. J. Webster.

Weinberg, A., Sutherland, V., & Cooper, C. (2015). Organizational stress management:

A strategic approach. Springer.

Williams, I. A. (2011). Conflict Management Styles and Job Satisfaction by

Organizational Level and Status in a Private University [Ph.D., Northcentral

University].

http://search.proquest.com/docview/918696047/abstract/F27EA7A948A4436CPQ/1

World Health Organization. (2019, May 28). Burn-out an “occupational phenomenon”:

International Classification of Diseases. World Health Organization.

http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/burn-out/en/

Wu, Hu, & Zheng. (2019). Role Stress, Job Burnout, and Job Performance in

Construction Project Managers: The Moderating Role of Career Calling.

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(13), 2394.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132394

Xu, L. (2019). Teacher–researcher role conflict and burnout among Chinese university

teachers: A job demand-resources model perspective. Studies in Higher Education,

44(6), 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2017.1399261

Yaacob, M., & Long, C. S. (2015). Role of occupational stress on job satisfaction.

Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences.

https://doi.org/10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n2s1p81

163

Yadegar, M., & Seif, M. H. (2018). Prediction of the burnout based on organizational

justice and commitment with an emphasis on mediating role of role conflict and

ambiguity among the staff of the Islamic Azad University of Shiraz. Knowledge &

Research in Applied Psychology, 19(2), 22–34. SID.

Zaccaro, S. J., Riley, A. W., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University., &

Virginia Tech Symposium on Applied Behavioral Science. (1987). Occupational

stress and organizational effectiveness. Praeger.

//catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/000876520

164