Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

Antecedents and Work-Related Consequences of Job burnout among

Software Developers

1
JOB BURNOUT
Job burnout is a result of continuous exposure to stressful
situations. It is defined by the three dimensions of exhaustion,
cynicism (Singh, Suar, & Leiter, 2011), and low professional
efficacy at the work place (Schaufeli, Maslach, & Leiter, 1996).
Exhaustion is the central quality of job burnout experience and it
refers to feelings of overstrain, tiredness, or fatigue resulting from
chronic job stressors placed upon the employees.

Cynicism refers to distancing oneself from the exhausting demands

 Low professional efficacy refers to feelings of incompetence and a


lack of achievement and productivity in work.

2
CONCEPTUAL MODEL- WORK RELATED OUTCOMES
Professional
Exhaustion Cynicism
efficacy
Work
+ + - performance
Role ambiguity H2a -
H1a +
+ Affective
Role conflict + + commitment
H1b +
Schedule
pressure H1c + Subjective +
H3a - well-being +
H1d+
Irregular shifts Organizational Normative
Job H2b - +
commitment commitment
H1e + Burnout
H3b - +
Pressure from Social
H1f +
client interaction support +
H3c - +
Group non- H1g +
Practising yoga
cooperation and meditation Continuance
H1h + commitment
Psychological
contract
H2c -
violation
+ + +
Work-family Interpersonal
conflict relationships
3
‘+’ indicates positive association and ‘-’ indicates negative association
THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

Job Demands-Resources Theory (Demerouti et al., 2001a).

4
SCALE RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY
No. Of Items Factor loading
Variable M SD Cronbach GFI CFI NFI RMSEA
Original Retained range
Role amibiguity 6 6 3.00 0.73 0.7 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.04 0.74-0.82
Role conflict 8 8 3.72 0.6 0.89 0.97 0.98 0.96 0.05 0.53-0.76
Schedule pres s ure 8 8 3.08 0.54 0.79 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.04 0.33-0.79
Irregula r s hifts 4 4 2.91 0.64 0.71 0.98 0.97 0.96 0.1 0.52-0.65
Pres s ure from client intera ctions 7 7 0.58 0.15 0.64 0.98 0.95 0.9 0.05 0.33-0.59
Group non-coopera tion 13 13 2.38 0.64 0.93 0.93 0.96 0.95 0.07 0.36-0.86
Ps ychologica l contra ct viola tion 16 14 3.43 0.77 0.79 0.94 0.9 0.82 0.05 0.32-0.69
Work-fimily conflict 7 7 2.64 0.76 0.8 0.95 0.92 0.91 0.08 0.50-0.74
Job burnout
(a ) Exha us tion 5 5 3.5 0.99 0.85
(b) Cynicis m 5 5 2.62 1.17 0.93
1
( c) Profes s iona l ineffica cy 6 5 2.2 0.17 0.62 0.85 0.9 0.88 0.08 -0.30-0.89
(d) Profes s iona l effica cy 6 5 4.8 0.4 0.62 0.85 0.9 0.88 0.08 0.30-0.892
Work performa nce 7 7 3.94 0.29 0.65 0.98 0.96 0.91 0.04 0.32-0.55
Orga s a tiona l committement
(a ) Affective commitment 8 8 2.27 0.57 0.9
(b) Norma tive commitment 8 7 2.09 0.69 0.87 0.91 0.98 0.96 0.05 0.36-0.96
(c ) Continuence commitment 8 8 2.39 0.63 0.95
Interpers ona l rela tions hips 5 5 2.25 0.67 0.75 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.06 0.54-0.79
Subjective well-being 5 5 2.35 0.61 0.8 0.98 0.98 0.97 0.03 0.61-0.73
Socia l s upport 15 15 2.55 0.83 0.91 0.9 0.82 0.85 0.09 0.33-0.80
Pra ctis ing of yoga a nd meditation 7 7 1.71 0.79 0.85 0.97 0.97 0.96 0.08 0.49-0.90

5 with
Note: 1 The fit indices of the burnout scale are given with exhaustion, cynicism, and professional inefficacy. 2 The fit indices of burnout scale are given
exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy.
RESULTS

Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
a a a b a a a a a a a a a a a a a a
1 RA 1.00 .69 .42 .48 0.07.14 .40 .61 .67 .54 -.19 -.19 -.23 -.48 -.41 -.42 -.52 -.56 -.60 -.59
2 RC 1.00 .49a .53a 0.06 .18a .40a .67a .73a .59a -.20a -.20a -.28a -.56a -.40a -.43a -.60a -.61a -.65a -.66a
3 SP 1.00 .52a .10c .24a .44a .56a .68a .55a -.21a -.21a -.28a -.58a -.47a -.45a -.57a -.57a -.59a -.58a
4 IS 1.00 .17a .22a a
.46 .64 .75
a a
.68
a a
-.23
a
-.23 -.34
a
-.63
a a
-.47 -.54
a a
-.64 -.65
a a
-.64 -.65
a

5 PCI 1.00 0.01 .10c 0.07 0.08 .19a -1.01 -0.01 -0.02 -.11c -0.07 -.14b -.12c -0.05 -0.05 -.10c
6 EG 1.00 0.09 .27a .29a .29
a
-.10
c
-.10
c
0.08 -.20
a a
-.17 -.14
b a
-.23 -.22
a a
-.23 -.24
a

7 PCV 1.00 .52a .59a .54a -.14b -.14b -.22a -.42a -.38a -.41a -.48a -.51a -.50a -.48a
8 WF 1.00 .79a .75
a
-.16
a
-.16
a
-.33
a
-.66
a a
-.50 -.53
a a
-.67 -.69
a a
-.73 -.73
a

9 EX 1.00 .77a -.23a -.23a -.37a -.72a -.55a -.60a -.75a -.83a -.83a -.81a
a a a a a a a a a a
10 CY 1.00 -.18 -.18 -.32 -.60 -.48 -.53 -.64 -.69 -.69 -.72
11 PE 1.00 -1.00 -.30a -.19a -.20a -.19a -.18a -.26a -.13b -.19a
a a a a a a b a
12 PIE 1.00 -.30 -.19 -.20 -.19 -.18 -.26 -.13 -.19
13 WP 1.00 -.31a -.25a -.28a -.34a -.32a -0.09 -.32a
14 AC 1.00 -.49a -.58a -.72a -.59a -.64a -.73a
a a a a a
15 NC 1.00 -.52 -.51 -.49 -.42 -.48
16 CC 1.00 -.58a -.54a -.47a -.56a
17 IR 1.00 -.65a a
-.64 -.71
a

18 SWB 1.00 -.70a -.71a


19 SS 1.00 -.72a
20 PYM 1.00
cp<.05, bp<.01, ap<.001

RA=Role Ambiguity; RC= Role Conflict; SP= Schedule Pressure; IS= Irregular Shifts; PCI= Pressure from Client Interactions; EG=
Extent of Group Non- Cooperation; PCV=Psychological Contract Violation; Work-Family conflict; CY=Cynicism; PE=
Professional Efficiency; PIE= Professional Inefficiency; WP=Work Performance; AC=Affective Commitment; NC= Normative 6
Commitment; CC= Commitment; SEB= Subjective Well-Being; SS=Social Support; PYM=Practising Yoga and Meditation
DIRECT MODEL
ξ1 ξ2 ξ3

ξ4

RA H1a EX CY PE
0.12
0.90 0.79 0.23 WP
RC H1b
0.19 ξ5
AC
H1c
SP H2a 0.35
0.20 0.72
H1d
0.32 H2b
IS Job Orginzational 0.48
H1e -8.00 NC ξ6
bumount commitment
- 0.02
PCI
H1f 0.06 H2c 0.56
- 0.73 ξ8 ξ7
CC
EG H1g0.14

0.37
H1h IR
PVG

WF 7
8
PATH ANALYTIC RESULTS OF HYPOTHESES

9
FIT MEASURES

10
DIRECT, INDIRECT, AND TOTAL EFFECTS

11
Thank you

12
Example: Aligning HR with Business Drivers
Industry: HR Consulting
Mission: To Provide world class sustained end- to- end human resource consulting to SMEs
Values: Innovation, adaptability
Strategy: Product Based strategy
Why would the customers come to you? End to end solutions Innovative Solutions

Learning Growing perspective

Competencies Culture HR Practice

Creative Thinking Mistake tolerance Recruit the Best candidates


Flexibility Diversity Promote Meritocracy
Collaborative (Team work)
Subject Matter expertise

Capability management

1) Global Best Practices Training


2) Identification of next layer and on the job training
3) Rewards for sharing innovative ideas

13