✅ Given the detrimental effects of burnout on employees, it is suggested that authorities reduce stressors such as the psychological and physical needs of the workplace, lack of support, job insecurity, and job calling.
Each job has its own problems and circumstances. But what many businesses have in common is that they often expose employees to stress, which in turn can lead to burnout. One of the most important factors in causing burnout is job stress (1,2). Occupational stress occurs when a person's expectations are higher than his or her authority and abilities (4.5). When they are constantly facing each other, they are very close to each other (8-10). Every job's mission affects the one performing it (11). This means that one's career path is the main part of one's goal and meaning in life. The mission of the career path is used to help others or to improve the situation in any way, and often stems from internal or external calls (12). Employees who have a job mission experience lower levels of stress and depression (14). Studies on the relationship between burnout and job stress and job mission indicate that the relationship between these variables is very complex. A review of the research suggests that although the relationship between these structures and burnout has been studied separately, the relationship between these structures has not been studied in a coordinated manner and as a model. Therefore, the present study seeks to explain the causal relationships between job-causing stressors, job mission and burnout in non-faculty employees of the faculties of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences.
In this descriptive-analytical study of cross-sectional type, which was conducted in 2019, the target community was the non-faculty staff of the faculties (campuses) of Hamadan University of Medical Sciences. The sampling method in the present study was a census so that all employees entered the study. Data were collected using standardized job stress questionnaires from the British Institute of Health and Safety (HSE-Q) (16), Dick's job mission (17.18) and Muslegh's burnout (19-22). After obtaining the necessary licenses and then coordinating with the officials of different departments of the university, the questionnaires were given to the employees who were had consent to participate in the research. Finally, after completing all the questionnaires, the data was entered into the relevant software and analyzed. Structural equation modeling was used to test the hypotheses. Using the confirmatory factor analysis method and using version 24 of AMOS software and estimating the probability (ML), how to fit the measurement model with the data was evaluated.
Table 1 shows that the components of job stress factors and job mission were positively and significantly correlated with the components of burnout (P<0.05). Table 2 shows the fit indices of measurement and structural models. For this reason, the structural model was corrected by creating covariance between the errors of the two latent variables, the dimensions of attendance and job search, and finally the fitness indicators were obtained, which showed that the structural model fits with the collected data (c2/ df -2.96). , 0.459 = CFI, 0.878 = AGFI, 0.917 = GFI and 0.71 = RMSEA).
Table 1. Descriptive Findings (n = 385)
Study’s variables | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
1. Occupational stressors - role | - | |||||||||||||||
2. Occupational stressors - communication | **0.45 | - | ||||||||||||||
3. Occupational stressors - support from officials | **0.44 | **0.49 | - | |||||||||||||
4. Job Stress Factors - Collaborative Support | **0.36 | **0.46 | **0.68 | - | ||||||||||||
5. Job Stress Factors - Control | **0.33 | **0.22 | **0.40 | **0.37 | - | |||||||||||
6. Occupational stressors - demand | **0.22 | **0.48 | **0.31 | **0.34 | **0.31 | - | ||||||||||
7. Job Stress Factors - Changes | **0.47 | **0.45 | **0.65 | **0.55 | **0.44 | **0.47 | - | |||||||||
8. Dimension of the presence of job mission - transcendent motivation | **0.23- | **0.16- | **0.15- | **0.19- | **0.24- | **0.14- | **0.26- | - | ||||||||
9. Dimension of the presence of the job mission - purposeful work | **0.29- | **0.23- | **0.18- | **0.25- | **0.25- | **0.18- | **0.29- | **0.75 | - | |||||||
10Dimension of the presence of the job mission - social benefit | **0.31- | **0.17- | *0.12- | **0.17- | **0.16- | 0.06- | **0.23- | **0.66 | **0.68 | - | ||||||
11Dimension of searching for a job mission - a sublime motivation | **0.21- | **0.14- | **0.15- | **0.18- | **0.16- | 0.03- | **0.25- | **0.58 | **0.65 | **0.60 | - | |||||
12. Dimension of the job search - targeted work | **0.23- | *0.12- | 0.09- | **0.18- | *0.11- | 0.05- | **0.21- | **0.48 | **0.58 | **0.53 | **0.69 | - | ||||
13. Dimension of look for a job mission - social benefit | **0.26- | *0.10- | *0.12- | **0.15- | **0.14- | 0.01 | **0.21- | **0.57 | **0.64 | **0.67 | **0.74 | **0.72 | - | |||
14. Job burnout - Emotional fatigue | **0.36 | **0.41 | **0.27 | **0.30 | **0.31 | **0.41 | **0.38 | **0.46- | **0.53- | **0.42- | **0.37- | **0.32- | **0.42- | - | ||
15. Job burnout - Depersonalization | **0.390 | **0.30 | **0.16 | **0.21 | **0.15 | **0.19 | **0.27 | **0.42- | **0.48- | **0.43- | **0.39- | **0.43- | **0.42- | **0.62 | - | |
16. Job burnout - failure | **0.17 | *0.13 | 0.02 | *0.11 | 0.07 | **0.16 | *0.11 | **0.21- | **0.28- | **0.27- | **0.25- | **0.30- | **0.28- | **0.44 | **0.56 | - |
M | 8.74 | 9.65 | 12.71 | 9.73 | 16.18 | 23.31 | 7.84 | 13.40 | 14.89 | 14.55 | 14.64 | 15.40 | 15.18 | 22.85 | 9.36 | 24.29 |
SD | 3.87 | 3.98 | 4.48 | 3.45 | 4.41 | 5.10 | 2.73 | 3.85 | 4.38 | 3.85 | 4.49 | 4.05 | 4.09 | 9.72 | 5.34 | 7.93 |
Table 2. Indicators of measurement and structural models (n = 385)
Fitness Indicators | Measurement model | Structural model | Cutting point | ||
Primary model | Modified model | Primary model | Modified model | ||
Chi-square | 400.93 | 296.61 | 562.23 | 278.24 | - |
Freedom model degree | 98 | 94 | 95 | 94 | - |
df/2c | 4.09 | 3.16 | 5.92 | 2.96 | Less than 3 |
GFI | 0.884 | 0.911 | 0.859 | 0.917 | < 0.90 |
AGFI | 0.839 | 0.872 | 0.799 | 0.878 | < 0.850 |
CFI | 0.908 | 0.939 | 0.858 | 0.945 | < 0.90 |
RMSEA | 0.089 | 0.075 | 0.113 | 0.071 | > 0.08 |
Table 3 shows the total, direct and indirect path coefficients between the research variables in the structural model. This table shows that the factors of job stress are indirectly related to job burnout by mediating the dimensions of attendance and job search. It should be noted that due to the insignificance of the path coefficient between the job search dimension and job burnout, it was concluded that unlike the job mission dimension, its search dimension does not mediate the relationship between job stress factors and job burnout.
Table 3. Total, direct and indirect path coefficients in the structural model (n = 385)
Path coefficient | b | S.E | β | sig |
Job burnout à Direct path coefficient of job stressors | 1.207 | 0.267 | 0.336 | 0.002 |
Path coefficient of Dimension of job mission searchingà Job burnout | 0.058- | 0.325 | 0.027- | 0.878 |
Path coefficient of Dimension of job mission presence àJob burnout | 1.403- | 0.428 | 0.528- | 0.008 |
Path coefficient of job stressors Dimension of job mission searching | 0.481- | 0.109 | 0.283- | 0.001 |
Path coefficient of job stressorsà Dimension of job mission presence | 0.518- | 0.096 | 0.381- | 0.001 |
Indirect Path coefficient of job stressorsà Job burnout | 0.749 | 0.164 | 0.209 | 0.001 |
The total path factor of job stressorsà Job burnout | 1.956 | 0.292 | 0.545 | 0.001 |
According to the results of the present study, the components of occupational stress factors were positively and significantly correlated with the components of burnout. This means that as burnout factors increase, burnout will increase. These findings were consistent with the results of the study of Heidari et al., Zargar et al., Hajlou et al., Rahmani et al., Shakrinia et al., Abdi et al., Watson et al., Jamal et al. has it. (8, 23-30).
Then, after ensuring the acceptable fit of the measurement model with the collected data, the way of fitting the structural model was evaluated. In the structural model, it was assumed that job stressors, both directly and through the mediation of the job mission, predict job burnout.
As studies which have investigated the job mission the study by Raffi Dick and Dick, 2013, entitled "Research on Job Mission: What Have We Learned and Where Do We Go?" can bepointed out (11).
They found out that the job mission significantly increases job commitment, job satisfaction, organizational satisfaction, and reduces their stress, and burnout. In the present study, job stressors predict burnout both directly and through job mediation. However, in 2015, Borna et al. conducted a study with the aim of structural analysis of nurses' job mission with the components of burnout and self-efficacy. Their research sample consisted of 120 female nurses in a hospital complex in Tehran province. The results showed that there is a significant relationship between job mission and components of job burnout and self-efficacy. The results of structural equation modeling showed that after the presence of job mission, they have direct relations with the components of job burnout and indirect relations with the self-efficacy component. They concluded that the components of burnout and self-efficacy are the factors that explain the mission of the path, and if they are considered, the job mission can be predicted.
Occupational stressors and job mission together account for more than 50% of burnout. Therefore, due to the harmful effects of burnout in employees, it is recommended that directors take action to reduce stressful factors such as psychological and physical needs of the workplace, lack of support, job insecurity and also job mission.
The authors appreciate the help of all those who helped them writing this article.
The authors declared no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.
Rights and permissions | |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |