PROFESSOR MICHAEL P. LEITER, PHD

DEAKIN UNIVERSITY

Culture

Strengthening

Engage-ment

Respect

Preventing Burnout by

Improving Relationships

with and at Work

Burnout as a Relationship Problem

People & Organizations have Expectations, Obligations, Demands

Key Areas of Worklife

Workload

Control

Reward

Community

Fairness

Values

Mismatches Drive Burnout

Exhaust Energy

Create Psychological Distance: Cynicism, Depersonalization

Discourage: Inefficacy, Low Accomplishment

Burnout and Neighboring Profiles

• Unmanageable Demands

• Inadequate RecoveryExhaustion

• Value Conflicts

• Disrespect

• Emotional DistanceCynicism

• Lack of Recognition

• Impossible Standards

• Lack of ControlInefficacy Ineffective

Over-

Extended

Disengaged

Burnout

Distributions Across Profiles

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.0

0.3

0.7

1.0

1.3

1.7

2.0

2.3

2.7

3.0

3.3

3.7

4.0

4.3

4.7

5.0

5.3

5.7

6.0

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s

Engaged

Exhaustion Cynicism Efficacy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.0

0.3

0.7

1.0

1.3

1.7

2.0

2.3

2.7

3.0

3.3

3.7

4.0

4.3

4.7

5.0

5.3

5.7

6.0

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s

Disengaged

Exhaustion Cynicism Efficacy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.0P

erc

en

t o

f R

esp

on

ses

Burned Out

Exhaustion Cynicism Efficacy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.0

0.3

0.7

1.0

1.3

1.7

2.0

2.3

2.7

3.0

3.3

3.7

4.0

4.3

4.7

5.0

5.3

5.7

6.0

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s

Ineffective

Exhaustion Cynicism Efficacy

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0.0 0.3 0.7 1.0 1.3 1.7 2.0 2.3 2.7 3.0 3.3 3.7 4.0 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.3 5.7 6.0

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nse

s

Overextended

Exhaustion Cynicism Efficacy

Contrast:

Overextended v Burnout

Burnout includes Exhaustion

But Burnout is More than Exhaustion

The Difference Matters

Comparing Overextended to

Burnout

Physicians Hospital Employees

-1.20

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

Overextended BurnoutD

iffe

ren

ce

fro

m S

td M

ea

nWorkload Control Reward Community Fairness Values

-1.00

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

Overextended Burnout

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m S

td M

ea

n

Workload Control Reward Community Fairness Values

Workgroup Culture and Profiles:

Canadian Hospital Employees

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Civil Low Contact Coworker

Uncivil

FLM Uncivil All Uncivil

Pe

rce

nt

of

Re

spo

nd

en

ts

Engaged Ineffective Overextended Disengaged Burnout

Profiles and Social Encounters:

Canadian Physicians

-0.25

-0.20

-0.15

-0.10

-0.05

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Profile re Positive Social Encounters

Community Mental Health Civility Psych Safety

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Profile re Negative Social Encounters

Doctor Uncivil Others Uncivil Instigated

Burnout/Depression Distinction

Burnout v Exhaustion v Depression

Item Exhaustion MHI P Efficacy Cynicism

MBIEx1 .88 .20 .02 .16

MBIEX3 .87 .16 .03 .22

MBIEX2 .86 .12 -.01 .14

MBICY1 .77 .16 -.07 .36

Downhearted .14 .85 -.05 .05

Happy -.11 -.84 .06 -.16

Calm -.08 -.82 .02 -.20

Nervous .14 .76 .00 -.06

Dumps .44 .57 -.09 .10

MBIPF3 .01 -.08 .85 -.14

MBIPF2 -.11 -.08 .83 -.19

MBIPF1 .05 .02 .77 .10

MBICY2 .32 .16 -.13 .84

MBICY3 .40 .12 -.10 .82

MBI-GS

Items with appropritate factor:

Except Cynicism 1:

Less enthusiastic

MHI

All items on MHI factor

Positive & Negative Coefficients

Burnout v Exhaustion v Depression

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Nervous Dumps DownHearted Happy Calm

Engaged Ineffective Overextended Disengaged Burned Out

Nervous: t(54)=0.18, p=.86

Dumps: t(54)=1.10, p=.28

Downhearted: t(54)=0.80, p=.43

Happy: t(54)=2.16, p=.036

Calm: t(54)=2.61, p=.012

Depression Symptoms Linked

Equally to Burnout & Exhaustion

Burnout with Distinct Low Scores on

Happy & Calm

Social Profiles

Cluster Analysis

Five Profiles

Civil

Hi Positive: FLM & Cwk

Lo Negative: FLM & Cwk

Low Contact

Low + and –

FLM Civil

Hi Positive: FLM

Hi Negative: Cwk

FLM Uncivil

Hi Negative : FLM

Neutral: Cwk

All Uncivil

Lo Positive: FLM & Cwk

Hi Negative: FLM & Cwk

Civil

39%

Low

Contact

27%

FLM Civil

17%

FLM

Uncivil

13%

All

Uncivil

4%

CHART TITLE

Civility Makes A Difference

-2.00

-1.50

-1.00

-0.50

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Mental

Health

FLM Bully CWK Bully Sickness

Absense

Worked

Despite

Illness

QUIT Intent

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Civil Low Contact FLM Civil FLM Uncivil All Uncivil

The Problem:

Problematic Social Encounters

People at Work Conundrum

People as Your Greatest Source of Support

People as Your Greatest Source of Distress

Problematic Social Encounters

Intensity

Intention

Power

Impact of Incivility

Administrative & Legal Demands: Complaints

Withdrawal: Nonparticipation, Absences, Quitting

Performance Problems: Errors, Limits, Gaps

Workgroup Culture

Constructive Culture

Shared Mission

Smooth Information Flow

Civility & Respect

Acknowledgement

Assistance

Acceptance

Appreciation

Accommodation

Responsive Leadership

Dysfunctional Culture

Personal Agendas

Choppy Communication

Incivility & Disrespect

Ignoring

Gossiping, Undermining

Cliques and Exclusion

Taking for Granted

Rigidity

Constraining Leadership

Domain of Negative Social

Encounters

Inte

nsi

ty

Intention

Abuse

Incivility

Annoying

Incivility

Low Intensity

Negative Social Behaviour

Of Ambiguous Intent

Rude

Contrary to Social Norms

Civility

Acknowledging

Accepting

Appreciating

Accommodating

Bullying

+ Power

Costs of Incivility

Withdrawal

Less Engagement

Reduce Time at Work

Turnover Intention

Cynicism

Fewer Creative Ideas

Complaints

Grievances: 13% Mgmt Time

Internal Mediation etc.

Legal Action

Liabilities

Positive and Negative Encounters

From Unit

Manager

From Coworkers

From Oneself

FLM Pos

82%

FLM Neg

18%

Cwk Pos

81%

Cwk

Neg

19%

Inst Pos

96%

Inst Neg

4%

Limits to Insight?

Intention

Self-Serving Bias

Justified

Individual v Workgroup

Individual

Personal Initiative

Autonomy

Make Your Own Plan

Make Your Own Time

Leverage

One End of an Encounter

Subjective Evaluation

Workgroup

Shared Initiative

Cooperative

Negotiate the Plan

Agree upon the Time

Leverage

Both Ends of An Encounter

External Evaluation

What Makes SCORE Effective?

SCORE Process

Establishing Psychological Safety

Facilitator Involvement

Clear Ground Rules

Recognising Existing Culture

Taking a Problem-Solving Perspective

Behaving Differently

Intuitively

Inconsiderate

Rational Problem Solving

Intuitively

Considerate

1. Acknowledging Respect

5 Sessions

90 Minutes

2-4 Weeks Apart

SCORE Sessions

Pilot Results: October 2018

Method

Control SCORE

Before 68 48

After 44 39

Social Contact Scale (Leiter 2018)

Behaviors

Civility

Incivility

Intimidation

Sources

Supervisor

Coworker

Instigated

Maslach Burnout Inventory GS

Exhaustion, Cynicism, Efficacy

Mental Health Index—5

Between Groups MANOVA

Before and After 5-Session SCORE

Waiting List Control

Improving the Positive

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Before After

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Supervisor Civility

Control SCORE

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Before After

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Coworker Civility

Control SCORE

Reducing the Negative

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Before After

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Supervisor Incivility

Control SCORE

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Before After

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Coworker Incivility

Control SCORE

Reducing Bullying

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Before After

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Supervisor Bullying

Control SCORE

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Before After

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Coworker Bullying

Control SCORE

Improving Wellbeing

-0.80

-0.60

-0.40

-0.20

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Before After

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Mental Health Index

Control SCORE

-0.30

-0.20

-0.10

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

Before After

Std

Diffe

ren

ce

fro

m A

ve

rag

e

Cynicism

Control SCORE

Change During Score

Civility Profile nearly Doubles

Low Contact Remains at Half of

the Sample

FLM Civil Increase from 12% to 29%

FLM Uncivil Decreases from 12% to

0%

All Uncivil Decreases from 12% to

3%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

T1 SCORE T2 SCORE

16%

29%

49%47%

12%

21%

12%

0%

12%

3%

Civil Low Contact FLM Civil FLM Uncivil All Uncivil

Perspective

1. Pilot Level

2 Treatment Groups

50 Participants

2. Between Groups Analysis

Insufficient individual matches

Non-Random Assignment: Most Problematic Groups

Non-Blind Assignment: Participants Actively Involved in the Project

Going Forward

Wave 2

October through December 2019

3 Units

Survey: March 2019

Assess Wave 2

Follow-up Wave 1

Baseline for Wave 3

Interviews

What Made a Difference?

Sustaining Gains

Sustaining Gains

Monitoring

Count What Matters

Include Critical Dimensions

Authority: Differentiate manager and peer, upward and downward

Include Both Giving and Receiving Respect & Disrespect

Training

Manager Initiatives to Promote Respect

Responsive Leadership

Policies

Effective and Usable Mistreatment Procedures

Active Recognition for Success

Readiness:

What’s Needed to Do SCORE?

Respect as a Core Value

A Motivated Workgroup

Resources

Staff Time in Sessions (1.5 X 5 = 7.5 hours)

Surveys: 2 X 0.25 = 0.50 hours

Co-Facilitator:

Training (3 hr)

Sessions: Prep, Session, Debrief (3.5 X 5 = 17.5 hours)

Staff Attending on non-Work Days

Space, Snacks, Materials

Conclusion

Burnout is More then Exhaustion

Important to Address Work Overload

But More Needed for an Engaging Worklife

Action: Improve Areas of Worklife: Community

Two Strategies

Individual Action

SCORE: Workgroup Process

michael.leiter@deakin.edu.au

mpleiter.com

References & Readings

Porath, C. & Conant, D. R. (October 2017). The Key to Campbell

Soup’s Turnaround? Civility. Harvard Business Review

Leiter, M. P. (2012). Analyzing and theorizing the dynamics of the workplace incivility crisis. Amsterdam: Springer.

Leiter, M. P. & Maslach, C. (2005). Banishing Burnout: Six Strategies for

Improving Your Relationship with Work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. (1997). The truth about burnout. San

Francisco: Jossey Bass.