Use this URL to cite or link to this record in EThOS: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin=uk.bl.ethos.574511
Title: The job demands-resources model of burnout : a cross-cultural comparison between India and the UK
Author: Mathews, Minu Susan
Awarding Body: University of Leeds
Current Institution: University of Leeds
Date of Award: 2011
Availability of Full Text:
Access through EThOS:
Abstract:
The Job Demands- Resources (JD-R) model of burnout is an overarching model explaining the development of burnout. It describes the process of burnout through a two-step health impairing process wherein an excess of work demands leads to exhaustion and a lack of work resources results in disengagement. Exhaustion coupled with disengagement comprises burnout. Additionally, the model theorizes that work resources buffer the impact of work demands on burnout. A review of literature (presented in chapter 1) related to the model identified 3 main drawbacks- an over-reliance on solely self-report measures, a paucity of longitudinal studies (more specifically diary studies) and a dearth of literature testing the model in Eastern work environments. Furthermore, the need to test a theory-driven, psychological intervention aimed at enhancing resources of employees was identified. Three studies were conducted to address these drawbacks and to test the postulates of the model across two culturally diverse samples in India and the UK. Chapter 2 presents qualitative and quantitative data relating to the demands and resources that were deemed relevant and applicable to employees in both countries. Based on results from this chapter, Chapter 3 tests the fit of the JD-R model in both the UK and India using Structural Equation Modelling. The model showed an acceptable fit in both countries and a majority of the main assumptions of the health impairing process were supported. Additionally this chapter further categorised demands and resources into two latent factors (Organizational Related Demands, Task-Related Demands; External Reinforcement Resources, Personal Influence Resources) based on differential characteristics and functioning of demands and resources. Chapter 4 tested the buffering potential of work and personal resources in both countries. Work resources showed partial buffering effects in the relationship between demands and burnout in both India and the UK. Personal resources displayed partial buffering effects solely in the UK. While chapters 3 and 4 were , based on cross-sectional data, chapters 5 and 6 utilised a daily diary approach to test the model. Chapter 5 tested the health impairing and buffering hypothesis of the model at a daily level. Also, it examined the influence of strain groups on burnout. Results supported the dynamic structure of the model. Additionally there was a significant difference in overall exhaustion (in the UK) and disengagement (in India) among employee groups that had been predetermined to be high strain (according to the JD- R model). Partial evidence of the daily buffering potential of job resources in the relationship between job demands and burnout was noted, supporting the findings of chapter 4. Finally, chapter 6 tested the effectiveness of a self-affirmation intervention in reducing burnout. Experimental group 1 affirmed work resources, experimental group 2 affirmed personal resources and the control group affirmed their least important work resource. Findings showed no significant difference in burnout between those that were in the experimental and control groups. Employees in India that affirmed work resources demonstrated lower overall disengagement scores. The three studies combined to comprehensively test the fit and assumptions of the JD-R model across India and the UK, adopting both cross-sectional and diary measures. Overall support for the model was shown in both countries, but there were subtle differences in the intricate workings of the model across countries
Supervisor: Not available Sponsor: Not available
Qualification Name: Thesis (Ph.D.) Qualification Level: Doctoral
EThOS ID: uk.bl.ethos.574511  DOI: Not available
Share: