Called and Burnout: Integrating career research with occupational health psychology

People are increasingly in search for meaning in their work and private life. They want to increase their self-awareness and reach personal fulfillment. People who are not able to cope with life‘s challenges often suffer from burnout, anxiety and depression. Consequently, the construct of calling becomes more and more important in the occupational context because of its positive consequences regarding numerous work (e.g. organizational commitment) and non-work-related outcomes (e.g. depression, life satisfaction) for individuals as well as for organizations. Building on first promising findings, the aim of the following chapter is to investigate the association of experiencing a calling in one‘s job and burnout (here defined as psychological phenomenon of prolonged exhaustion and disengagement at work, cf., Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). Our findings suggest that experiencing one‘s work as a calling is negatively related to burnout. Especially with regard to the sub-dimension of disengagement, experiencing a calling turned out to be a protective factor. Further, the burnout sub-dimension of disengagement mediated the relationship between the experience of a calling and job satisfaction. Implications for further research and health-related preventive strategies are discussed.

Occupational role stress is associated with higher cortisol reactivity to acute stress

We investigated whether occupational role stress is associated with differential levels of the stress hormone cortisol in response to acute psychosocial stress. Forty-three medication-free nonsmoking men aged between 22 and 65 years (mean ± SEM: 44.5 ± 2) underwent an acute standardized psychosocial stress task combining public speaking and mental arithmetic in front of an audience. We assessed occupational role stress in terms of role conflict and role ambiguity (combined into a measure of role uncertainty) as well as further work characteristics and psychological control variables including time pressure, overcommitment, perfectionism, and stress appraisal. Moreover, we repeatedly measured salivary cortisol and blood pressure levels before and after stress exposure, and several times up to 60 min thereafter. Higher role uncertainty was associated with a more pronounced cortisol stress reactivity (p = .016), even when controlling for the full set of potential confounders (p < .001). Blood pressure stress reactivity was not associated with role uncertainty. Our findings suggest that occupational role stress in terms of role uncertainty acts as a background stressor that is associated with increased HPA-axis reactivity to acute stress. This finding may represent a potential mechanism regarding how occupational role stress may precipitate adverse health outcomes.

Challenge stressors: longitudinal effects on self attitudes, work attitudes, and health.

Recent research suggests that some stressors (i.e. hindrance stressors) have mainly negative consequences, whereas others (i.e. challenge stressors) can simultaneously have positive and negative consequences (e.g., LePine et al., 2005). Although a number of studies have dealt with potential outcomes of challenge stressors, some criteria have received only limited attention (e.g., positive self-attitudes; cf. Widmer et al., 2012), and some have been neglected altogether (i.e., physical health outcomes). Furthermore, while sophisticated methods – such as meta-analyses (e.g., LePine et al., 2005), diary studies (Ohly & Fritz, 2010), and multi-source analyses (Wallace et al., 2009) – have been applied to the framework, there are no longitudinal studies. We report results from a longitudinal study containing three waves, with two time-lags of one month each (N = 393). We analyzed relationships between challenge stressors and work attitudes (e.g. job satisfaction), self attitudes (e.g. self-esteem), and health indicators (e.g. sleep quality) using cross-lagged SEM. We expected positive effects of challenge stressors to appear only when their negative variance is controlled (e.g. by including hindrance stressors as a suppressor variable; cf. Cavanaugh et al., 2000). As the positive aspects of challenge stressors relate to self-affirming experiences, we also expected positive effects to be especially strong for self attitudes. Regarding work attitudes, the only significant paths found were from work attitudes to challenge stressors over both time lags. Regarding health, there was a significant cross-sectional association at time 1, which was negative, as expected. Longitudinally, a positive path from challenge stressors to health for both time lags was found only when hindrances stressors were controlled, confirming the expected suppressor effect. Hindrance stressors had a negative effect on health. For self-attitudes, there was a positive cross-sectional association at time one. In addition, a positive effect on self attitudes was found longitudinally for both time lags, but only when hindrance stressors were controlled. Additional analyses showed that the positive longitudinal effect on health was mediated by self attitudes. Although the lack of associations with work attitudes was surprising, our results indicate that challenge stressors contain aspects that provide an opportunity to develop self-esteem through demanding work situations, thereby contributing to personal growth and thriving at the workplace. They also confirm the ambiguous nature of challenge stressors, as, with one exception, positive effects were found only when hindrance stressors were controlled (cf. Widmer et al., 2012). Finally, our results confirm the importance of self-related attitudes in the stress process.