Content uploaded by Evie Michailidis
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Evie Michailidis on Mar 12, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=twst20
Download by: [Evie Michailidis] Date: 04 August 2016, At: 01:34
Work & Stress
An International Journal of Work, Health & Organisations
ISSN: 0267-8373 (Print) 1464-5335 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/twst20
The relationship between burnout and risk-taking
in workplace decision-making and decision-
making style
Evie Michailidis & Adrian P. Banks
To cite this article: Evie Michailidis & Adrian P. Banks (2016): The relationship between burnout
and risk-taking in workplace decision-making and decision-making style, Work & Stress, DOI:
10.1080/02678373.2016.1213773
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2016.1213773
Published online: 03 Aug 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
The relationship between burnout and risk-taking in
workplace decision-making and decision-making style
Evie Michailidis and Adrian P. Banks
School of Psychology, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to investigate what decision-making styles might
be exhibited by employees who experience burnout. Using a
Work Risk Inventory (WRI), developed for this study, which
included generic workplace scenarios, it was also explored
whether such employees take relatively more risky decisions. Risk
was conceptualised as the adoption of decisions that threaten
one’s reputation at work, job performance and job security. The
mediating effect of the likelihood and seriousness of the
consequences of the worst that could happen in each given
scenario on the relationships between dimensions of burnout and
risk-taking was also tested. A total of 262 employees in various
occupations completed an online survey, including measures on
burnout, decision-making styles and the WRI. As predicted,
dimensions of burnout –exhaustion, cynicism and professional
inefficacy –correlated significantly with avoidant decision-making
and negatively with rational decision-making. The seriousness of
the consequences of the worst-case scenario occurring mediated
the relationship between professional inefficacy and risk-taking.
In the context of identifying mechanisms by which burnout leads
to risky decision-making, the findings suggest that employees’
sense of professional inefficacy determines their risky decision-
making. The contribution to theory and implications for practice
are discussed.
ARTICLE HISTORY
Received 7 April 2015
Accepted 2 May 2016
KEYWORDS
Burnout; decision-making
styles; risky decision-making;
risk
Introduction
The question of how acute stress influences peoples’decision-making has been addressed
by several studies from various lines of research (e.g. Porcelli & Delgado, 2009; Van den
Bos, Harteveld, & Stoop, 2009), indicating that under acute stress decision-makers fall
back on automatic processes. However, there has been little research on the process by
which the consequences of exposure to chronic stress, such as burnout, affect decision-
making. Drawing on findings that burnout is associated with impaired cognitive function-
ing including impairment in cognitive ability, memory and attention (e.g. Sandström,
Rhodin, Lundberg, Olsson, & Nyberg, 2005), it is reasonable to expect that burnout
also interferes with individuals’decision-making processes. Specifically, McGee (1989)
found that burned-out child protection service workers avoid making decisions.
Burnout is described by feelings of exhaustion, cynicism and professional inefficacy,
© 2016 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
CONTACT Evie Michailidis e.michailidis@surrey.ac.uk
WORK & STRESS, 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2016.1213773
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
originally operationalised as efficacy and reverse scored (Maslach & Jackson, 1981), and it
could be that its effects on decision-making might occur due to a reduced sense of caring
because of the chronic exposure to stress and the cognitive impairments associated with it
(Oosterholt, Van der Linden, Maes, Verbraak, & Kompier, 2012). In turn, this reduced
sense of caring might make employees experiencing burnout more prone to risk-taking.
Thus, a main aspect of decision-making that would also be interesting to look at in relation
to burnout is riskiness. Although both acute and chronic stress might impact decision-
making, the mechanisms by which they do so might differ. This study represents an
initial effort to study the mechanisms that underlie the effects of burnout on two angles
of decision-making: decision-making style and risky decision-making.
Burnout
Burnout as a psychological response to work stress is characterised by emotional exhaus-
tion, cynicism and feelings of professional inefficacy (Maslach & Jackson, 1981).
Emotional exhaustion refers to the depletion of emotional resources. Cynicism describes
the process whereby employees develop a feeling of indifference towards their work and
coworkers. The third aspect of burnout, professional inefficacy, entails feelings of
reduced confidence in one’s ability to perform the job well. The negative impact of
burnout on both the employee and the organisation is well recognised, both in well-
being (Shirom, Westman, Shamai, & Carel, 1997) and job performance accounts (e.g.
Taris, 2006), and also in individuals’cognitive performance (Sandström et al., 2005).
However, what about employees’decision-making? Studies have recently addressed the
relationship between burnout and decision-making but only in the context of healthcare
provision. More specifically, Teixeira, Ribeiro, Fonseca, and Carvalho (2014) explored
whether ethical decision-making in intensive care may be associated with increased
burnout levels among physicians and nurses. Ethical decision-making, such as the need
to proceed to a terminal sedation, was indeed found to be associated with burnout
levels. However, these findings are limited to healthcare provision; thus a study investi-
gating the effects of the dimensions of burnout on the work-related decision-making of
employees in other contexts is much needed.
Burnout and decision-making style
Decision-making has been defined as one’s ability to select between competing options of
actions while taking into account the relative value of their consequences (Balleine, 2007).
Peoples’decisions are often disposed to several demands exerted by the environment,
leading to stressful conditions. A number of studies have indicated, at both a behavioural
and a neural level, that stress and decision-making are intricately related (e.g. Van Dam,
Eling, Keijsers, & Becker, 2013; Van den Bos et al., 2009). However, most of the studies
have investigated the effect of acute stress on decision-making (e.g. Young, Goodie,
Hall, & Wu, 2012).
Research has shown that there are five different, but not mutually exclusive, decision-
making styles that individuals use. Scott and Bruce (1995) defined five decision-making
styles in behavioural terms. Rational decision-making style refers to the systematic evalu-
ation of alternatives. Intuitive decision-making style is described as a tendency to rely
2E. MICHAILIDIS AND A. P. BANKS
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
upon feelings. Dependent decision-making is characterised by a search for advice from
others before making a decision. Avoidant decision-making style refers to the avoidance
of making decisions whenever possible. The final decision-making style, spontaneous, is
characterised by a tendency to reach a decision quickly.
Individuals’profiles of decision-making styles may differ with respect to their relation-
ship with stress. In support of this, Thunholm (2008) conducted a study investigating the
relationship between decision-making styles and stress among military officers. The find-
ings revealed that the avoidant style was strongly related to stress, as decision-makers
appeared to avoid making decisions because they found it more stressful. In the same
vein, Allwood and Salo (2012) investigated the relations between decision-making styles
and stress in the organisational work context. The results suggested that certain styles, par-
ticularly avoidant and to some extent dependent style, were associated with higher stress.
There has been some initial theoretical speculation on the ways in which burnout may
impair decision-making. Specifically, Weinberg, Edwards, and Garove (1983), in a study of
job turnover among employees working with developmentally disabled individuals, found
a positive correlation between levels of burnout and decision-making difficulties.
Additionally, McGee (1989) conducted a study examining the relationship between
burnout and decision-making among child protection service workers and found that
burned-out workers coped with demanding cases by avoiding making decisions.
However, the research examining the effect of burnout on decision-making is still in its
infancy and the mechanisms underlying this effect are still unknown.
Given the relationship between avoidant decision-making style and stress and the existing
evidence by McGee (1989), it would be of interest to study the effects of burnout on decision-
making style. The present study builds upon McGee’s(1989) study and takes it further by
investigating the effect of burnout on two aspects of decision-making: decision-making
style and risky decision-making. Moreover, the present study adds to the McGee (1989)
study as it examines the effect of burnout on decision-making on a diverse population of
employees and not solely on “helping professions”. As yet, no empirical investigation has
focused on the relationship between the dimensions of burnout and generic work
decision-making. Therefore, this study first looks at whether employees who show higher
burnout levels, on each dimension of burnout, exhibit an avoidant decision-making style.
Hypothesis: 1a. Employees reporting higher levels of exhaustion will score higher on the
avoidance decision-making style.
Hypothesis: 1b. Employees reporting higher levels of cynicism will score higher on the avoid-
ance decision-making style.
Hypothesis: 1c. Employees reporting higher levels of professional inefficacy will score higher
on the avoidance decision-making style.
The study also examines what other decision-making styles are shown by burned-out
employees.
Burnout and risky decision-making
This study also investigates the relationships between the dimensions of burnout and risk-
taking. Scholars have conducted studies in order to address whether stress might lead
WORK & STRESS 3
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
decision-makers to take more risks. Porcelli and Delgado (2009), for instance, examined
the impact of acute stress on financial decision-making and revealed that acute stress
altered decision-making by modulating risk-taking. Specifically, that study indicated
that, under stress, individuals made risky decisions in the loss domain but conservative
decisions in the gain domain (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). An explanation of these find-
ings has been given in the framework of dual-process theory, which proposes that stressful
conditions that interfere with rational, deliberative process lead decision-makers to fall
back on automatic processes (Kahneman & Frederick, 2002). Other research has also indi-
cated that when making decisions under high-stress conditions, individuals make riskier
decisions (Van den Bos et al., 2009). Interestingly, however, to date there has been no
research on whether employees experiencing burnout make more risky or safer decisions.
A main point of contrast here is the mechanism by which acute and chronic stress lead to
risky decision-making. On the one hand acute stressors, such as rushing to an unplanned
meeting, are characterised as sudden, unexpected and of short duration and hence people
under acute stress come to rely more heavily on automatised risk biases (Kahneman &
Frederick, 2002). On the other hand, burnout results from repeated exposure to situations
that lead to stress, and is therefore characterised by exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy that
is, perceptions of low professional efficacy (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001). It therefore
seems possible that although both acute and chronic stress affect decision-making, the
mechanism by which chronic stress and burnout lead to risky decision-making might
differ compared to that of acute stress. Understanding burned-out individuals’risk-taking
behaviour can not only help highlight how those individuals take decisions, but also
provide insights on how a person’s environment might interfere with their ability to
make decisions.
The potential relationship between burnout and risky decision-making is not clear. On
the one hand, burned-out individuals are emotionally exhausted and might become unable
to be as caring as they used to be (Maslach et al., 2001), and thus it is plausible to consider
burnout being related with more risky decisions as burned-out individuals would not
value the consequences of their actions. On the other hand, however, it might also be
the case that individuals showing high levels of burnout would take the less risky
option so as to prevent additional feelings of burnout rising, given that the risky option
might result in an extra burden for them, especially if its outcome has a negative conse-
quence for them or their organisation.
In a study conducted by Mitte (2007), the influence of anxiety on preferences for risky
behaviour was investigated using choice scenarios as developed by Hockey, Maule,
Clough, and Bdzola (2000). The study further examined whether this was mediated by
a judgmental bias of the probability and the subjective cost of threatening events. The
results showed that high-anxious individuals more often preferred the safe alternative,
which was mediated by the subjective cost of the threatening events, that is, high-
anxious individuals assumed that they would feel worse given that the threatening
events happen. The considerable mediator variables of subjective costs and expected
probability of the negative event used in Mitte’s study (2007) are based on cognitive
theories of anxiety which suggest that in addition to choosing the processing of threaten-
ing information, anxious individuals show a judgmental bias of the probability and
the subjective cost of threatening events (e.g. Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Therefore,
the present study additionally examines the mediating effect of the potential likelihood
4E. MICHAILIDIS AND A. P. BANKS
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
(i.e. how likely participants think that their choice will go wrong) and seriousness (i.e. to
what extent participants think it matters if their choice goes wrong) of the consequences of
the worst-case scenario occurring (i.e. what could be the worst that could happen in each
given scenario), on risky decision-making.
Given the current research, the relationship between the dimensions of burnout and
risky decision-making is not clear. Therefore, the present study will explore another
angle of decision-making, riskiness, and whether this is mediated by the effect of the like-
lihood and seriousness of the consequences of the worst-case scenario occurring. This will
enable us to understand the mechanisms underlying burned-out individuals’risky
decision-making. Risk, in the present study, has been conceptualised as relating to the
adoption of threatening decisions towards one’s reputation at work, job performance
and job security.
Hypothesis: 2a. Employees reporting higher levels of exhaustion will score higher on risk-
taking as indicated on the WRI.
Hypothesis: 2b. Employees reporting higher levels of cynicism will score higher on risk-taking
as indicated on the WRI.
Hypothesis: 2c. Employees reporting higher levels of professional inefficacy will score higher
on risk-taking as indicated on the WRI.
Hypothesis: 3a. The likelihood and/or seriousness of the consequences of the worst-case scen-
ario occurring will mediate the relationship between exhaustion and risk-taking.
Hypothesis: 3b. The likelihood and/or seriousness of the consequences of the worst-case scen-
ario occurring will mediate the relationship between cynicism and risk-taking.
Hypothesis: 3c. The likelihood and/or seriousness of the consequences of the worst-case scen-
ario occurring will mediate the relationship between professional inefficacy and risk-taking.
Method
Participants and procedure
Two hundred and sixty two (N= 262) employees (119 males and 143 females, age range
19–76, M= 35, SD = 12) took part in the study. The participants worked in many industry
sections including: education (21%), business and finance (13%), administration (13%),
social sciences (8%), management (7%), sales (7%), healthcare (6%), IT services (5%),
engineering (3%), media (2%), legal (2%) and other (14%).
Participants, who were based in the UK, completed an online survey in 2014, which
they could access from a location of their choice. Participants were recruited through
the researcher’s professional networks. Also an electronic link to the online survey was
sent to HR managers of companies who agreed to take part, who then forwarded this
to their employees. Close to half, 49% (127) of employees worked on average 40 hours
per week, 33% (87) worked more than 40 hours, 10% (26) worked on average 30 hours
per week, 5% (13) worked on average 20 hours per week and 3% (9) worked on
average 10 hours per week. Participants were informed that the study involved an
online survey testing how burnout levels affect employees’decisions. After answering a
short demographic questionnaire comprising questions on background information
WORK & STRESS 5
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
such as occupation and hours of work per week, they then completed the three measures of
the study.
Materials and measures
Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (the MBI-General Survey; Schaufeli, Leiter,
Maslach, & Jackson, 1996). This includes three subscales: exhaustion, cynicism and pro-
fessional efficacy. The exhaustion item is measured with five items (e.g. “I feel emotionally
drained from my work”). Included in the cynicism subscale are five items, such as “I have
become less enthusiastic about my work”. Finally, professional efficacy, is measured with
six items (e.g. “In my opinion, I am good at my job”). A high degree of burnout is reflected
in high scores on exhaustion and cynicism and low scores on professional efficacy. Satis-
factory internal consistency has been reported by Leiter and Schaufeli (1996). They
revealed Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from .84 to .90 for exhaustion, .74 to .84
for cynicism and .70 to .78 for professional efficacy. Cronbach’s alphas for the present
study were .82 for exhaustion, .85 for cynicism and .71 for professional efficacy. Respon-
dents of the MBI-GS were asked to rate each statement on one dimension; frequency (0 =
never to 6 = every day).
General Decision-Making Style (GDMS; Scott & Bruce, 1995). The GDMS question-
naire consists of 24 statements describing how people go about making important
decisions. These decision statements include measures of five decision-making types:
rational (e.g. “I make decisions in a systematic and logical way”), intuitive (e.g. “When
I make a decision, I rely on my intuition”); dependent (e.g. “I use the advice of others
in making my important decisions”); avoidant (e.g. “I often procrastinate when it
comes to making important decisions”) and spontaneous (e.g. “I make quick decisions”).
Each item describes decision-making in practice, and the respondents are instructed to
rate the extent to which he or she agrees or disagrees with the stated decision behaviour
on a 5-point scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). The GDMS scale has
been found to be reliable among studies (Cronbach’s alphas ranging from .65 to .85 for the
rational scale; .72 to .84 for the intuitive scale; .62 to .86 for the dependent scale; .84 to .94
for the avoidant scale; and .77 to .87 for the spontaneous scale; Scott & Bruce, 1995;
Thunholm, 2008). In the present study, the Cronbach’s alphas were .60 for rational, .70
for intuitive, .66 for dependent, .76 for avoidant and .74 for spontaneous.
Work Risk Inventory (WRI). Risk-taking behaviour was assessed through an instrument
that we specially developed for the study. Initially a small sample (n= 23) of employees
were asked using the critical incident technique (CIT; Flanagan, 1954) to state some
examples of scenarios they faced at work that involve a high/low risky choice. Thus,
CIT enabled researchers to understand the behaviours that related to whether the
outcome of the situation/scenario was either particularly risky or less risky. Then, after
collecting the scenarios, they were tailored to be typical of choice situations frequently
confronted by employees from a wide range of occupations. This was done by removing
any references to specific jobs so that the scenarios could be generic for employees.
The effort involved in each option as well as the effectiveness of each action was also
measured. The rationale for this was to ensure that participants would not choose the
less risky option just because it involved less effort and that it would be more effective
than choosing the risky option. A pilot study was then conducted in which 34 participants
6E. MICHAILIDIS AND A. P. BANKS
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
from a wide range of occupations were presented with a set of 23 generic workplace scen-
arios and were instructed to imagine themselves in each situation, and to rate each option
for “how much risk it would involve”,“how much effort it would involve”using a 1–7 scale
(1 = hardly any to 7 = a great deal), and “how effective do you believe each action will be”
on a 1–7 scale (1 = not at all effective to 7 = extremely effective).
In the final survey used in the present study, participants were presented with 5 out of
the 23 scenarios that, after conducting multiple t-tests, revealed a significant difference
between risk involved in A and B options (at p< .05 or better). Both options involved
an equivalent level of effort. Participants were asked to denote their strength of commit-
ment to the selected option on a 10-point scale (0 = definitely A to 10 = definitely B). This
enabled a rated measure of riskiness. The options were counterbalanced assigned as “defi-
nitely A”and “definitely B”in order to eliminate order effects.
Participants were also asked to rate the likelihood of the worst case occurring in the
given scenarios on a 10-point verbal description scale (0 = not likely at all to 10 = extremely
likely). Finally, participants were asked to rate how serious the consequences would be for
them if the worst-case scenario occurred, on a 10-point scale (0 = not serious at all to 10 =
extremely serious). Cronbach’s alphas for the 3 subscales of the inventory were .34 (risk),
.46 (likelihood), .73 (seriousness). An example of the scenarios is presented below. The full
set of scenarios can be obtained from the corresponding author.
Your colleague with whom you are sharing an office takes home confidential information
without permission. You notice this a couple of times and you are aware that this is a
serious offence. If by any chance your boss realises that the information is missing there is a
possibility that you might be blamed as well. You wonder what you should do?
A. You don’t say anything to your boss and hope that your colleague will not do that
again.
B. You tell your boss that your colleague is taking confidential information home.
1. Which option would you choose on a 0–10 scale (0 = definitely A,10=definitely B)?
2. How likely is it that your boss will notice that the confidential information is missing?
(0 = not likely at all,10=extremely likely).
3. How serious would the consequences be for you if your boss notices that the confiden-
tial information is missing? (0 = not serious at all,10=extremely serious).
Model and plan of statistical analysis
First, we examined the correlations between burnout components, decision-making styles
and risk-taking, based on correlation coefficients. Regarding the mediating effects of the like-
lihood/seriousness of the consequences of the worst-case scenario occurring, mediation
analysis was completed by using the PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013). PROCESS generates
direct and indirect effects in mediation models and can construct bootstrap confidence
intervals for indirect effects. As we were interested in the mediating effect of both likelihood
and seriousness of the consequences of the worst-case scenario occurring, PROCESS was
utilised in order to test the effect the mediator variables have when in parallel.
WORK & STRESS 7
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
Results
Descriptive statistics
Means and standard deviations for all study variables are presented in Table 1. Indepen-
dent sample t-tests were initially conducted in order to test whether any gender differences
occur in the data. However, no significant findings were revealed.
Burnout and decision-making styles: hypotheses 1 a, b and c; and 2 a, b and c
Regarding the relationships between the dimensions of burnout and decision-making style,
as well as between burnout dimensions and risk-taking, Pearson’srcorrelational analysis
revealed that all three dimensions of burnout were positively and significantly correlated
with avoidant decision-making (Table 2); thus hypotheses 1a–1c were supported. The
three dimensions of burnout were also negatively and significantly correlated with rational
decision-making. Regarding dependent decision-making, a significant and positive corre-
lation was only shown with cynicism. Both exhaustion and cynicism correlated significantly
and positively with spontaneous decision-making, whereas only professional inefficacy cor-
related negatively with intuitive decision-making. However, none of the three dimensions of
burnout were significantly related to risk-taking. Thus, hypotheses 2a–2c were not supported.
Burnout and risky decision-making: hypotheses 3 a, b and c
Three mediation analyses were conducted based on Haye’s mediation analysis approach
(PROCESS) to examine the effect of the three dimensions of burnout on risky decision-
making and whether this effect is mediated by the likelihood and seriousness of
consequences from the worst-case scenario occurring.
Mediation analysis: exhaustion as predictor
None of the proposed mediation pathways explained the effect of exhaustion on risk-
taking (Figure 1). The indirect pathways from exhaustion through likelihood (a1b1) and
Table 1. Means and SDs for exhaustion, cynicism, professional inefficacy,
decision-making styles, risk-taking and the likelihood and seriousness of
the worst-case scenario occurring.
MSD
Burnout components
Exhaustion 2.68 1.39
Cynicism 2.33 1.53
Professional inefficacy 1.33 0.86
Decision-making style
Rational 4.15 0.45
Intuitive 4.43 0.81
Dependent 3.61 0.61
Avoidant 2.73 0.78
Spontaneous 2.89 0.69
Risk-taking 3.26 1.61
Likelihood 5.41 1.48
Seriousness 6.98 1.73
Note: N= 262.
8E. MICHAILIDIS AND A. P. BANKS
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
seriousness (a2b2) were all non-significant. There was no evidence that exhaustion pre-
dicted risk independently of its effect on likelihood and seriousness (c’= .11); the direct
effect of exhaustion on risk-taking was not statistically significant (p= .09).
Mediation analysis: cynicism as predictor
None of the proposed mediation pathways explained the effect of cynicism and risk-taking
(Figure 2). The indirect pathways from cynicism through likelihood (a
1
b
1
) and seriousness
(a
2
b
2
) were all non-significant. There was also no evidence that cynicism was associated
with risk independently of its effect on likelihood and seriousness (c’= .09). The direct
effect of cynicism on risk-taking was not statistically significant (p= .12).
Mediation analysis: professional inefficacy as predictor
The mediation analysis showed that professional inefficacy indirectly predicted risk
through its effect on seriousness.As can been seen in Figure 3, professional inefficacy
was significantly and negatively correlated with seriousness (a
2
), indicating that the
higher the levels of professional inefficacy the less serious employees perceive the conse-
quences of a risky decision to be. In turn, the decreased levels of perceptions of how serious
the consequences of a risky decision would be correlated significantly with risk-taking
(b
2
). A bias-corrected bootstrap confidence interval for the indirect effect of seriousness
(a
2
b
2
= 0.0998), based on 5000 bootstrap samples was entirely above zero (95% CI
[0.0321, 0.1881]), indicating a significant effect. There was no evidence that professional
inefficacy predicted risk-taking independently of its effect on seriousness, because the
Table 2. Correlations between burnout components, decision-making styles and risk-taking.
Decision-making style
Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous Risk-taking
Burnout components
Exhaustion −.18** .05 .10 .39** .21** .11
Cynicism −.19** .04 .14* .30** .27** .11
Professional inefficacy −.37** −.13* −.01 .19** .03 .10
Note: N= 262.
*p< .05; **p< .01.
Figure 1. Effect of exhaustion on risk-taking behaviour, with likelihood and seriousness as mediators.
WORK & STRESS 9
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
direct pathway (c’= .07; Figure 3) was not statistically significant. These results represent a
total mediation effect of professional inefficacy through seriousness for its effect on risk-
taking.
Discussion
The mechanisms through which the dimensions of burnout relate to decision-making
were examined. It was hypothesised that all dimensions of burnout would correlate signifi-
cantly with avoidance decision-making (Hypotheses 1a–1c); these hypotheses were indeed
supported. It was also hypothesised that all dimensions of burnout would correlate signifi-
cantly with risky decision-making as indicated by WRI (hypotheses 2a–2c); these hypoth-
eses were not supported. However, the mediating effect of likelihood and/or seriousness of
the consequences of the worst-case scenario occurring on the relationship between each
burnout dimension and risk-taking was also tested. The seriousness of the consequences
of the worst-case scenario occurring mediated the relationship between professional inef-
ficacy and risk-taking. The mediating effect of likelihood and/or seriousness of the conse-
quences of the worst-case scenario occurring was not significant for the other two
dimensions of burnout.
Figure 2. Effect of cynicism on risk-taking behaviour, with likelihood and seriousness as mediators.
Figure 3. Effect of professional inefficacy on risk-taking behaviour, with likelihood and seriousness as
mediators.
10 E. MICHAILIDIS AND A. P. BANKS
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
The relationship of burnout dimensions with avoidance decision-making
The findings revealed that all three dimensions of burnout correlated significantly with
avoidance decision-making and that exhaustion showed the highest correlation
(r= .39). These findings suggest that employees experiencing burnout might avoid
making decisions mostly due to feelings of exhaustion. Although it is not possible to
draw any definite conclusions about causes from the study, given the correlational
design, this makes theoretical sense. The feeling of being emotionally exhausted captures
the stress dimension of burnout and constitutes the core symptom of burnout, as
suggested in Maslach’s et al. (2001) conceptualisation of burnout. Emotional exhaustion
prompts actions to distance oneself emotionally and cognitively from one’s work, as an
attempt to cope with work pressure (Pines, Aronson, & Kafry, 1981), explaining why
exhaustion may lead to avoidant decision-making.
It was also found that employees experiencing high levels of burnout were more likely
to engage in spontaneous and irrational decision-making. This can be explained, given the
fact that individuals suffering from burnout show impaired cognitive performance (Oos-
terholt et al., 2012; Van Dam, Keijsers, Eling, & Becker, 2015) that could potentially make
individuals take decisions quickly without a logical evaluation of alternatives. In support of
this, a growing body of evidence by clinical observations suggests that individuals with
high levels of burnout tend to show impaired attention and memory, affective instability
and inadequate flexibility in dealing with novel and changing tasks (Linden, Keijsers,
Eling, & Schaijk, 2005).
The relationship of professional inefficacy with risky decision-making: the
mediating effect of seriousness
Considering the other aspect of decision-making, riskiness, our findings indicated that
specifically professional inefficacy was related to risk-taking but only through the mediat-
ing effect of the seriousness of consequences from the worst-case scenario occurring. The
findings suggest that individuals with low levels of professional efficacy take the riskier
option as they underestimate the seriousness of the consequences.
Professional inefficacy entails the tendency to assess one’s own work negatively, and it
involves a reduced sense of competence and performance at work (Maslach et al., 2001).
Although Maslach et al. (2001) introduced a three-dimensional model of burnout, with
exhaustion and cynicism constituting the core of burnout, studies have also supported
the notion that burnout is a consequence of a crisis in one’s efficacy and that it is this
lack in confidence in one’s own competence that is the key factor in the development
of burnout (Leiter, 1992). In the present study, it seems that because of reduced feelings
of professional efficacy employees were more likely to take more risky decisions.
However, this effect was only present when taking into account the seriousness of the con-
sequences that their decision might have. This finding seems to be aligned with recent
findings linking burnout with cognitive performance. Van Dam et al. (2013) found that
more employees with burnout than healthy controls applied a low-effort strategy on per-
formance of a task. The authors explained burned-out employees’low-effort strategy as
being due to reduced motivation to expend effort (Schaufeli & Taris, 2005). High levels
of burnout might result in changes in the motivational system, explaining the reduced
WORK & STRESS 11
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
motivation to expend effort as probably occurring because the individual believes that he/
she has no control over the situation (Boksem & Tops, 2008). This might also be the case
in the present study; employees who experience professional inefficacy might feel that they
can no longer take control over situations and lack the motivation to expend effort to make
a safe decision. Therefore, this prevents them from considering the potential seriousness
that the consequences of their decision might have, leading them to more risky decisions.
However, when developing the WRI we did ensure that both options (safe and risky)
involved equivalent levels of effort. Therefore, these findings might instead imply that
individuals low in professional efficacy might have the feeling that they do not function
as well as they used to and that they no longer have control over situations. Therefore,
they do not consider the potential seriousness the consequences of their decision might
have, thus leading them to more risky decisions.
Contribution of findings to practice
This study is one of the first to investigate the relationship between the dimensions of
burnout and decision-making in a work context and is of particular interest and relevance
to both employees and managers. Given the importance of decision-making in employees’
working life and the serious consequences that risky decisions may have, this study high-
lights that employees experiencing burnout at their job, and specifically the professional
inefficacy aspect of burnout, may be more prone to risky decision-making, depending
of course on the job context. In turn, taking a risky decision may lead to aversive conse-
quences, which may then lead to increased burnout levels, placing the individual in a
vicious circle. Thus, given the high-stress work environment and the integral part that
decision-making plays in employees’life, the present findings could enable managers to
design work environments that provide more suitable support to employees who are
responsible for decision-making tasks.
Limitations and implications for future research
Although the current study may advance knowledge on the dimensions of burnout and
decision-making, there were also some limitations. The most significant is the study’s
cross-sectional nature, which makes it impossible to establish causality with regards to
the relationship between variables. Another limitation is the fact that the data were gath-
ered from self-report measures. Future studies should attempt to expand on this study by
implementing a longitudinal design and more action-orientated indicators of decision
style. In support of this, Metzger and Denney (2002) showed that patients with chronic
fatigue syndrome greatly underestimated their performance on a challenging cognitive
task relative to the actual scores that they achieved. Another limitation lies in the reliability
of the WRI used in the study. Cronbach’s alphas for the WRI were low, especially for the
measure of riskiness. This might be due to the fact that the scenarios were all different and
respondents might have found it difficult to imagine themselves in the given situations.
Moreover, the sample consisted of individuals who had not been diagnosed with
burnout. From a psychometric point of view, MBI-GS measures burnout utilising the
three subscales that are reflective of Maslach’s(1982) original conceptualisation of
burnout. However, MBI scales are not grounded in firm clinical observations. Technically
12 E. MICHAILIDIS AND A. P. BANKS
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
speaking, MBI scales are good instruments for measuring burnout, but from a clinical
point of view they fail to capture other characteristics that burned-out employees
express through clinical practice such as cognitive impairment (e.g. inability to concen-
trate; Schaufeli, Bakker, Hoogduin, Schaap, & Kladler, 2001). Thus, it was not clear
through our sample how many participants were actually burned-out, as burnout was per-
ceived as a dimensional rather than a categorical measure.
Conclusion
The major finding of this study was that all three dimensions of burnout were positively
related to avoidant and irrational decision-making styles. Given the cognitive impairments
associated with burnout as well as the emotional and cognitive distance that burnout indi-
viduals keep from their work, these findings make theoretical sense. In the context of iden-
tifying mechanisms by which burnout leads to risky decision-making, the findings suggest
that employees’sense of professional inefficacy determines their risky decision-making.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
References
Allwood, C. M., & Salo, I. (2012). Decision-making styles and stress. International Journal of Stress
Management,19(1), 34–47. doi:10.1037/a0027420
Balleine, B. W. (2007). The neural basis of choice and decision making. The Journal of Neuroscience,
27(31), 8159–8160. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1939-07.2007
Boksem, M. A., & Tops, M. (2008). Mental fatigue: Costs and benefits. Brain Research Reviews,
59(1), 125–139. doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2008.07.001
Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin,51(4), 327–358.
doi:10.1037/h0061470
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hockey, G. R. J., Maule, A., Clough, P. J., & Bdzola, L. (2000). Effects of negative mood states on risk
in everyday decision making. Cognition and Emotion,14(6), 823–855. doi:10.1080/
02699930050156654
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisited: Psychology for behavioral
economics. In T. D. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psy-
chology of intuitive judgment (pp. 49–81). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk.
Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society,47, 263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York, NY: Springer.
Leiter, M. P. (1992). Burn-out as a crisis in self-efficacy: Conceptual and practical implications.
Work & Stress,6(2), 107–115. doi:10.1080/02678379208260345
Leiter, M. P., & Schaufeli, W. B. (1996). Consistency of the burnout construct across occupations.
Anxiety, Stress, and Coping,9(3), 229–243. doi:10.1080/10615809608249404
Linden, D. V. D., Keijsers, G. P., Eling, P., & Schaijk, R. V. (2005). Work stress and attentional dif-
ficulties: An initial study on burnout and cognitive failures. Work & Stress,19(1), 23–36. doi:10.
1080/02678370500065275
Maslach, C. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
WORK & STRESS 13
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,2(2), 99–113. doi:10.1002/job.4030020205
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology,
52(1), 397–422. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
McGee, R. A. (1989). Burnout and professional decision making: An analogue study. Journal of
Counseling Psychology,36(3), 345–351. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.36.3.345
Metzger, F. A., & Denney, D. R. (2002). Perception of cognitive performance in patients with
chronic fatigue syndrome. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,24(2), 106–112. doi:10.1207/
S15324796ABM2402_07
Mitte, K. (2007). Anxiety and risky decision-making: The role of subjective probability and subjec-
tive costs of negative events. Personality and Individual Differences,43(2), 243–253. doi:10.1016/
j.paid.2006.11.028
Oosterholt, B. G., Van der Linden, D., Maes, J. H., Verbraak, M. J., & Kompier, M. A. (2012).
Burned out cognition –Cognitive functioning of burnout patients before and after a period
with psychological treatment. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health,38(4),
358–369. doi:10.5271/sjweh.3256
Pines, A. M., Aronson, E., & Kafry, D. (1981). Burnout: From tedium to personal growth. New York,
NY: Free Press.
Porcelli, A. J., & Delgado, M. R. (2009). Acute stress modulates risk taking in financial decision
making. Psychological Science,20(3), 278–283. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02288.x
Sandström, A., Rhodin, I. N., Lundberg, M., Olsson, T., & Nyberg, L. (2005). Impaired cognitive
performance in patients with chronic burnout syndrome. Biological Psychology,69(3), 271–279.
doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.08.003
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., Hoogduin, K., Schaap, C., & Kladler, A. (2001). On the clinical val-
idity of the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Burnout Measure. Psychology & Health,16(5),
565–582. doi:10.1080/08870440108405527
Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). MBI-general survey. In C.
Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Eds.), Maslach burnout inventory manual (3rd ed.,
pp. 19–26). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of burnout:
Common ground and worlds apart. Work & Stress,19(3), 256–262. doi:10.1080/
02678370500385913
Scott, S. G., & Bruce, R. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a
new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement,55(5), 818–831. doi:10.1177/
0013164495055005017
Shirom, A., Westman, M., Shamai, O., & Carel, R. S. (1997). Effects of work overload and burnout
on cholesterol and triglycerides levels: The moderating effects of emotional reactivity among
male and female employees. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology,2(4), 275–288. doi:10.
1037/1076-8998.2.4.275
Taris, T. W. (2006). Is there a relationship between burnout and objective performance? A critical
review of 16 studies. Work & Stress,20(4), 316–334. doi:10.1080/02678370601065893
Teixeira, C., Ribeiro, O., Fonseca, A. M., & Carvalho, A. S. (2014). Ethical decision making in inten-
sive care units: A burnout risk factor? Results from a multicentre study conducted with phys-
icians and nurses. Journal of Medical Ethics,40(2), 97–103. doi:10.1136/medethics-2012-100619
Thunholm, P. (2008). Decision-making styles and physiological correlates of negative stress: Is
there a relation? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,49(3), 213–219. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.
2008.00640.x
Van Dam, A., Eling, P. A. T. M., Keijsers, G. P. J., & Becker, E. S. (2013). Do employees with
burnout prefer low-effort performance strategies? IIE Transactions on Occupational
Ergonomics and Human Factors,1(3), 190–201. doi:10.1080/21577323.2013.828666
Van Dam, A., Keijsers, G. P. J., Eling, P. A. T. M., & Becker, E. S. (2015). Burnout and impaired
cognitive performance; review of evidence, underlying processes and future directions. In T.
N. Winston (Eds.), Handbook on burnout and sleep deprivation: Risk factors, management strat-
egies and impact on performance and behaviour (pp. 113–128). New York, NY: Nova.
14 E. MICHAILIDIS AND A. P. BANKS
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
Van den Bos, R., Harteveld, M., & Stoop, H. (2009). Stress and decision-making in humans:
Performance is related to cortisol reactivity, albeit differently in men and women.
Psychoneuroendocrinology,34(10), 1449–1458. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.04.016
Weinberg, S., Edwards, G., & Garove, W. E. (1983). Burnout among employees of state residential
facilities serving developmentally disabled persons. Children and Youth Services Review,5(3),
239–253. doi:10.1016/0190-7409(83)90029-4
Young, D. L., Goodie, A. S., Hall, D. B., & Wu, E. (2012). Decision making under time pressure,
modeled in a prospect theory framework. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes,118(2), 179–188. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2012.03.00
WORK & STRESS 15
Downloaded by [Evie Michailidis] at 01:34 04 August 2016
