Burnout and bore-out: what can you do as an employer to prevent it?

Year: 2019

Burnout and bore-out: what can you do as an employer to prevent it?

We are all familiar with the phenomenon of burnout. Last year, 1 in 6 Dutch people struggled with burnout symptoms such as chronic stress, persistent fatigue and even depression1. The most common trigger for burnout is a structurally excessive workload. Yet there are also employees who do not experience a high workload at all and are even bored, but still recognise themselves in the above symptoms. How can that be?

Definition bore-out

The answer lies in the lesser-known counterpart of burnout: boreout. In science, boreout is described as "a negative mental state brought about by insufficient work-related stimuli"2. Employees with boreout - unlike people with burnout - are structurally under-challenged in their work and therefore experience boredom3. This may be because they are overqualified, do a lot of repetitive work, for example, or simply because they have too few tasks to bite into. In addition, bore-out can also occur when an employee does not feel enough concerned feels at his job or the organisation and does not find satisfaction in his work.

A bore-out can result in:

Consequences for the organisation

Although having a burnout or bore-out is above all very unpleasant for those affected by it, the organisation also suffers. Zilveren Kruis calculated that a burnout costs an organisation an average of €60,000, if you assume that the average employee with a burnout is sick 242 days a year that that costs an average of €250 per day4. It is therefore of great importance to minimise risk factors for burnout or bore-out and to identify any incipient symptoms early.

Image result for bored at work

What can you do as an employer?

Although the symptoms of a burnout and boreout are the same, they have opposite causes. There are therefore completely different measures needed to prevent both. Step 1 is to identify an increased risk of either burnout or a boreout. However, this is easier said than done. There is still a taboo on discussing mental problems. Because the media is increasingly increasing attention to the causes and consequences of burnout, the stigma surrounding this problem is fortunately gradually changing. The bore-out, on the other hand, is a different story. Telling people you are dealing with chronic stress because of your high-demanding job and long working hours is up to that. Saying that you struggle with depression because you have little to do at work is not done. That's nice and quiet, isn't it? After all, you get the same paid.

Because it can be difficult for employees to talk about their burnout or bore-out, the run-up to it is hard to spot. Often, the problem only comes to light when it is too late to do anything about it. As an employer, it is therefore very important to check structurally and organisation-wide whether the workload is balanced. In this way, you can identify excessive work demands or boredom before it actually leads to burn-out or bore-out. Launching an anonymous employee survey can reveal pain points in this area. It is important here to understand that such research does not function as a diagnostic tool. It is purely about uncovering areas for improvement at departmental or team level so that they can be addressed.

Preventing burnout

If the survey shows that employees experience a high workload, it may indicate an increased risk of burnout. Lack of a healthy work-life balance, experiencing stress and having too little time to perform the work are indications of burnout. Of course, it is not true for every employee that the above factors will automatically lead to burnout. Some people are person is simply less sensitive to pressure than the other. Nevertheless a tipping point exists for everyone at which working conditions are no longer appropriate and will lead to reduced performance and ultimately reduced employability.

It is therefore important to find out why a high workload is experienced in a particular team. Is there understaffing causing too much work to fall on the shoulders of employees? Are there (long-term) stressful situations at play? Or does something is going wrong within the planning of projects, as a result of which the workload is not distributed properly? distributed?

An employee survey provides insight into employee sentiment on various topics. The next step is to explore this in more depth, through a meeting or one-to-one conversations, for example. This may reveal that there is a need for a new vacancy, that someone needs to be appointed to manage the schedules or that there are conflicts that need to be resolved. need to be resolved.

Preventing bore-out

Preventing a bore-out is a completely different story. The first step has already been taken: in fact, by reading this article, you know about the existence of bore-out. You also know what can cause it and what consequences it can have. The next step, as with burnout, is to investigate employee satisfaction. Points to look out for when identifying risk factors for boreout include:

If in a particular department or particular team it appears that there is a lot of room for improvement in the above areas there is an increased risk of bore-out. In-depth follow-up research or during interviews, it is then possible to find out where this comes from origin. For example, is it possible to allow high-performing employees to advance to another position? Is there overstaffing, resulting in too little work for everyone? Or can there be more variety in working days by having different teams working together?

Individual approach

The approach described above is successful for identifying risk factors of burnout or bore-out within teams or departments. This allows large-scale assessment of whether changes in workload are needed. Of course, it could also be the case that within a department is fine on average, but that there are one or a few employees are taking on too much or too little. In that case, the described may not be the most effective approach. An individual approach is needed, with the key role in signalling lying with the manager. It is important to keep an eye on the well-being of employees. monitor. Only then can you spot incipient burnout or bore-out at the individual level. notice.

Conclusion

It is good to structurally evaluate the workload within different parts of the organisation. Too high or too low a workload can cost both employee and employer dearly. Of course, everyone is stressed sometimes and experiences boredom. The trick is to identify in time when stress or boredom become structural and affect the employee's well-being and performance. If this is signalled in time, there is enough time and space to ensure that it does not lead to burn-out or bore-out.

Sources

  1. TNO (2019). Occupational Health and Safety Review 2018: Psychological Workload and burnout complaints continue to rise www.TNO.nl
  2. Stock, R. M. (2016). Understanding the relationship between frontline employee boreout and customer orientation. Journal of Business Research, 69(10), 4259-4268.
  3. The Rider, Eveline (2016). A bore-out: boredom at work. Health Net.
  4. Wester, Jeroen (2017). NRC Checks: 'Cost of burnout amount to €60,000'. NRC.
Difference between satisfaction, involvement and commitment

Satisfaction. Engagement. Engagement. 

Three important traits for a successful employee. Yet it is often not clear what exactly these traits mean. As a result, the terms employee satisfaction, involvement and engagement are still sometimes used interchangeably. And yet they are indeed different concepts. After all, a satisfied employee is not necessarily engaged. An involved employee is not necessarily engaged. And engagement does not always automatically go together with satisfaction. 

Employee satisfaction

As the name suggests, it is about employee satisfaction to the level of satisfaction with the current work situation. This concept can be roughly divided into four facets:

Work content

When it comes to employee satisfaction, it is important that the content of the work is satisfactory. Is performing the work perceived as fun? Does the job offer enough variety and are capabilities utilised?

Working conditions

Secondly, it is essential that the physical and mental conditions under which work is done are in order. Is the workload not too high? Does the workplace meet all the requirements to perform the work safely and successfully?

Cooperation & Communication

The most important factor for employee satisfaction is the social climate in the workplace. Is there a nice atmosphere within the team? Is the right guidance provided? Are conflicts prevented and resolved?

Compensation & Reward

Also not unimportant are the rewards that come in return for the work. For example, is the salary right and in line with the market? Are sufficient advancement and training opportunities offered?

Measuring employee satisfaction

In the ideal situation, an employee is exclusively positive about each of these four facets. In practice, however, there is often plenty of room for improvement. The advantage of employee satisfaction is that it is relatively easy to make improvements. By means of an employee satisfaction survey, concrete points for improvement within the organisation can be identified. It is up to the employer to act on these and thus increase employee satisfaction.

Employee satisfaction is not only desirable for the employee himself. The organisation also benefits from a high level of satisfaction in the workplace. Indeed, research shows that employee satisfaction is associated with, among other things:

Employee engagement

Besides satisfaction, involvement a big role in the work experience. An engaged employee has heart for the organisation. He is proud to work for the organisation and willing to go the extra mile to help the organisation move forward. This is largely due to a similarity between the employee's personal values and the organisation's core values. This allows an engaged employee to identify with the organisation.

Engagement goes a step further than satisfaction. Imagine an organisation where you hold exactly the same position you hold now, and where exactly the same satisfaction factors are present. A high level of engagement ensures that you would not consider switching to the other organisation. An engaged employee has the connection with the organisation at heart.

Measuring employee engagement

Because the level of engagement depends largely on personal values, it may seem difficult for employers to increase engagement. Yet it is certainly possible to bring about improvement. An engagement survey can be used to identify areas for improvement. For example, suppose the results show that employees do not feel involved in decisions made within the organisation. The employer can then choose to facilitate more employee participation or communicate and manage changes more clearly.

As with employee satisfaction, employee engagement also has a positive impact on things like customer satisfaction, performance and staff retention4. In addition, research shows that engagement goes hand in hand with innovation. Not only that; uninvolved employees even act as a handbrake on both innovation and productivity. Conducting engagement research reveals what the engagement level of the organisation, department or team is. And in what way it can be increased. In this way, efforts to innovate can be prevented from being thwarted by a lack of engagement in the workplace.

Engagement

The term 'engagement' is often used as a direct translation of involvement. This is incorrect! Whereas engagement is about heart for the organisation, engagement is about heart for the work. An engaged employee experiences the following three characteristics:

Energy

When an engaged employee gets up in the morning, he feels like going to work. He feels strong and vital and does not let an occasional setback put him off.

Dedication

Someone who is dedicated feels a high level of enthusiasm and pride about his work. His work inspires him, which he then uses to develop further. He sees his work as useful and challenging.

Absorption

Absorption is the feeling of being completely absorbed in what you are doing. You experience strong concentration and forget about time and the world around you. A working day therefore flies by quickly.

So an engaged employee is someone who gets a lot of satisfaction from their work, is energetic and dedicated, and is captivated by the work. This is largely determined by personality. Is an employee naturally optimistic and energetic? Is it someone who can concentrate easily? Of course, as an employer, there is little you can do to change this. Yet there are plenty of external factors that influence the level of engagement. Factors that have a negative impact on engagement are called stressors or work demands. Factors with a positive effect on engagement are energy sources.

Stressors are things that come with the job but will not necessarily be labelled as fun. Think of the difficult task that has been on your to-do list for days, or the administrative work that comes with your job. These things take effort and energy. This correlates with psychological costs, such as fatigue and irritation. Not a bad thing, as long as there are sufficient energy sources in return5. Energy sources involve aspects of work that are perceived as pleasant. Examples of energy sources include a nice atmosphere within the team, space to plan your own time and performance feedback. Energy sources are motivating. When work gives more energy than it costs, employees will experience higher levels of engagement and be more willing to put in the effort to take their performance to the next level.

Measuring engagement

The level of engagement in the workplace can be determined with an engagement survey. This identifies areas where steps can be made. By combining engagement research with previously mentioned employee satisfaction survey stressors and energy sources can be identified.

Case study

In the ideal situation, an employee is satisfied, involved and engaged. The employee feels happy, relaxed and competent. The employer has a valuable asset to build on. All's well that ends well.

But what if one of the three parts is missing?

Image employee Tim

"This is Tim. Tim has an office job in a nice location in Amsterdam. He works in a friendly team and receives a nice salary in his bank account every month. He sees the personal values that are important to Tim reflected in the organisation. On birthdays, he proudly talks about the projects the organisation is committed to. Yet he also always adds that the work he does is not exactly what he was actually looking for and that it is somewhat below his level. Yet he is not bothered by this. He is fine with the fact that he does not have to put too much effort into his work and that it comes easily to him. In fact, he is already quite tired after a long day's work."

The situation outlined above is not necessarily problematic. Tim is doing a fine job and is satisfied with his situation. Yet one of the three ingredients for the optimal work experience is missing here: Engagement. Tim has no heart for his work. The risk of this is that Tim will quickly settle for the work he is delivering and will be reluctant to take steps to take his work to the next level and develop it. When the level of engagement is increased, Tim can fulfil his potential and be more valuable to the organisation.

A complete picture of work experience

Satisfaction, commitment and engagement are thus all important for employees' work experience. Employees who score high on all three factors are happy, willing to go the extra mile, perform optimally and are least likely to leave the organisation.

Not surprisingly, it is valuable for employers to gain insight into satisfaction, involvement and engagement. In this way, insight is provided into both the strengths within the organisation, and the areas that need some extra attention. These insights give the opportunity to optimise the work experience, and therefore things like customer satisfaction, profitability and staff retention. Moreover, higher levels of involvement and engagement are associated with innovation, leading to a competitive edge.

What is your take on the impact of employee satisfaction, involvement and engagement on organisational success? Let us know by leaving a comment below.

Sources

1. Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis. Journal of applied psychology, 87(2), 268.

2. Wangenheim, F. V., Evanschitzky, H., & Wunderlich, M. (2007). Does the employee-customer satisfaction link hold for all employee groups?. Journal of Business research, 60(7), 690-697.

3. Halkos, G., & Bousinakis, D. (2010). The effect of stress and satisfaction on productivity. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59(5), 415-431.

4. Hays (2019). Why engaged staff is important for your organisation. www.hayes.nl

5. Schaufeli, W. B. (2015). From burnout to engagement. Work and well-being in the Netherlands. M&O, 69, 15-31.

An employee satisfaction survey every week?

A questionnaire in employees' mailbox every week: is that a good idea or not? So-called pulse surveys - weekly or monthly questionnaires - have become increasingly popular in recent years. But what exactly are the considerations for opting for high-frequency surveys? And what are the potential dangers? In this article, you will read all about the pros and cons of pulse surveys and find tips on how to use high-frequency surveys effectively.  

Definition pulse survey

Pulse surveys are short, high-frequency questionnaires that can be used alongside or instead of extensive employee satisfaction surveys. The surveys are designed to be administered in weekly intervals. Just as human health can be monitored by checking the pulse, the health of an organisation can be measured by a pulse survey.   

Image pulse survey

Benefits of high-frequency employee surveys

1. Monitoring impact of changes

By conducting frequent surveys, you can monitor in a targeted way and in the short term whether implemented changes have the desired result. Suppose research shows that employees are dissatisfied with working hours, and you decide to make them more flexible. Then it would be a shame not to be able to measure the effect of this until the next annual survey. A short follow-up survey makes it possible to quickly gather targeted information regarding changes.

2. Connection between employee and management

By asking employees for feedback on a weekly or monthly basis, you as an organisation convey that you are open to change and want to take action to increase job happiness. This makes employees feel heard and valued. This has a positive effect on the organisational culture, which translates into happier employees and lower turnover1.

3. Shift focus and deepen

You can focus on a different focus point for each pulse survey. If a survey shows that there is room for improvement in the area of communication, it may be valuable to focus on certain aspects of this in the next survey. If you opt for annual surveys, you may be left with questions following the survey that will not be answered in the coming year.

4. Encourages awareness of developments

By covering specific developments in the pulse surveys, the employee's attention is automatically drawn to these. When you take steps to enable more employee participation as a result of a survey, it can be useful to ask in the subsequent survey how the employee experienced this. This makes the employee feel heard, but also makes them aware of positive changes.

5. Resource sentiment

By using recurring questionnaires, you reduce the chances of temporary circumstances influencing the results. For example, suppose there was a workplace conflict the day before the survey. Or there has just been a move or renovation. This could (subconsciously) influence the way employees fill in the questionnaire. After all, questionnaires remain a snapshot. It could very well be that the reality is just a little different than at the time of the survey. Conducting frequent surveys will average out that effect, so to speak. This is the closest you will get to the actual, average sentiment of employees.

Potential hazards of high-frequency research

1. Researching too frequently

As described above, doing frequent employee satisfaction survey with a number of attractive benefits. However, doing employee surveys too frequently can be counterproductive. 

When all is said and done, you conduct research to make changes based on the results. So there is no need to send out questionnaires before these actions are actually implemented and visible on the shop floor. Indeed, when doing employee research, one of the biggest frustrations is when nothing is done with employee feedback. And surprisingly, this still happens often enough. Last year, an employee engagement survey was conducted among more than 3,000 HR employees. One of the questions in the survey was: to what extent is the organisation prepared to take action based on the results of the employee survey? This showed that only 42% of the organisations were unquestioningly willing to act on the results2. It is logical that this has an effect on the response rate of employee. Too frequent surveys are therefore not recommended.

Incidentally, there is also something to be said about research being too infrequent. After all, if you act quickly on the results, but then don't do any follow-up research for a long time, that's a waste. Not only do you miss out on valuable information, you also stand still in your development. 

Advice: Investigate only as fast as you can act

The optimum frequency of employee survey depends entirely on the time you need to do something with the results. For many companies, sending out a questionnaire once a quarter is feasible.

2. Starting without a reference point

When your interest in using pulse surveys is piqued, you would probably prefer to start sending them out immediately. Herein, however, lies a second danger. As discussed earlier in this blog, you can use pulse surveys to zoom in on points of improvement within the organisation. To know what these areas of improvement are, however, requires initial research. When you start sending out questionnaires without having a clear idea of what to focus on, you run the risk of asking irrelevant things. This is not only a waste of the employee's time, but also of the opportunity to gather valuable information.

Advice: Start with a comprehensive employee satisfaction survey

Through a comprehensive employee survey you get a complete picture of sentiment within the organisation. Based on the results, you can then choose the focal points you want to focus on in the coming periods.

3. Asking for topics that cannot be changed

It is not wise to address issues that are unchangeable in pulse surveys. For example, suppose initial research shows that employees are dissatisfied with salary, but there are no resources available to change this. While it may be interesting to gather more information about the reason for the dissatisfaction, it is then not useful to devote an in-depth survey to this. This creates expectations among employees that cannot be met.

Advice: Ask only about issues where action can be taken

It is important to choose topics in which changes can actually be made. This will avoid disappointments. Rather, focus on topics where gains can be made.

4. Sending out surveys that are too long

There are undoubtedly an awful lot of questions you would like to ask employees. However, it is not wise to bundle all these questions into one pulse survey. If the questionnaire is too long, more and more employees will gradually drop out. Especially if you opt for monthly or even weekly surveys.

Advice: Keep pulse surveys short

Pulse surveys are meant to keep a finger on the pulse, not repeat the initial survey. Therefore, make sure the questionnaires are short: Decidedly no longer than 5 minutes. This way, you will achieve the highest possible response rate and avoid survey fatigue.

Response rate in high-frequency surveys

You might wonder what sending out questionnaires frequently does to the response rate. Doesn't the high frequency of surveys cause the employee to lose motivation to participate? Or doesn't the recurring mail become such a habit over time that the employee stops paying attention to it?

Generally, this is not an issue. Frequent, short questionnaires create more engagement and a sense of connection between employee and organisation. When employees experience that something is done with their feedback (in the short term), they will remain triggered to participate in it. That is provided the questionnaires do not require too much time investment. The response rate in the average internal survey is between 30 and 40 per cent3. By properly communicating the purpose of the questionnaires, acting on the results of the survey and not making the lists too long, a response rate of more of 85% can be achieved.

An employee satisfaction survey every week?

At the start of this article, we asked ourselves whether doing weekly employee survey is a good idea or not? The answer is a little more nuanced than a simple yes or no. The optimal frequency of doing research is different for each organisation. The most important rule to keep in mind is that it is never wise to research faster than you can act. 

Sources

  1. Rachel Muller-Heyndyk (2018). Bad company culture costs UK economy £23.6 billion. HR Magazine.
  2. Mark Murphy (2018). This mistaken belief is ruining most employee engagement surveys. Forbes.
  3. Andrea Fryrear (2015). What's a good Survey Response Rate? SurveyGizmo.
What does the Net Promoter Score (NPS) say?

Management consultant Frederick Reichheld was looking for an alternative to the long questionnaires in market surveys. He wanted to be able to measure satisfaction and brand loyalty in an easy and quick way, without compromising the quality of the survey. That is why he created the Net Promoter Score (NPS) in 2003.1 This measurement tool would make it possible to measure loyalty using just one question: 'How likely are you to recommend this brand to family and friends?' Easy? Check. Quick? Check. This makes the NPS sixteen years later still a widely used tool in many different types of research. But what exactly does the NPS say? And does this score make an extensive questionnaire unnecessary?

Definition NPS

The NPS is a management tool that can be used to measure loyalty. The score is based on the likelihood that people will recommend a product, brand or organisation to acquaintances, friends and family.

What does the NPS say?

Individuals who would recommend a product to others can be seen as ambassadors of the brand. A product that is recommended will come to the attention of potential consumers in a positive way. Since NPS is thus based on the principle of word-of-mouth, it is not surprising that some studies find a link between NPS and sales figures.2 However, this effect is only found for existing trends. There is little to no evidence that NPS can be used as a predictor of growth, as claimed by Frederick Reichheld.3

Nevertheless, the NPS does say something about the extent to which consumers are enthusiastic about a brand or product. It can therefore be seen as an indicator of satisfaction and brand loyalty. So while it is not advisable to rely solely on the NPS in a survey, it can be a valuable part of a more comprehensive questionnaire.

Meanwhile, the NPS has long since ceased to be used only in market research. In fact, NPS is used in every context where supply and demand play a role. Whether you are talking about recommending a new restaurant, a holiday destination or - in the case of employee survey - an employer.

How is the NPS calculated?

Let's stay with the above-mentioned employee survey. When talking about recommending an employer, it is also referred to as the employer NPS (eNPS). The question needed to calculate the NPS then reads, "How likely are you to recommend this organisation as an employer to friends or family?". The respondent answers this question with a rating from 1 (very unlikely) to 10 (very likely). You might expect the NPS to be the average rating given for this question. In reality, however, it is slightly more complicated. First, respondents are divided into three groups:

Detractors

With a score of 0 to 6, respondents are marked with the English word Detractors. There is no really good Dutch translation of this word, but it comes closest to 'Opponents'. Within this category, these individuals are unlikely to recommend their employer to friends and family. Now you may be thinking: surely a 6 is enough? Yet research has shown that even with a meagre enough, people are still not enthusiastic enough to actually make recommendations.

Passives

With a score of 7 or 8, respondents are categorised as Passives. These are individuals who are moderately enthusiastic about their employer and where the likelihood of them recommending is therefore average. These people are not dissatisfied with their employer, but are also unlikely to try to convince their friends and family to join the organisation.

Promoters

At a score of 9 or 10, respondents are Promoters. These individuals are ambassadors of the organisation, and so recommending their employer to friends and family is very likely. These are the individuals who are most satisfied with their employer and most loyal to the organisation.

The NPS is basically the difference between the number of promoters and the number of detractors. It is therefore calculated by subtracting the percentage of detractors from the number of promoters. The simplicity of this method means that the NPS is used in many different situations. Little knowledge about research methodologies is needed.

What is a good NPS?

When there are more promoters than detractors, the NPS is a positive number. When most of the respondents fall under detractors, the NPS is negative. So the most important thing is that the NPS is above 0. In the ideal world where every employee would be a promoter, the NPS would be 100. However, this is almost impossible. However, the rule is: the higher, the better.

Does the NPS make a comprehensive questionnaire unnecessary?

As you might have felt coming, the answer is no. It is true the NPS is a measure of loyalty, and can lead to word-of-mouth. However, it is difficult - if not impossible - to measure loyalty from a single question.4 Asking one question suggests that loyalty has only one dimension. Other aspects of loyalty are hereby omitted. For example, is the employee also proud to be employed at the organisation? And would he or she also prefer the organisation to rival companies?

In the case of market research - where the NPS became big - asking just one question to establish loyalty is less problematic. After all, choosing a product is a lot less complex than choosing an employer. In employee survey it is smarter to choose to combine the NPS with questions about satisfaction and involvement. Not only because the choice is more complex, but also because an employee survey is often meant to develop. It is therefore not only valuable to know the organisation's NPS, but even more so to find out where the areas for improvement lie. And the NPS simply cannot provide that information.

Satisfaction and loyalty are complex constructs that cannot be captured in a single question. So do not regard the NPS as an all-purpose tool to employee satisfaction or loyalty measure. Rather, think of it as a thermometer. You can tell from it if something is not right, but it does not provide information about what exactly is going on.

Sources

  1. Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard business review, 81(12), 46-55.
  2. Shaw, R. (2008). Net promoter. Journal of Database Marketing & Customer Strategy Management, 15(3), 138-140.
  3. Keiningham, T. L., Cooil, B., Andreassen, T. W., & Aksoy, L. (2007). A longitudinal examination of net promoter and firm revenue growth. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 39-51.
  4. Keiningham, T. L., Aksoy, L., Cooil, B., & Andreassen, T. W. (2008). Linking customer loyalty to growth. mIt Sloan management review, 49(4), 51.