Yip, B; Rowlinson, S and Siu, O L (2008) Coping strategies as moderators in the relationship between role overload and burnout. Construction Management and Economics, 26(8), pp. 871-882. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The moderating effect coping strategies have on the relationship between role overload and burnout was investigated in a sample of 222 professional engineers in the construction industry. A four-factor model of coping strategies, based on the Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WCQ) revised scale, was identified to consist of rational problem solving, resigned distancing, seeking support/ventilation and passive wishful thinking. The results revealed that only rational problem solving significantly moderated the relationship between role overload and all three dimensions of burnout, i.e. emotional exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy; whereas the moderating effect of resigned distancing and seeking support/ventilation was significant only on emotional exhaustion and cynicism respectively. Passive wishful thinking failed to demonstrate a significant moderating effect on any of the burnout dimensions at all. The importance and methods of incorporating effective coping strategies as a successful intervention for managing burnout at individual, organizational and institutional levels are discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | burnout; coping; moderating effect; role overload |
| Index terms: | engineer, dimension, construction industry, coping, ventilation, strategy, burnout, questionnaire, problem solving |
| Subjects: | profession, data collection methods, air quality, health monitoring assessment and metrics, management, decision-making and reasoning, occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, behavioral psychology |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Business Strategy, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here