See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/317124074

Role of Burnout on Job Level, Job Satisfaction, and Task Performance

Article  in  Leadership & Organization Development Journal · July 2017

DOI: 10.1108/LODJ-11-2015-0249

CITATIONS READS

20 1,750

4 authors, including:

Jong Gyu Park Bora Kwon

Penn State Altoona Sacred Heart University
19 PUBLICATIONS   191 CITATIONS    12 PUBLICATIONS   117 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Jong Gyu Park on 29 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


LODJ
38,5
630
Received 19 November 2015
Revised 12 April 2016
11 July 2016
12 July 2016
Accepted 12 July 2016
Leadership & Organization
Development Journal
Vol. 38 No. 5, 2017
pp. 630-645
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0143-7739
DOI 10.1108/LODJ-11-2015-0249
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0143-7739.htm
Role of burnout on job level, job
satisfaction, and task performance
Won Ho Kim
Department of Education Policy Studies,
The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA
Young-An Ra
School of Counseling Psychology and Social Welfare,
Handong Global University, Pohang, South Korea, and
Jong Gyu Park and Bora Kwon
Department of Learning and Performance Systems,
The Pennsylvania State University, State College, Pennsylvania, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to examine the mediating role of burnout (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism,
professional inefficacy) in the relationship between job level and job satisfaction as well as between job level
and task performance.
Design/methodology/approach – The final sample included 342 Korean workers from selected companies.
The authors employed the Hayes (2013) PROCESS tool for analyzing the data.
Findings – The results showed that all three subscales of burnout (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism, professional
inefficacy) mediate the relationship between job level and job satisfaction. However, only two mediators
(i.e. cynicism, professional inefficacy) indicated the mediating effects on the association between job level
and task performance.
Originality/value – This research presented the role of burnout on the relationships between job level, job
satisfaction, and task performance especially in South Korean organizational context. In addition to role of
burnout, findings should prove helpful in improving job satisfaction and task performance. The authors
provide implications and limitations of the findings.
Keywords Job satisfaction, Burnout, Job level, Task performance
Paper type Research paper
An effective work environment needs to generate quality services and products, have the
capacity to attract talented people, support innovation and changes, and decrease
turnover costs (Levering, 1998). Today, because careers have become complex and
sophisticated, companies must prudently consider organizational practices and
increase contributions (Thomas and Velthouse, 1990). Jobs do not provide knowledge
and services alone, and this requires that businesses devote their attention also to
workers’ occupational safety in terms of discretion and independence. A number of
studies (e.g. Thomas and Velthouse 1990, Ilies et al., 2005) have found that autonomy in
organizations leads to an increase in productivity, satisfaction, and performance.
Such autonomy also produces greater worker engagement (Gagne, 2003), a crucial
variable that enhances motivation and commitment. Additionally, past research
(e.g. IBM, 2014; SHRM, 2012) has noted that people with different job levels have
different levels of engagement, and these findings have led subsequent studies to examine
the engagement through job level. Those studies (IBM, 2014; SHRM, 2012) have shown
that individuals with higher job rankings tend to be more engaged at work than those
with lower job levels.
Besides work engagement, researchers (e.g. Luthans, 2002) have increasingly turned to
studying the best practices of worker operation, both practically and cognitively. In doing
so, these scholars have become more attentive to burnout in the workplace, a concept closely Role of
tied to engagement. Indeed, the two concepts are effectively polar opposites: workers with burnout
effective and energetic connections with job activities (engagement) are able to manage
labor demands which are associated with levels of burnout. While engagement is characterized
by vigor, significant cognitive efficacy, and devotion (Bakker et al., 2004), burnout refers to
mental fatigue, emotional exhaustion, and cynicism (a distant attitude toward one’s work;
Maslach et al., 2001). However, these two constructs (i.e. engagement and burnout) are closely 631
related; burnout lead to strengths and psychological capacities for development and
performance improvement by finding the value of engagement, such as positive reinforcement,
positive affect and emotion, and even behavioral engagement and engagement leads to
observable behaviors such as extra-role behavior, role expansion, and engagement with others
(Saks, 2008); employers need to identify the problems and dysfunctions of employees including
stress and burnout as opposed to the engagement. Focusing on both burnout and engagement
fruitfully allows scholars to obtain a wider understanding of how employees succeed (Luthans,
2002). Schaufeli et al. (1996) have noted the prevalence of burnout at work as to how many
organizational members experience serious stressors that lead to burnout. According to
Schaufeli et al. (1996), this burnout is usually defined by three dimensions: exhaustion, which
occurs when an employee fully expends his or her cognitive and physical abilities; cynicism,
referring to a cold outlook where one sees individuals as motivated purely by self-interest; and
professional inefficacy, which is dissatisfaction relative to job accomplishments. Because there
are significant relationships between job levels and engagement as well as between
engagement and burnout, it is crucial that we completely grasp the association between
different job levels and burnout in workplace.
Past research, thus, has considered the relationship between job ranks and levels of
burnout, but so far such studies have produced mixed results. These studies (e.g. Berkeley
Planning Associates, 1977; Kanste et al., 2007) have indicated that those employees with
high job levels within an organization, such as professional and managerial staffs,
experience less burnout than other workers. Kanste et al. (2007) have pointed out that lower
job levels function as an exposing factor for emotional exhaustion and a decreasing factor
for professional efficacy. They also noted that that a higher job level protects from increased
cynicism and decreased professional efficacy. In turn, the active management of higher
level jobs protects from increased cynicism and reduced professional accomplishment.
In addition, other researchers (Tracey and Hinkin, 1996) have mentioned in their
experimental research that higher levels of job have a positive influence on commitment and
performance at work. This is because an individual with a higher job level is able to act with
autonomy and can articulate clearly his or her role; this may decrease the experience of
burnout (Tracey and Hinkin, 1996). In contrast, Weinberg et al. (1983) reported no significant
difference in burnout frequency among professionals, administrators, and personnel.
Similarly, Riggar et al. (1984) found no systemic differences in levels of burnout between
administrators and employees. Because of this discrepancy, more studies are needed to
explore the intricacies of the relationship between different job ranks and levels of burnout.
In line with this, studies on organizational culture and dynamics have emphasized on
cultural values and social traditionalism (Kim and Kim, 2010). Hence, this present study
attended to a population of South Korean employees whose organizational culture is fairly
distinct (Lee and Lee, 2014). According to the Hofstede and Hofstede’s (2005) widely used
theory of cultural dimensions (individualism/collectivism, power distance, masculinity/
femininity, uncertainty avoidance, and long-term/short-term orientation) and the
demonstration of the relative measures of cultural values, social hierarchies depend on
the distancing of power. Many scholars (e.g. Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Hofstede and
Hofstede, 2005) consider South Korea as a society with a large power distance, meaning that
power positions are vertically stratified, which creates different levels of power status.
LODJ Lee (1998) has argued that to explore fully the management practices of South Korea,
38,5 we must understand first the country’s unique culture of high power distance. The
organizational structure of South Korean companies is generally characterized by a rigid
hierarchy with authority concentrated at the high levels of job (Lee, 2011). In addition, major
decisions need to follow a formal process of approval from high job ranks (Chen, 1995).
People with lower job levels are willing to submit to the authority of higher job levels and
632 work hard to avoid confrontation with those of higher ranks out of a desire for harmony and
order ( Jang and Chung, 1995). Individuals with higher job levels thus have more workplace
power because of their ability to make decisions and improve productivity. Such power
effectively translates into the capacity to manage levels of burnout (Berkeley Planning
Associates, 1977), because individuals with high job levels are able to effect change in an
organization (Lee, 2011) and to deal with workplace demands more easily than those with
lower job levels (Bakker et al., 2004). Therefore, our first hypothesisis:
H1. There is a significant and negative relationship between job levels and levels of burnout.
Moreover, because job satisfaction and task performance are considered hugely important
within the field of human resources and organizational behavior; numerous studies have
focused on how burnout impacts these two variables. Job satisfaction can be defined as
employees’ affective reactions to their jobs (Fields, 2002), while task performance refers to
individuals’ behaviors that contribute to organizational goals (Rotundo and Sackett, 2002).
Task performance also refers to the adequate fulfillment of technical requirements and
includes task-specific efforts or behavior associated with the execution or completion of a
required function or unit of work (Rank et al., 2009). Burnout, a prolonged response to
interpersonal and emotional stressors, thus can significantly impact the job satisfaction and
task performance. Exhaustion, the first dimension of burnout, has been shown to be related
to the lack of effective stress coping strategies (Erera-Weatherley, 1996), to unrealistic
personal expectations (Stevens and O’Neill, 1983), to passive work overload (Murray-Gibbons
and Gibbons, 2007), and to conflict in the workplace (Kuruüzüm et al., 2008). Wright and
Bonett (1997) have found a significant and negative relationship between emotional
exhaustion and task performance that leads to an unhealthy working environment and to
dissatisfaction among workers. The second dimension of burnout, cynicism, has been
attributed to excessive workload (Burke, 1989), excessive interpersonal interaction
(Maslach, 1982), and job responsibilities (Patton and Goddard, 2003). Perrewe et al. (1993)
found that increased cynicism significantly impacts stress and job dissatisfaction. Herzberg’s
(1964) motivators and hygiene theory, which states that there are certain factors that lead to
job satisfaction and dissatisfaction at workplace, also supports this dimension of burnout; a
company that devotes insufficient resources or creates an unethical environment may cause
cynicism of employees and then it would have a significant and positive relationship with
dissatisfaction at workplace. The third dimension of burnout, professional inefficacy,
has been associated with feelings of incompetence ( Janssen et al., 1999), lack of positive
feedback ( Jackson and Schuler, 1983), and the provision of pseudo-authority
(Zopiatis and Constanti, 2005). Kwag and Kim (2009) have also revealed that inefficacy and
disengagement at work are negatively associated with job performance. Lower levels of
burnout thus lead to greater job satisfaction and task performance. Therefore, the second
hypothesis of the present study is:
H2. There is a significant and negative relationship between burnout and job
satisfaction as well as between burnout and task performance.
Previous literature has also focused on the relationships among job levels, job satisfaction,
and task performance. Such studies (e.g. McNeese-Smith, 1999; Joo and Lim, 2013) have
revealed that higher job levels have significant and positive relationships with greater
satisfaction and performance at work. Chernik and Phelan (1974), in their study on how job Role of
hierarchy impacts work satisfaction, indicated that a higher job level positively correlates to burnout
higher degree of satisfaction. Other researchers (e.g. McNeese-Smith, 1999) also found
important relationships between different job levels, satisfaction, and performance of
workers: individuals who have higher job levels develop a greater sense of workplace
community and devote themselves more fully to the company’s goals. In effect, such
individuals can improve their satisfaction and performance ( Joo et al., 2012). Following these 633
scholars, our third hypothesis is:
H3. There are significant and positive relationships between job levels and job
satisfaction as well as between job levels and task performance.
To summarize, although much literature has examined the relationships among job level,
burnout, job satisfaction, and task performance, mixed results still remain and little
attention has been devoted to the simultaneous interactions among all variables. This study,
therefore, aims to fill such gaps in our understanding of organizational dynamics by
examining the mediating effects of three types of burnout (emotional exhaustion, increased
cynicism, reduced personal efficacy) on the relationship between job levels and job
satisfaction as well as job levels and task performance. The study focused specifically on
South Korean populations to consider the culture’s unique organizational system and to
investigate the impact of burnout on the relationship between job levels, job satisfaction,
and task performance.

Method
Sample and procedure
A total of 360 white-collar workers from more than ten companies, that represent several
industries (i.e. banking, chemical, electronics, energy, and retail), were selected to participate
in the survey. Of those 360, this study only included 342 responses, excluding the cases with
more than 70 percent missing or insincere responses. The data were kept anonymous and
confidential. In accordance with the relevant ethics codes in South Korea, written informed
consent was part of the data collection procedure.
As for sample demographic distribution, 61.2 percent were male and 38.8 percent were
female; 65.2 percent had a Bachelor degree, and 34.8 percent said they have a Postgraduate
degree; as for job types, 16.3 percent worked in marketing and sales, 11.2 percent in research
and development, 14.3 percent in engineering, 21.0 percent in information technology, and
37.2 percent in administrative and management functions (finance, planning, accounting,
HR, and audit); and for the job level, 55.5 percent were managerial level and 45.5 percent
were non-managerial level.

Measures
Job level. We classified job level into two categories as recorded by participants’
self-responses: managerial level or non-managerial level, following the classification of past
literature (e.g. IBM, 2014; SHRM, 2012). If the respondent described himself or herself as a
senior executive, manager/director, or supervisor, he or she was categorized in the
managerial level. If the respondent described himself or herself as either a non-management
salaried or a non-management hourly, he or she was classified into the non-managerial level.
Burnout. We measured burnout using the Korean version (Shin, 2003) of the
Maslach Burnout Inventory General Survey (EXHAUSTIONI-GS; Schaufeli et al., 1996).
The EXHAUSTIONI-GS includes three subscales: exhaustion (five items), cynicism
(five items), and professional inefficacy (six items). It employs a seven-point Likert scale,
ranging from (never) to 6 (every day). A participant showed burnout if they recorded lower
LODJ numbers of professional inefficacy and higher numbers on cynicism and exhaustion.
38,5 The professional inefficacy subscale was reverse coded so that higher scores represented
burnout in the same way as the other two subscales. According to Shin (2003), measurement
invariance was assessed using multi-sample confirmatory factor analysis across two
languages (Korean and English) using two samples. In the present study, reliabilities
(i.e. Cronbach’s α coefficients) of each subscale were 0.91, 0.82, and 0.91 for exhaustion,
634 cynicism, and professional inefficacy, respectively.
Job satisfaction. We measured job satisfaction using a three-item overall satisfaction
subscale from the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire (Cammann et al., 1979).
These three items are: “All in all, I am satisfied with my job,” “In general, I don’t like my job”
(reverse coded), and “In general, I like working here.” Respondents indicated their levels of
agreement on a seven-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree). In previous literature, the coefficient α for job satisfaction of this measurement proved
reliable. According to Cammann et al. (1979), Cronbach’s α coefficients of this measurement
were moderate if ranging from 0.70 to 0.77. In the present study, the reliability was 0.74.
Task performance. This study measured task performance through four items of the
nine-item scale to assess task performance developed by Goodman and Svyantek (1999).
Among the nine items classified as measuring task performance, we (four researchers all
with organizational HR backgrounds) selected the four items among in-role performance
statements by eliminating double barred items and items measuring an individual’s capacity.
Another rationale for drawing those four items from the instrument was to use highly reliable
items. Thus, the remaining four items were: “I achieve the objectives of the job,” “I meet
criteria for performance,” “I fulfill all the requirements of the job,” and “I perform well in the
overall job by carrying out tasks as expected.” Participants were asked to reveal their levels of
agreement on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).
Goodman and Svyantek (1999) showed that their performance items were highly reliable,
having Cronbach’s α coefficients of the items ranging from 0.86 to 0.93. In the current study,
the reliability of the items assessing task performance was 0.90. Table I showed the
descriptive statistics and Cronbach’s α coefficients of all variable in the present study.

Data analysis
We employed the Hayes (2013) PROCESS tool using the bootstrap method to examine the
mediating effect of the three subscales of burnout (exhaustion, cynicism, and professional
inefficacy) on the relationship between job levels and job satisfaction and between job levels
and task performance. Using the PROCESS tool, the combined effects of the regression
predictor onto the mediator and regression mediator onto outcome resulted in the estimation
of the indirect effect. We tested the significant level of the indirect effect by computing
confidence intervals for the indirect effect through bootstrap methods. Traditional normal
theory tests for indirect effects have the unrealistic assumption of normality for the
sampling distribution of the specific indirect effects. Bootstrap confidence intervals are a

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mean SD α

1. Job level –
2. Exhaustion −0.160** – 3.276 1.311 0.907
3. Cynicism −0.188** 0.660** – 2.676 1.188 0.823
Table I.
Descriptive statistics 4. Professional inefficacy −0.184** 0.093 0.282** – 1.738 0.990 0.908
and Cronbach’s α 5. Job satisfaction 0.138** −0.434** −0.611** −0.473** – 3.724 0.716 0.744
coefficients of all 6. Task performance 0.257** −0.187** −0.377** −0.619** 0.534** – 3.843 0.599 0.902
variables Notes: *po 0.05; **p o0.01
better approach when researchers have access to the original data set (Williams and Role of
MacKinnon, 2008). burnout
Although the traditional Baron and Kenny process is quite useful for illustrating and
understanding principles of mediation, the method of regressions does have some
limitations, the main issue being that the predictor variable should be less strongly
associated with the outcome variable than mediator (Field, 2013; Hayes, 2013). We, therefore,
tested each mediation model by estimating the indirect effect rather than using a Baron and 635
Kenny style mediation analysis. We, thus, employed the Hayes (2013) PROCESS tool.
The combined effects of the regression predictor onto the mediator and regression mediator
onto outcome results in the estimation of the indirect effect. We used multiple mediating
models because doing so can show multiple mechanisms simultaneously, while single
mediating models tend to be somewhat problematic and over-simplified (Preacher and
Hayes, 2008; Williams and MacKinnon, 2008). Through multiple mediating models,
researchers can compare the relative influence of several indirect effects. Since we have two
outcomes, job satisfaction and task performance, we applied the parallel multiple mediator
model. In this model, antecedent variable and leadership position are modeled as influencing
consequent outcomes, both directly and indirectly, through two or more mediators with the
condition that no mediator causally influences another.

Results
Role of burnout on the relationship between job levels and job satisfaction
Figure 1 depicted the parallel multiple mediator model. We first interpreted paths a1, a2, and
a3 (see Figure 1 and Table II). Job level significantly predicted exhaustion, b ¼ −0.5201,
t ¼ −3.2946, p ¼ 0.0011. The R2 value indicated that job level explained 3.14 percent of the
variance in the relationship with exhaustion, and the fact that the b was negative showed
that the relationship was negative also. Thus, if an individual was at a managerial job level,
then he or she would likely show low levels of exhaustion. Job level also significantly
predicted cynicism, b ¼ −0.5111, t ¼ −3.5467, p ¼ 0.0004. The R2 value indicated that job

E
a1 b1

a2 C b2

JL JS
c1
a3 b3
Job Level Job
Satisfaction
P

Direct effect, b = –0.0568, p = 0.3828

Indirect effect for E, b = 0.0246, 95% BCa CI (0.0059, 0.0601)
Indirect effect for C, b = 0.0824, 95% CI (0.0335, 0.1347)
Indirect effect for P, b = 0.0631, 95% CI (0.0216, 0.1110) Figure 1.
The parallel multiple
mediation model for
JL JS job satisfaction
Total Effect 1 (TE1)
 38,5

636
LODJ

Table II.
Regression

errors, and model

coefficients, standard

summary information
Professional inefficacy
Exhaustion (E) Cynicism(C) (P) Job satisfaction (JS) Task performance (TP)
Antecedent Est (SE) 95% CI Est (SE). 95% CI Est (SE) 95% CI Est (SE) 95% CI Est (SE) 95% CI

Job level a1 −0.5201 (−0.8306, a2 −0.5111 (−0.7946, a3 −0.4062 (−0.6412, C1 −0.0568 (−0.1848, C2 0.1509 (0.0408,
(0.1579)** −0.2096) (0.1441)** −0.2276) (0.1195)** −0.1713) (0.0650) 0.0711) (0.0559)** 0.2609)
E – – – – – – b1 −0.0758 (−0.1330, b4 −0.0038 (−0.0529,
(0.0291)** −0.0187) (0.0250) 0.0454)
C – – – – – – b2 −0.2585 (−0.3232, b5 −0.1019 (−0.1575,
(0.0328)** −0.1939) (0.0283)** −0.0463)
P – – – – – – b3 −0.2492 (−0.3084, b6 −0.3211 (−0.3720,
(0.0301)** −0.1900) (0.0259)** −0.2702)
Intercept iM1
3.399 (3.2378, iM2 2.812 (2.6649, iM3 1.844 (1.7219, iy 5.100 iy 4.630 (4.4691,
(0.0820)** 3.5605) (0.0749)** 2.9595) (0.0621)** 1.9661) (0.0953)** (0.0820)** 4.7916)
R2 ¼ 0.0314 R2 ¼ 0.0362 R2 ¼ 0.0334 R2 ¼ 0.4877 R2 ¼ 0.4439
F(l, 335) ¼ 10.8542, F(l, 335) ¼ 12.5791, F(l, 335) ¼ 11.5656, F(4, 332) ¼ 79.0084, F(4, 332) ¼ 66.2628,
p ¼ 0.0011 p o 0.001 p o 0.001 p o 0.001 p o 0.001
Notes: *p o0.05; **po 0.01
level explained 3.62 percent of the variance in the relationship with cynicism, and the fact Role of
that the b was negative showed that the relationship was negative also. In other words, burnout
those at managerial job levels showed a lessened chance of cynicism. Finally, job level
significantly predicted professional inefficacy, b ¼ −0.4062, t ¼ −3.4008, p ¼ 0.0008. The R2
value indicated that job level explained 3.34 percent of the variance in the relationship
with professional inefficacy, and the fact that the b was negative showed that the
relationship was negative also. If an individual was at a managerial job level, then 637
professional inefficacy declined.
Table II displayed the regression of job satisfaction predicted from both job level
(i.e. path C1) and each mediator (i.e. path b1, b2, and b3). The results indicated that job
level did not significantly predict job satisfaction with the relationship with each mediator in
the model, b ¼ −0.0568, t ¼ −0.8739, p ¼ 0.3828, which showed the subscale of burnout to
fully mediate the relationship between job level and job satisfaction. Exhaustion
significantly predicted job satisfaction, b ¼ −0.0758, t ¼ −2.6096, p ¼ 0.0095. Cynicism also
significantly predicted job satisfaction, b ¼ −0.2585, t ¼ −7.8706, p ¼ 0.0000. Finally,
professional inefficacy also significantly predicted job satisfaction, b ¼ −0.2492,
t ¼ −8.2776, p ¼ 0.0000. The R2 value tells us that the model explains 48.77 percent of the
variance in job satisfaction. The negative b for each mediator indicated that as the level of
burnout increases, job satisfaction declines.
The total effect is the effect of the predictor on the outcome when the mediator is not
present in the model. Path TE1 represents the total effect of job level on job satisfaction.
When the relationship with each mediator was not added in the model, job level significantly
predicted job satisfaction, b ¼ 0.2160, t ¼ 2.4878, p ¼ 0.0133. The R2 value showed that the
model explained 1.81 percent of the variance in job satisfaction. Job level had a positive
relationship with job satisfaction (as shown by the positive b-value).
The indirect effect of job level on job satisfaction (i.e. the effect through relationship each
burnout subscale) showed that when the relationship with each mediator was included as a
predictor (the direct effect) – referring to the burnout that acted as a full mediator when the
indirect effect was significant – the effect of job level on job satisfaction was not significant,
b ¼ −0.0568, t ¼ −0.8739, p ¼ 0.3828. Next, the indirect effect of job level on job satisfaction
consisted of three mediators: exhaustion, cynicism, and professional inefficacy. The indirect
effect result showed an estimate of this effect through exhaustion (b ¼ 0.0394) as well as a
bootstrapped standard error and confidence interval (95 percent confidence intervals
contain the true value of a parameter in 95 percent of samples). The true b-value for the
indirect effect fell between 0.0088 and 0.0963. The effect size value, which was the
standardized form of the indirect effect, for indirect effect of exhaustion was b ¼ 0.0246,
95% BCa CI (0.0059, 0.0601). The confidence interval not containing 0 indicates a likely
genuine indirect effect. In other words, exhaustion mediated the relationship between job
level and job satisfaction. In same way, the results showed an estimate of this effect through
cynicism (b ¼ 0.1321) as well as a bootstrapped standard error and confidence interval.
The true b-value for the indirect effect was between 0.0542 and 0.2196. Also, the
standardized b for the indirect effect of cynicism was b ¼ 0.0824, 95% BCa CI (0.0335,
0.1347). As a result, because the confidence interval did not contain 0 implies that there was
likely to be a genuine indirect effect. Thus, cynicism was a mediator of the relationship
between job level and job satisfaction. Finally, the results showed an estimate of indirect
effect through professional inefficacy (b ¼ 0.1012) as well as a bootstrapped standard error
and confidence interval. The true b-value for the indirect effect was between 0.0333 and
0.1817, and the standardized b for the indirect effect of professional inefficacy was
b ¼ 0.0631, 95% BCa CI (0.0216, 0.1110). The confidence interval not containing 0
demonstrates the likely existence of a genuine indirect effect. In other words, professional
inefficacy mediated the relationship between job level and job satisfaction.
LODJ Role of burnout on the relationship between job level and task performance
38,5 Figure 2 depicted the parallel multiple mediator model. The paths a1, a2, and a3 (see Figure 2
and Table II) were equivalent with the interpreted coefficient values from the previous section.
The results are displayed in Table II and show how both job level (i.e. path C2) and each
mediator of burnout (i.e. path b4, b5, and b6) predicted the regression of task performance.
The results indicated that job level significantly predicted task performance with the
638 relationship with each mediator in the model: b ¼ 0.1509, t ¼ 2.6967, p ¼ 0.0074. The relationship
with exhaustion did not significantly predict task performance, b ¼ −0.0038, t ¼ −0.1512,
p ¼ 0.8799, and this implied that exhaustion did not have a mediating effect. The relationship
with cynicism significantly predicted task performance, b ¼ −0.1019, t ¼ −3.6061, po0.001.
The relationship with professional inefficacy also significantly predicted task performance,
b ¼ −0.3211, t ¼ −12.4001, po0.001. The R2 value showed that the model explains
44.39 percent of the variance in task performance. The negative b for each mediator
indicated that as level of burnout increases, task performance declines.
The total effect of job level on task performance was charted by path TE2. When the
relationship with each mediator was not included in the model, job level significantly
predicted task performance, b ¼ 0.3354, t ¼ 4.7924, p o0.001. The R2 value showed that the
model explains 6.42 percent of the variance in task performance. Job level had a positive
relationship with task performance (as shown by the positive b-value).
The results for the indirect effect of job level on task performance (i.e. the effect through
relationship each burnout subscale) showed that the effect of job level on task performance
was significant (b ¼ 0.1509, t ¼ 2.6967, p ¼ 0.0074) when each mediator was included as a
predictor as well (the direct effect) – this refers to when burnout functions as a partial
mediator if there is a significant indirect effect. Next, the indirect effect of job level on task
performance consisted of three mediators: exhaustion, cynicism, and professional inefficacy.
The indirect effect result showed an estimate of this effect through exhaustion (b ¼ 0.0020)
as well as a bootstrapped standard error and confidence interval. The true b-value for the
indirect effect fells between −0.0272 and 0.0298. Also, a standardized form of the indirect

E
a1 b4

a2 C b5

JL TP
c2
a3 b6
Job Level Task
Performance
P

Direct effect, b = 0.1509, p = 0.0074

Indirect effect for E, b = 0.0015, 95% BCa CI (–0.0200, 0.221)
Indirect effect for C, b = 0.0824, 95% CI (0.0138, 0.733)
Figure 2.
Indirect effect for P, b = 0.0985, 95% CI (0.0327, 0.1676)
The parallel multiple
mediation model for
task performance JL TP
Total Effect 2 (TE2)
effect for indirect effect of exhaustion was b ¼ 0.0015, 95% BCa CI (−0.0200, 0.0221). As a Role of
result, the confidence interval containing zero implied that there was not likely to be a burnout
genuine indirect effect. In other words, exhaustion did not mediate the relationship between
job level and task performance.
Next, the results showed an estimate of this effect through cynicism (b ¼ 0.0521)
as well as a bootstrapped standard error and confidence interval. The true b-value
for the indirect effect lay between 0.0180 and 0.1015. Also, the standardized b for the 639
indirect effect of cynicism was b ¼ 0.0824, 95% BCa CI (0.0138, 0.0733). As a result,
because the confidence interval did not contain zero, there was likely to be a genuine
indirect effect; cynicism was, thus, a mediator of the relationship between job level and
task performance.
Finally, the results showed an estimate of the indirect effect through professional
inefficacy (b ¼ 0.1304) as well as a bootstrapped standard error, and confidence interval.
The true b-value for the indirect effect was between 0.0405 and 0.2271, and the
standardized b for the indirect effect of professional inefficacy was b ¼ 0.0985, 95% BCa CI
(0.0327, 0.1676). The confidence interval not containing zero implies a likely genuine
indirect effect. In other words, professional inefficacy mediated the relationship between
job level and task performance.

Discussion and conclusion

Discussion
Managing job burnout in modern places of employment is of the utmost importance.
Not only does job burnout affect job attitude, it also impacts the task performance of
individual employees. It is worth noting that many researchers consider job burnout to be
the polar opposite of job engagement (e.g. Schaufeli and Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2002).
This is because engaged employees tend to perform better because of higher energy and
an increased dedication to performing at their highest capacities (Shimazu et al., 2008).
Maslach et al. (2001) have also suggested that the antithesis to job burnout is active
engagement among employees.
In this manner, there have been many current studies into the respective importance of
variables impacting job burnout (e.g. Bakker et al., 2004; Swider and Zimmerman, 2010)
and job engagement (e.g. Rich et al., 2010; Saks, 2006; Shuck et al., 2011). Among these,
there are a number of project examining how basic variables such as gender (Brewer and
Clippard, 2002), or age and marriage status (Cordes and Dougherty, 1993) affect job
burnout. The focus of this study, however, centered on the relationship between job level
and job burnout, or how the vivid presence of a managerial status determines the
emergence of job burnout. In the past, studies into this relationship have arrived at
conflicting results (e.g. Berkeley Planning Associates, 1977; Weinberg et al., 1983).
Although recent surveys (e.g. IBM, 2014; SHRM, 2012) have revealed that engagement
level rises in correlation to higher positioning on the hierarchical job ladder, at least to our
knowledge, no academic or practical reports have studied the difference in how of job
burnout relates to various job positions.
Furthermore, job satisfaction and task performance have been important research
topics in the field of organizational studies. One of the main criticisms of the past
literature is that studies have not offered enough information or clear results regarding
the factors that influence job satisfaction and task performance ( Judge and Bono, 2001).
The results of the current study, which indicated the impact of mediating effects of
burnout on the relationship between job level and job satisfaction as well as between
job level and task performance, suggest that burnout significantly affect employees’ job
satisfaction and task performance. From our findings, it is possible to understand the role
of job levels, leadership, and burnout on achieving greater levels of satisfaction and
LODJ performance at workplace. Considering this will provide employees with an opportunity to
38,5 reduce burnout and to reach optimal satisfaction and productivity at the workplace. In
this context, this study has following theoretical and managerial implications.

Theoretical implications
A few theoretical implications can be derived from the results of the study. First, this study
640 revealed how job burnout mediates an individual’s level of authority within the
organization, job satisfaction, and task performance. Previous literature on job burnout
tends to focus on the correlation between causal variables, the phenomenon itself, and the
resulting variables, but little attention has been paid to how job burnout affects these
variables (Best et al., 2005). Bhanugopan and Fish (2006) investigated the impact of job
burnout on the three sub-factors of role conflict, role ambiguity, role overload, and also
burnout’s effect on employee’s intention to quit. Bhanugopan and Fish’s study, however, did
not find job burnout to have mediating effects and considered only the effect of job burnout
on intention to quit; this entails that they could not demonstrate fully the important role
played by job burnout. This present study, on the other hand, not only considered the
hierarchy of job levels as a causal variable for job burnout, but also found significance in the
impact parameters of job burnout by utilizing the ubiquitous measurements of resulting
variables such as job satisfaction and task performance. That is, this study contributes to
expanding the nomological network of job burnout in the workplace.
Second, this study did not view job burnout as a singular factor, but aimed to provide a
more comprehensive understanding by analyzing job burnout within the frame of three
sub-factors to inspect burnout’s relation to job satisfaction and task performance. While
exhaustion does mediate between job level and task performance, this study, in considering
the independent nature of the three subscales of MBI-GS used for measuring job burnout
(Schaufeli et al., 1996), has explored the how of each sub-factor (exhaustion, cynicism, and
professional inefficacy) affects job burnout.
In addition, this research concluded that job level – the degree to which a manager can
influence others within a group or organization – has a definitive impact on job burnout, and
consequently on job satisfaction and task performance. A higher job level assumes that the
individual performs his or her task capably, and thus it is possible to see performance at
higher job levels as correlated to job satisfaction and task performance. The causal link
between the capacity to fulfill high job levels and job burnout is significant because
managers hold a higher hierarchical position compared to other employees and displays
higher levels of job engagement (IBM, 2014; SHRM, 2012). In summary, this study presented
the difference in job burnout, job satisfaction, and task performance in individuals
depending on their degree of job levels within an organization.

Managerial implications
This study presents the practical implications to HR professionals and managements. From
our findings, it is possible to understand the role of job levels, leadership, and burnout on
achieving greater levels of satisfaction and performance at workplace. We reached the
prognosis that when employees suffer burnout, there is a higher chance of decreasing job
satisfaction and task performance. Thus, organizations should contemplate how to prevent
job burnout of employees and adjust circumstances to avoid exhaustion, cynicism, and
inefficacy at the workplace. HR professionals need to implement anti-burnout programs not
only preventing employees’ negativity but also encouraging their affirmative willingness
about their work and life in the organization.
Moreover, our results showed that there is a significant and negative relationship
between job levels and burnout levels. Based on this finding, HR professionals
and management should consider employees’ positions at work and how such job level
influence burnout. Furthermore, HR professionals can investigate which individual and job Role of
characteristics have a positive/negative relationship with levels of burnout, satisfaction, and burnout
performance. Considering this, the study will provide organizations with an opportunity to
reduce burnout and to reach optimal satisfaction and productivity at the workplace.
Our findings also indicated that there is a pressing need for heightened attention to the
management of employees who are placed in non-managerial positions to enhance their job
satisfaction and task performance levels. Leaders are the people who highly influence the lives 641
of employees at the workplace. According to Walumbwa et al. (2010), leaders can influence
subordinates’ positivity which enhances well-being and performance. Accordingly, appointed
leaders should recognize their important role for employee well-being. Supervisory training
also need to focus on practicing effective leadership behaviors to prevent the job burnout and
enhance job engagement of subordinates.

Limitations and recommendations

Like prior literature, this study contains a few limitations. Although we set hypotheses
considering organizational culture of Korean company, the first limitation of our study is the
restricted cultural context of a sample. The sample could possibly oppress external validity
when compare to other studies that have been conducted with samples from diverse cultural
settings. As we discussed above, Korean organization has a high power distance in general
(Hofstede and Bond, 1988; Hofstede and Hofstede, 2005) and this contextual characteristic
possibly impacts on the results, because job level is key variable of the study. Therefore, we
suggest that future research based on our model investigates samples from a more diverse
cultural backgrounds to expand its external validity. Second, the methodology of investigation
relied solely on cross-functional research, and therefore the causality between variables was not
explicitly apprehended. Future research on the same topic should conduct longitudinal studies
to note how changes in job level or acceptance of leadership roles affect job burnout levels. In
addition, a common method bias may exist due to the fact that the investigation included a
survey. In the case of task performance, the results would have been more credible had a third
party, such as a supervisor, provided the evaluation (Conway and Lance, 2010), rather than
collecting all reports through employee self-responses. Next, although exhaustion was not
found to mediate between job level and task performance, we were unable to pinpoint the exact
reason for this. Finally, although the companies that we selected for the present study are
considered as biggest companies in South Korea, the results from only those companies may
not be applicable to other organizations. Therefore, further studies are necessary to uncover
this undetermined cause. It is possible that the causal relationship between other alternative
variables can be discovered using preexisting literature on the three sub-factors of job burnout.

Conclusion
Our study found that job levels had positive relationships with job satisfaction and task
performance, and the three subscales of burnout (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism, professional
inefficacy) have negative relationships with job levels, job satisfaction, and task
performance. Also, three subscales of burnout (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism, professional
inefficacy) mediate the relationship between job levels and job satisfaction. Moreover,
among the three subscales of burnout (i.e. exhaustion, cynicism, professional inefficacy),
only cynicism and professional inefficacy mediate the relationship between job levels and
task performance. The findings of the present study provide useful information for
organization development practitioners and researchers in understanding Korean
employees’ job satisfaction as well as task performance in work environment.
These findings are beneficial for the professionals to better understand the dynamics of
burnout in promoting employees’ job satisfaction and task performance based on their
level job and Korean workers’ psychological issues at workplace.
LODJ References
38,5 Bakker, A.B., Demerouti, E. and Verbeke, W. (2004), “Using the job demands resources model to predict
burnout and performance”, Human Resource Management, Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 83-104.
Berkeley Planning Associates (1977), Evaluation of Child Abuse and Neglect Demonstration Projects.
1974-1977, Vol. IX, Project Management and Worker Burnout, US Department of Commerce,
Washington, DC.
642 Best, R.G., Stapleton, L.M. and Downey, R.G. (2005), “Core self-evaluations and job burnout: the test of
alternative models”, Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 10 No. 4, p. 441.
Bhanugopan, R. and Fish, A. (2006), “An empirical investigation of job burnout among expatriates”,
Personnel Review, Vol. 35 No. 4, pp. 449-468.
Brewer, E.W. and Clippard, L.F. (2002), “Burnout and job satisfaction among student support services
personnel”, Human Resource Development Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 169-186.
Burke, R.J. (1989), “Toward a phase model of burnout: some conceptual and methodological concerns”,
Group and Organizational Studies, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 23-32.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D. and Klesh, J. (1979), The Michigan Organizational Assessment
Questionnaire, unpublished manuscript.
Chen, M. (1995), Asian Management Systems: Chinese, Japanese and Korean Styles of Business,
Routledge, New York, NY.
Chernik, D.A. and Phelan, J.G. (1974), “Attitudes of women in management: I. Job satisfaction: a study
of perceived need satisfaction as a function of job level”, International Journal of Social
Psychiatry, Vol. 20 Nos 1-2, pp. 94-98.
Conway, J.M. and Lance, C.E. (2010), “What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common
method bias in organizational research”, Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 325-334.
Cordes, C.L. and Dougherty, T.W. (1993), “A review and an integration of research on job burnout”,
Academy of Management Review, Vol. 18 No. 4, pp. 621-656.
Erera-Weatherley, P.I. (1996), “Coping with stress: public welfare supervisors doing their best”, Human
Relations, Vol. 49 No. 2, pp. 157-170.
Field, A.P. (2013), Discovering Statistics Using SPSS, SAGE, London.
Fields, D.L. (2002), Taking the Measure of Work: A Guide to Validated Scales for Organizational
Research and Diagnosis, Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Gagne, M. (2003), “The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior
engagement”, Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 199-223.
Goodman, S.A. and Svyantek, D.J. (1999), “Person-organization fit and contextual performance do
shared values matter”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 55 No. 2, pp. 254-275.
Hayes, A.F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Guilford,
New York, NY.
Herzberg, F. (1964), “The motivation-hygiene concept and problems of manpower”, Personnel
Administrator, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 3-7.
Hofstede, G. and Bond, M.H. (1988), “Confucius & economic growth: new trends in culture’s
consequences”, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 4-21.
Hofstede, G. and Hofstede, G.J. (2005), Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 2nd ed.,
McGraw Hill, New York, NY.
IBM (2014), “The many contexts of employee engagement: exploring the contextual layers that directly
or indirectly influence employee engagement”, IBM, Somers, NY.
Ilies, R., Morgeson, F.P. and Nahrgang, J.D. (2005), “Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being:
understanding leader follower outcomes”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 373-394.
Jackson, S.E. and Schuler, R.S. (1983), “Preventing employee burnout”, Personnel, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 58-68.
Jang, S. and Chung, M.H. (1995), “Discursive contradiction between tradition and modernity in Korean Role of
management practices: a case of Samsung’s new management”, paper presented at the 12th burnout
EGOS Colloquium, Istanbul, July 6.
Janssen, P.P.M., Schaufelioe, W.B. and Houkes, I. (1999), “Work-related and individual determinants of
the three burnout dimensions”, Work and Stress, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 74-86.
Joo, B. and Lim, T. (2013), “Transformational leadership and career satisfaction: the mediating role of
psychological empowerment”, Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, Vol. 20 No. 3, 643
pp. 316-326, doi: 10.1177/1548051813484359.
Joo, B.-K., Yoon, H.J. and Jeung, C. (2012), “The effects of core self-evaluations and transformational
leadership on organizational commitment”, Leadership & Organization Development Journal,
Vol. 33 No. 6, pp. 564-582.
Judge, T.A. and Bono, J.E. (2001), “Relationship of core self-evaluations traits – self-esteem, generalized
self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job
performance: a meta-analysis”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 86 No. 1, pp. 80-92.
Kanste, O., Kynga, H. and Nikkila, J. (2007), “The relationship between multidimensional
leadership and burnout among nursing staff”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 15 No. 7,
pp. 731-739.
Kim, Y. and Kim, S. (2010), “The influence of cultural values on perceptions of corporate social
responsibility: application of Hofstede’s dimensions to Korean public relations practitioners”,
Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 91 No. 4, pp. 485-500.
Kuruüzüm, A., Anafarta, N. and Irmak, S. (2008), “Predictors of burnout among middle managers
in the Turkish hospitality industry”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 186-198.
Kwag, S. and Kim, M. (2009), “The study on the effects of organizational members’ job burnout”,
Journal of Business & Economics Research, Vol. 7 No. 7, pp. 63-78.
Lee, C.Y. and Lee, J.Y. (2014), “South Korean corporate culture and its lessons for building
corporate culture in China”, The Journal of International Management Studies, Vol. 9 No. 2,
pp. 33-42.
Lee, S. (1998), “Organizational flexibility in Korean companies: rules and procedures on managerial
discretion and employee behaviour”, International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 478-493.
Lee, S. (2011), “Organizational flexibility in Korean companies: rules and procedures on managerial
discretion and employee behavior”, The International Journal of Human Resource Management,
Vol. 9 No. 3, pp. 478-493, doi: 10.1080/095851998341026.
Levering, R. (1998), “The 100 best companies to work in America”, Fortune, January, pp. 118-144.
Luthans, F. (2002), “The need for and meaning of positive organization behavior”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 23 No. 6, pp. 695-706, available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/job.165
McNeese-Smith, D.K. (1999), “The relationship between managerial motivation, leadership,
nurse outcomes and patient satisfaction”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 20 No. 2,
pp. 243-259.
Maslach, C. (1982), Burnout: The Cost of Caring, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M. (2001), “Job burnout”, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52,
pp. 397-422.
Murray-Gibbons, R. and Gibbons, C. (2007), “Occupational stress in the chef profession”, International
Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 32-42.
Patton, W. and Goddard, R. (2003), “Psychological distress and burnout in Australian
employment service workers: two years on”, Journal of Employment Counseling, Vol. 40 No. 1,
pp. 2-16.
Perrewe, L.P., Fernandez, R.D. and Morton, S.K. (1993), “An experimental examination of implicit stress
theory”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 14 No. 7, pp. 677-686.
LODJ Preacher, K.J. and Hayes, A.F. (2008), “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and
38,5 comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models”, Behavior Research Methods, Vol. 40
No. 3, pp. 879-891.
Rank, J., Nelson, N.E., Allen, T.D. and Xian, X. (2009), “Leadership predictors of innovation and task
performance: subordinates’ self-esteem and self-presentation as moderators”, Journal of
Occupational & Organizational Psychology, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 465-489.
644 Rich, B.L., Lepine, J.A. and Crawford, E.R. (2010), “Job engagement: antecedents and effects on job
performance”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 53 No. 3, pp. 617-635.
Riggar, T.F., Harrington Godley, S. and Hafer, M. (1984), “Burnout and job satisfaction in rehabilitation
administrators and direct service providers”, Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, Vol. 27 No. 3,
pp. 151-160.
Rotundo, M. and Sackett, P.R. (2002), “The relative importance of task, citizenship and
counterproductive performance to global ratings of job performance: a policy-capturing
approach”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 87 No. 1, pp. 66-80.
Saks, A.M. (2006), “Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement”, Journal of Managerial
Psychology, Vol. 21 No. 7, pp. 600-619.
Saks, A.M. (2008), “The meaning and bleeding of employee engagement: how muddy is the water?”,
Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 40-43.
Schaufeli, W.B. and Bakker, A.B. (2004), “Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi-sample study”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 25
No. 3, pp. 293-315.
Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., Maslach, C. and Jackson, S.E. (1996), “Maslach burnout inventory –
general survey”, in Maslach, C., Jackson, S.E. and Leiter, M.P. (Eds), The Maslach
Burnout Inventory-Test Manual, 3rd ed., Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA,
pp. 22-26.
Schaufeli, W.B., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma., V. and Bakker, A.B. (2002), “The measurement of
engagement and burnout and: a confirmative analytic approach”, Journal of Happiness Studies,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 71-92.
Shimazu, A., Schaufeli, W.B., Kosugi, S., Suzuki, A., Nashiwa, H., Kato, A. and Kitaoka-Higashiguchi, K.
(2008), “Work engagement in Japan: validation of the Japanese version of the Utrecht Work
Engagement Scale”, Applied Psychology: An International Review, Vol. 57 No. 3, pp. 510-523.
Shin, K.H. (2003), “An application in South Korea – the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey
(MBI-GS)”, The Korean Journal of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 16 No. 3,
pp. 1-17.
SHRM (2012), 2012 Employee Job Satisfaction and Engagement: How Employees are Dealing with
Uncertainty, Society for Human Resource Management, Alexandria, VA.
Shuck, B., Reio, T.G. Jr and Rocco, T.S. (2011), “Employee engagement: an examination of
antecedent and outcome variables”, Human Resource Development International, Vol. 14 No. 4,
pp. 427-445.
Stevens, G.B. and O’Neill, P. (1983), “Expectations and burnout in the developmental disabilities field”,
American Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 11 No. 6, pp. 615-627.
Swider, B.W. and Zimmerman, R.D. (2010), “A meta-analytic path model of personality, job burnout,
and work outcomes”, Journal of Vocational Behavior, Vol. 76 No. 3, pp. 487-506.
Thomas, K.W. and Velthouse, B.A. (1990), “Cognitive elements of empowerment: an ‘interpretive’ model
of intrinsic task motivation”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 666-681.
Tracey, J.B. and Hinkin, T.R. (1996), “How transformational leaders lead in the hospitality industry”,
International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 165-176.
Walumbwa, F.O., Wang, P., Wang, H., Schaubroeck, J. and Avolio, B.J. (2010), “Psychological processes
linking authentic leadership to follower behaviors”, The Leadership Quarterly, Vol. 21 No. 5,
pp. 901-914.
Weinberg, S., Edwards, G. and Garove, W.E. (1983), “Burnout among employees of state residential Role of
facilities serving developmentally disabled persons”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 5 burnout
No. 3, pp. 239-253.
Williams, J. and MacKinnon, D.P. (2008), “Resampling and distribution of the product methods for testing
indirect effects in complex models”, Structural Equation Modeling, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 23-51,
doi: 10.1080/10705510701758166.
Wright, T.A. and Bonett, D.G. (1997), “The contribution of burnout to work performance”, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 491-499.
645
Zopiatis, A. and Constanti, P. (2005), “Leadership styles and burnout: is there an association?”,
International Journal of Contempo Rary Hospitality Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 300-320.

Further reading
Bakker, A.B., Schaufeli, W.B., Demerouti, E., Janssen, P.M., Van der Hulst, R. and Brouwer, J. (2000),
“Using equity theory to examine the difference between burnout and depression”, Anxiety,
Stress, and Coping, Vol. 13, pp. 247-268.
Christie, P.M., Kwon, I.G., Stoeberl, P.A. and Baumhart, R. (2003), “A cross-cultural comparison of
ethical attitudes of business managers: India, Korea and the United States”, Journal of Business
Ethics, Vol. 46 No. 3, pp. 263-287, doi: 10.1023/A:1025501426590.

Corresponding author
Young-An Ra can be contacted at: yar4466@gmail.com

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
Reproduced with permission of copyright
owner. Further reproduction prohibited
without permission.

View publication stats