4.3 Article

Exploring within- and between-gender differences in burnout: 8 different occupational groups

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00420-011-0667-y

Keywords

Burnout; Gender differences; Occupational differences; Latent mean analysis; Multi-group analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The aim of this study was to examine gender differences in burnout within and between occupations using latent mean analysis. Methods Burnout was measured using the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI), designed to assess the two sub-dimension exhaustion and disengagement. Men and women from eight different occupational groups in Norway were investigated: lawyers, physicians, nurses, teachers, church ministers, bus drivers and people working in advertising and information technology (n = 4,965). The average age was 42 years (SD 10.8), and 50.5% of the respondents were female. Within- and between-gender differences were examined by multi-group latent mean analysis by means of LISREL. Results Significant latent mean differences in the two dimensions of burnout between men and women were demonstrated. In general, the analyses indicate that overall, women report more exhaustion, but not more disengagement, than men. However, separate analyses indicate that the gender differences vary across occupational groups, especially for the disengagement dimension. Within- gender analyses suggest an approximately similar burnout profile across occupational groups for men and women. Conclusions Despite gender equality in society in general, and inconclusive findings in previous studies on gender differences in burnout, women in this study seem to experience slightly higher burnout levels than men. Occupational differences found in the burnout profiles indicate that some professions may be more prone to burnout than others. For the occupational groups most at risk, more research is needed to disclose potential organizational factors that may make these workers more prone to burnout than others.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available