4.4 Article

Do burned-out and work-engaged employees differ in the functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis?

Journal

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF WORK ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
Volume 32, Issue 5, Pages 339-348

Publisher

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL WORK ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH
DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.1029

Keywords

burnout; cortisol awakening response; dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate; dexamethasone suppression test; work engagement

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives The central aim of the present study was to examine differences in the functioning of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis between 29 burned-out, 33 work-engaged, and 26 healthy reference managers, as identified with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey and the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale. Methods All of the managers were employed in a large Dutch telecommunications company. Salivary cortisol was sampled on three consecutive workdays and one nonworkday to determine the cortisol awakening response. Salivary dehydroepiandrosterone-sulfate (DHEAS), a cortisol counterbalancing product of the HPA axis, was measured on these days I hour after managers awakened. The dexamethasone suppression test was used to investigate the feedback sensitivity of the HPA axis. Results The morning cortisol levels were higher on the workdays than on the nonworkday, but this effect did not differ between the three groups. The burned-out, work-engaged, and reference groups did not differ in the cortisol and DHEAS levels, the slope of the cortisol awakening response, and the cortisol: DHEAS ratio. The work-engaged group showed a stronger cortisol suppression in response to the dexamethasone suppression test than the other two groups, the finding suggesting higher feedback sensitivity among work-engaged managers. Conclusions Burned-out and work-engaged managers only differ marginally in HPA-axis functioning.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available