Job burnout, absenteeism, and extra role behaviors

The study aimed at (a) examining objective measures of both absenteeism and extra role behaviours as correlates of burnout, (b) investigating the three components of the most recent conceptualization of burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 1999) in a setting either than the health care services, namely a productive setting, and (c) assessing an integrated model that simultaneously considered self-efficacy, social support and work load as predictors of burnout, which in turn was positively associated with absenteeism and negatively associated to extra role behaviours. Results support a JD-R based approach to burnout development with regard to the investigation of both resources (social support) and demands (work load) in the aetiology of the syndrome. The current research rejected the alternative model (Hobfol & Shirom,1993; Bolino & Turnley, 2006) that included absence and extra role behaviours as a coping stage that predicts employees’ burnout, thus providing further support to the role of burnout components in explaining both positive (i.e., extra role behaviours) and negative (i.e., absenteeism) organizational outcomes. Furthermore, self-efficacious employees who better adjust to their work requirements are more likely to engage in extra-time, perform beyond the formal obligations, and less likely to withdraw from challenging work conditions. Recommendations to promote workplace health include guided mastery and coaching programs aimed at enhancing self-efficacy beliefs in mastering highly demanding job requirements that protect employees from burning out, thus increasing the likelihood of their engagement in extra-time dedication while containing the risk of absenteeism.