Perlita Torres Ph D September 17 2016 Introduction

Perlita Torres, Ph. D September 17, 2016

§ Introduction § Conceptual Framework § Problems and Significance § Research Questions and Hypotheses § Literature § Methodology § Findings and Conclusions § Practical Implications and Limitations § Recommendations for Future Research

§ Stress: § refers to work stress in the context of job demands as well as individual and organizational resources to meet these demands § Differentiation of Self: § refers to the individual’s ability to manage emotional responses, to act thoughtfully under stress, and to remain logical and objective despite strong emotions § Burnout: § refers to exhaustion and reduced interest in tasks or activities characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment

The Bowen Family Systems Theory’s (BFST) differentiation of self (Do. S) is dependent upon the degree of separation between the parent and the child who is going through the process of maturation. Healthy differentiation results from: Poor differentiation results from: § Identity not being molded in response to § Unhealthy family relationships preventing § § emotional tension and neediness of others Others not viewing the child through their own subjective experiences Other member’s emotional responses to pressure not contaminating the child’s sense of self Forming opinions, beliefs, and perspectives with proper deliberation and consistent with one another The child remaining a part of the family unit yet an individual on his or her own the child from successfully achieving the independence to think, feel, and act § The child replicating some form of family patterns when beginning to emancipate himself or herself from the home § The child being unable to achieve full emotional separation from his or her family and may have the same pattern as an adult

Characteristics of Highly Differentiated Individuals Characteristics of Low Differentiated Individuals § Distinguish thinking from feeling § Dominated by feelings and base § Separate emotions from facts § Less prone to experience anxiety § Solid sense of self § Goal directed § Realistic expectations of self and others § Unaffected by the evaluation/reactions of others § Calm and logical in the midst of crisis § Resilient decisions on emotions § Reactive to people’s evaluations § Actions dictated by other people’s reactions § Unrealistic expectations of oneself § More easily affected by stress § Coping strategies more easily weakened by stress

Burnout, the leading cause of turnover, can be effectively addressed by understanding its antecedents BFST’s Do. S is conceptualized as related to psychological well-being and symptoms The identification of the predictive role of Do. S on burnout may: § Be used for screening out workers who are prone to burnout § Inform the development and implementation of burnout prevention and intervention through training that fosters resiliency Understanding the differences in the level of Do. S, stress, and burnout between male and female as well as novice and veteran workers may also: § Guide in developing programs of interventions tailored to the needs of the workers The study contributed to theory by providing evidence of the predictive role of Do. S on burnout and the workers’ ability to manage their job’s demands The study provided preliminary findings that may be explored for further refinement of the BFST

§ Q 1 a. To what degree, if at all, does stress predict burnout in CPS workers, controlling for Do. S? § Q 1 b. To what degree, if at all, does Do. S moderate the relationship between stress and burnout in CPS workers? § Q 2. To what degree, if at all, do levels of stress, Do. S, and burnout differ between male and female CPS workers? § Q 3. To what degree, if at all, do levels of stress, Do. S, and burnout differ between novice and veteran CPS workers?

The study tested whether: § Stress predicts burnout. § Do. S significantly moderates the relationship between stress and burnout. § There are differences between male and female, novice and veteran workers with respect to their levels of stress, Do. S, and burnout.

Higher levels of Do. S predict: § Higher levels of vocational identity and fewer difficulties in career decision making § Higher level of perceived pregnancy health, relationship satisfaction, and family coping § Low risk for child maltreatment, greater ability to control emotions, greater capacity for § § § warm connection and autonomy in relationships More rational and less enmeshment with the high-level or intense emotional environment Less co-worker or supervisor conflict Perception of low level of role overload and reduced levels of burnout Greater psychosocial and interpersonal well-being Less physical signs of depression and anxiety, higher social adjustment

Distinction between Stress and Burnout Stress Burnout § Too much pressure that demands § Not enough, empty, or diminished physical and psychological resources § Heightened emotional state (with psychological components to it) that persists for extended period of time § Stress is described as an imbalance in the cognitiveemotional-environmental processes caused by external factors interaction, compassion, and concern § Prolonged stress can lead to symptoms of burnout § Burnout results from increased demands that overburden workers and from limited resources that lead to withdrawal or disengagement

Interpersonal/Organizational Predictors § Difficult relationships between employees and their employment § Work–family conflict § Overburdened health systems, poor management, lack of resources, staffing issues § Work overload, low salary, poor supervisor support § Role conflict, job insecurity § Lack of leadership and organizational commitment § Difficult clients, workload, job status, work hours, and role ambiguity § Imbalance between demands and resources, organizational goals and expectations, and misaligned goals and employees’ aspirations

Individual Variables § Personality characteristics and work-related attitudes § Marital status, family support, coping styles, self-esteem § Emotional reactivity § Inability to maintain emotional distance § Low Do. S § Personality style (e. g. , neuroticism, distressed, feeling type) § Demographic variables such as age, sex

§ CPS retention rate of 50% of the workforce within a one-year period § Stress predicts burnout, which in turn predicts turnover § Antecedents a) Organizational factors b) Individual factors c) Interpersonal factors § Effects of Burnout a) Poor quality of service delivery b) Poor organizational morale, low productivity c) Lowered quality of life and relationships d) Discontinuity of services and turnover e) Physical and psychological problems

§ Stress § Perception of support § Overidentification tendency § Susceptibility to emotional contagion and emotional reactivity. § Trait anxiety § Attitudes and perceptions § Educational degree § Emotional commitment

§ Age and length of service were found negatively associated with personal accomplishment (Blau et al. , 2103) § Among CPS workers, younger professionals experience higher rates of burnout (Sprang, Craig, & Clark, 2011) § Psychologists with more years of service in their current work settings reported lower burnout (Benedetto & Swadling, 2014) § Increased years of service showed clergy or people in ministry to have higher levels of burnout and compassion fatigue (Jacobson, Rothschild, Mirza, & Shapiro, 2013) § Male nurses have higher levels of depersonalization (Cañadas-de la Fuente et al. , 2014) § Women experience more emotional exhaustion and higher depersonalization (Gandi Wai, Karick, & Dagona, 2011) § No sex differences in the experience of burnout (Maslach & Jackson, 1985)

Design § Quantitative non-experimental correlational and comparative design Procedure § Bulk email was sent to all CPS workers through the AUPE Local 006 Chair and Chapters, announcement was posted in the AUPE website, and the Chair made robocalls for follow up § Participants were directed to the survey link § Workers who agreed to participate completed the survey Sample § The a priori power analysis for independent samples t-tests required 210 participants, with the effect size of. 05 at the. 80 power level § The post hoc power analysis based on the achieved sample size of 243 showed the power level of. 99 at the medium effect size

Instrument Items Sample Items Validity Stress Do. S Burnout Levy & Poertner’s CWWSI 35 items 1 (never stressful) to 4 (almost always stressful) Inadequate training for the job Skowron & Schmitt’s DSI-I 46 items Maslach, Jackson, & Leiter’s MBI-HSS 22 items 1 (not at all true to me) to 6 (very true of me) 0 (never) to 6 (everyday) Correlation between stress and burnout I wish I weren’t so emotional Valid measure of intra/interpersonal resources of emotional regulation I feel emotionally drained from my work Correlated with behavioral ratings made by other people and certain job characteristics Reliability Original α . 93 . 92 EE =. 90, DP =. 79, PA =. 71 Present α . 93 EE =. 92, DP =. 78, PA =. 75

Descriptive Statistics: Profile sample demographics 1. Pearson Correlation: Examined the relationship between stress and Do. S 2. Hierarchical Multiple Linear Regression: Examined the relationships among study variables 3. T-tests: Assessed the differences in level of stress, Do. S, and burnout by sex and professional experience 4. Statistical assumptions met: normality, homogeneity of variances, homoscedasticity, no multicollinearity

§ Stress significantly positively predicted EE, DP, and negatively predicted PA § Do. S is significantly negatively correlated with stress § Do. S negatively predicted EE, DP, and positively predicted PA § Do. S did not significantly moderate the relationship between stress and burnout § The level of stress, Do. S, and burnout did not significantly differ between male and female CPS workers § The level of stress, Do. S , and burnout did not significantly differ between novice and veteran CPS workers Overall… § The results show the relationships among the three variables (Stress, Do. S, and Burnout) and the prevalence of burnout in the population tested

Empirical evidence with respect to Do. S as an antecedent to burnout: § Extends the literature on Do. S and its relationship to stress and burnout § Supports the BFST’s conceptualization that Do. S provides indicators of the individuals’ ability to handle stress, manage life’s challenges, and adapt to different situations § Explains previous findings that Do. S is related to job satisfaction, self-direction, and the ability to problem-solve and make decisions § Offers explanation for previous findings that some workers are more at risk for burnout than others § Supports previous findings of no gender differences with respect to level of Do. S, stress, and burnout § Supports previous findings of no differences between novice and veteran workers with respect to level of Do. S, stress, and burnout § Supports previous findings that burnout is prevalent in CPS workers

Burnout Domains n % 143 58. 85 Average 64 26. 34 Low 12 4. 94 152 62. 63 Average 64 26. 34 Low 12 4. 94 High 55 22. 63 Average 97 39. 92 Low 91 37. 45 Emotional Exhaustion High Depersonalization High Personal Accomplishment

Identified Stressors n % 1. Insufficient time to complete work 205 84. 36 2. Insufficient staff to cover cases 182 74. 89 3. Lack of resources for families 4. Responsibility for the lives of children and families 157 64. 60 5. Death or serious injury of a child 135 55. 55 6. Reorganization or agency changes 129 53. 08 7. Working with difficult families 8. Being blamed for something that goes wrong 121 49. 79 9. Work intruding on family/home life 119 48. 97 168 128 69. 13 52. 67

Identified Stressors … n % 10. Being held accountable for things over which I have no control 118 48. 55 114 46. 91 12. Case related documentation 110 45. 26 13. Constantly changing job responsibilities 109 44. 85 11. Stakeholders devaluing the work I do (courts, mental health, etc. 14. Interpersonal conflict (non-case related) office politics 106 43. 62 15. Fear of making mistakes 104 42. 79 16. Families getting treated unfairly 104 42. 79

Identified Stressors … n % 17. Testifying in court 97 38. 68 18. Making difficult decisions 92 37. 86 19. Lack of opportunity to talk to others about work 89 36. 62 20. Violent or threatening family members 88 36. 21

§ Include Do. S as an important construct to consider in seeking out workers who are at risk § Tailor intervention and supervisory support to the workers’ level of Do. S § Use Do. S to determine the workers’ ability to lead, self-direct, problem-solve, work with a team, handle sensitive cases, maintain autonomy despite group pressure, and approach situations in a less reactive manner § Use the concept of Do. S to inform the development and implementation of effective interventions for addressing and preventing burnout § Based on Do. S, an effective program of intervention includes fostering resilience § Offer a fully informed, well-planned and implemented and properly monitored burnout intervention for workers of both sexes, for novice and veteran workers alike § A combination of individual- and organization-focused intervention would be most beneficial since the individual works with others within the organization

Sample § Modest-sized convenience sample § Self-selected § Selection bias Generalizability § Non-randomized sample may not generalize findings Measures § Self-report increases social desirability § Stress variable only measures job stress Design § Correlational, therefore no causal inferences can be made

§ Replicate the study and examine the explicit role of Do. S by operationalizing stress as perceived stress § Replicate the study using a larger sample with equal number of male and female workers, novice and veteran workers § Examine what accounts for high PA despite high emotional exhaustion and high depersonalization § Replicate the study using the separate Do. S component scores instead of the aggregate score § Using a more longitudinal study, examine whether the use of DSI-R as a screening tool is predictive of the workers’ ability to persevere and manage job demands