Introduction

Burnout is a negative emotional reaction to one’s job that results from prolonged exposure to a
stressful work environment (Maslach & Jackson, 1984; Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, 2001).
Burnout is an important variable not only because it is an indicator of poor employee well-being,
but also because it is related to employee attitudes, health, and behaviour (Cordes & Dougherty,
1993; Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Maslach, 2003; Maslach & Goldberg, 1998; Maslach et al., 2001).
Although most burnout research has focussed on environmental correlates, it is likely that
individual difference factors also play an important role in the development of burnout (Maslach
et al., 2001). Indeed, the personality_burnout relationship has received attention in previous
meta-analyses. Unfortunately, those studies have been limited in scope in relation to burnout. A
meta-analysis by Ng, Sorensen, and Eby (2006), for example, examined only locus of control as
a predictor of burnout. A metaanalysis by Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, and deChermont
(2003) examined only positive affectivity and negative affectivity as predictors of burnout.
Although these and other traits have been found to yield worthwhile relationships with burnout,
it appears that a systematic overview of the relationships between a range of possibly relevant
personality variables and burnout is currently lacking.

Furthermore, a review of the literature suggests considerable variability across studies in the
strength of personality_burnout relationships. Meta-analysis would help identify whether this
variability is artefactual or is due to substantive moderators (Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). Thus, the
purpose of the current study is to use meta-analysis to examine the relationships between
employee personality (core self-evaluations (CSE); characteristics of the Five-Factor Model of
personality traits; positive and negative affectivity; optimism; proactive personality hardiness;
and Type A Personality) and the sub-dimensions of burnout. First, however, we briefly review
the specific nature of the burnout construct.

Job burnout emerged as an important concept in the 1970s, and it captured something very
critical about people’s experience with work. It continues to do so today, some 35 years since its
introduction to psychological literature and to cultural discourse. Both then and now, burnout has
been a concept that seems to ring true to a common experience among people. It has inspired
researchers to study it and try to better understand what it is and why it happens. It has inspired
practitioners to figure out ways to cope with it, prevent it, or combat it. Thus, from the
beginning, burnout has enjoyed a joint recognition from both researchers and practitioners as a
social problem worthy of attention and amelioration. As this recognition has spread to many
other countries,beyond its American origins, it has become a phenomenon of notable global
significance.

Maslach and colleagues (Maslach, 1993; Maslach et al., 1996; Maslach et al., 2001) describe
burnout as a syndrome consisting of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and professional
accomplishment having detrimental effects for both the individual employee and his/her
organization (see also Lee and Ashforth, 1990). The topic has captured the attention of scholars
who have investigated the topic from an array of perspectives both within the hospitality industry
(Krone et al., 1989; Merritt, 1996; Pienaar and Willemse, 2008; Vallen, 1993), and elsewhere
(Cordes and Dougherty, 1993; Leiter and Maslach, 1988; Maslach and Jackson, 1981; Murray-
Gibbons and Gibbons, 2007).

The first dimension of burnout, emotional exhaustion, has been attributed to a number of
probable causes ranging from work overload (Murray-Gibbons and Gibbons, 2007), role conflict
(Kuruu¨zu¨m et al., 2008; Sethi et al., 1999), unrealistic personal expectations (Stevens and
O’Neill, 1983), excessive interpersonal interactions Cordes and Dougherty, 1993), and the lack
of effective stress coping mechanisms (Erera-Weatherley, 1996).

Depersonalization, the second dimension of burnout, has been attributed to causes such as work
stress (Perrewe et al., 1993), excessive interpersonal interaction (Maslach, 1982), excessive
workload (Burke, 1989), and the nature of job responsibilities, e.g. handling customer complaints
or other difficult situations (Patton and Goddard, 2003).

Diminished personal accomplishment, the third dimension, has been attributed to lack of
recognition and/or positive feedback (Jackson and Schuler, 1983), the feeling of inadequacy
and/or incompetence ( Janssen et al., 1999), the provision of pseudo-authority (Zopiatis and
Constanti, 2005). Gill et al. (2006) suggest that diminished personal accomplishment is caused
by the unrealistic expectations at work and poor management quality, whereas others inform us
that it is the limited opportunities to participate in decision making (Miller et al., 1989), and the
discrepancy between employee’s contributions and organizational rewards; the feeling of being
“undervalued” (Murray-Gibbons and Gibbons, 2007).

Vallen (1993) affirmed that a healthy organizational climate can reduce burnout, while Wright
and Bonett (1997) established a negative relationship between work performance and emotional
exhaustion, leading to an unhealthy working environment. This is manifested in the form of
conflict, distress, poor attitudes, low morale, and lack of professionalism (Evans, 1992), lower
levels of productivity (Golembiewski et al.,1998), thus increasing employees’ propensity to leave
(Muhammad and Hamdy, 2005), with subsequent inflated financial costs related to turnover and
increased medical coverage (Maslach and Leiter, 1997). The overall effect is to decrease
organizational citizenship behavior (Su-Fen and Miao-Ching, 2006) with diminished levels of
customer service (Blodgett et al., 1993) and failure to either meet or exceed customer
expectations (Singh, 2000).

However, Maddi (1987) and Maddi and Kobasa (1984) and most recently Eid et al.(2008), have
affirmed that the impacts of stress and burnout can be mitigated through “hardiness training”[1].
Eid et al. (2008) also concluded that where passive/avoidance leadership suggests a detached
style of leadership, those adopting this style are prone to exhibit burnout symptoms particularly
if they have lower hardiness scores.

Many studies that have focused on stress have also focused on the concept of burnout. A review
of the literature on this construct has yielded consistent agreement about the effects of this
condition, although inconsistent agreement about the nature of its cause. Maslach (1982) has
identified and defined burnout as a "syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and
reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among individuals who do people work of
some kind." When an individual is "burned out," it becomes quite laborious to feel good about
himself/herself both at work and at home. Consequently, he/she develops a negative self-concept
(i.e., feelings of incompetence) and, finally, physical health may deteriorate. This process of
emotional exhaustion and overload is the cornerstone of burnout (Maslach, 1982), and although
it is suspected that those who are particularly committed and enthusiastic are greater risk for
burnout, situational factors within the work environment appear to be the major contributors to
the syndrome.

In 1981, Maslach and Jackson determined that the three factors encompassing the construct of
burnout include: emotional exhaustion (feelings of exhaustion and being emotionally
overextended with work), depersonalization (unfeeling or impersonal reactions toward patients
or clients) and lack of personal accomplishment (feelings of incompetence in one's work). One
rather common causal hypothesis is the idea that powerlessness may be a major contributing
factor in burnout (American Psychological Association, 1981). Further, this connection between
powerlessness and burnout is fairly consistent with earlier studies, such as Seligman and Maier's
(1967) research on learned helplessness and Glass, Reim, and Singer's (1971) work on
environmental crowding. These studies have suggested that when subjects are placed in
conditions where they cannot control events, especially where the events have negative
consequences, responses include depression, rigidity, and an inability to make plans. These are
the very same behaviors exhibited by those experiencing burnout (Keane et al., 1985). Therefore,
although powerlessness is not the sole cause of bumout, it seems reasonable to assume that it has
something to do with the relationship between stress and the experience of occupation burnout.

What is burnout?

Burnout is a state of emotional, mental, and physical exhaustion caused by excessive and
prolonged stress. It occurs when you feel overwhelmed and unable to meet constant demands. As
the stress continues, you begin to lose the interest or motivation that led you to take on a certain
role in the first place.

Burnout reduces your productivity and saps your energy, leaving you feeling increasingly
helpless, hopeless, cynical, and resentful. Eventually, you may feel like you have nothing more
to give.
Most of us have days when we feel bored, overloaded, or unappreciated; when the dozen balls
we keep in the air aren’t noticed, let alone rewarded; when dragging ourselves out of bed
requires the determination of Hercules. If you feel like this most of the time, however, you may
be flirting with burnout.

Understanding the nature of burnout

As a metaphor for the draining of energy, burnout refers to the smothering of a fire or the
extinguishing of a candle. It implies that once a fire was burning but the fire cannot continue
burning brightly unless there are sufficient resources that keep being replenished. Over time,
employees experiencing burnout lose the capacity to provide the intense contributions that make
an impact. If they continue working, the result is more like smoldering – uneventful and
inconsequential – than burning. From their own perspective or that of others, they accomplish
less. In summary, the metaphor describes the exhaustion of employees’ capacity to maintain an
intense involvement that has a meaningful impact at work.

The success of the burnout metaphor reflects the concept’s origins in general discourse. People
used the term to describe an experience before scientific psychology identified it as a
phenomenon worthy of study. Freudenberger (1974) borrowed the term from the illicit drug
scene where it colloquially referred to the devastating effect of chronic drug abuse. He used the
term to describe the gradual emotional depletion, loss of motivation, and reduced commitment
among volunteers of the St Mark’s Free Clinic in New York’s East Village that he observed as a
consulting psychiatrist. Such free clinics for drug addicts and homeless people had grown out of
the counter-movement against the establishment. Not unimportantly, Freudenberger himself fell
victim to burnout twice, which increased his credibility in spreading the message of burnout. His
writings on the subject were strongly autobiographical and his impact is illustrated by the fact
that in 1999, he received The Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in the Practice of
Psychology at the APA Convention in Boston.

Independently and simultaneously, Maslach and her colleagues came across the term in
California when interviewing a variety of human services workers. As a social psychological
researcher, Maslach was interested in how these workers coped with theiremotional arousal
using cognitive strategies such as detached concern. As a result of these interviews she learned
that these workers often felt emotionally exhausted, that they developed negative perceptions and
feelings about their clients or patients, and that they experienced crises in professional
competence as a result of the emotional turmoil (Maslach, 1976, 1993). These practitioners
referred to this syndrome as “burnout”.

In a thorough process of interviews, observation, and psychometric development, Maslach and

her colleagues developed a method for assessing burnout as a multidimensional construct that
went beyond mere exhaustion (Maslach and Jackson, 1981; Maslach et al., 2008). At the outset,
burnout was predominantly identified within the human services: “Burnout is a syndrome of
emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur
among individuals who work with people in some capacity” (Maslach et al., 1996, p. 4).
However, by the late 1980s, researchers and practitioners began to recognize that burnout
occurred outside the human services, for instance, among managers, entrepreneurs, and white-
and blue collar workers. Thus, the burnout metaphor was extended from the intense requirements
of client service to other work requiring creativity, problem solving, or mentoring. In this more
general form, burnout was defined as “. . .a state of exhaustion in which one is cynical about the
value of one’s occupation and doubtful of one’s capacity to perform” (Maslach et al., 1996, p.
20).The term burnout, then, was transferred from a literal reference to a depletion of physical
resources supporting combustion to the psychological domain. But why did burnout suddenly
gain momentum in the USA in the mid 1970s in the first place, and why does it continue to
remain an important and popular issue?

The components of job burnout

The most widely accepted definition of job burnout is Maslach’s which defined burnout as a
syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and reduced personal accomplishment
(Maslach et al., 2001). The first component of burnout, emotional exhaustion, describes the
emotional states of the individual characterized by depleted resources and a lack of energy.
Employees feel unable to give of themselves at a psychological level. The second component,
depersonalization, is characterized by cynical attitudes about one’s clients. Employees come to
view their clients as somehow deserving of their lot in life. The final component of burnout,
diminished sense of personal accomplishment, refers to the tendency to evaluate oneself
negatively. Employees experience increased dissatisfaction with their work-related progress
(Maslach and Jackson, 1986; Maslach et al., 2001; Wright and Bonett, 1997). Empirical evidence
indicates that job context affects the incidence of stress and burnout in the workplace (Lee and
Ashforth, 1996).

Routinization, formalization, and job standardization

Organization theory literature has defined three related constructs, i.e. routinization,
formalization, and standardization as being difficult to clarify and distinguish their concepts. The
term “routinization” comes from the work of Max Weber; routinization is the degree to which
role performance in a social system is repetitive (Price, 1972, p. 154). Litwak (1961) has
suggested one basic dimension, the uniformity of tasks. Perrow (1967) has called attention to a
similar idea, the routineness of work. Routine work obviously facilitates the process of
formalization by providing stability or lack of variety in clients, making the writing of
documents containing regulations or rules more manageable (Hage and Aiken, 1969). Thus,
almost all authors have confirmed a four-item scale to measure the routineness of work (i.e.
people here do the same job in the same way, do not like the variety of work, do not have
something new happening, and do similar tasks every day) (Hage and Aiken, 1969; Price, 1972).
Consequently, organizations with routine work are more likely to have greater formalization of
organizational roles.

However, formalization is the degree to which the norms of a social system are explicit; an
organization, for example, which compiles its norms in written form will generally have a higher
degree of formalization than an organization which does not compile its norms in written form
(Price, 1972). Hage and Aiken (1969) define formalization in terms of the importance of rules;
giving orders is only one method for creating a unified organizational effort. Organizations need
daily guidelines for their operations; these guidelines are furnished by rules, the repository of
past experience. Therefore, some authors have defined formalization as the extent to which rules,
procedures, instructions, and communications are written as well as the degree to which roles are
defined (Dalton et al., 1980; James and Jones, 1976). The five following measures are
constructed for formalization:

(1) job codification;

(2) rule observation;
(3) rule manual;
(4) job descriptions; and
(5) specificity of job descriptions (Price, 1972).

Standardization
and job burnout

Theoretical framework
Occupational stress and burnout
A number of models have emerged since the 1970s which identify several components of stress.
The conceptual cornerstone of the present study is formed from components of these earlier
works, especially that of McGrath (1976).

First, McGrath’s model hypothesized that there are six dimensions of stress. However, most
subsequent measures of job-related stress identify fewer dimensions than McGrath’s six (e.g.
Indik et al., 1964). A study by Gmelch and Swent (1984) sought to overcome these discrepancies
in stress measures and developed the Administrative Stress Index. Through factor analysis, four
sources of stress were identified which approximate McGrath’s six hypothesized dimensions:

(1) role-based stress, perceived from administrator’s role-set interactions and beliefs or attitudes
about his or her role in the schools;
(2) task-based stress, arising from the performance of day-to-day administrative activities, from
telephone and staff interruptions, meetings, writing memos, and reports, to participating in
school activities outside of the normal working hours;
(3) boundary-spanning stress, emanating from external conditions, such as negotiations and
gaining public support for school budgets; and
(4) conflict-mediating stress, arising from the administrator handling conflicts within the school
such as trying to resolve differences between and among personnel, resolving parent and school
conflicts, and handling student discipline problems.

Second, McGrath explained stress as a four-stage, closed-loop process beginning with situations
in the environment (A), which are then perceived by the individual (B), to which the individual
selects the response (C), resulting in consequences for both the individual and the situation (D),
which closes the loop. Each of the four stages is connected by the linking process of
cognitiveappraisal, decision, performance and outcome. The four stages postulated byMcGrath
also have served as sound building blocks for the development of later stress models. Each
subsequent model appears to have been personalized with appropriate feedback loops, mediating
variables, and process variables embellishing the relationship among the four basic stages in a
manner that meets the research and application needs of each job/role being investigated.

One example of these later stress models is the Administrator Stress Cycle (Gmelch, 1982).
Basically, the first of the four stages of this model is initiated when an administrator experiences
one or more of the sources of stress. Stage two consists of the perception or interpretation of the
stressors by the individual. Administrators who perceive demands as harmful or demanding will
experience stress within their lives and approach their work with intensity. The classic study of
the effect of Type A behaviour and health by Friedman and Rosenman (1974) highlights the
impact of perception on stress.

The third stage of the cycle presents choices to the individual. In this stage the administrator
responds to the stressor, if it is perceived to be harmful, threatening, and/or demanding.
Individuals use coping strategies when they believe they can counteract the stressor. A coping
strategy is effective to the degree that it assists the individual in a positive manner.

The fourth stage of the stress cycle, consequences, takes into account the long range effects of
stress. The negative consequences of stress can include headaches, ulcers, illnesses, or other
physical disabilities. Maslach and Jackson (1981) separated the consequences of stress into three
dimensions of burnout: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and feelings of low personal
accomplishment. Emotional exhaustion identifies that aspect of burnout which is associated with
low levels of energy and the feeling of being drained. Depersonalization is the dimension of
burnout which is connected to feelings of lost identity and meaningfulness. And finally, low
personal accomplishment is that aspect of burnout where individuals feel dissatisfied with their
accomplishments and/or believe that their actions no longer make a difference.

You may be on the road to burnout if:

 Every day is a bad day.

 Caring about your work or home life seems like a total waste of energy.
 You’re exhausted all the time.
 The majority of your day is spent on tasks you find either mind-numbingly dull or
overwhelming.
 You feel like nothing you do makes a difference or is appreciated.

The negative effects of burnout spill over into every area of life – including your home and
social life. Burnout can also cause long-term changes to your body that make you vulnerable to
illnesses like colds and flu. Because of its many consequences, it’s important to deal with
burnout right away.
 The difference between stress and burnout

Burnout may be the result of unrelenting stress, but it isn’t the same as too much stress. Stress,
by and large, involves too much: too many pressures that demand too much of you physically
and psychologically. Stressed people can still imagine, though, that if they can just get
everything under control, they’ll feel better.

Burnout, on the other hand, is about not enough. Being burned out means feeling empty, devoid
of motivation, and beyond caring. People experiencing burnout often don’t see any hope of
positive change in their situations. If excessive stress is like drowning in responsibilities, burnout
is being all dried up. One other difference between stress and burnout: While you’re usually
aware of being under a lot of stress, you don’t always notice burnout when it happens.

Stress vs. Burnout

Stress Burnout
Characterized by overengagement Characterized by disengagement
Emotions are overreactive Emotions are blunted
Produces urgency and hyperactivity Produces helplessness and hopelessness
Loss of energy Loss of motivation, ideals, and hope
Leads to anxiety disorders Leads to detachment and depression
Primary damage is physical Primary damage is emotional
May kill you prematurely May make life seem not worth living

Causes of burnout

There are many causes of burnout. In many cases, burnout stems from the job. But anyone who
feels overworked and undervalued is at risk for burnout – from the hardworking office worker
who hasn’t had a vacation or a raise in two years to the frazzled stay-at-home mom struggling
with the heavy responsibility of taking care of three kids, the housework, and her aging father.

But burnout is not caused solely by stressful work or too many responsibilities. Other factors
contribute to burnout, including your lifestyle and certain personality traits. What you do in your
downtime and how you look at the world can play just as big of a role in causing burnout as
work or home demands.          
Work-related causes of burnout

 Feeling like you have little or no control over your work.  

 Lack of recognition or rewards for good work.
 Unclear or overly demanding job expectations.
 Doing work that’s monotonous or unchallenging.
 Working in a chaotic or high-pressure environment

Lifestyle causes of burnout

 Working too much, without enough time for relaxing and socializing
 Being expected to be too many things to too many people.
 Taking on too many responsibilities, without enough help from others
 Not getting enough sleep
 Lack of close, supportive relationships

Personality traits can contribute to burnout

 Perfectionistic tendencies; nothing is ever good enough

 Pessimistic view of yourself and the world
 The need to be in control; reluctance to delegate to others
 High-achieving, Type A personality

Warning signs and symptoms of burnout

Burnout is a gradual process that occurs over an extended period of time. It doesn’t happen
overnight, but it can creep up on you if you’re not paying attention to the warning signals. The
signs and symptoms of burnout are subtle at first, but they get worse and worse as time goes on.

Think of the early symptoms of burnout as warning signs or red flags that something is wrong
that needs to be addressed. If you pay attention to these early warning signs, you can prevent a
major breakdown. If you ignore them, you’ll eventually burn out.
Physical signs and symptoms of burnout

 Feeling tired and drained most of the  Frequent headaches, back pain, muscle
time aches
 Lowered immunity, feeling sick a lot  Change in appetite or sleep habits

Emotional signs and symptoms of burnout

 Sense of failure and self-doubt  Loss of motivation

 Feeling helpless, trapped, and defeated  Increasingly cynical and negative
 Detachment, feeling alone in the world outlook
 Decreased satisfaction and sense of
accomplishment

Behavioral signs and symptoms of burnout

 Withdrawing from responsibilities  Using food, drugs, or alcohol to cope

 Isolating yourself from others  Taking out your frustrations on others
 Procrastinating, taking longer to get  Skipping work or coming in late and
things done leaving early

Preventing burnout

If you recognize the warning signs of impending burnout in yourself, remember that it will only
get worse if you leave it alone. But if you take steps to get your life back into balance, you can
prevent burnout from becoming a full-blown breakdown.

Burnout prevention tips:

 Start the day with a relaxing ritual. Rather jumping out of bed as soon as you wake up,
spend at least fifteen minutes meditating, writing in your journal, doing gentle stretches,
or reading something that inspires you.
 Adopt healthy eating, exercising, and sleeping habits. When you eat right, engage in
regular physical activity, and get plenty of rest, you have the energy and resilience to deal
with life’s hassles and demands. 
 Set boundaries. Don’t overextend yourself. Learn how to say “no” to requests on your
time. If you find this difficult, remind yourself that saying “no” allows you to say “yes”
to the things that you truly want to do.
 Take a daily break from technology. Set a time each day when you completely
disconnect. Put away your laptop, turn off your phone, and stop checking email.
 Nourish your creative side. Creativity is a powerful antidote to burnout. Try something
new, start a fun project, or resume a favorite hobby. Choose activities that have nothing
to do with work.
 Learn how to manage stress. When you’re on the road to burnout, you may feel
helpless. But you have a lot more control over stress than you may think. Learning how
to manage stress can help you regain your balance.

Phases of Burnout
Psychologists Herbert Freudenberger and Gail North have theorized that the burnout process can
be divided into 12 phases, which are not necessarily followed sequentially, nor necessarily in any
sense be relevant or exist other than as an abstract construct.

 A compulsion to prove oneself

 Working harder
 Neglecting one's own needs
 Displacement of conflicts (the person does not realize the root cause of the distress)
 Revision of values (friends or hobbies are completely dismissed)
 Denial of emerging problems (cynicism and aggression become apparent)
 Withdrawal (reducing social contacts to a minimum, becoming walled off; alcohol or
other substance abuse may occur)
 Behavioral changes become obvious to others
 Depersonalization (life becomes a series of mechanical functions)
 Inner emptiness
 Depression
 Burnout syndrome

There are a variety of ways that both individuals and organizations can deal with burnout. In his
book, Managing stress: Emotion and power at work (1995), Newton argues that many of the
remedies related to burnout are motivated not from an employee's perspective, but from the
organization's perspective. Despite that, if there are benefits to coping strategies, then it would
follow that both organizations and individuals should attempt to adopt some burnout coping
strategies. Below are some of the more common strategies for dealing with burnout.
 COPING WITH BURNOUT

Organizational aspects

Employee assistance programs (EAP)

Stemming from Mayo's Hawthorne Studies, Employee Assistance Programs were designed to
assist employees in dealing with the primary causes of stress. Some programs included
counseling and psychological services for employees. There are organizations that still utilize
EAPs today, but the popularity has diminished substantially because of the advent of stress
management training (SMT).

Stress management training

Stress Management Training (SMT) is employed by many organizations today as a way to

get employees to either work through stress or to manage their stress levels; to maintain
stress levels below that which might lead to higher instances of burnout.

Stress interventions

Research has been conducted that links certain interventions, such as narrative writing or
topic-specific training to reductions in physiological and psychological stress.

Individual aspects

Problem-based coping

On an individual basis, employees can cope with the problems related to burnout and stress
by focusing on the causes of their stress. This type of coping has successfully been linked to
reductions in individual stress.
Appraisal-based coping

Appraisal-based coping strategies deal with individual interpretations of what is and is not a
stress inducing activity. There have been mixed findings related to the effectiveness of
appraisal-based coping strategies.

Social support

Social support has been seen as one of the largest predictors toward a reduction in burnout
and stress for workers. Creating an organizationally-supportive environment as well as
ensuring that employees have supportive work environments do mediate the negative aspects
of burnout and stress.
 Conclusion

While other studies have investigated two or three variables as they relate to burnout, the
uniqueness of this study is the use of multiple independent variables assessed and related to
burnout. This study used regression analysis to sift out the less influential variables and
accentuate those with the most salient influence on burnout. Only the burnout dimension of
emotional exhaustion was explained by a significant per cent of variance, most of which related
to task-based stress. Little variance for depersonalization and personal accomplishment was
explained by the plethora of independent variables; however, role ambiguity revealed the
greatest variance in both cases. Therefore, different strategies must be taken for separate
dimensions of burnout in order to pave a more manageable road currently travelled by
educational administrators. The time-pressure and intensity with which administrators travel
their road must be modified in order to moderate the emotional exhaustion experience along the
way. Also, it is not just the pace of the travel, but the ambiguous direction which leads
administrators to a place often characterized by feelings of depersonalization and lack of
personal accomplishment. To properly navigate the road of administration and reduce the
influence of burnout, administrators must be equipped with both a better clock and compass for
the journey ahead.

REFERRENCE:
1. Debra L. Nelson, James Campbell (2005) Quick Understanding Organizational Behavior.
2. John R. Schermerhorn, James G. Hunt, Richard Osborn (1998) Basic Oganizational
Behavior.
3. John W. Newstrom, Keith Davis (2002) Organizational Behavior:Human Behevior at
Work.
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnout_%28psychology%29
5. http://www.springerlink.com.pustaka2.upsi.edu.my/content/jr66218835722215/fulltext.p
df
6. http://web.ebscohost.com.pustaka2.upsi.edu.my/bsi/pdf?hid=112&sid=d374bc91-ed32-
46c1-b5c4-f800f315a8e3%40sessionmgr113&vid=3
7. http://web.ebscohost.com.pustaka2.upsi.edu.my/bsi/pdf?hid=112&sid=d374bc91-ed32-
46c1-b5c4-f800f315a8e3%40sessionmgr113&vid=3
8. http://web.ebscohost.com.pustaka2.upsi.edu.my/bsi/pdf?hid=112&sid=d374bc91-ed32-
46c1-b5c4-f800f315a8e3%40sessionmgr113&vid=4
9. http://web.ebscohost.com.pustaka2.upsi.edu.my/bsi/pdf?hid=112&sid=d374bc91-ed32-
46c1-b5c4-f800f315a8e3%40sessionmgr113&vid=5