Linking work, occupational identity and burnout: the case of managers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Based on identity theory, identity represents a set of meanings individuals hold for themselves based on their role in the society. Hence, they often engage in the process of verifying their role, seeking for the compatibility between these meanings and those perceived in a specific lived situation. If this compatibility is not perceived, this is likely to generate negative emotions. that could compromise their mental health. This paper examines the contribution of a weak verification of role identity in the explanation of managers ‘burnout. It aims at integrating identity theory into occupational stress research by analysing the proposition that a low level of verification of a salient role-identity will be associated with a high level of burnout. Hence, we consider identity salience as a moderating variable. Design/methodology/approach Cross-sectional data of 314 Canadian managers employed in 56 Quebec firms. Multilevel regression analyses were performed to analyse the data. Findings Low levels of verification of some standards of managers' role identity, mainly work demands and recognition which encompasses (monetary and non-monetary recognition, career prospects and job security) are significantly associated with managers' burnout. Furthermore, as predicted, results show that identity salience plays a moderating role on the relation between a weak verification of some standards of managers' role identity and burnout, mainly work demands, superior support and recognition. Originality/value This study proposes a relatively unexplored approach for the study of managers' burnout. It broadens the scope of research on workplace mental health issues, by the integration of the identity theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".