RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JOB BURNOUT AND COUNTER PRODUCTIVE WORK

BEHAVIOURS AMONG SELECTED WORKERS IN LAGOS METROPOLIS

BY

OJUBANIRE AKOREDE AZEEM.

MATRIC NO.: [150904005]

A RESEARCH PROJECT SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, FACULTY

OF SOCIAL SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS, IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (B.SC.) DEGREE IN

PSYCHOLOGY

OCTOBER 2019.

i
 Certification

I hereby certify that this project was undertaken by OJUBANIRE AKOREDE AZEEM, MATRIC NO.

150904005 and presented to the department of psychology, in partial fulfilment of the

requirement for the award of B.Sc. (Hons), University of Lagos.

OJUBANIRE AKOREDE AZEEM Date

Researcher

DR. A. IGUNDUNASSE. Date

Supervisor

DR. O.B. FAGBOHUNGBE Date

H.O.D, Psychology

ii
 Dedication

Wholly dedicated to the Almighty God for his abundant mercy and grace in my life. Also

dedicated to my lovely and ever supportive family.

iii
 Acknowledgements

This study would not have been possible without the guidance and blessing of my greatest

lover and my most loyal fan, God Almighty. He is my Savior, my Ultimate Provider and Best

friend. I am also grateful for the life of the people whom He made as instruments to help me.

I extend my sincere gratitude to my supervisor Dr. A. Igundunasse who indicated keen

interest in ensuring that all the years toiled in the program are not in vain. His patience, guidance,

cooperation and willingness to assist at every moment not only enabled me to complete this work

but also made me acquire great skills in research work.

To my ever present mommy, Dr. G. A. Akinwale, my immeasurable thanks. The HOD

Psychology department, Dr. Fagbohungbe O. B., Professor Makanju O. A., Professor Agiobu –

Kemer I. S., Dr. Akinsola E. F., Dr. Akintayo O. A., Dr. Akinbode G. A., Dr. Aroyewun A. B.,

Dr. Igundunase A. T., Dr. Malomo B. I., Dr. Akinfala F. F., Dr. Asekun W. A., Dr. Israel U. N.,

Dr. Ayodeji F., Dr. Atiri S. O., Mr Popoola.,Mr. Ayodele Dada and Mr Oyogho Oscar who

indicated keen interest in ensuring the success of this work.

I also register my appreciation to my family, Ojubanire Yetunde, Ojubanire Aramide,

Ojubanire Afeez, Habeeb Olalere, Bode Adedayo, for their financial and moral support and

constant encouragement. A special thanks to my friends who took part in this success, Ogundele

Babatope, Jokosenu Tolulope, Balogun Adesoji, Michael Bamigbola, Lagoke Ayomide, Mercy

Michael, Ruth Adeoye, Richmond Taribo, the whole of psychology class ‘19’ and psychology

department as a whole. Words can never say how grateful I am to have you. May God reward all

your kindness. You all are remembered in a special way.

iv
Abstract

The purpose of this study is to investigate the influence job burnout has on counter-

productivity amongst financial institution workers. Four research questions were formulated and

four research hypotheses guided the study. To achieve this, the descriptive survey research

design was adopted. The study focused on financial institutions within the axis of Lagos. The

study used a purposeful sampling method to select a sample of 200 participants. The scales used

was a psychological research instrument developed by (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter., 2001) and

(Spector, et al., 2006) comprising (Job Burnout Scale and Counterproductive Behaviour Index.).

The descriptive statistics of frequency counts and percentage, were used to analyse the

demographic data while Regression analysis test, Independent t-test and ANOVA was used in

testing the research hypotheses. Research findings showed that there was no significant

relationship between Job Burnout and Counter-productivity at work place. Also, differences in

age were not significant as regards job burnout. Also, there was no significant differences in job

burnout as regards the amount of years spent on the job (job experience). Thereby, the author

made recommendations to so as to benefit organizations and also the workers who has imminent

issues of job burnout and counter-productivity.

v
Table of Contents

Certification..................................................................................................................................... 2

Dedication........................................................................................................................................ 3

Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... 4

Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... 5

Chapter One (Introduction).......................................................................................................... 9

1.1 Background to The Study.............................................................................................. 9

1.2 Statement of Problem:................................................................................................. 11

1.3 Objectives of The Study............................................................................................... 13

1.4 Significance of Study.................................................................................................... 13

1.5 Scope of Study............................................................................................................... 13

1.6 Operational Definitions................................................................................................ 13

1.7 Literature Review......................................................................................................... 14

1.7.1 Job Burn-out......................................................................................................... 14

1.7.2 Counter Productive Work Behaviours................................................................14

1.8 Theoretical Review....................................................................................................... 14

1.8.1 Theoretical Framework of Study.........................................................................14

1.8.2 Other Relevant Theories...................................................................................... 15

1.9 Empirical Review.......................................................................................................... 15

1.9.1 Job Burn Out......................................................................................................... 15

1.9.2 Counter Productive Work Behavior...................................................................15

1.9.3 Job Burnout and Counter Productive Work Behaviours..................................15

vi
 1.10 Research Questions...................................................................................................... 15

1.11 Research Hypotheses.................................................................................................... 16

Chapter Two (Methodology)....................................................................................................... 17

2.1 Research Setting........................................................................................................... 17

2.2 Population/Sample & Sampling Procedure................................................................17

2.3 Research Design............................................................................................................ 17

2.4 Instruments................................................................................................................... 17

2.4.1 Antisocial Behavior Scale..................................................................................... 18

2.4.2 Perceived Injustice Scale...................................................................................... 18

2.5 Procedure...................................................................................................................... 19

2.6 Data Analysis................................................................................................................ 19

Chapter Three (Results).............................................................................................................. 20

3.1 Demography Characteristics of the Sample...............................................................20

3.2 Test of Hypothesis (Descriptive & Inferential Statistics)..........................................23

Chapter Four (Discussion).......................................................................................................... 28

4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................... 28

4.2 Summary of Findings................................................................................................... 28

4.3 Discussion...................................................................................................................... 28

Chapter Five (Conclusion).......................................................................................................... 30

5.0 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... 30

5.1 Implication of Findings................................................................................................ 30

5.2 Recommendation.......................................................................................................... 30

vii
 5.3 Limitation of Study....................................................................................................... 31

References.................................................................................................................................... 32

Questionnaire............................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix...................................................................................................................................... 35

viii
 Chapter One (Introduction)

1.1 Background to The Study

The Every work day, Financial institutions get pummeled with huge work load, and

targets they need to meet up with. From Banks to Insurance Houses amongst others there are

always targets set out to be achieved for the purpose of expanding their capital and customer

base. To achieve this, one major procedure required is the relation with potentially new customers

and existing ones. In basic terms, it is how well consumer services are being provided to

potentially new customers and existing ones. For Financial institutions it is of utmost importance

to them to provide quality consumer services to their customers as they are the major source of

sustainability for their various institutions and this is a directive from heads of Financial

institutions to their employees (especially front end employees) for them to be able to provide

quality consumer services to customers of the institution as they are the first point of contact

between customers and the institution.

The expectation of providing quality consumer services amongst other work-related

variables like, perceived work overload, lack of control over work, organizational climate, rules

and fairness, bounded resources, external commitments and responsibilities are some of the many

variables which can leave an employee in a stressed state. Psychologists viewed stress in three

ways: as a stimulus, as a response and as an ongoing interaction between the organism and its

environment (Gandi, 2011). It is then important to realize that the fusion of excessive stimulus

and unbearable responses leads to the concept of burnout.

A study by Schaufeli, Leiter and Maslach (2008) traces job burnout as an important topic

back to the 1970s, and it captured something very critical about a person’s experience with work

(Schaufeli, Leiter, & Maslach, 2008). Job burnout is defined as chronic affective response pattern

to stressful work conditions that feature high levels of interpersonal contact (Crump, 2008). It

1
involves feelings of exhaustion, negative attitudes, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy

(Bakker & et al., 2005).

As the phenomenon of job burnout surfaces, it becomes a threat to the work of the

members of organizations as well as to organizations themselves. It involves the different aspect

of a man’s life including physiological, social and behavioural aspects.

According to Schwarzer and Hallum (2008), burnout is a chronic state of exhaustion due

to long-term interpersonal stress which is com mon within human service professions. It pertains

to feelings experienced by people whose jobs require repeated exposure to emotionally charged

social situations. These concerns raise questions about whether burnout does exist or are workers

just permanently tired. Leiter and Maslach’s study (as cited in Gandi, 2011) defined burnout as ‘a

sustained response to the chronic work stress comprising of three components: the experience of

being emotionally exhausted (emotional exhaustion), negative feelings and attitudes towards the

recipients of the service (depersonalization) and feelings of low accomplishment and professional

failure (lack of personal accomplishment)’. (Ugwu, Enwereuzor, Fimber, & Ugwu, 2017),

supported the latter’s claim as their study on “Nurses’burnout and counterproductive work

behavior in a Nigerian sample: The moderating role of emotional intelligence” stated that “the

result of multiple regression analysis showed that the three dimensions of burnout, i.e. emotional

ex-haustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment contributed significantly and

positively in predicting counter productivity.”

Organizations do not only need qualified work force but also productive ones. The work

force needs to have skills and qualifications beneficial for the organization. These include

behaviours that can maximize the production and minimize damages and costs for the

organization. This is the same case with as Financial Instructions as it is of utmost importance to

them to provide quality consumer services to their customers as individuals under their

employment (Front-end Employees) are the first point of contact between customers and the

2
institution in other words, it is advantageous for both organizations and workers to avoid

counterproductive behaviours.

O’Boyle Jr’s study (as cited in Ansari, et al., 2013) defined Counterproductive work

behaviour as “a collection of deliberate behaviours that harm the organization or its members”.

An online blog HR-Zone (https://www.hrzone.com/) on Counterproductive work behaviour also

defined it as employees’ actions or activities that don’t go in line with their job description and

also against the aims and goals of their employer.

As much as the occurrence of counterproductive behaviour is desired to be prevented, it is

also ideal that the cause of this behaviour is known to avoid it from happening.

Counterproductive behaviour includes property-based (e.g., theft, vandalism) and production

based (e.g., tardiness, absenteeism, unauthorized extensions of work breaks), deviances that

represent violations of the implicit or explicit standards of acceptable workplace behaviour (Way,

2011). The types of counterproductive behaviours are as follows: production deviance, involving

behaviours like leaving early, intentionally working slow, or taking long breaks; property

deviance, involving sabotage of equipment, theft of property, and taking kickbacks; political

deviance, involving showing favoritism, gossiping, or blaming others; and, personal aggression,

involving harassment, verbal abuse, and endangerment. Out of many, one of the major

concerns of many organizations that need urgent attention is counterproductive work

behavior which is assumed to be a problem that violates significant organizational norms

and threatens the wellbeing of an organization, its members, or both, (Ayodele, 2014).

Research on such topics has proliferated in recent years in recognition of the staggering

financial, personal and organizational costs associated with counterproductive work behaviour

(Kelloway, Barling, & Hurrell, 2006). These counterproductive behaviours of workers may cause

an organization to collapse and its purpose to be defeated.

3
 According to Van Heugten (2011) it is possible that workers in financial institutions may

be somewhat more prone to stress and burnout because their relationship with clients is so central

to their work. Their work efforts revolve around empathy and understanding of service users‟

situations and this can be draining. They may not have been assisted to know how to handle this

inherent stress in their training, and they may not be aware that setting boundaries is critical to

self-care (Van Heugten, 2011).

The study by Van Heugten (2011) furthermore explained that these actions might not be

malicious either is it accidental or unconscious, it is believed that they are conscious and

intentional deeds. The driving forces of these actions might vary contextually, but burnout is to be

examined as a determining factor. As counter-productivity lingers, organizations need to pay

adequate attention to human resources being the basic or most important resource in every

organization which may affect other sources. When an organization can get to the root of

counterproductive work behaviour in employees, then possible solutions can be proffered.

With the awareness of the existence of this kind of behaviour in organizations and

industries, the researcher will attempt to correlate counterproductive behaviour with job burnout.

This is for the purpose of being able to establish the relationship between the two variables (Job

Burnout and Counter Productive Work Behaviour) and eventually being able to prevent, lessen or

eliminate these phenomena in the workplace. The aim of this study is to gain knowledge on the

nature of the researcher would want to know the degree and nature of the relationship between

both variables (Job Burnout and Counter Productive Work Behaviour). In addition, the researcher

would also want to know the process why job burnout leads to counterproductive behaviours of

workers in organizations.

1.2 Statement of Problem:

Crucial in identifying the phenomenon of counterproductive work behaviours and its

effective factors, focusing on the perception of the workplace and personal features should be

4
held in consideration. Workplace factors such as (underpayment, inadequate salaries, working

conditions and effective nation induced poverty), and personal features such as how employees

develop a various individual coping mechanism which sometimes is of predatory nature exposes

organizations to potential downfall or liquidation or even amalgamations. Armstrong, 1977;

Dixon, Shaw and Bensky’s study as cited in Gold (2010) claimed that services rendered by

helping professions such as teachers, bankers, doctors and nurses, etc. downturns as a result of an

increase in burnout rate. A study by Lerberghe, et al., (2002) on dealing with coping strategies

posits that employees exert different strategies which amount to organizational failures and their

sole choices amount to what the organization becomes or is. Furthermore, pretence on the fact of

whether the problem exist or it is just an individual work ethic does not make these behaviours go

away. Organizations should limit the amount of imposed workload, pressure, expectations, etc.

laid on employers by supervising managers in filling those gaps of a shortage of workers, role

conflicts, bounded resources, fairness, and injustice which is believed to be distasteful, degrading

and frightening.

Job dissatisfaction, low organization commitment, absenteeism and willingness to

turnover has been associated with negative reactions to job burnout (Ansari, et al., 2013) which

gives an insight on why this issue should be fixed. Unfortunately, not much research in Nigeria

has given a statistic of how much burnout cost organizations and industries. Few only focused on

the socio-demographic and work characteristics variables and their effects leading to burnout.

However, organizations and companies who give adequate responses to human resources have

little or no turn over from employees. As burnout lingers and becoming a threat to employees of

organizations in Nigeria, likewise as a threat to organizations itself, it can be combated through

intense focus on human resource needs for functionality.

Forthwith, in the expense of prolonged stressful stimulus (e.g. work overload, role

conflict) and response (e.g. withdrawal, exhaustion) by a worker without having foreknowledge

on what burnout is, it is responsible to see how they cope and to what extent and areas job

5
burnout cost them in the prediction of maladaptive behaviours to work. Optimizations of the

current solutions to burnout, it is crucial to know that organizations and companies will

experience a positive turnover from employees which will heighten efficiency and

competitiveness among employees and also among related or similar organizations and

companies.

1.3 Objectives of The Study

The purpose of this study is to investigate the job burnout as a determining factor to

counter productivity work behaviours. Specifically, this study intends to find out:

1. To examine if Job-Burnout from the workplace predicts to Counterproductive Work

Behaviour amongst employees in Financial institutions.

2. To explore Gender differences in Job-Burnout and Counterproductive Work Behaviour.

3. To examine different levels of Job-Burnout and Counterproductive Work Behaviour and

as regards years of experience on the Job.

1.4 Significance of Study

As it relates to Financial Institutions, this study will aid current Financial Institutions to

achieve goals through improving the quality of their manpower by being informed on the possible

job burnout that their members may encounter, its prevention and the possible help that they can

offer for members. For Managers in various Financial Instructions, this study will help them gain

knowledge about this phenomenon and help them understand the behaviours of their

subordinates, building healthy relationships with people from different levels of organizational

structure. This will also provide them of good inputs and insights on how to prevent the

occurrence of counterproductive behaviour in the workplace, providing emotional and

motivational needs of employees and proper management.

Also, Staff Members of Financial Institutions are not left out as this study will guide

employees to better understand themselves: how they adjust to strains and stresses in the

6
workplace, how they react, and how to help themselves cope and in the long run, be able to keep

and most especially love their jobs. Generally, this research will also serve as a resource base to

other scholars and researchers interested in carrying out further research in this field

subsequently, if applied will go to an extent to provide new explanation to the topic discussed.

1.5 Scope of Study

Selected Financial institutions located within Lagos state is the scope of the study, with

major focus on Front-end employees of these selected institutions. This conducted study was

limited majorly to Front-end employees as they are the first point of contact between customers

and the institution. The age range of participants ranged from 25-60 years old, male or female, of

different civil status and religious affiliations. Since the participants came from different levels of

the organization and of different job descriptions, levels of job burnout may vary from one

situation to another.

The study used survey method employing adapted objective scales namely the Job

Burnout Scale and Counterproductive behaviour Index which focused on the different

manifestations and symptoms of job burnout and counterproductive behaviour in the behaviours,

cognitions and emotions of the respondents.

1.6 Operational Definitions

Counterproductive Behaviour: This is behaviour that has a detrimental effect on organizations

and their members. It can include overt acts such as aggression and theft or more passive acts,

such as purposely failing to follow instructions or doing work incorrectly (Fox, Spector & Miles,

2001). In this study, it refers to the scores of the respondents in the Counterproductive Behaviour

index.

Staff Members of Financial Institutions: These are front-end workers of financial institutions

e.g. Bank Cashiers, Marketers, Insurance Merchants etc. In this study, they are respondents from

which data will be gathered.

7
Job Burnout: This is a mental state of weariness that is characterized by feelings of exhaustion,

negative attitudes, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy (Bakker, et al., 2005). In this

study, it will be the scores of the respondents in the Job Burnout Scale.

Socio-demographic Variables: These are the statistical characteristics of population of this

study which varies in every respondent. In this study, it refers to the characteristics indicated by

the respondent in the Profile Data Sheet namely; Age, Gender, Years on the Job, and Religious

Affiliation. These variables are considered to be associated with counterproductive behaviour.

1.7 Literature Review/Conceptualization

This chapter gives an insight into various studies conducted by outstanding researchers,

as well as explained terminologies with regards to Job-Burnout and Counterproductive Work

Behaviour. The chapter also gives a resume of the history and present status of the problem

delineated by a concise review of previous studies into closely related problems.

1.7.1 Job Burn-out.

Job burnout from the literature reviews are documented in various studies. The literature

on job burnout is based on definitions relating the concepts of human resource management, job

satisfaction, and job performance. Job burnout defined as the feelings of exhaustion, being

overloaded and emotional depleted which was described by. In addition, Maslach, C. et al. (2001)

also stated that burnout was a possible response to work overload. Burnout is explained as a

response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on employee’s job. Considering this

reasoning, this empirical study was focused on the effects of perceived workload on job burnout.

The conceptual framework of this research study was applied Maslach and Jackson,

(1981) in which specified the three categories related to job burnout as follows; emotional

exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach & Jackson, The

Measurement of Experienced Burnout., 1981). As many previous studies show that there are the

relationships among perceived workload, job burnout, and organizational commitment as stated

8
by (Mathieu & Hamel, 1989); (Gillet & Vandenberghe, 2014); as results, this study aimed to

investigate such relationships.

1.7.2 Counter Productive Work Behaviours.

Counterproductive work behaviours include: abusive behaviour, physical and verbal

aggression, making intention ate improper work, sabotage, theft, absenteeism, misuse of

information, delays, unsafe behaviour, poor attendance, and poor-quality work. This includes

destruction and misuse of organizational property and destruction acts directed toward

organizations rather than people (although people are often indirect targets) doing work

incorrectly, or failing to notify superiors about mistakes and work problems (e.g., a machine

malfunction), and withdrawal (e.g., calling in sick when not ill). etc. Research on such topics has

proliferated in recent years in recognition of the staggering financial (Robinson S. L., 2008),

personal (Schat & Kelloway, 2005) and organizational costs associated with counterproductive

behaviour (Acorin, 2003). These include economical cost (loss of productivity due to delay at the

workplace, theft or sabotage) or psychological cost (withdrawal or low job satisfaction- for those

who are targets of counterproductive interpersonal behaviours or high stress and uncertainty - for

those who perceive such behaviours) (Vardi & Weitz, 2014).

Counterproductive work behaviour has been studied from a variety of perspectives, using

different terms to refer to a partially overlapping set of harmful acts. This includes aggression

(Neuman & Baron, 1998); (Spector, Organizational frustration: A model and review of the

literature, 1978), workplace violence and aggression (Barling, Dupré, & Kelloway, 2009);

(Kelloway, Barling, & Hurrell, 2006). deviance (Hollinger, 1986); (Robinson & Bennett, 1995),

retaliation (Skarlicki & Folger, 1997), and revenge (Bies, Tripp, & Kramer, 1997). Acts directed

specifically at people have been studied as bullying (Goodstein & Lanyon, 2003), emotional

abuse (Hollinger, 1986), and mobbing (Zapf, Knorz, & Kulla, 1996). This broad definition

subsumes behaviours such as theft, sabotage (Ambrose, Seabright, & Schminke, 2002), and

9
service sabotage (Harris & Ogbanna, 2002), incivility (Acorin, 2003), revenge (Bies, Tripp, &

Kramer, 1997)

These behaviours are a set of distinct acts that have common characteristics, it is

intentional (not accidental) and intend to harm the organization and/or their stakeholders-

customers, colleagues and supervisors, viewed by the organization as contrary to its legitimate

interests, while the individual finds it rewarding. Counterproductive work behaviour is seen as an

element of job performance. Counterproductive work behaviour is behaviour that is intended to

have a detrimental effect on organizations, their members, stakeholders, customers and the

community in general, and of benefit to the individual as he feels fulfilled and psychologically

relieved.

1.8 Theoretical Review

1.8.1 Theoretical Framework of Study

Spector and Fox’s Counterproductive Behaviour Model

This model suggests that counterproductive behaviour is a result of job stressors.

According to this view, people evaluate and assess certain events in the environment as threats to

well-being and they consider it as job stressors. Examples of job stressors are role conflict and

ambiguity interpersonal conflict and situational constraints. Strain is an outcome of the job stress

process that can be psychological such as job dissatisfaction or turnover intention, physical say

for example somatic symptoms such as headache, physiological changes such as increased blood

pressure, and long-term pathology, Or behavioural for instance smoking or withdrawal from

work. Counterproductive behaviour is manifestation of behavioural strain (Fox, Spector, & Miles,

2001).

The idea above will guide the study under consideration through the analysis of the way

the respondents in the study perceive the external conditions at the workplace. Stress is perceived

to be a state especially of a physical or mental tension resulting from factors that tend to alter an

10
existing equilibrium. If the workers experience role conflict and ambiguity interpersonal conflict

and situational constraints and other forms in the workplace which alter the former states of

equilibrium, the workplace becomes stressful for them. In the long run, if these stressors are not

eliminated, it results to burnout (Crump, 2008). Workers may respond to these stimuli in many

forms and in many aspects. While there are many ways to respond to these stressors, the model

above reflects that counterproductive behaviour is a manifestation of behavioural strain.

1.8.2 Other Relevant Theories

1.8.2.1 The Stress Facilitation Theory

The Stress Facilitation Theory posits that when more dishonest employees experience

heightened job stress, their feelings of distress facilitate a multiplicative theft response (Jones,

1982). Researchers have consistently documented that employees who endorse dishonest

attitudes toward theft are reliably more likely to steal at work than job candidates and employees

who endorse intolerant and punitive attitudes toward theft. Moreover, distressed workers are

more likely to engage in on-the-job counter productivity than less stressed employees. Yet based

on the Stress Facilitation Theory, employees with favourable attitudes toward theft who are also

experiencing debilitating stress will steal significantly more cash, merchandise, and property from

their employers than both (a) non-distressed employees with equally favourable attitudes toward

theft, and (b) both distressed and non-distressed employees with intolerant and punitive attitudes

toward theft.

18.2.2 Neuman and Baron’s Integrated Model of Aggression

This model considers the role of negative emotion such as anger, shame and hostility in

affective aggression. According to this model, environmental conditions and stressors, including

situational frustration, injustice, insults, and presence of things associated with aggression

triggers aggression. These lead to negative emotions and aggressive cognitions that together lead

to appraisal of the situation and decisions about whether or not to respond aggressively. It is

worthy to consider anger as playing a causal role in this process. Anger may reduce inhibitions

11
against aggression by providing a justification when aggressive retaliation is part of the decision

rule in the aggression script. Anger may interfere with moral reasoning. Anger may prime

memory of and processing of the provoking events, enabling a person to maintain aggressive

intentions over time; may be used as an information cue in the interpretation of ambiguous

events; and may prime aggressive scripts and associated behaviours. Finally, anger may energize

behaviour by increasing arousal levels (Neuman & Baron, 2005).

The model above may guide the study under consideration through the analysis of the

way the respondents in the study perceive the external conditions at the workplace. If the workers

experience injustices, frustrations, insults and other forms in the workplace, they perceive it as an

aggression against themselves and in return, workers may respond to these stimuli in the form of

anger and, as a form to release anger, the workers become aggressive towards co-workers and the

organization itself. The phenomenon of counterproductive behaviour may then occur this way.

Workers may intentionally not perform their tasks well, sabotage, theft and other forms of

behaviour.

1.9 Empirical Review

1.9.1 Job Burn Out.

The Job Burnout is a mental state of weariness that is characterized by feelings of

exhaustion, negative attitudes, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy (Bakker & et al.,

2005). It is also defined by Crump (2008) as a type of stress that is a chronic affective response

pattern to stressful work conditions that feature high levels of interpersonal contact. Burnout is

most frequently understood as a pattern of negative symptoms that relates directly to all areas of

functioning. In conceptualizing burnout researchers made an early attempt to categorize its many

symptoms into four different realms: physical, cognitive, emotional, and behavioural (Wilkerson

& Bellini, 2012).

12
 According to Ramajaran and Barsade, (2006) the image of idealistic workers entering

human and social service jobs, seeking to “do good” but then “burning out,” retains a strong hold

on our collective imagination. Traditionally, the nature of the work is considered an important

cause of this phenomenon. Particularly in the human services, a central focus is on the demands

of the job that human service workers perform. In addition to the often-difficult physical demands

of this work the emotional work or labour of interacting with clients is seen as highly demanding

and thus contributing to burnout (Ramarajan & Barsade, 2006).

There are nearly endless and varied list of antecedents to burnout, but the common aspect

is stress. The most popular explanation is the concept that posits a physiological response to

external events or stressors that cause the body to mobilize by a fight-or-flight response by

releasing adrenaline into the system. This animal response is no longer necessary in modern life

so the body must react in other ways, and a person experiences anxiety which must be controlled.

This is a process that is destructive if extreme, prolonged or frequent. Burnout is likely the

response to prolonged, unavoidable and excessive stress in a work situation. The actual stressors

may be violence, threats of violence, unrealistic expectations, perfectionism, and over-idealism

(Crump, 2008).

Some theorists see burnout occurring in the hardest working, most caring, and

conscientious workers and even the most competent. Social activists, for example, are particularly

prone to burnout explained by unrealistic desires and expectations about changing the world.

Other causes may include frustration from lack of reward or recognition, lack of career

advancement, too long in the same job, boredom, overwork, and lack of control over one’s work.

Some workers have a high potential for burnout and some are not affected by it at all.

According to Van Heugten (2011) it is possible that social workers may be somewhat

more prone to stress and burnout because their relationship with clients is so central to their work.

Their work efforts revolve around empathy and understanding of service users‟ situations and

13
this can be draining. Social workers need to adapt to the norms and culture of the community

such as the way people talk or communicate, how they address other people and so on. They

conduct intake and assessment interviews which can be tiresome and draining. These people also

make the clients understand or reform their understanding about certain things such as magic and

witchcraft for example. They can also be emotionally involved with the problems of the client

and this can be exasperating (Cross, Laurenson, Raven, & Strutt, 1974).

Some socio-demographic variables are also found out to be associated with burnout.

There have been no consistent results as to the relation between gender and burnout with some

studies reporting more burnout in men, others in women, and still others finding no influence of

gender at all. But the consensus is that females score higher on the exhaustion dimension, and

males score higher on the dimension of cynicism. Younger people report higher levels of burnout.

Married employees report less burnout than the unmarried employees. Within the married group,

childless employees are more susceptible to burnout, and within the unmarried group, single

employees are more prone to burnout than the divorced employees. This difference in the levels

of burnout between the married and unmarried is due to the „hidden contract‟ that exists between

the married employee and his wife, whereby the wife takes on a supporting role and provides a

„safe haven‟ for her husband to rejuvenate (Maslach & Jackson, Maslach Burnout Inventory:

Second Edition., 2003).

Even within the married group, the quality of relationships would determine whether the

influence on burnout is positive or negative with “spill over” between the work-context and

family-context possible in both the directions (Cherniss, 1980 as cited by Maslach and Jackson,

2003 ).The level of burnout is greater among the employees having a higher level of education

and the possible reasons for this could be that they are saddled with greater responsibilities and

hence experience greater stress. The other possible reason could be that the better educated come

in with greater expectations which when not realized leads to burnout (Maslach and Jackson,

2003).

14
 Employees with high expectations about the profession or themselves generally show

high ratings of burnout. Individuals who have shown greater career upward mobility show lower

ratings of burnout (Erickson & Ritter, 2001)

The study of Crump (2008) investigating the inverse correlation of burnout and

productivity contributes to the body of research of the phenomena of burnout; lending additional

evidence that burnout has negative consequences on social workers. As expected, the ratings for

burnout have an inverse relation to the ratings for productivity level. Upon deeper analysis of the

variables, the research also finds that additional factors such as gender and daily percentage with

clients affect the productivity rating, suggesting that men with certain levels of burnout will have

lower productivity ratings; and as the daily percentage of time with client increases, the

productivity ratings can decrease. Surprisingly, there are fewer clear connections between the

other confounding variables, such as age and total years on the job. It would be noteworthy to

find relations between these variables and be able to assert that younger people are more or less

prone to burnout or that there is a limit that one could have for years in one social services

position.

The study of Demerouti and Bakker (2007) also yield results showing that workers who

are burning out have lesser social engagements and social interactions than those who are not.

The higher the level of burnout a person has, the lesser his or her social engagements are. This

shows that burnout and engagement have an inverse correlational relationship (Demerouti &

Bakker, 2007).

1.9.2 Counter Productive Work Behavior.

Counterproductive behaviour is behaviour that intends to affect organizations and their

members detrimentally. It can include overt acts such as aggression and theft or more passive

acts, such as purposely failing to follow instructions or doing work incorrectly (Fox, Spector, &

Miles, 2001). In addition, according to Spector, Fox & Domagalski (2005), these are acts of

15
physical violence against people, as well as milder forms of aggressive behaviour such as verbal

aggression and other forms of mistreatment directed toward people.

Counterproductive behaviour also includes acts directed toward organizations rather than

people, although people are often indirect targets. This includes destruction and misuse of

organizational property, doing work incorrectly, or failing to notify superiors about mistakes and

work problems (e.g., a machine malfunction), and withdrawal (e.g., calling in sick when not ill).

The common theme is that these behaviours are harmful to the organization by directly affecting

its functioning or property, or by hurting employees in a way that will reduce their effectiveness

(Fox, Spector & Miles, 2001).

A number of researchers (Fox & Spector, 1999; Robinson & Bennett, 1995 as cited by

Fox, Spector & Miles, 2001) have found evidence that perceptions of counterproductive

behaviours and/or relations of counterproductive behaviours to individual and organizational

variables allow us to distinguish two categories of behaviours: those targeting the organization

and those targeting other persons in the organization. Emotions play a central role in the job

stress process. Because emotions represent the immediate response to situations that are

perceived as stressful, and because they energize and motivate subsequent behaviour and

physiological change, we can define their role as a mediator between job stressors and strains,

therefore serving a mediator role for counterproductive behaviours. The flow from environment

to perception, to negative emotion, to counterproductive behaviour serves as a model for this

happenstance but there are several mitigating factors. Individuals vary in their propensity to

appraise situations as stressful both among one another and across time, so perceptions of control

and personality are two important factors to consider. Nevertheless, the result of Fox and

Spector’s (2001) study showed no support for the expected moderating role of autonomy in the

stressor– counterproductive behaviour relationship.

16
 Counterproductive behaviour is a new concept in the field of industrial/organizational

psychology so it is expected that there are less studies that can be cited and also lesser studies

conducted in relation to the concept. Hence, there are few techniques that are developed as a

measure of this concept.

An exploratory study conducted by Wright et al (2006) found out that respondents from

the Asia Pacific Region more specifically in China, Thailand and Philippines have lesser regard

to fraudulent behaviour compared to other regions such as Europe, Caribbean and North America.

These findings document the seriousness of fraudulent behaviours at the workplace especially in

the Asia Pacific.

To be able to detect counterproductive behaviours, integrity tests are available. These

kinds of tests referred primarily to questionnaires for the detection of potential dishonesty and

typically asks direct questions about the person’s degree of honesty in employment and other

settings. Over the years, the content of integrity tests has been expanded to include direct

questions. The use of indirect or personality tests for employee evaluation has also been

attempted; that is, general personality questionnaires assessing a broad range of traits that are

believed to underlie desirable and undesirable job behaviours (Goodstein & Lanyon, 2003). But

this approach has had to be abandoned the reason that these general personality items have been

found to be less valid than more direct items for detecting deviant behaviour in the workplace

(Camera & Merenda, 2000).

Thus, it is clear that the identification of workers who are likely to show disruptive or

destructive behaviour on the job is best accomplished by asking directly relevant statements about

the applicant’s behaviour, particularly on-the-job behaviour. These statements include obvious

items such as “I have stolen money or merchandise from my employer” and “I am frequently

absent from work without any good reason.” The use of obvious statements seems counter-

intuitive. The fact of the matter is that a significant number of workers actually do admit to such

17
misbehaviour, some to an astounding degree. The most typical reason is respondents‟ reported

belief that everybody engages in such behaviour and denial is unnecessary and unreasonable. But

regardless of why workers admit their misdeeds, it is clear that they do and that those integrity

tests containing mainly items of this nature are the most valid (Goodstein & Lanyon, 2003).

1.9.3 Job Burnout and Counter Productive Work Behaviours.

Perceived Bans, Whepley, Christopher, Oh, and Shin (2012) examined the relationship

between emotions and Counterproductive Work Behaviour using exhaustion (a dimension of job

burnout). Their sample consisted of 113 general employees in a large South Korean bank. They

found a significant correlation between emotional exhaustion and Counterproductive Work

Behaviour, specifically employee oriented Counterproductive Work Behaviour and organization-

oriented Counterproductive Work Behaviour. The authors concluded that high level of emotional

exhaustion increased the likelihood of Counterproductive Work Behaviour. The finding suggests

that employees who are emotionally exhausted will be more likely to exhibit detrimental work

behaviours (Banks, Whelpley, Oh, & Shin, 2012).

Bolton, Harvey, Grawitch and Barber (2012) investigated the relationship between job

burnout (using the dimension of depersonalization) and counterproductive work behaviours

(Bolton, Harvey, Grawitch, & Barber, 2012). They found that depersonalization significantly

influenced Counterproductive Work Behaviour. They concluded that the finding was consistent

with the conservation of resources theory (Hobfoll, 1989), which argued that in a state of depleted

emotional resources, heightened depersonalization increased the likelihood of Counterproductive

Work Behaviour occurring. In a related study that investigated the relationship between

emotional exhaustion and Counterproductive Work Behaviour, Krischer, Penney, and Hunter

(2010) found that employees who reported being emotionally exhausted were more likely to

display Counterproductive Work Behaviour (Krischer, Penney, & Hunter, 2010).

18
 Liang and Hsieh (2007) found that of the three dimensions of job burnout, only

depersonalization significantly predicted Counterproductive Work Behaviour measured as

workplace deviance, among a sample made up of 303 Taiwanese flight attendants. Research

interest in detrimental work behaviour in workplaces in Nigeria has started to attract attention

from scholars and practitioners in recent time (Liang & Hsieh, 2007). For instance, Fagbohungbe,

Akinbode, and Ayodeji (2012) found significant correlation between what they termed

‘organizational reaction variables’ (such as supervision, co-workers, physical work conditions,

financial rewards) and behaviours that were considered Counterproductive Work Behaviour

(Fagbohungbe, Akinbode, & Ayodeji, 2012). There have been mixed findings regarding the

relationship between age and Counterproductive Work Behaviour. Based on this literature, the

following hypothesis was formulated:

1.10 Research Questions

1. Will Job-Burnout from the workplace predict to Counterproductive Work Behaviours

amongst employees in Financial institutions?

2. Will there be significant gender differences in Job-Burnout?

3. Will there be significant gender differences in Counterproductive Work Behaviour?

4. Will years of experience on the Job of employees predict Job-Burnout among employees?

5. Will years of experience on the Job of employees predict Counterproductive Work

Behaviour among employees?

1.11 Research Hypotheses

1. Job-Burnout from the workplace will predict to Counterproductive Work Behaviours

amongst employees in Financial institutions.

2. Female Participants will account for significantly higher levels of Job-Burnout as

compared to their Male counterparts.

19
3. Male Participants will account for significantly higher levels of Counterproductive Work

Behaviour as compared to their Female counterparts

4. Employees with more experience on the Job (21yrs-Above) will report higher levels of

Job Burnout compared to employees with 6-10yrs experience.

5. Employees with less experience on the Job (6-10yrs) will report Lower levels of Job

Burnout compared to employees with 21yrs-Above experience.

20
 Chapter Two (Methodology).

2.1 Research Setting

The study was conducted in Lagos State, Nigeria. Lagos is considered the financial

capital of Nigeria and it’s typically known for its rush and bustle. The population of Lagos State

is pegged at 25 Million people, according to the State Government. The study was carried out in

selected Financial institutions within Lagos state. According to the National Bureau of statistics,

with an estimated total population of staff members, Financial institutions in Lagos state is

pegged just above 700,000.

2.2 Population/Sample & Sampling Procedure

Individuals who fulfil the basic criteria of being under the employment of selected

Financial institutions within Lagos state were the sample/population of this study. The sample

strength is 200 participants which consists of the entire staff of selected Financial institutions

within Lagos state. The population of employees in Lagos state according to the National Bureau

of Statistics is pegged just above 700,000.

2.3 Research Design

In order to execute this research, descriptive survey design of correlational type was

adopted. This was considered appropriate because survey design generally can be used to

effectively investigate problems in realistic settings. Also, it was considered to be the most

appropriate design that would provide insight into the pattern and direction of relationship among

these variables without any form of manipulation.

The survey technique will also allow the researcher to examine several variables and use

multi-variate statistics to analyse data. The variables under study are; Job-Burnout and

Counterproductive Work Behaviour with Demographic variables which includes base line

information such as, Sex, Years of Job Experience and Age.

21
2.4 Instruments

This consists of three sections:

Section A: Demographic Performa of selected respondents which includes Sex, Age and Marital

Status.

Section B, C: This section includes the instruments used in sourcing for the required data from

respondents in this research. The following instruments were used in this research:

1. Job Burnout Scale (JBS) by (Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, Job burnout, 2001)

Counterproductive Work Behaviour Index (CWBI) by (Spector, et al., 2006).

These instruments were also screened and subjected for approval for use by the project

supervisor and experienced Psycho-Metrics.

2.4.1 Job Burnout Scale

This was measured with a self-report test developed by Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter,

(2001). This scale has 22 items and each item adopts a Six-point Likert scale ranging from 1-

Never to 6- Everyday.

According to Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter, (2001) this scale demonstrated high internal

consistency and a reliability score which ranged from (r = 0.72).

This self-report scale is widely used, for example, it was used in a study by Ibikunle,

Umeadi and Ummunah (2012) in search for the “Predictors of Burnout Syndrome Among

Nigerian Physiotherapist” showing evidence of reliability of the scale being tested in Nigeria.

2.4.2 Counterproductive Work Behaviour Index

This was measured with a self-report test developed Spector, et al., (2006). This

instrument measured the extent to which employees engaged in behaviours that interrupted

organizational functioning. This scale has 32 items and each item adopts a Five-point Likert scale

ranging from 1- Never to 5- Everyday.

22
 According to Spector, et al., (2006) this scale demonstrated high internal consistency and

a reliability score which ranged from (r = 0.86).

This self-report scale was used in a study by (Ayodele, 2014) in search for the

“Counterproductive Behaviour and Job Performance among Secondary School Teachers: School

Climate as a Mediator.” showing evidence of reliability of the scale being tested in Nigeria.

2.5 Procedure

Formal administrative approval was obtained from the Project Supervisor, and informed

consent of the respondents was given. After which the distribution of the questionnaire was done

and respondents was given convince to fill out the questionnaire. Respondents were given 15

Minutes to fill out the questionnaire. This method was used in order to give enough time to the

respondents to reflect on the items on the questionnaire so as to facilitate valid responses and to

obtain truthful responses form respondents.

2.6 Data Analysis

In analysing the data collected for the purpose of carrying out this research, descriptive

and inferential statistics were used. The data gotten from the respondents was entered into the

Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for quantitative analysis;

Descriptive statistics

Frequency, percentage distribution was used to analyse the demographic variables. Mean

and standard deviation was used to assess the constructs studied (Job-Burnout and

Counterproductive Work Behaviour).

Inferential statistics

The Pearson Correlation Test, Analysis of Variance test and Regression Analysis Test

were used in analyzing collected data for the purpose of answering the stated research questions.

Tables were used in presenting the data for the purpose of the simplicity and clarity.

23
 Chapter Three (Results).

This chapter discusses data obtained using quantitative research methods to investigate

Job Burnout as a determining factor to counter productivity work behaviours. Socio-demographic

variables of respondents were presented and hypotheses were also tested. Frequency distributions

are presented in various tables and their implications are discussed. This method of data

presentation ensures clarity and easy understanding of findings.

3.1 Demography Characteristics of the Sample

This section clearly portrays the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents

using a table. The levels, frequency and percentage distribution of these variables are shown in

Table 1.

Table 1: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Sociodemographic Characteristics.

Variables Levels Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender Male 110 55.0

Female 90 45.0

Total 200 100.0

Age 21-30yrs 99 49.5

31-40yrs 69 34.5

41-50yrs 18 9.0

51yrs-Above 14 7.0

Total 200 100.0

24
 Job Experience. 1-5yrs 92 46.0

6-10yrs 55 27.5

11-15yrs 31 15.5

16-20yrs 22 11.0

Total 200 100.0

Table 2: Table describing the variables studied. Mean and Standard Deviation of Counter-

Productive Work Behaviour and Job Burnout by Age, Gender, and Job Experience.

Counter-Productive Job Burnout

Work Behaviour

Mean SD Mean SD

Age 21-30yrs 19.15 4.773 40.73 5.757

31-40yrs 19.83 4.687 40.16 6.503

41-50yrs 18.11 5.940 40.89 5.624

51yrs-Above 18.00 6.794 40.71 5.649

Total 19.21 5.010 40.55 5.970

Gender Male 19.91 5.518 40.70 6.186

25
 Female 18.36 4.182 40.36 5.723

Total 19.21 5.010 40.55 5.970

Job 1-5yrs 18.76 4.710 40.51 6.206

Experience
6-10yrs 19.49 4.517 40.18 6.056

11-15yrs 19.10 5.042 41.32 5.588

16-20yrs 20.55 7.069 40.50 5.536

Total 19.21 5.010 40.55 5.970

3.2 Test of Hypothesis

Hypothesis 1: Job-Burnout from the workplace will predict to Counterproductive Work

Behaviours amongst employees in Financial institutions.

The statistical tool used to test it was the Regression Analysis test. The results are presented in

the table below.

Table 4: Regression analysis of Job Burnout by Counterproductive Work Behaviours.

Model Β Std. Error Beta t P<0.05

(Constant) 18.209 2.443 7.453 .000

Job Burnout .025 .060 .029 .414 .679

f (1, 199) = 0.172 Predictors: Job Burnout. Dependent Variable: Counter-Productive Work

Behaviour.

26
 The summary of analysis in table 6 showed that Job Burn Out significantly predicted

Counter-Productive Work Behaviour, such that f (1, 199) = 0.172, P (.000) < 0.05. The

hypothesis which states that Job-Burnout from the workplace will predict to Counterproductive

Work Behaviours amongst employees in Financial institutions, is therefore accepted.

Hypothesis 2: Female Participants will account for significantly higher levels of Job-Burnout as

compared to their Male counterparts.

The statistical tool used to test it was the Independent T-test. The results are presented in the table

below.

Table 4: Independent T-Test comparison of Job-Burnout by Gender

Age N Mean SD T Df P<0.05

Male 110 40.70 6.186

Job-Burnout .405 198 .686

Female 90 40.36 5.723

From the result, male participants had a mean score on Job Burnout of 40.70 (S.D = 6.186), while

female participants had a lower mean score on Job Burnout of 40.36 (S.D = 5.723). However, the

t-test comparison yielded a positive t-value of 0.405 at degree of freedom of 198 of 0.05 level of

significance. The P-Valve calculated (0.686) was found to be higher than the level of

significance. This implies that there is no significant gender difference in terms of Job Burnout

from the sampled population. Thus, hypothesis 2 which states female Participants will account for

significantly higher levels of Job-Burnout as compared to their Male counterparts is rejected.

Hypothesis 3: Male Participants will account for significantly higher levels of

Counterproductive Work Behaviour as compared to their Female counterparts.

27
The statistical tool used to test it was the Independent T-test. The results are presented in the table

below.

Table 5: Independent T-Test comparison of Counterproductive Work Behaviour by Gender

Age N Mean SD T Df P<0.05

Male 110 19.91 5.518

Counterproductive 2.20
198 .029
Work Behaviour 3
Female 90 18.36 4.182

From the result, male participants had a mean score on Counterproductive Work Behaviourof

19.91 (S.D = 5.518), while female participants had a lower mean score on Counterproductive

Work Behaviourof 18.36 (S.D = 4.182). However, the t-test comparison yielded a positive t-value

of 2.203 at degree of freedom of 198 of 0.05 level of significance. The P-Valve calculated (0.029)

was found to be lower than the level of significance. This implies that there is a significant gender

difference in terms of Counterproductive Work Behaviour from the sampled population. Thus,

hypothesis 3 which states male Participants will account for significantly higher levels of

Counterproductive Work Behaviour as compared to their Female counterparts is therefore

accepted.

Hypothesis 4: Employees with more experience on the Job (21yrs-Above) will report higher

levels of Job Burnout compared to employees with 6-10yrs experience.

The statistical tool used to test it was the ANOVA one-way test. The results are presented in the

table below.

28
 Table 6. One-way ANOVA on Job Experience by Job Burnout.

Job N Mean SD F Df P<0.05

Experience.

Job Burnout 1-5yrs 92 40.51 6.206 .242 .867

6-10yrs 55 40.18 6.056 3

11-15yrs 31 41.32 5.588 196

16-20yrs 22 40.50 5.536

On Job Burnout, the results revealed that respondents who have 1-5yrs of Job Experience

reported mean scores of (M = 40.51; SD = 6.206), respondents who have 6-10yrs of Job

Experience reported mean scores of (M = 40.18; SD = 6.056), respondents who have 11-15yrs of

Job Experience reported mean scores of (M = 41.32; SD = 5.588) and respondents who have 16-

20yrs of Job Experience reported mean scores of (M = 40.50; SD = 5.536). The F-ratio calculated

was 0.242 at degree of freedom of 196 of 0.05 level of significance. The P-Valve calculated

(0.867) was found to be higher than the level of significance. This implies that there is no

significant difference in Job Burnout among the four levels of Job Experience. Thus, hypothesis 4

is therefore rejected.

Hypothesis 5: Age of employees will significantly predict Job Burn out among employees.

The statistical tool used to test it was the Regression Analysis test. The results are presented in

the table below.

29
Table 7: Regression analysis of Age by Job Burnout

Model Β Std. Error Beta t P<0.05

(Constant) 40.623 .926 43.873 .000

Age -.045 .475 -.007 -.094 .925

f (1, 198) = 0.009 Predictors: Age. Dependent Variable: Job Burnout.

The summary of analysis in table 7 showed that Age did not significantly predict Job

Burn Out, such that f (1, 198) = 0.009, P (.000) < 0.05. The hypothesis which states that age of

employees will significantly predict Job Burn out among employees, is therefore rejected.

30
 Chapter Four (Discussion).

4.1 Objectives of the Study.

The set-out objectives of this study was to investigate the job burnout as a determining

factor to counter productivity work behaviours. Specifically, this study aimed to find out:

1. If Job-Burnout from the workplace predicts to Counterproductive Work Behaviour

amongst employees in Financial institutions.

2. Explore Gender differences in Job-Burnout and Counterproductive Work Behaviour.

3. Examine different levels of Job-Burnout and Counterproductive Work Behaviour and as

regards years of experience on the Job.

4.2 Summary of Findings.

Hypothesis 1 was stated to check if Job-Burnout from the workplace predicted

Counterproductive Work Behaviours amongst employees in Financial institutions. The results

from the data analysis conducted showed that Job-Burnout from the workplace did not predict

Counterproductive Work Behaviours amongst employees in Financial institutions.

Hypothesis 2 investigated if Female Participants (Employees) accounted for significantly

higher levels of Job-Burnout as compared to their Male counterparts. The results from the data

analysis showed that female Participants did not account for significantly higher levels of Job-

Burnout as compared to their Male counterparts.

Hypothesis 3 checked if Male Participants accounted for significantly higher levels of

Counterproductive Work Behaviour when compared to their Female counterparts. Findings

showed that Male Participants actually accounted for significantly higher levels of

Counterproductive Work Behaviour as compared to their Female counterparts.

31
 Hypothesis 4 explored if Employees with more experience on the Job (21yrs-Above)

reported higher levels of Job Burnout when compared to employees with 6-10yrs experience.

Results showed that there was no significant difference in Job Burnout among the four levels of

Job Experience examined.

Hypothesis 5 was stated to see if age differences in Job Burnout was existent among

employees in the institutions. It was observed form the data analysis conducted showed that there

were no significant age differences in Job Burnout from the sampled population.

4.3 Discussion.

Findings from Hypothesis 1 showed that Job-Burnout from the workplace did not predict

Counterproductive Work Behaviours amongst employees in Financial institutions. This finding

was in line with the study conducted by Liang and Hsieh (2007), who found that of the three

dimensions of job burnout, only depersonalization significantly predicted Counterproductive

Work Behaviour measured as workplace deviance, among a sample made up of 303 Taiwanese

flight attendants. Findings from a study conducted within the Nigerian context by Fagbohungbe,

Akinbode, and Ayodeji (2012) found significant correlation between what they termed

‘organizational reaction variables’ (such as supervision, co-workers, physical work conditions,

financial rewards) and behaviours that were considered Counterproductive Work Behaviour

(Fagbohungbe, Akinbode, & Ayodeji, 2012). This finding within this research did not support

previous studies that showed significant correlation between Job Burnout and Counterproductive

Work Behaviours.

In this study, Female Participants did not account for significantly higher levels of Job-

Burnout as compared to their Male counterparts. This is in line with the inconsistent results as to

the relation between gender and burnout with some studies reporting more burnout in men, others

in women, and still others finding no influence of gender at all. Findings in Hypothesis 2 showed

no support for the general consensus is that females score higher on the exhaustion dimension,

and males score higher on the dimension of cynicism as reported by Malach-Pines, (2005).

32
 In this study, Male Participants actually accounted for significantly higher levels of

Counterproductive Work Behaviour as compared to their Female counterparts. This finding was

in line with further analysis of the variables in the study conducted by Crump (2008) that

investigated the inverse correlation of burnout and productivity, showed that additional factors

such as gender and daily percentage with clients affect the productivity rating, suggesting that

men with certain levels of burnout will have lower productivity ratings; and as the daily

percentage of time with client increases, the productivity ratings can decrease.

Results showed that there was no significant difference in Job Burnout among the four

levels of Job Experience examined. Erickson & Ritter, (2001) reported that Individuals who have

shown greater career upward mobility show lower ratings of burnout. This was inconsistent with

the the findings in Hypothesis 4 which states that employees with more experience on the Job

(16-20yrs) will report higher levels of Job Burnout compared to employees with 6-10yrs

experience. Results from this study revealed that participants who have 16-20yrs of Job

Experience reported mean scores of (M = 40.50; SD = 5.536) on Job Burnout while who have 6-

10yrs of Job Experience reported mean scores of (M = 40.51; SD = 6.206). However, this

difference isn’t significant.

Also, in terms of age differences It was observed form the data analysis conducted

showed that there were no significant age differences in Job Burnout from the sampled

population. However as reported by Maslach & Jackson, (2003), younger people report higher

levels of burnout. Findings from this study supported the findings of Maslach & Jackson, (2003)

as Younger participants in this study reported higher levels of Job Burnout.

33
 Chapter Five (Conclusion).

5.0 Conclusion

In the current study, an attempt was made to investigate if job burnout is a determining

factor of counter productivity in financial institutions. According to the findings, Counter

productivity and job burnout level does not have a significant correlation. Consequently, gender

differences were explored as it has no significant correlation to job burnout. Furthermore, this

study also showed that years of job experience ranging from 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20 were not

significantly correlated to job burnout. Also, findings showed that job burnt out level as

characterized by age range had a moderate positive correlation: age significantly correlated to job

burnout. The reason for this may be of their physical and mental capabilities in handling work is

diminishing as they grow old.

5.1 Implication of Findings

The results in this study validated that job burnout and counterproductive behaviour is not

directly correlated which implies that individual counter productive work behaviour is not as a

result of job burnout level in the individual. As far as working conduct is concerned, an

individual may not be prone to unhealthful social relations with colleagues, bosses, executives

and even clients who may also not be prone to unethical and illegal behaviour, such as theft in the

organization's resources. On the other hand, if a person has a high level of burnout, he or she has

a high level of detrimental behaviour. His feelings are more likely not to be stable and disturbed.

This way, he or she can’t perform well, develop meaningful social partnerships, support new co-

workers in the group, and cannot be active in addressing the needs of customers. The research has

confirmed that people whose work focuses on the interaction with clients do not have a certain

degree of burnout. This can become very insignificant in the interaction between the organisation

34
and the co-workers and the degree of efficiency of the organisations. Due to the results gotten

from these findings together with the discussion, the results of this research should be applied to

financial institutions to improve performance, less stress, efficacy, satisfaction, etc. of the

workers. This research will serve as a source of research for subsequent researchers and

encourage people to work on this topic in order to find more inputs.

5.2 Recommendation

To the Human Resources Staff: Each worker should be measured with respect to his or

her mental health and stability every now and then. This could offer organisations and managers a

good view of their workers and improve their working relationship with each other; burnt staff

should be given sufficient care services and events that could strengthen their productivity and

sense of belonging, continuity and fairness in the work area.

To the directors of the company or organization: Honesty and consistent application

of the laws should be promoted or monitored at all levels in the workforce in order to avoid

counter-productive behaviour; counter-productive workers should not only be disciplined but

should also be tested for their desires or the reasons of their behaviour; and even without career

burn-out or counter-productive behaviour, structured activity should be identified.

Employees: Maintain self-assessment of the different manifestations of Work Burnout or

counter-productive actions. It is most critical how we know ourselves, our background and our

approach to issues to our successful working. To researcher. More research on the cognitive

process of workers should be carried out through the analysis of qualitative data. Knowing the

mechanism can be very useful in gaining insight on Job Burnout-Counterproductive Behaviour

correlation in employment.

To researcher: More research on the cognitive process of workers should be carried out

through the analysis of qualitative data. Knowing the mechanism can be very useful in gaining

insight on Job Burnout-Counterproductive Behaviour correlation in employment

35
5.3 Limitation of Study

1. The research had to simultaneously engage in this study with other academic work. This

consequently cut down on the time devoted for the research work.

2. Some workers were bias as they were probably scared of their boss checking out their

response.

36
References

Acorin, R. (2003). Organizational Climate as a Correlate of Job Burnout Among NGO Workers

in Iligan City. Marawi City: Mindanao State University.

Ambrose, M., Seabright, M. A., & Schminke, M. (2002). Sabotage in the Workplace: The Role of

Organizational Justice. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 89, 947 -

965.

Ayodele, O. K. (2014). Counterproductive Behaviour and Job Performance among Secondary

School Teachers: School Climate as a Mediator. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(8).

Retrieved from www.iiste.org

Bakker, A., & et al. (2005). An Organisational and Social Psychological Perspective on Burnout

and Work Engagement. The Netherlands:: Urecht University Press.

Banks, G. C., Whelpley, C. E., Oh, I., & Shin, K. (2012). How are emotionally exhausted

employees harmful? International Journal of Stress Management, 198 - 216.

Barling, J., Dupré, K., & Kelloway, E. K. (2009). Predicting Workplace Violence And

Aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 671−692.

Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social

dynamics of revenge in organizations. In R. A. Giacalone & J. Greenberg (Eds.),

Antisocial behavior inorganizations (pp. 18–36). :. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bolton, L. R., Harvey, R. D., Grawitch, M. J., & Barber, L. K. (2012). Counterproductive work

behaviors in response to emotional exhaustion: a moderated mediational approach. Stress

Health, 28(3), 222 - 233.

Cross, C., Laurenson, D., Raven, S., & Strutt, B. (1974). Interviewing and Communication in

Social Work. USA: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd.

37
Crump, G. (2008). Burnout and Productivity: A Study of the Inverse Relationship between

Burnout and Productivity among San Francisco Care Workers. California: Sage.

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. (2007). The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory: A Good Alternative to

Measure Burnout (and Engagement). The Netherlands: Urecht Press.

Erickson, R. J., & Ritter, C. (2001). Emotional Labor, Burnout, and Inauthenticity: Does Gender

Matter? Social Psychology Quarterly, 146-163.

Fagbohungbe, B. O., Akinbode, G. A., & Ayodeji, F. (2012). Organizational determinants of

workplace deviant behaviours: An empirical analysis in Nigeria. International Journal of

Business and Management, 5-7.

Fox, S., Spector, P., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive behavior (CWB) in Response to Job

Stressors and Organizational Justice: Some Mediator and Moderator Tests for Autonomy

and Emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior.

Gandi, M. (2011). The Effect of Job Burnout Dimension on Employees Performance.

International Journal of Social Science and Humanity.

Gillet, N., & Vandenberghe, C. (2014). Transformational Leadershipand Organizational

Commitment: The Mediating Role of Job Characteristics.Vol. 25 No. 3, Fall 2014. Wiley

Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley Onli. Human Resource Development

Quarterly(Wiley Periodicals), 321-347. doi:10.1002/hrdq.21192

Goodstein, L., & Lanyon, R. (2003). Counterproductive Behavior Index Technical Manual.

Massachusetts: HRD Press.

Harris, L. C., & Ogbanna, E. (2002). Exploring service sabotage: The antecedents, types and

consequences of frontline, deviant, antiservice behaviors. Journal of Service Research,

163-183.

38
Hobfoll, S. E. (1989). Conservation of resources: A new attempt at conceptualizing stress.

American Psychologist, 44, 513 – 524.

Hollinger, R. C. (1986). Acts against the workplace: Social bonding and employee deviance.

Deviant Behaviour, 7, 53−75.

Ibikunle, P., Umeadi, O., & Ummunah, J. (2012). Predictors of Burnout Syndrome Among

Nigerian Physiotherapists. African Journal of Physiotherapy and Rehabilitation Sciences,

4(1-2). doi: 10.4314/ajprs.v4i1-2.1 Jones, J. W. (1982). Staff Burnout and Employee

Counterproductivity. In J.W. Jones (Editor), The Burnout Syndrome: Current Research,

Theory, Interventions. :. Park Ridge, IL: London House Press.

Kelloway, E. K., Barling, J., & Hurrell, J. J. (2006). Handbook of workplace violence. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE Publication.

Krischer, M. M., Penney, L. M., & Hunter, E. M. (2010). Can counterproductive work behaviors

be productive? CWB as emotion-focused coping. Journal of Occupational Health

Psychology,, 15(2), 154 -166.

Ugwu, L. I., Enwereuzor, I. K., Fimber, U. S., & Ugwu, D. I. (2017). Nurses’ burnout and

counterproductive work behavior in a Nigerian sample: The moderating role of emotional

intelligence. International Journal of Africa Nursing Sciences, 7, 106–113. doi:

10.1016/j.ijans.2017.11.004 Liang, S. C., & Hsieh, A. T. (2007). Burnout and workplace

deviance among flight attendants in Taiwan. Psychological Report, 101(2), 457 - 68.

Malach-Pines, A. (2005). Stress and burnout: The Significant Difference. Personality and

Individual Differences, 625-635.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The Measurement of Experienced Burnout. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 99-113.

39
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (2003). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Second Edition. Palo Alto,

CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Mathieu, J. E., & Hamel, K. (1989). A causal model of the antecedents of organizational

commitment among professionals and nonprofessionals. Journal of Vocational Behavior,

299–317.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplace aggression: Evidence

concerning specific forms, potential causes, and preferred targets. ,. Journal of

Managements, 24, 391-419.

Neuman, J., & Baron, R. (2005). Aggression in the workplace: A Social Psychological

Perspective. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Ramarajan, L., & Barsade, S. (2006). What Makes this Job Tough? The Influence of

Organizational Respect on Burnout in the Human Services. Pennsylvania: Sage.

Robinson, S. L. (2008). Dysfunctional workplace behavior (In J. Barling & C. L. Cooper ed.). (T.

S. behavior, Ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Robinson, S., & Bennett, R. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a

multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 555 572.

Schat, A., & Kelloway, E. K. (2005). Workplace violence. In J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, and M.

Frone (eds.), Handbook of workplace stress. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schaufeli, W., Leiter, M., & Maslach, C. (2008). Burnout: 35 Years of Research and Practice.

Career Development International. Canada: Emerald Goup Publishing Ltd.

Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive,

procedural,and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 434–443.

40
Spector, P. E. (1978). Organizational frustration: A model and review of the literature. Personnel

Psychology, 31, 815-829.

Spector, P. E., Bauer, J. A., & Fox, S. (2010). Measurement artifacts in the assessment of

counterproductive work behavior and organizational citizenship behavior: Do we know

what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 781-790.

Spector, P. E., Fox, S., Penney, L. M., Bruursema, K., Goh, A., & Kessler, S. (2006). The

dimensionality of counterproductivity: Are all counterproductive behaviors created equal.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 446 - 460.

Van Heugten, K. (2011). Social Work Under Pressure. UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Vardi, Y., & Weitz, E. (2014). Misbehaviour in organization. Theory, Research & Management.

London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Way, J. (2011). Differential Reactions to Men's and Women's Counterproductive Work Behavior.

Graduate School Theses and Dissertations. :. South Florida: Scholar Commons.

Wilkerson, K., & Bellini, J. (2012, September 3). Intrapersonal and Organizational Factors

Associated With Burnout Among School Counselors. Retrieved from www.eduquo.com

Zapf, D., Knorz, C., & Kulla, M. (1996). On the relationship between mobbing factors, and job

content, social work environment, and health outcomes. European Journal Work

Organisational Psychology, 215-237.

41
 Questionnaire

University of Lagos

Department of Psychology

I am a final year student of the University of Lagos, carrying out a research in partial fulfillment
of the award of Bachelor of Science in Psychology. The questionnaire is aimed at knowing your
perception. Your entry is private, and you will not be added to any list by participating in this
survey. We never, under any circumstances, share or sell any personal information entered here,
and treat it as carefully and sensitively as our own.

Section A.

Use a tick where applicable

1. Age: 20-30 yrs.( ) 31-40yrs.( ) 41-50yrs.( ) 51yrs.-Above ( )

2. Gender: Male.( ) Female.( )
3. Marital status: Single ( ) Married ( )
4. Years of Job Experience: 1-5yrs ( ) 6-10yrs ( ) 11-15yrs ( ) 16-20yrs( )
21yrs- Above( )
Section B.

Below are a number of statements. please circle the one number for each question that comes
closest to reflecting your opinion about it:

1= Never; 2= Once or twice; 3= Once or twice/month; 4 = Once or twice/week; 5 = Every day

Please read the statements carefully, some of the questions are phrased positively and others
negatively. Don’t take too long over individual questions; there are no “right” or “wrong”
answers (and no trick questions)

How often have you done each of the Never Once or Once or Once or Every
following things on your present job? twice twice/mo twice/we day
nth ek

1. Purposely wasted your employer’s

materials/supplies

42
2. Complained about insignificant things
at work

3. Told people outside the job what a

lousy place you work for

4. Came to work late without permission

5. Stayed home from work and said you

were sick when you weren’t

6. Insulted someone about their job

performance

7. Made fun of someone’s personal life

8. Ignored someone at work

9. Started an argument with someone at

work

10. Insulted or made fun of someone at

work

Section C.

Below are a number of statements, some of the questions are phrased positively and others
negatively. There are no “right” or “wrong” answers (and no trick questions). Please circle the
one number for each question that comes closest to reflecting your opinion about it:

1= Never; 2= Almost Never; 3= Rarely; 4 = Sometimes; 5 = Often; 6 = Very Often; 7 = Always.

S/N Neve Almost Rarely Sometime Often Very Always

r Never s Often

1. I feel tired.

43
2. I am disappointed with people.

3. I feel Hopeless.

4. I feel trapped.

5. I feel Helpless.

6. I feel Depressed.

7. I am Physically Weak/Sickly.

8. I feel Worthless/Like a Failure.

9. I have Difficulties sleeping

10. I think “I’ve had it”.

Thanks for Your Response…

44
 Appendix.

Counter-Productive
Gender Age Job Experience Work Behaviour Job Burnout

N Valid 200 200 200 200 200

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

Mean 1.45 1.74 1.92 19.21 40.55

Std. Deviation .499 .894 1.026 5.010 5.970

Descriptive Statistics.

Frequency Distribution of Demographics of Participants.

Gender.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid Male 110 55.0 55.0 55.0

Female 90 45.0 45.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Age.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 21-30yrs 99 49.5 49.5 49.5

31-40yrs 69 34.5 34.5 84.0

41-50yrs 18 9.0 9.0 93.0

51yrs-Above 14 7.0 7.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

45
Job Experience.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent

Valid 1-5yrs 92 46.0 46.0 46.0

6-10yrs 55 27.5 27.5 73.5

11-15yrs 31 15.5 15.5 89.0

16-20yrs 22 11.0 11.0 100.0

Total 200 100.0 100.0

Mean and Standard Deviation of Counter-Productive Work Behaviour and Job Burnout by

Gender.

Counter-Productive Work
Gender Behaviour Job Burnout

Male Mean 19.91 40.70

N 110 110

Std. Deviation 5.518 6.186

Female Mean 18.36 40.36
N 90 90
Std. Deviation 4.182 5.723
Total Mean 19.21 40.55

N 200 200

Std. Deviation 5.010 5.970

Mean and Standard Deviation of Counter-Productive Work Behaviour and Job Burnout by

Age.

Counter-Productive
Age Work Behaviour Job Burnout

21-30yrs Mean 19.15 40.73

N 99 99

Std. Deviation 4.773 5.757

31-40yrs Mean 19.83 40.16
N 69 69
Std. Deviation 4.687 6.503

46
 41-50yrs Mean 18.11 40.89
N 18 18
Std. Deviation 5.940 5.624
51yrs-Above Mean 18.00 40.71
N 14 14
Std. Deviation 6.794 5.649
Total Mean 19.21 40.55

N 200 200

Std. Deviation 5.010 5.970

Mean and Standard Deviation of Counter-Productive Work Behaviour and Job Burnout by

Job Experience.

Counter-Productive Work
Job Experience Behaviour Job Burnout

1-5yrs Mean 18.76 40.51

N 92 92

Std. Deviation 4.710 6.206

6-10yrs Mean 19.49 40.18
N 55 55
Std. Deviation 4.517 6.056
11-15yrs Mean 19.10 41.32
N 31 31
Std. Deviation 5.042 5.588
16-20yrs Mean 20.55 40.50
N 22 22
Std. Deviation 7.069 5.536
Total Mean 19.21 40.55

N 200 200

Std. Deviation 5.010 5.970

Results from Statistical Test of Hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Job-Burnout from the workplace will predict to Counterproductive Work

Behaviours amongst employees in Financial institutions.

Model Summary.

47
 Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .029 a
.001 -.004 5.021

Predictors: (Constant), Job Burnout.

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression 4.324 1 4.324 .172 .679b

Residual 4990.856 198 25.206

Total 4995.180 199

ANOVA.

a. Dependent Variable: Counter-Productive Work Behaviour

b. Predictors: (Constant), Job Burnout

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

1 (Constant) 18.209 2.443 7.453 .000

Job Burnout .025 .060 .029 .414 .679

Coefficients.

a. Dependent Variable: Counter-Productive Work Behaviour.

Hypothesis 2: Female Participants will account for significantly higher levels of Job-Burnout as

compared to their Male counterparts.

Group Descriptive Statistics.

Gender N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean

Job Burnout Male 110 40.70 6.186 .590

Female 90 40.36 5.723 .603

48
 Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

Std. 95% Confidence Interval

Mean Error of the Difference
Sig. (2- Differen Differen
F Sig. t df tailed) ce ce Lower Upper

Job Burnout Equal 1.883 .172 .405 198 .686 .344 .850 -1.332 2.021
variances
assumed

Equal .408 194.99 .684 .344 .844 -1.319 2.008

variances not 6
assumed

Independent T-Test (Job Burnout by Gender)

Hypothesis 3: Male Participants will account for significantly higher levels of

Counterproductive Work Behaviour as compared to their Female counterparts.

Group Descriptive Statistics.

Std. Std. Error

Gender N Mean Deviation Mean

Counter-Productive Male 110 19.91 5.518 .526

Work Behaviour

Female 90 18.36 4.182 .441

49
 Independent T-Test (Counterproductive Work Behaviour by Gender)

Levene's Test
for Equality of
Variances t-test for Equality of Means

Std. 95% Confidence Interval of

Mean Error the Difference
Sig. (2- Differenc Differe
F Sig. t df tailed) e nce Lower Upper

Counter-Productive Equal 1.981 .161 2.203 198 .029 1.554 .705 .163 2.944
Work Behaviour variances
assumed

Equal 2.263 196.90 .025 1.554 .686 .200 2.907

variances 9
not
assumed

Hypothesis 4: Employees with more experience on the Job (21yrs-Above) will report higher

levels of Job Burnout compared to employees with 6-10yrs experience.

Descriptive Statistics.

95% Confidence Interval for

Std. Mean

N Mean Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

1-5yrs 92 40.51 6.206 .647 39.23 41.80 24 47

6-10yrs 55 40.18 6.056 .817 38.54 41.82 25 47
11- 31 41.32 5.588 1.004 39.27 43.37 36 47
15yrs
16- 22 40.50 5.536 1.180 38.05 42.95 36 47
20yrs
Total 200 40.55 5.970 .422 39.71 41.38 24 47

50
 One-way ANOVA on Job Burnout by Job Experience.

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 26.150 3 8.717 .242 .867

Within Groups 7065.445 196 36.048
Total 7091.595 199
Hypothesis 5: Age of employees will significantly predict Job Burn out among employees.

Model Summary.

Model R R Square Adjusted R Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .007a
.000 -.005 5.985

Predictors: (Constant), Age.

ANOVA.

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

1 Regression .318 1 .318 .009 .925b

Residual 7091.277 198 35.815

Total 7091.595 199

a. Dependent Variable: Job Burnout

b. Predictors: (Constant), Age

Coefficients.

Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.

51
 1 (Constant) 40.623 .926 43.873 .000

Age -.045 .475 -.007 -.094 .925

a. Dependent Variable: Job Burnout.

52