By Alison Barrett (20-21)

Covid-19 lockdown begins in the UK

After only a few days of being announced on 23^rd1, the UK was plunged into its first Covid-19 lockdown on 26th March 2020², inciting a situation of shock, confusion and uncertainty that affected all our lives across work and home.

From the 1st lockdown onwards showed Covid-19 cases³ and deaths⁴ increased and vaccinations only started to become available in December 2020⁵. The nation’s mental health was also showing strain⁶. The job situation was unpredictable with rises in unemployment, reduction in job vacancy, some sectors hit badly and others seeing benefits, and the 2020 UK economy was not optimistic. A nationwide survey showed that 53% of those asked, planned to make changes to their careers in the next 12 months as a direct result of the Covid-19⁷.

Why change your career out of choice during lockdown?

A 2021 psychology study explored experiences of voluntary career change in England between the announcement of the first lockdown on March 23, 2020, to step 3 out of lockdown on May 17, 2021².

With the pandemic still ongoing and limited specific research to draw on, there was an opportunity to gain insights during or as close to the early stages as possible, with the pandemic ongoing but still at quite early stages, rather than speculating or interviewing retrospectively.

What theories can we draw from?

Due to the nature of the study being voluntary career change, some assumptions were made about theories that might be applicable to self-driven career development – Career Construction Theory⁸, The Protean Career⁹, Social Cognitive Career theory¹⁰ and Boundaryless Careers¹¹.

The pandemic links to Event Systems Theory¹² due to the strength of events and how important they became due to their unique and disruptive nature, along with the dynamic, unpredictable outcomes of Chaos Theory¹³. Akkermans et al.¹⁴ talks about Covid-19 as a negatively viewed career shock but with the possibility of positive future outcomes, at some unspecified time and those shocks can act as a trigger for people deliberating over the thoughts on their careers.

What was the study?

The research is a qualitative study, looking to draw out the way people feel about their experiences of voluntary career change. The analysis is based on an inductive approach, building from the ground upwards from the detail of the interview transcripts.

11 participants aged between 25 and 50 based only in England were interviewed, due to differences that occurred across lockdown rules between the different UK nations. Questions were open but specific to the research question and covered participants’ past career approach then went on to talk about their general experiences of the pandemic, and then specific to their career change.

What was discovered?

The experience of career change during the pandemic was positive.

Two main themes arose, “shifted my thinking” and “gave me opportunities”.

Though the findings were able to be generalised into themes, there was also quite a lot of variation across unique life and career contexts. Openness to opportunities, noticing, creating, or taking advantage of them, was found, and might be expected from the research question.

Career and life fit was important, and changes were considered with those priorities and values at the forefront.

Nine out of 11 were already planning to make a career change before the pandemic started but the pandemic altered those plans. A few had to slightly delay their plan but only for so long and others who had envisioned a change some time in the future who suddenly got catapulted into making the change in the middle of the pandemic.

Through good fortune or recognising opportunity they found ways to make things easier and make their desire for change reality. Some became more creative than their earlier approach suggested. Several people started their own business. A taste for less conventional and more creative change methods also started to emerge.

Remote working was quite interesting in terms of making change easier, partly through the separation from colleagues, partly through perception of an organization’s size, when working remotely.

Uncertainty was underlying in some aspects of the pandemic, but not prominent in respect of career change, which might be down to the way that people frame or deal with the uncertainty or how they look at it retrospectively.

Rethinking Theories

Based on the creative, strategic, tailoring element of the findings, an additional theory of Career Crafting¹⁵ is introduced into the discussion, though findings suggest that bolder and more creative aspects found may not be included as a measurement of career crafting.

In the context of this study, moving from one organisation to another includes starting a business or moving to a portfolio approach, which are very different, and when placed under boundaryless careers as an overarching umbrella¹⁶, does not really explain much.

How can the findings help?

• In a career change counselling context can “career shocks” be simulated to help instigate shifts in thinking?
• Be aware of how important it is for organisations to understand how their reactions might have an impact, on values and the psychological contract, especially in terms of potential turnover.
• Based on the fact the creative ways that people in this study created their own methods of change, and of the diversity of some of those changes, there’s also an opportunity for organisations to rethink internal career development more laterally and broadly across their own network, exploring possible outcomes of job and career satisfaction, involvement, employee engagement and possibly reduce turnover to external organisations.  Bearing in mind there will always be people that want to move on.

Where do we go from here?

Firstly, confirming what we found is most important, and we need to know if the same applies at scale and across multiple demographics, but the results found in this small study spark some interesting thoughts about theories to look at in combination and in more detail with relation to these study findings – Event Systems Theory¹², Career Shock¹⁴, Boundaryless Careers¹⁶ and Career Crafting¹⁵ though such a massive task would need breaking down and guided by wider findings.

The following references were used in this article:

¹ Prime Minister’s Office, 10 D. S. (2020, March 23). Prime minister’s statement on Coronavirus (COVID-19): 23 March 2020. GOV.UK. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://www.GOV.UK/government/speeches/pm-address-to-the-nation-on-coronavirus-23-march-2020.

² Institute for Government Analysis. (n.d.). Timeline of UK government coronavirus lockdowns | the … | the …, Institute for Government. Retrieved November 19, 2021, from https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/charts/uk-government-coronavirus-lockdowns.

³ GOV.UK. (2021a, November 16). Cases in the United Kingdom. UK Summary. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases.

⁴ GOV.UK. (2021b, November 16). Deaths in the UK. UK summary. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths.

⁵ NHS. (2020, December 8). Landmark moment as first NHS patient receives COVID-19 vaccination. NHS choices. Retrieved November 16, 2021, from https://www.england.nhs.uk/2020/12/landmark-moment-as-first-nhs-patient-receives-covid-19-vaccination/.

⁶ Mind (2020, June). The mental health emergency. How has the coronavirus pandemic impacted our mental health?, Mind. https://www.mind.org.uk/media-a/5929/the-mental-health-emergency_a4_final.pdf

⁷ Aviva. (2020, September 11). How we live in 2020 from work and home to Travel. Aviva. Retrieved October 14, 2021, from https://www.aviva.co.uk/aviva-edit/surveys-and-reports/articles/how-we-live/

⁸ Savickas, M. L. (2005). The Theory and Practice of Career Construction. In S. D. Brown & R. W. Lent (Eds.), Career development and counseling: Putting theory and research to work (p. 42–70). John Wiley & Sons, Inc..

⁹ Hall, D. T. (2004). The protean career: A quarter-century journey. Journal of vocational behavior, 65(1), 1-13.

¹⁰ Lent, R.W., Brown, S.D., & Hackett, G. (2002). Social Cognitive Career Theory. In D. Brown, & etc. (Eds.), Career Choice and Development (pp. 225-311). John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

¹¹ Arthur M. B., Rousseau D. M. (1996). The boundaryless career: A new employment principle for a new organizational era (1996). In Arthur M. B., Rousseau D. M.(Eds.), . Oxford University Press

¹² Morgeson, F. P., Mitchell, T. R., & Liu, D. (2015). event system theory: An event-oriented approach to the organizational sciences. The Academy of Management Review, 40(4), 515-537. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2012.0099

¹³ Bright, J. E. H., & Pryor, R. G. L. (2011). the chaos theory of careers. Journal of Employment Counseling, 48(4), 163-166. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-1920.2011.tb01104.x

¹⁴ Akkermans, J., Richardson, J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2020). The covid-19 crisis as a career shock: Implications for careers and vocational behavior. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 119, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103434

¹⁵ Akkermans, J., & Tims, M. (2020). Job and career crafting to fulfill individual career pathways. (). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190907785.003.0010

¹⁶ Arthur, M.B. (2014). The boundaryless career at 20: Where do we stand, and where can we go? Career Development International, 19(6), 627-640. https://doi.org/10.1108/CDI-05-2014-0068

By Diana Airimitoaie (20-21)

Have you ever wondered how much work affects your employees’ well-being and home life?

Work is a major part of people’s life and can sometimes affect well-being and relationships at home. According to a recent study, in 2020, approximatively 79% of British adults experienced stress from work and only 1% never experienced it (Perkbox, n.d.). Prolonged work-related stress is known to lead to burnout and other mental and physical issues (Bakker & de Vries, 2021). Burnout manifests as feelings of exhaustion, disengagement from work, or negative or cynic attitudes towards work (Bakker & de Vries, 2021). Burnout occurrence is also extremely high, with 71% of the UK employees experiencing it in 2020 (Asana, 2021).

Why is burnout important?

Left untreated, burnout can lead to many negative outcomes, to name a few:

• Mental illnesses, such as depression, anxiety
• Physical illnesses, i.e., Type 2 diabetes, Heart problems
• Substance abuse, i.e., alcohol, drugs
• Work related outcomes: reduced performance and engagement, presence of negative attitudes

In turn, these outcomes cost UK organisations a hefty sum of up to £44.7 billion a year (Hampson & Jacob, 2020).

So, what causes burnout?

Research has shown that certain work characteristics, also known as job demands or stressors, impact burnout. The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model explains that high job demands require constant effort (i.e. physical, emotional, or intellectual), and these drain people’s resources. If individuals do not have enough resources when demands are high, they are likely to experience burnout symptoms (Demerouti & Bakker, 2011). Job demands, therefore, refer to work characteristics that require persistent physical, emotional, or intellectual effort. Job resources are the opposite of job demands and refers to anything that promotes growth. (Bakker et al., 2005).

Workload, Technostress and Role Clarity have been linked to burnout, and work-family conflict (WFC). Technostress refers to the stress caused by technology use at work (Tarafdar et al., 2007). Workload refers to high levels of demanding work needed to be completed in a certain time, while Role Clarity refers to how clear one is about their role (Khan et al., 2014, Lang et al., 2007). Work-family conflict is a by-product of conflicting job and family demands (Greenhaus & Beutell, 1985). The stress caused by workload or unclear roles interferes with one’s thoughts, attention and family time; while technology enables remote working and blurs the work-home boundaries.

The Stressor-Detachment further explains that the lack of psychological detachment during non-working time is the reason why high job demands impact burnout and WFC (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2015). Psychological detachment refers to individuals’ ability to not think about work when they are not working (Safstrom & Hartig, 2013).

Workload and Role clarity have been well-researched as part of the JD-R model, yet technostress is a new concept which refers to stress caused by technology use at work. Given that technology use is continually growing within organisations, this study brought these demands together and assessed their impact on burnout and WFC as part of the JD-R model. Additionally, the study addresses another gap in the literature, by studying the mediating effect of psychological detachment on the relationship between the three demands (workload, role clarity and technostress) on burnout and WFC.

Procedure and Findings

Data for this study came from 321 working adults, from across the world, who completed an anonymous online questionnaire. The survey contained questions related to individuals’ perception on workload, role clarity and technostress at work, psychological detachment from work, burnout, WFC and demographics. Well-used statistical methods were employed for data analyses.

The findings of this study revealed the following:

• The three job demands predicted burnout and WFC. More exactly:
  • Workload was positively associated with burnout and WFC. This means that higher workload led to higher levels of burnout and WFC.
  • Role Clarity was negatively related to burnout and WFC. This means that individuals who were clearer about their role had lower levels of burnout and WFC.
  • Technostress was positively related to burnout and WFC, which means that higher levels of stress caused by technology led to higher levels of burnout and WFC.
• Impaired psychological detachment did not explain (mediate) the relationship between workload, role clarity and burnout. However, it did explain the relationship between technostress and burnout, meaning that when technostress was high and psychological detachment was low, individuals experienced higher levels of burnout.
• Impaired psychological detachment explained (mediated) the relationship between all three job demands and WFC. In other words, higher workload, lower role clarity and higher technostress led to impaired psychological detachment, which in turn led to higher WFC levels.
• Other factors could have influenced the relationship between these three job demands and two outcomes.

How can these findings help your employees and organisation?

These findings highlighted that job demands and psychological detachment are linked to burnout and WFC. With the root of the problem identified, organisations could introduce strategies related to these job demands and psychological detachment, to reduce or prevent burnout and WFC. To name a few, but are not limited to:

• Reducing stress caused by workload:
  • Ensure staff are educated and skilled in time-management through provision of training.
  • Ensure colleagues receive support from others and manager.
  • Encourage employees to make decisions about their job role.
• Reducing role ambiguity by fostering a clear and open communication, whereby detailed information about one’s work role and responsibilities is provided
• Reducing technostress by:
  • Minimising screen time.
  • Providing training for any technology systems and applications.
• Encouraging off-job recovery through:
  • Promotion of healthy lifestyle using newsletters and training courses.
  • Adopting flexible working.
  • Encouraging employees to complete work only during working hours.

In conclusion, work is an individual’s second-home and work characteristics such as workload, role clarity and technostress can influence burnout and WFC; and psychological detachment appear to mediate some of these relationships. Therefore, it is imperative for organisations to acknowledge these findings and implement strategies to diminish their prevalence, burnout and WFC, and promote psychological detachment.

References

Asana. (2021). Anatomy of work: Overcoming disruption in a distributed world. https://asana.com/resources/anatomy-of-work

Bakker, A. B., & de Vries, J. D. (2021). Job Demands–Resources theory and self-regulation: new explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety, Stress and Coping, 34(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695

Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Euwema, M. C. (2005). Job resources buffer the impact of job demands on burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 10(2), 170–180. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.10.2.170

Demerouti, E., & Bakker, A. B. (2011). The Job Demands-Resources model: Challenges for future research. SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 37(2), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajip.v37i2.974

Greenhaus, J. H., & Beutell, N. J. (1985). Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Academy of Management Review, 10(1), 76-88. https://doi.org/10.2307/258214

Hampson, E., & Jacob, A. (2020). Mental health and employers Refreshing the case for investment. Deloitte. https://www.deloitte.com/uk/en/pages/consulting/articles/mental-health-and-employers-refreshing-the-case-for-investment.html 

Khan, F., Yusoff, R. M., & Khan, A. (2014). Job demands, burnout and resources in teaching a conceptual review. World Applied Sciences Journal, 30(1), 20-28.

Lang, J., Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Adler, A. B. (2007). Job Demands and Job Performance: The mediating effect of psychological and physical strain and the moderating effect of role clarity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(2), 116–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.116

Perkbox (n.d). The 2020 UK workplace stress survey. https://www.perkbox.com/uk/resources/library/2020-workplace-stress-survey

Safstrom, M., & Hartig, T. (2013). Psychological detachment in the relationship between job stressors and strain. Behavioral Sciences, 3(3), 418–433. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs3030418

Sonnentag, S., & Fritz, C. (2015). Recovery from job stress: The stressor-detachment model as an integrative framework. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(1), 72–103. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1924

Tarafdar, M., Tu, Q., Ragu-Nathan, B. S., & Ragu-Nathan, T. S. (2007). The impact of technostress on role stress and productivity. Journal of Management Information Sysems, 24(1), 301–328. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240109