Examining Sources of Burnout and Organizational Commitment: An SEM Approach

Background: Job satisfaction, burnout, and organizational commitment remain concerns for social work agencies. Factors such as supervisory support, relationships among colleagues, and leadership style influence job satisfaction for social workers. Burnout is associated with illness, absence, decreased productivity, and role ineffectiveness. Job satisfaction and burnout are associated with intentions to leave positions or agencies. High levels of turnover make it difficult for agencies to provide services effectively. There is evidence that rural social workers may experience job satisfaction and burnout at different rates than those in other settings. Few studies have examined the relationships between job satisfaction, burnout, and organizational commitment while also considering geographical context. Structural equation modeling was utilized to answer three research questions.

Which source of burnout or job satisfaction most strongly predicts work-related burnout as a cause of organizational commitment?

Does work-related burnout fully mediate sources of burnout and job satisfaction on organizational commitment?

Are determinants of work-related burnout and organizational commitment different for social workers working in different geographical contexts: rural, suburban, and urban?

Methods: An anonymous online survey was distributed via social media in July 2017. Eligible participants were degreed social workers, at least 18 years old, and currently practicing in the United States. The total sample of respondents (N = 1,757) represents all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory was used to measure types of burnout: work-related burnout, client-related burnout, and personal burnout. The Social Work Satisfaction Scale was used to measure types of job satisfaction: satisfaction with the organizational environment and satisfaction with workload. Organizational commitment was measured using items probing likelihood to stay in current job and organization. Geographical context was measured by self-report. The measurement model was refined to achieve good fit (χ²(571) = 3185.07; CFI = .938) before proceeding to analyses with structural models.

Results: The strongest predictor of organizational commitment through its effect on work-related burnout was personal burnout (β = .68), followed by client-related burnout (β = .21), satisfaction with work-load (β = -.14), and satisfaction with organizational environment (β = -.11). There was a strong negative relationship between work-related burnout and organizational commitment (β = -.52). Model comparisons showed that satisfaction with organizational environment was the only exogenous variable to be only partially mediated by work-related burnout in its relationship with organizational commitment. The model did not vary based on social workers’ geographical context.

Conclusions: Findings indicate that our model can be applied across social workers in our sample regardless of geographical context. Our model indicates two determinants of work-related burnout and organizational commitment are particularly important for social work agencies to consider: satisfaction with organizational environment and personal burnout. These findings further emphasize self-care’s importance for longevity. Employers may have direct control over organizational environment, and this should be encouraging in terms of an agency’s ability to prevent excessive turnover. Our findings indicate that when organizations encourage wellness and effectively recognize employees’ contributions at work they will be more satisfied with organizational environment and be less likely to leave prematurely.