In April 2022 European Agency for Safety and Health at Work published a Flash Eurobarometer with survey results about health and occupational safety in European countries. Among other, the participants were asked if they had experienced any health problems caused or made worse by their work. Most frequent answer was “overall fatigue” (37%) [1].
Microsoft published another survey in 2022, where in 11 countries around the world (Canada, US, Brazil, Germany, France, UK, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, China, India) in total 48% of employees and 53% of managers reveal that they are “already burnt out at work” (France: 49%/ 55%; Germany: 44%/ 54%; UK: 46%/ 49%) [2].
The prevalence of burnout has been increasing steadily in recent decades, and in the last decade there has also been a strong increase in the volume of sick leave days due to burnout—in 2012 to 2021, medical leave days due to burnout increased by more than 50% in Germany [3].
As research shows, women worldwide report higher levels of stress and burnout than men [1, 4, 5]. Burnout prevention as well as the question of why women report higher levels of burnout has become one of the important health issues of today.
As in the own previous studies, we doubt the meaningfulness of the methodological approach when comparing values of mental health between gender groups (as the participants are asked, which gender group they feel they belong to).
To begin with, this approach implies, that all women and all men live their gender in the same way, and there are no differences among women and among men. Second, this approach suggests that the given gender can only be associated with one role—that women have no masculine characteristics, and men have no feminine characteristics (gender role orientation describes feminine and masculine characteristics regardless of gender). Finally, it is also questionable which measures can be derived from such studies to prevent burnout. As studies show, women show in male dominated work teams higher burnout and stress values as well as take longer sick leave. Also men in teams dominated by women are on longer medical absence [6,7,8,9]. As only gender is taken into account as a group characteristic, a derived preventive measure could be to build teams with equal proportions of men and women. However, this is not realistic for all professions, and additionally it is known that feminity and masculinity can be developed regardless of gender. In summary, our goal is to test gender role orientation as a possibly better method than gender group comparison in predicting and preventing burnout.
Person-environment fit
Person-environment (P-E) fit models compare the characteristics of the individual and work environment. It could be requirements at the workplace and resources of employees or a comparison of the expression of a specific characteristic in the working environment with characteristics of the individual assuming that a worse fit requires a higher adaptation and leads to more stress. The goal is to describe the effects of different P-E fit scores on health, well-being, subjective stress, work engagement of employees and similar [10, 11]. Some models speak of a correspondence [12, 13], other models use the expression “fit” [14, 15].
To determine a P-E fit score, the participants are usually asked to evaluate their environment in a special characteristic using a questionnaire, and to assess their own personality using the same questionnaire. A person-environment fit score is calculated by subtracting the individual value from the value of the environment. This person-environment fit score is then compared to various other variables, such as stress, well-being or burnout.
The subtraction results (P-E fit score) can have negative values (if individual characteristic score is higher than the characteristic score of the work environment) to positive values (if the individual expression of the respective characteristic is lower than that in the work environment). Values around zero represent the best person-environment fit. Naturally, this often leads to curvilinear relationships with other variables, requiring a transformation by squaring and taking the logarithm to achieve a linear relationship with other variables—since this is one of the requirements of Pearson’s product-moment correlation and linear regression, which are frequently used to analyze the data [16]. This approach was also used in previous own studies [17, 18].
The weak point of this method is that through the transformation it is no longer recognizable whether the individual value is higher or the expression of the characteristic in the work environment. After the transformation, it is only visible how strong the difference or the P-E fit is. However, this can make a big difference in practice, which is why the procedure has already been criticized by other authors [16].
In order to make visible whether the individual value in femininity and masculinity is higher or the corresponding work environment score, the scores were not transformed in the present study, but divided into four groups (see description below). Within the groups, the level of P-E fit and relations with other variables still can be analyzed.
Gender-role orientation
The two dimensions of gender-role orientation feminity and masculinity describe the identification with gender stereotypes. In the present study Gender Typicity Scale [19] is used to indicate both feminity and masculinity. Feminity can be described as being connected with emotions–empathetic, sensitive, warmhearted–aside from tasks and goals. Masculinity might be characterized as goal and task orientation–confident, assertive, risk-taking, disciplined–autonomous from emotions and feelings [19]. Terms used synonymously in research are communion and agency [20] or expressivity and instrumentality [21], but in this study the terms femininity and masculinity are used consistently.
Studies showed that both constructs can be developed independently by an individual, regardless of biological sex. However, on average, higher femininity scores have been found in women and higher masculinity scores in men [6, 19].
By combining both feminity and masculinity four types are differentiated: feminine (high scores in feminity, low scores in masculinity), masculine (low scores in feminity, high scores in masculinity), undifferentiated or indifferent (low scores in feminity and masculinity), and androgynous (high scores in feminity and masculinity) [22, 23]. In the present study these types are used as orientation to build groups. Although, in this case not only the individual feminity and masculinity are used as reference, but P-E fit in feminity and masculinity – it is calculated by subtracting the individual score in feminity and masculinity from the corresponding value of work environment (see below).
Regarding mental health, well-being and resilience, research discusses in two directions. On the one hand, studies show that higher individual masculinity values in particular are positively associated with higher values in mental health. This is referred to as masculinity model [Cook, 1985; Marsh & Byrne, 1996].
As an explanation, the authors speak of a masculine bias regarding the common image of mental health [Cook, 1985; Marsh & Byrne, 1996]. Mental health and well-being would correspond more to an image characterized by masculine characteristics such as a positive self-image, activity and high self-esteem than by feminine characteristics (being emotionally connected and authentically expressing positive and negative feelings).
A second model argues that individuals with both high femininity and high masculinity show the best scores on well-being, reporting better social skills and better adaptability [24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. This is known as the androgyny model [22, 23].
Burnout
Burnout is a process towards an increasing emotional exhaustion and an increasingly cynical and distanced attitude towards one’s own tasks and work (depersonalization). According to Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, mainly job demands lead to employees’ emotional exhaustion, while depersonalization is caused by subjectively lacking job resources [31, 32].
Women generally indicate higher burnout values [4, 5], additionally women remain twice as long in sick leave for burnout as men [3]. That goes along with the supposition, that women are more likely do emotional labor, as one dimension of burnout is emotional exhaustion.
Higher burnout values are often found in people of a younger age [33] and with longer working hours [34]
As in previous studies [17, 18], in the present work burnout is measured using the DearEmployee Survey [35] (see below).
Managing position and burnout
Research does not show a uniform picture of the connection between leadership position and burnout. Some studies confirm managerial position as a protective factor towards development of burnout [36, 37]. Other investigations results reveal an opposite picture, burnout and stress levels of managers being higher than among employees [38,39,40]. There is also research, which could not find any link between managerial position and burnout [41].
As our own previous studies [17, 18] show a moderator effect of managerial position on the relationship between P-E fit in masculinity and burnout (for individuals with no managerial position there is a stronger relationship between a worse P-E fit in masculinity and higher burnout values), it should be analyzed in present work in more detail (see description below).
Present study goals
Previous own studies have examined the relationship between the P-E fit in feminity and masculinity, burnout and work commitment [17, 18]. For methodological reasons, it was not specified whether the personal value in femininity and masculinity is higher or lower than the corresponding values in the work environment, only the extent of the difference was calculated. Correlations of both gender and P-E fit in femininity and masculinity with burnout scores were demonstrated. Additionally, a moderator effect of managerial position in the correlation between P-E fit in masculinity and burnout was found.
In the current study, groups with different combination of high and low values of the P-E fit in femininity and masculinity based on types according to androgyny model are to be distinguished from one another (depending on whether individual femininity and masculinity is higher or lower than that of the work environment) and the corresponding relationships are to be analyzed in more detail (see details below).
Specifically, following the androgyny model it is being proofed, if the proportion of executives is the highest in the group with individuals indicating their feminity and masculinity higher than those of their work environment (group “Androgynous”), as their social skills and adaptability should be the highest between the groups (see Table 1, H1 and Fig. 1). Following the argumentation of masculinity model or masculine bias, the proportion of executives would be the highest in both groups with higher masculinity compared to the work environment – the group with higher masculinity and lower feminity (group “Masculine”), and the group with both higher masculinity and higher feminity (group “Androgynous”, see Fig. 2). An argument speaking for this is a work environment with high masculine and few feminine characteristics, in which leadership positions are given to people who are strongly masculine compared to work environment.
Expected results proving hypothesis H1 and H3 (Androgyny Model)
Results disproving hypothesis H1 and H3 (proving Masculinity Model)
As next, the moderator effect of managerial position between P-E fit in masculinity and burnout discovered in previous studies [17, 18], should be analyzed in more detail. The moderator effect showed that burnout values increased with higher P-E fit in masculinity (worse fit), this relation was much stronger for people without managerial position. Following the androgyny model, in group with both higher masculinity and higher feminity compared to work environment (group “Androgynous”) this moderator effect should be weakest among all groups, as these individuals should have the best adaptability (see Table 1, H2 and Fig. 3). According to the masculinity model, the moderator effect should be the weakest in groups with high masculinity and low feminity values (group “Masculine”) as well as high masculinity and low feminity (group “Androgynous”) compared with work environment.
Expected results proving hypothesis H2 and H4 (Androgyny Model)
Following the expectations formulated so far, we assume the lowest proportion of leaders in the group with low values of masculinity and femininity compared to work environment (group “Indifferent”), as these individuals should have the worst adaptability according to androgyny model (see Table 1, H3 and Fig. 1).
From the perspective of masculinity model, the lowest proportion of leaders should be found in both groups with lower masculinity compared to the work environment – the group with lower masculinity and higher feminity (group “Feminine”), and the group with both lower masculinity and lower feminity (group “Indifferent”, see Fig. 2). This might be expected giving a work environment with high masculinity, where people who are strongly masculine compared to work environment would most likely and more often be promoted to managerial positions (masculine bias).
Add Comment