Correctional Custody Staff: Evaluating High Turnover Rates Caused by Employee Burn-out

Introduction

Turnover and burnout have attracted immense attention from scholars over the ages. As such, there are a myriad of theories relating to the two thematic areas, some of which shall be the grounding for this paper. Turnover has been described as a descendant of two common decisions that employees have to deal with at all times. The first decision is whether to continue to work in the organization within the expected limits (Schaufeli et al., 1996). In other words, employees have to constantly decide whether they should keep up with their work in the conditions and standards set upon them. The second decision that has to be made at all times is whether participation should be sustained. This refers to the personal decision on whether to stay in the organization or leave. The latter decision serves as the theoretical basis of many theories that have been developed with respect to turnover. There has been a further distinction between types of turnover, with involuntary turnover termed as that perpetrated by the employer through their termination of the employee (Mobley, Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978). This is beyond the control of the employee and is controlled by a number of external and internal organizational factors. Voluntary turnover on the other hand refers to that which is orchestrated by the employee’s departure from their working position. This is the type that is related to various theories on turnover.

Burnout, on the other hand has been described as a prolonged reaction to physical and emotional stressors at work with three principal dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism and inefficacy (Maslach & Florian, 1988). The authors indicate that exhaustion is the main overt presentation of burnout and is the most studied and reported. When an individual refers to themselves as experiencing burnout, in most cases they refer to exhaustion. However, it does not comprehensively address the issue of burnout, and rather embodies the stress element of it. The most common and immediate reaction to exhaustion is cynicism, which refers to the cognitive and emotional distancing of an individual from their work (Maslach & Jackson, 1981). It is normally undertaken as a reactionary measure to the work overload.  Inefficacy on the other hand refers to reduced personal accomplishment. As an element of burnout, it appears as a function of both cynicism and exhaustion or in some cases as a correlate of one of the two. The current study shall be grounded on two theories: Maslach’s burnout theory and Mobley’s theory on turnover.

Burnout

According to Maslach and Jackson (1981), negative feelings, attitudes and lethargy at work can be developed as a result of prolonged exposure to stressors at work. The theory associates the onset of burnout with the exposure to stressful conditions. This is the general idea that shall be imported to the proposed study, in that correctional officers operate at the behest of a number of stressors such as long working hours, low pay, psychological trauma and bullying from inmates. Their working environment is replete with stressors that in the long run contribute to burnout. The theory also outlines three stages of burnout in line with its constituent elements of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and increased levels of inefficacy. The first stage of burnout in this case is emotional exhaustion, where the employee feels depleted, overstretched and disturbed emotionally (Maslach, Schaufeli & Leiter, 2001). In the end, one feels like they are out of emotional resources required to carry out their duties. In correctional settings, an officer may appear disinterested, lacking in empathy and emotional endurance to deal with the demands of their job. This triggers the second stage of burnout, which is depersonalization. This refers to the harboring of a bad attitude towards oneself, colleagues and fellow employees at the workplace due to the exhaustion. One attempts to detach themselves mentally and emotionally from their work and the work environment. Finally, there comes increased inefficacy, wherein their personal accomplishment in the job wanes (Maslach & Jackson 1981; Morgan et al., 2014). They no longer feel satisfied with the job and give negative evaluations of their own performance. This is the ultimate phenomenon, which in the current study is related to high turnover. Once a correctional officer reaches a point of high inefficacy, the next step is to relinquish their position at work.

Turnover

Mobley’s (1977) theory on turnover explains how dissatisfaction at work eventually cascades to turnover. The theory refers to voluntary employee turnover wherein it is their personal decision to quit rather than a machination of their employer. This augments perfectly with the situation in correctional settings where officers quit on their own volition. Mobley’s (1977) theory goes that employees often go through a series of stages before eventually deciding to quit. The first stage is when they evaluate their current standing in the job. They consider things such as remuneration, autonomy, career development and so forth. After this evaluation, the employee decides to stay or quit. If they decide to stay, the process ends there. However, should they determine that they are dissatisfied with their current job they begin to demonstrate discontent and feelings of quit. For instance, they can begin to miss some days at work with no explanation, distance themselves from colleagues or deliberately violate some work codes. In other words, they begin to withdraw from the job without formally quitting. The second stage is to consider alternatives to the current job. The employee begins to interview for other jobs and formalizes their intention to seek for better pastures. They then evaluate the alternatives before them and weigh on the pros and cons of leaving (Mobley, 1977; 1982). The final stage shall entail the plan to quit and eventual quitting. This is where the employee lays the groundwork for quitting and perhaps settles on a specific alternative. This is followed by actual quitting where they officially leave their position. The current paper evaluates turnover in correctional settings in light of the above-listed stages, from evaluating their standing on the job, consideration of alternatives and the eventual decision to quit. The turnover is approached as an incremental rather than absolute process.

Conclusion

The theories upon which the present study is grounded are thus Maslach’s burnout theory and Mobley’s theory on turnover. With respect to the latter, it has been demonstrated that turnover theories emerge from the perennial question posed to employees on whether to sustain performance in line with organizational expectations or quit. Further, the turnover referred to in the theoretical framework refers to the voluntary type where the employees actually make the decision to quit. This is different from involuntary turnover where they are terminated by the employer. Mobley’s theory shows that employees go through a series of stages prior to deciding to quit, stemming from dissatisfaction. On the other hand, Maslach’s theory shows the stages of burnout from emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and increased inefficacy. 

References

Maslach, C., & Florian, V. (1988). Burnout, job setting, and self-evaluation among rehabilitation counselors. Rehabilitation Psychology, 33(2), 85-93.

Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement of experienced burnout. Journal of organizational behavior, 2(2), 99-113.

Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual review of psychology, 52(1), 397-422.

Mobley, W. H. (1977). Intermediate linkages in the relationship between job satisfaction and employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62(2), 237-240.

Mobley, W. H. (1982). Employee Turnover: Causes, Consequences and Control. Reading, London: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Mobley, W.H., Horner, S.O., & Hollingsworth, A. T. (1978). An evaluation of precursors of hospital employee turnover. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(4), 408-414.

Morgan, B., de Bruin, G. P., & de Bruin, K. (2014). Operationalizing burnout in the Maslach Burnout Inventory–Student Survey: personal efficacy versus personal inefficacy. South African Journal of Psychology, 44(2), 216-227.Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P., Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1996). The Maslach 156 Burnout Inventory—General Survey. In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter (Ed.), MBI manual (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.