The relationships between leadership style and employee
burnout
With the mediating role of intention to quit
Annuschka Mahamoed
University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam Business School
Page | 2
Amsterdam, 26 January 2015
This document is written by student Annuschka Mahamoed (10443096) who declares to take
full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work
presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the
text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business
is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
First reader:
Dr. ir. B.A.C. (Bianca) Groen
Faculty of Economics and Business,
specialization Accounting
Second reader:
Dr. ir. S.P. (Sander) van Triest
Faculty of Economics and Business,
specialization Accounting
Page | 3
ABSTRACT
This study has attempted to increase the knowledge whether the leadership style of a
manager could have an influence on employee burnout. This is done by exploring the direct
and indirect effects influencing employee burnout. Particular attention is set on the
transformational and transactional leadership style. Within this study several hypotheses were
tested by using a survey study in the form of a questionnaire. This questionnaire is filled in by
104 employees of a Big 4 Auditing firm in the Netherlands. The results of the regression
analysis show that the transformational leadership style of a manager reduces the intention to
quit by employees. Furthermore, that the intention to quit is seen as a mediator influencing
employee burnout.
Keywords: transformational leadership, transactional leadership, job resources, job
demands, intention to quit, burnout.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This research was supported by a Big 4 audit firm. Special acknowledgement to the
employees who participated by filling in the online questionnaire. Moreover, special thanks to
the first supervisor of the research, Dr. ir. B.A.C. Groen with her continuous feedback and
Dr. ir. S.P. (Sander) van Triest for his role as second supervisor.
Page | 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5
2. Literature review............................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Theoretical background: leadership 8
2.1.1 Transactional-transformational leadership 10
2.2 Job demands-resources model 11
2.3 Burnout 13
2.3.1 Transactional-transformational leadership and burnout 15
2.4 Intention to quit 16
2.4.1 Transactional-transformational leadership and the intention to quit 16
2.4.2 Burnout and the intention to quit 17
3. Research method ............................................................................................................. 19
3.1 Sample 19
3.2 Data collection 19
3.3 Data analyses 21
4. Results .............................................................................................................................. 22
4.1 Descriptive statistics 24
4.2 Transactional leadership and burnout 24
4.3 Transformational leadership and burnout 25
4.4 Transactional leadership and intention to quit 25
4.5 Transformational leadership and intention to quit 25
4.6 Burnout and intention to quit 26
5. Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 27
5.1 Discussion 27
5.2 Theoretical implications 28
5.3 Practical implications 29
5.4 Limitations and future research 29
5.5 Conclusion 30
References ............................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................. 39
Appendix B .............................................................................................................................. 43
Page | 5
1. INTRODUCTION
The above citation, is from an internal letter of a Big 4 audit firm in the Netherlands
where this study is conducted. The employees of this firm experienced pressure. When
employees experience pressure occurs stress. Stress is seen as a precondition of employee
burnout (Maslach, 1982). When employees facing stress they are less able to perform.
Employees in audit organization are known to have a high intention to quit (Hasin & Omar,
2007). Which role does a coaching leadership style play in this? This study will examine the
direct impact of the managers leadership style in relation to obtain employee burnout during a
change situation, and the mediating role of intention to quit.
Leadership plays a vital role in achieving collective change (Yukl, 2009). Leadership can
be classified in different leadership styles. Often a distinction is made between transactional
and transformational leadership. Transactional Leadership is based on a simple exchange
between the leader and his followers of reward for applied effort. Transactional leaders are
keeping their followers productive. These leaders use disciplinary power and incentives to
motivate employees to perform at their best. Transactional refers to the leader who motivates
subordinates by exchanging rewards for performance (Bass & Avolio, 1991). These managers
are concerned with routine jobs and make sure everything flows smoothly each day. A
transformational leader goes beyond managing daily operations by developing strategies for
“This audit season will be one of the most turbulent in the history. Our quality lies under
a magnifying glass - the demand to improve our audit quality is more urgent than ever. At
the same time, we are changing from customers and within teams. This is due to new
rules of rotation resulting from the WTA and the ViO. Furthermore many hours will go to
proposals. The paradox is that proposals that we win, leads to first year audits that require
a more than average effort from us”.
”We can achieve good quality only as a team. Therefore managers will spend
substantially more time with audit teams; time spent on quality and coaching on the job.
These times ask for involved managers throughout the audit”.
”I fully realize that these turbulent times demands a lot from you. How do we keep it
even fun, is a frequently asked question. A question I also suggest me personally. The
feeling that rules seem to prevail, leads the professional space is perceived as too
limited."
Page | 6
their company or work project to perform above expectations. A transformational leader
works as a motivator by empowering subordinates. The transformational leader sets goals and
incentives at a personal level to perform above expectations and to let the individual
professional grow on a personal level (Bass & Avolio, 1991; Brymann, 1992). The
transformational leader has an idealized influence, intellectually stimulates and considers
subordinates individually. The transformational leadership style is seen as the most effective
form of leadership (Tims, Bakker, & Xanthopou, 2011). Since transformational leadership is
positively related to many important organizational outcomes (Tims, Bakker, & Xanthopou,
2011; Bass & Avolio, 1991).
This study will measure the effect from de managers leadership style in relation to
obtaining employee burnout. A burnout is characterized as “a syndrome of emotional
exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among
people who do people work of some kind. Emotional exhaustion refers to feelings of being
overextended and exhausted refers to feelings of one’s work” (Demerouti, Nachreiner,
Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2001). Little attention has been obtained about which role the leadership
style of a manager could have in reducing employee burnout (Demerouti, Nachreiner, Bakker,
& Schaufeli, 2001). In some research the transformational leadership style reduces employee
burnout, however no clear and compelling study have shown a relationship between
transactional leadership and the effects on employee burnout (Kamariah, Wafa, Tajammal, &
Syed, 2011). We determine the role of the managers leadership style on employee burnout,
this will be our theoretical value in this study.
The aim of this study is to get further insight regarding the impact of the leadership style
of a manager and the mediation effect of subordinate’s intention to quit. Studies indicate that
turnover intentions are an outcome of stress and burnout (Kemery, Bedeian, & Mossholder,
1985; Williams, Konrad, & Scheckler, 2001). This means that employee burnout is an
important factor which could lead to higher intention to quit. On the opposite side, recent
studies mention the intention to quit as a stressor that predicts employee burnout (Dai,
Collins, Yu, & Fu, 2008; Himle, Srinika, & Thyness, 1986; Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler,
1986). According to the study of Jackson et al. (1986) the intention to quit is an identifiable
and important phenomenon related to employee burnout (Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986).
For this reason, this study should provide empirical evidence that the intention to quit is a
precondition of employee burnout.
For this research survey data is collected among employees within an Big 4 accounting
firm in the Netherlands. The subordinates of the manager will fill-in a questionnaire (see
Page | 7
Appendix A) about their supervisor, their job demands and available resources within the
accounting firm.
This study entails a relatively new topic in accounting. Accounting firms are known to
have a high intention to quit rate (Boselie & van der Wiele, 2002). Due to the costs in terms of
health and organizational consequences it is important to conduct this study in this
environment (Cherniss, 1995). Most research regarding auditing firms deal with tenure, size
and the quality of disclosure (Johnson, Khurana, & Reynolds, 2002; Francis & Yu, 2009). But
there are no studies in accounting which cover the role of the manager during change. This
research will therefore attempt to contribute to the many existing scientific literature about
leadership style in large companies for preventing the intention to quit and burnout in
accounting firms.
This study is structured as follows. Chapter 2 portrays an first an empirical model,
which will be tested in this study. Subsequently, all relevant theories will be described. The
research method is presented in Chapter 3. The sample is explained and how the survey data
is collected and analyzed. Chapter 4 presents the obtained survey results. Chapter 5 addresses
the discussion. Subsequently, the limitations of this study and further suggestions given for
further research. The report will conclude with the reference list.
Page | 8
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
The literature review discusses the main theories for this research. First there will be a
clarification on the concept of leadership, consisting transformational and transactional
leadership. We further discuss the Job Demands-Resources model. This theoretical model can
be used for determining burnout. Burnout will also be examined in depth within the literature
review. Finally the intention to quit and the relationship with burnout is threaded. The main
concepts come together in a theoretical model, see Figure 1. The most important relationships
between these concepts and the hypotheses are shown. Intention to quit can be seen as a
mediator between leadership style and burnout.
Figure 1. Theoretical model
2.1 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND: LEADERSHIP
What is the definition of a leader? What makes a leader successful in terms of
(re)vitalizing an organization, where he creates a place where people want to contribute their
best (Sashkin, 1993). People assumed that the secret of leadership was attributable to
unidentified natural-born characteristics. This assumption has been knocked down by the
study of Stogdill, he found no clear evidence that leaders are evidently different from non-
leaders (1950). As a result of this research the focus of researchers within the theories of
change has moved to personality characteristics of leaders (Sashkin, 1993; Fedor, Herold, &
Caldwell, 2006) .
Leadership theories are rejuvenated several times from 1970. However all these
theories share a common acknowledgment: “leadership is a perceptual phenomenon” (King,
1990). Leadership perspectives concerned with the charismatic (Conger & Kanungo, 1987;
Burnout Leadership style
Intention to quit
H2a +
H2b -
H1a +
H1b -
H3a +
Page | 9
House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991), transformational (Bass & Avolio, 1991) and visionary
(Conger & Kanungo, 1987) leadership theories focus on the perceptual processes. A “natural
born” leader could develop characteristics during life, by naturally falling into leadership at a
younger age playing leadership roles at school, or a sports team; assuming team leader roles
and having the ability to empower and motivate others. Social ability, self-confidence,
assertiveness and boldness are seen as some characteristics of natural born leaders (Conger &
Kanungo, 1987). Social ability concerns with natural people skills (Kessler, Price, &
Wortman, 1985). Natural leaders are more extrovert, outgoing, understanding, generous and
sympathetic towards others. Natural leaders easily connect with others. Self-confidence is the
characteristic of all natural leaders that drives social ability and the courage to take on new
and high risk challenges and changes (House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991; Conger &
Kanungo, 1987).
Leading change is a key aspect of leadership, some could even argue a defining aspect
of leadership (Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, & Bobbio, 2007). For achieving
collective change, leadership takes a vital role for managing followers to contribute to the
change process (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Bass & Avolio, 1991). The change process starts
with the communication of a vision, where the leader spells to act towards a desired situation
towards his followers (Bass & Avolio, 1991; Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Holladay & Coombs,
1993). By expressing a vision followers could identify with the presumed change a leader
expresses. Within companies the formulation of a vision could contribute, motivating
followers to work towards goals (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1996).
Organizational change begins at the personal level, the individual needs to break down
uncertainty and surrender control (Markus & Robey, 1988). Changes are necessary to stay
competitive, profitable and efficient. Empowering leaders are those leaders who can achieve
real change in organizations, they have the courage to change (Fiol, 2002). Empowerment is
the feeling that followers can make a difference to enact towards the vision (Conger &
Kanungo, 1987) and have confidence in their own capabilities. For achieving change leaders
need to take serious risks, however they are willing to take this risk because it is the correct
thing to do (Fiol, 2002). The greater the individual risk of the leader, the higher the trust,
satisfaction and esteem subordinates hold for their leader (Conger & Kanungo, 1987). To take
uncertainty away and for realizing action, these previous steps are a requirement for achieving
collective change. (Conger & Kanungo, 1987; Fiol, 2002; Awamleh & Gardner, 1999).
Page | 10
2.1.1 TRANSACTIONAL-TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP
The most common distinction in managing leadership, is the distinction between
transactional leadership and transformational leadership (Bass, Avolio, & Jung, 1999). This
distinction is introduced by Burns (1978). According to Burns transformational leadership
entails a broader range of leadership behaviour than the transactional leadership (Vera &
Crossan, 2004; Bass & Avolio, 1991). Transactional leadership is a style of leadership that
focuses on the transactions between leaders and their followers (Bass & Avolio, 1991).
Transformational leadership, on the other hand, is a leadership style which causes change in
individuals (Bass & Avolio, 1991; Vera & Crossan, 2004). Understanding the difference
between transactional and transformational leadership is vital in getting the concept of
transformational leadership theory (Bass & Avolio, 1991).
Transactional leadership focuses on a result-oriented style of leading (Sarros &
Santora, 2001). Transactional leadership style is very useful when the organization is in a
stable position and the learning objectives aim “to refine and restore balance” (Bucic,
Robinson, & Ramburuth, 2010). Transactional leaders manage teams by means of social
exchange; they offer financial rewards for productivity or deny benefits for the lack thereof.
According to Burns (1978) this exchange process between leader and subordinate exists of
three components: contingent reward (based on performance) “active management-by-
exception” (controlling performance errors and immediately restore/ fix them) and “passive
management-by-exception” (wait for errors before action is taken). The transactional
leadership style is not about deeper relationships with subordinate for achieving a higher goals
(Burns, 1978).
Leadership theories reveal that transformational leadership starts with communicating
the vision (Baum, Locke, & Kirckpatrick, 1998; Westley & Mintzberg, 1989). The vision is
defined as an ideal that represents the shared values to which the organization should aspire, it
is “an ideal and unique image of the future” (McClelland & Burnham, 1976). In the
entrepreneurship and business strategy literatures, the importance of the communication of the
vision and its effects on organization-level performance has been stressed in theoretical
discussions as well as in empirical research. According to Bass (1985) transformational
leadership, is defined as a process in which a leader tries to increase followers’ awareness of
what is right and important. Transformational leadership recognizes individual talents and
builds team-task enthusiasm with emotions, values and beliefs. Transformational leadership
Page | 11
tries to motivate followers to perform beyond expectation (Bass & Avolio, 1991; Yukl, 2009).
Transformational leaders usually display their behaviours associated with four characteristics;
1. Idealized Influence, this is when a leader is being a role model for his subordinates. The
leader empowers followers to share a common vision and work towards common goals by
expressing a clear vision. 2. Inspirational motivation, this occurs when a manager tries to
definite the importance of goals in simple ways. The manager communicates his expectations
and the managers provides followers’ with tasks that are meaningful and challenging. 3.
Managers aims to intellectually stimulate followers for bringing out ideas for problems. 4.
finally individual consideration concerns with the time teaching and coaching followers by
treating followers based by individual characteristics (Bass & Avolio, 1991; Bass, Avolio, &
Jung, 1999).
Transactional leadership has not only positive effects in an organization. Transactional
leadership motivates followers by appealing to their own self-interest. Its principles are to
motivate by the exchange process. This leads to transactional leadership having a positive
impact on 'perceived fairness, trust in the leader and role clarity (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, &
Bommer, 1996). However transactional leadership has a negative effect on absenteeism
among employees, it limits enthusiasm and no positive effects are found in the self-
development of employees (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Furthermore Rowold & Schlotz (2009)
indicate that one aspect of transactional leadership - management-by-exception passive - was
positively associated with indicators of chronic stress. Management-by-exception passive
enhances chronic stress, most likely because managers exclusively intervene if standards are
not met or if errors are detected. In this case only negative feedback will be provided to
employee, leading to dissatisfaction and other aspects of chronic stress (Rowold & Schlotz,
2009; Lerner, et al., 2004). According to a study of Himle et al. (1986) emotional support
from supervisors was interrelated with job satisfactions, lower levels of work stress and
employee burnout (Himle, Srinika, & Thyness, 1986).
2.2 JOB DEMANDS-RESOURCES MODEL
The Job Demands-Resources model (JD-R model) is a theoretical model which is
develop in the late 90’s by Bakker, Demourati and Schaufeli (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner,
& Schaufeli, 2001). The JD-R model is now an internationally recognized model which is
tested in the following European countries; Belgium, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy,
Norway, Spain and Sweden. The model is used as a tool by human resource management. The
Page | 12
JD-R model determines the strengths and weaknesses of individuals, workgroups,
departments and organization (Demerouti, Nachreiner, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2001). Besides
that the model can also be used for factors influencing organizational performance such as
employee engagement and employee burnout. The model states that two processes play an
important role in predicting work engagement or burnout, namely job resources and job
demands (Demerouti, Nachreiner, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2001).
Job demands are described by Demerouti et al. (2001) as “those physical, social, or
organizational aspects of the job that require sustained physical or mental effort and are
therefore associated with certain physiological and psychological costs. For instance work
pressure, heavy lifting, interpersonal conflict and job insecurity. Work requirements are not
necessarily stressful, however, when efforts meet the requirements and the recovery time is
insufficient, work requirements could be an influence of stress. (Demerouti, Bakker,
Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001).
Job resources are seen as sources of energy. Job resources are defined as “those
physical, social, or organizational aspects of the job that may do any of the following: (a) be
functional in achieving work goals; (b) reduce job demands and the associated physiological
and psychological costs; (c) stimulate personal growth and development” (Demerouti,
Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Within an organization this could include feedback
and social support. Previous studies have shown that job resources (Bakker, Tuckey, &
Dollard, 2012) is an important motivational potential for work engagement.
These two contra dictionary processes play a role in the development of job strain or
motivation. Exhaustion, this process takes place when poorly designed jobs or chronic job
demands exhaust the employee on both the mental as well as the physical element. Once this
occurs this might lead to the depletion of energy and to severe interpersonal problems
(Demerouti, Nachreiner, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2001). On the opposite side, the motivational
process could occur when job resources exert their motivating potential. This could lead to
high work engagement, low cynicism, and excellent performance. Job resources could play
either an intrinsic or an extrinsic motivational role (Demerouti, Nachreiner, Bakker, &
Schaufeli, 2001). The JD-R model assumes that whereas every occupation may have its own
specific working characteristics, these characteristics can be classified in two general
categories (job demands and job resources). Virtually all models on occupational health and
well-being focus exclusively on job stress and the resulting strain, thereby neglecting the
potentially positive effects of work such as engagement (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Rhenen, 2009).
The JD-R model emphasises the unique role of job resources as main predictors of
Page | 13
motivation/learning-related outcomes. The JD-R model tries to explain the negative (burnout)
as well as positive (work engagement) aspects of well-being by linking it to a strain
(Demerouti, Nachreiner, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2001; Schaufeli, Bakker, & Rhenen, 2009).
Findings support the general notion that burnout is a response to work overload. Within this
change situation a higher degree of audit quality is demanded from the employees of the “Big
4” audit firm. Quantitative job demands have been studied by many burnout researchers, the
findings support the general notion that burnout is a response to work overload. According to
Maslach (1982) time pressure is consistently related to burnout, particularly with the
exhaustion dimension of employee burnout (Maslach & Leiter, 2001).
2.3 BURNOUT
Burnout was initially a vague concept there was no description of it, although there
was a diversity of opinions about what it was and what could be done about burnout
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). As a consequence, several different
people used the term burnout to mean very different things, so there was not always a basis
for constructive communication about this issue nor were there solutions for treatment
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Maslach (1982) developed a model
were the three core dimensions of the burnout experience came together. This model is still is
the predominant one in the burnout field (Demerouti, Nachreiner, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2001).
A burnout is characterized as “a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization,
and reduced personal accomplishment that can occur among people who do people work of
some kind. Emotional exhaustion refers to feelings of being overextended and exhausted
refers to feelings of one’s work” (Demerouti, Nachreiner, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2001).
Depersonalization is an anomaly of self-awareness. It contains of a feeling of watching
oneself act, while having no control over a particular situation. At last reduce personal
accomplishment concerns with that one is no longer effective in working with recipients,
achieving goals and fulfilling job responsibilities (Maslach, 1982).
Maslach (2001) describes three dimensions of burnout; exhaustion, cynicism and
ineffectiveness. Exhaustion is the most widely reported and is analysed comprehensively. The
strong identification of exhaustion with burnout has led some to argue that the other two
aspects of the syndrome are incidental or unnecessary (Shirom, 1989). Yet, the fact that
exhaustion is an essential condition for burnout does not mean it is sufficient. If looking at
burnout out of context and focussing on the individual exhaustion component, one would lose
Page | 14
sight of the entire phenomenon of burnout (Shirom, 1989). Studies indicate that those in the
serving professions are most at risk for burnout (Cherniss, 1995; Maslach & Leiter, 2001)
One of the characteristics of service professions is that the employees have daily interactions
with people, both employees as well as clients. The exhaust dimension of burnout reflects
with the stress one is facing. However, exhaustion is not something that is easily experienced
or recognized. To cope with workloads, one is taking distance emotionally and cognitively
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001). Maslach states that job demands are
better manageable when they are considered as “impersonal objects of one’s work” (Maslach,
1982; Leiter & Maslach, 2001). When people are exhausted or are depressed from work they
develop a distance or a cynical attitude towards others. Distancing leads to depersonalization
which is affects burnout (Maslach, 1982). The third dimension, ineffectiveness, which deals
with the reduced personal accomplishment is harder to define. Lee & Ashforth (1996) say that
this “appears to be a function, to some degree, of either exhaustion, cynicism, or a
combination of the two” (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). Within a situation at work with are huge
demands where exhaustion or cynicism is likely to occur, it is in line with expectations that
the effectiveness of one will be affected. Moreover it is hard to gain a sense of
accomplishment when feeling exhausted (Lee & Ashforth, 1996). Concluding: The absence
of efficacy seems to arise due to a lack of relevant job resources, whereas exhaustion and
cynicism rise from the presence of work overload and social conflicts (Demerouti,
Nachreiner, Bakker, & Schaufeli, 2001).
There are several negative effects concerning burnout. The performance of employees
is key for business. Hence, the quality of employees is detrimental to an organization. Hiring
and training new employees is an extra cost for an organization, not only due to an increase in
training expenses, but also in structuring relationships with other employees in the
organization. The organization should realize that an environment which promotes burnout,
more frequently needs to hire and train employees. ‘Some burnout sufferers stay on the job
for various personal, financial, or geographic reasons” (Harris, James, & Boonthanom, 2005).
Subordinates who involuntarily stay in position instead of leaving the organization, are also
negatively influencing the organization; “working to minimum standards, coming in late to
avoid the situation, and withdrawing from others” (Harris, James, & Boonthanom, 2005).
Burnout could affect the most innovative and productive employees causing poor
performance, carelessness, and ambivalence at work. Moreover burnout is related to health
problems. Eventually, people give up on the situation that caused their condition and they
withdraw or actually quit their job (Harris, James, & Boonthanom, 2005).
Page | 15
2.3.1 TRANSACTIONAL-TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND BURNOUT
The JD-R model assumes that the presence of resources at work leads to inspiration,
motivation and a positive attitude; an absence of resources leads to the exhaustion component
if burnout (feeling of exhaustion). Some examples of job resources are: intrinsic motivation,
empowerment, daily coaching, social support from the manager, social support from
colleagues, social support from the private environment, autonomy (self-determination),
feedback, participation and communication (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Rhenen, 2009). According
Schaufeli et al. burnout and work engagement are negatively related to each other (Schaufeli,
Bakker, & Rhenen, 2009).
One the abilities of a transformational leader is to “influence attitudes, assumptions
and building a commitment for the organizations’ mission” (Yukl, 2009). This process is
regularly mediated due to other factors, such as support (Twigg, Fuller, & Hester, 2008).
During social exchange, a strong link between commitment and perceived organizational
support is evident (Eigenberger, Huntington, Hutchison, & Sowa, 1986) Perceived
Organizational Support is defined as employees’ “global beliefs about the extent to which the
organization cares about their well-being and values their contributions”. When employees
perceive more organizational support, they feel that they are respected in the organization.
Perceived support leads to an increase in performance (Chen, Eisenberger, Johnson, &
Sucharski, 2009) and organizational support from the manager is related to greater job
satisfaction, lower stress leading to lower employee burnout (Lee & Ashforth, 1996; Lewin &
Sager, 2008; Penn, Romano, & Foat, 1988). Employees expect that their superior performance
will be rewarded. This attitude causes a strong sense of belonging to the organization
(Morrison, Jones, & Fuller, 1997).
Several studies have shown that there is a negative relationship between
transformational leadership and employee burnout (Corrigan, Diwan, Campion, & Rashid,
2002; Leithwood, Menzies, Jantzi, & Leithwoood, 1996; Stordeur, D’hoore, &
Vandenberghe, 2001). Transformational leadership entails leadership with individual attention
to subordinates. Transformational managers give support by learning, teaching and providing
feedback to their subordinates (Den Hartog & Hoogh, 2009). In previous studies a positive
relationship between transformational leadership and the availability of job resources is found
(Syrek, Apostel, & Antoni, 2013).On the other hand transactional leadership is about
achievements and performance, they are key in the relationship between manager and
employee (Den Hartog & Hoogh, 2009). Overall, it is expected that a transactional leader
Page | 16
increases the risk of employee burnout. In addition, it is expected that a transformational
leader reduces the risk of burnout.
Hypothesis 1a. Transactional leadership is positively related to burnout
Hypothesis 1b. Transformational leadership is negatively related to burnout
2.4 INTENTION TO QUIT
Intention to quit deals with the “conscious and deliberate wilfulness of the employees
to leave the organization” (Tett & Meyer, 1993) and it is “individual own estimated subjective
possibility or probability of leaving the organization or profession in the near future”
(Bigliardi & Dormio, 2005). Intentions are, according to Ajzen and Fishbein (2010), the most
immediate determinants of actual behaviour. These can be used as accurate indicators of
subsequent behaviour, however the reasons for these intentions are often unknown (Firth,
2004). Various researchers (Kramer, Callister, & Turban, 1995; Kalliath T. B., 2001;
Bluedorn, 1982; Saks, 1996) have attempted to answer the matter of what determines
people's intention to quit. Van Dick et al. (2004) agree that the phenomenon is far from being
fully understood, especially because some of the psychological processes underlying the
withdrawal from the organisation are still unclear (Van Dick, Christ, Stellmacher, & Wagner,
2004).
2.4.1 TRANSACTIONAL-TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND THE
INTENTION TO QUIT
Many studies have been conducted how the transformational leader could reduce the
employees' absence and the intention to quit of an employee (Kamariah, Wafa, Tajammal, &
Syed, 2011; Avey, Luthans, Smith, & Palmer, 2010). Firth (2004) suggest that to ameliorate
intention to quit, managers need to actively monitor workloads and the relationship between
supervisor and subordinates needs to be managed in proper way (Firth, 2004). Research from
Ekkirala et al. (1998) revealed that transformational leadership could influence the
employee’s effort and attitudes in the organization. Key aspects for employee satisfaction,
effort and commitment are feedback, inspiration and guidance (Rotham, Diedericks, & Swart,
2013). In this study these aspects are seen to be crucial aspects in determining turnover
intentions. This study revealed empirical evidence that transformational leadership has a
negative relationship with the intention to quit subordinates (Ekkirala & Kumar Goute, 1998).
Page | 17
Leadership is an important determinant of involvement. These concepts are often
positively associated with each other. According to Bass and Avolio (Bass, Avolio, & Jung,
1999) a transformational leader is trying to inspire and motivate followers, to increase
involvement and work engagement. Work engagement includes absorption and dedication.
Work engagement can lead to a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and
challenge (Schaufeli, Dierendonck, & Bakker, 2009). Work engagement could lead to
employee dedication, which is known to reduce the employee’s intention to quit (Schaufeli,
Bakker, & Rhenen, 2009). The transformational leader creates more personal involvement
between himself and his followers, by setting a common vision, mission and goals and
involve them in decision making. A transactional leader on the other hand not so much
focused on the bond with his or her followers, but more on the exchange relationship.
Concluding, the expectation is that transactional leaders increase the intention to quit, while
transformational leaders should decrease the intention to quit.
Hypothesis 2a. Transactional leadership increases intention to quit.
Hypothesis 2b. Transformational leadership decreases intention to quit.
2.4.2 BURNOUT AND THE INTENTION TO QUIT
Stress has been proven to influence the intention to quit (Rowold & Schlotz, 2009) and
dissatisfaction of the employees work leads to the intention to quit (Bigliardi & Dormio,
2005). Job satisfaction is a construction from the field of organisational behaviour. Job
satisfaction measures employee’s attitudes towards their work. Job satisfaction is a popular
topic in Human Resources research because of its potential effects on the behaviours and
wellbeing of professionals. Dissatisfaction of jobs has been related to a number of workplace
withdrawal behaviour, such as absenteeism and the intention to quit. Dissatisfaction is seen as
one of the main influences for nurse turnover (Halawi, 2014). In addition, dissatisfaction is
linked with individual greater risk of burnout, anxiety and depression (Rouleau, Fournier,
Phili, & Dumont, 2012).
Several studies have examined the relationship between the intention to quit towards
employee burnout (Moreno-Jiménez, Gálvez-Herrer, Rodríguez-Carvajal, & Sanz Vergel,
2012). Several studies showed the relationship between stress, burnout and turnover intention
by examining the level of commitment (Peters, Bhagat, & O'Connor, 1981). As commitment
breaks down, an employee is likely to engage in possible job search behavior either in the
present or in the near future. The intention to quit concerns with the individual who may be
Page | 18
thinking about quitting a job, however is not willing to actually quit his job (Firth, 2004).
Turnover intentions are about actually quitting the organizations, while intention to quit is
thinking about quitting a job but not actually quit. Studies indicate that turnover intentions are
an outcome of stress and burnout (Kemery, Bedeian, & Mossholder, 1985; Williams, Konrad,
& Scheckler, 2001). This means that employee burnout is an important factor which could
lead to higher turnover intentions. The leadership style of the manager could reduce
employee’s intention to quit. However recent studies mention intention to quit as a stressor
that predicts employee burnout (Dai, Collins, Yu, & Fu, 2008; Himle, Srinika, & Thyness,
1986; Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986). According to the study of Jackson et al. (1986) the
intention to quit is an identifiable and important phenomenon related to employee burnout
(Jackson, Schwab, & Schuler, 1986). Thus, the second hypothesis supposes that an intention
to quit is positively related to employee burnout. Weisberg (1994) suggests that intention to
quit could be an important factor influencing productivity, commitment and possible burnout.
Therefore, based on previous studies, we hypothesis that the intention to quit is positively
related to employee burnout.
Hypothesis 3. Intention to quit is positively related to burnout.
Page | 19
3. RESEARCH METHOD
This study seeks to answer the question for the whole population of the Big 4 audit firm.
Therefore it was decided to conduct survey research. This chapter describes how the research
is done. In paragraph 3.1 we discuss the composition of the sample and in paragraph 3.2 the
data collection. Paragraph 3.3 described the measurement methods of the constructs
leadership style, burnout and intention to quit. This chapter concludes with paragraph 3.4,
data analysis.
3.1 SAMPLE
The study was conducted in a Big 4 Audit firm in the Netherlands. This audit firm is a
multinational professional services network. The audit firm has a great variety of service lines
to help and counsel companies with assurance, tax laws and advisory (e.g. Strategy,
Performance improvement, Business Recovery). In the Netherlands the company is an
independent part and is established in more than 10 different cities. The corporate ambition of
the Dutch branch of audit firm is to play a leading role in the field of business services. The
audit firm aims to provide the best services and solutions and audit quality for their clients.
A total number of 121 employees of the Big 4 accounting firm participated in the
research on a voluntary basis. A total number of 121 responses were received; 17 respondents
did not fully complete the questionnaire. Thus, the final sample used in the model consisted of
104 responses: 31% females (N=32) and 69% males (N= 72). The respondents were on
average employed 2.5 years by the audit firm and they had worked with 3.69 managers during
the obligated change. Within this study we asked about the function level of the respondent.
There respondents were divided in the following functions SA4 (1), SA3 (1), SA2 (12), SA1
(35), A2 (38) and A1 (17).
3.2 DATA COLLECTION
The questionnaire was developed with the information of the literature and my
supervisor. To test the understand ability and readability of the questionnaire, the survey was
distributed among three employees of the Big 4 accounting firm. They could fill in the
questionnaire without any complaints. Based on a seven point Likert-scale, sixty-two
questions were asked in order to measure the variables of the research. To determine whether
a leader has a transactional or a transformational leadership style the Multifactor Leadership
Page | 20
Questionnaire (MLQ) is used. The MLQ identifies the characteristics of a transformational or
transactional manager and helps individuals discover how they measure up in their own eyes
and in the perspective of those with whom they work (Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999). The
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, is usually administered to subordinates who rate how
frequently their leader uses each type of behaviour (Yuk, 1999). The Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire consists of 32 Likert scale questions. The job demands and job resources items
are adopted from the JD-R model of Schaufeli et al. The Job Demands-Resources model
(Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner, & Schaufeli, 2001) can be used to predict employee burnout
and engagement, and consequently organizational performance.
Transformational and transactional leadership involve different leadership behaviour.
Transactional leadership consisted of management-by-exception passive, management-by-
exception active and contingent reward. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for transactional
leadership is 0.91 in this research. Transformational leadership consisted of 5 subjects,
idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behaviour), inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation and intellectual stimulation. In this research a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.96 is found.
Intention to quit was measured using an expanded version of a propensity to leave
scale (Lyons, 1971). This is a three-item scale asking respondents how likely they are to stay
at the job or leave (Keil, Armstrong-Stassen, & Camerson, 2000). The Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient for the intention to quit is 0.95 in this research.
The items of transactional leadership, transformational leadership, job demands, job
resources and intention to quit are rated on a seven point Likert scale with anchors 1: strongly
disagree; 2: moderately disagree; 3: slightly disagree; 4: neutral; 5: slightly agree; 6:
moderately agree; and 7: strongly agree. The items of burnout are rated on a six point Likert
scale with anchors 1: never; 2: once a year; 3: once a month; 4: once a week; 5: more than
once a week; 6: on a daily basis. The intention to quit is the psychological process that an
individual goes through when they are considering employment options due to some measure
of dissatisfaction with their current job situation. The intention to quit concerns employees
who intend to quit, but do not. The intention to quit can be useful in explaining job behaviors.
Mobley have developed a 3-point Likert scale for measuring the intention to quit (Mobley,
Horner, & Hollingsworth, 1978).
To assess burnout, the Utrechtse Burnout Schaal is adopted (Schaufeli, Dierendonck,
& Bakker, 2009). This scale is adapted and tested from the English version of de Maslach
Burnout Inventory. This is the most used instrument to measure burnout, which is measured
Page | 21
by exhaustion, detachment and competence (Schaufeli, Bakker, & Rhenen, 2009). These
variables are used as a control variable. Next to these control variables some general questions
were asked about the employee setting: how many years he or she works at the audit firm and
how many managers he or she had during the change period.
The survey instrument was web-based. During this study all the attendees from
various offices, were asked if they could help fill-in this questionnaire. The attendees could
fill-in the online questionnaire using a link of a web page containing the survey.
3.3 DATA ANALYSES
Also a multiple regression analysis is conducted to assess the relationships between
components of leadership, as independent variable and those of employee burnout as a
dependent one. The relationship between the intention to quit and several independent
variables. Within this research we accept when the p ≤ 0.05 as an acceptable level. During this
study we make us of the stepwise regression analysis. Stepwise regression is an automated
process in the exploratory stages of model building to identify a useful subset of predictors. In
this study different control variables are used, these control variables are: gender, number of
managers during the change, job tenure and job function. These variables are included in the
survey because they can lead to possible alternative insights and declarations. We analyzed if
the intention to quit has a mediating role between the leadership style of the manager and
employee burnout. In this study the step-wise regression method from Baron & Kenny is used
for determining this relationship (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Page | 22
4. RESULTS
Within this chapter the results of this study will be discussed. Table 1 presents the descriptive
statistics from this study. The Cronbach’s alpha of the constructs is also presented in this
table. The Pearson correlations are shown in table 2. Table 3 and 4 stresses with the
regression analysis of the dependent variable intention to quit. Table 5 and 6 are regression
analysis regarding the dependent variable burnout.
Because many constructs correlate with each other a linear regression analysis is
conducted with the intention to quit as a dependant variable and with burnout as a dependant
variable (Table 3 and Table 4).
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean
Std.
Deviation
Items Reliability
Coefficient
Transactional (TA) 121 47 84 69,12 7,39 12 0,91
Transformational (TF) 121 38 136 91,19 20,36 20 0,96
Job demands (JD) 105 4 25 17,20 3,44 4 0,72
Job resources (JR) 104 9 28 18,16 4,52 4 0,78
Intention to quit (ITQ) 104 3 19 10,81 5,55 3 0,95
Burnout (BURN) 104 35 76 59,35 10,48 15 0,84
QTY of managers 104 1 6 3,69 1,26 1 -
Tenure 104 1 8 2,57 1,21 1 -
Function 104 2 7 5,54 0,99 1 -
Gender 104 1 2 1,31 0,46 1 -
Table 2: Bivariate Correlations
TA TF JD JR ITQ
Transformational 0,06
Job demands -0,11 -0,17
Job resources 0,17 0,63** -0,28**
Intention to quit -0,14 -0,28* 0,35** -0,57**
Burnout -0,22** -0,50** 0,50** -0,17** 0,80**
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Page | 23
Table 3: Model Summary intention to quit
Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson
R
Square
Change F Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 0,47a 0,22 0,21 5,04 0,22 28,97 1 102 0,000
2 0,55
b 0,30 0,29 4,81 0,08 11,38 1 101 0,001
3 0,59
c 0,34 0,32 4,68 0,04 6,39 1 100 0,013
4 0,61
d 0,37 0,35 4,60 0,03 4,64 1 99 0,034 2,06
a. Predictors: (Constant), qtymangers
b. Predictors: (Constant), qtymangers, Transformsum
c. Predictors: (Constant), qtymangers, Transformsum, function
d. Predictors: (Constant), qtymangers, Transformsum, function, tenure
e. Dependent Variable: Intentiontoquitsum
Table 4: Coefficients Intentiontoquit
B SE-b Beta Pearson r
Partial
correlation
(Constant) 62,88 15,52
Qtymangers -1,84 0,39 -0,41 -0,47* -0.43
Transformational -0,08 0,02 -0,28 -0,30* -0,32
Function -5,31 1,93 -0,93 -0,42* -0,27
Gender -3,44 1,60 -0,75 0,39** -0,21
a. Dependent Variable:
Intentiontoquit
**p<0.05
* p<0.01
Table 5: Model Summary Burnoutsum
Model R
R
Square
Adjusted
R Square
Std. Error
of the
Estimate
Change Statistics
Durbin-
Watson
R
Square
Change
F
Change df1 df2
Sig. F
Change
1 0,81a 0,66 0,65 7,77 0,66 194,39 1 102 0,000
2 0,85
b 0,72 0,72 7,00 0,07 24,67 1 101 0,000
3 0,86
c 0,74 0,73 6,84 0,02 5,77 1 100 0,018
4 0,87
d 0,75 0,74 6,72 0,01 4,64 1 99 0,034 1,59
a. Predictors: (Constant), Intentiontoquitsum
b. Predictors: (Constant), Intentiontoquitsum, Jobresourcesum
c. Predictors: (Constant), Intentiontoquitsum, Jobresourcesum, Transformsum
d. Predictors: (Constant), Intentiontoquitsum, Jobresourcesum, Transformsum, Gender
e. Dependent Variable: Burnoutsum
Page | 24
4.1 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
In table 1 the reliability analysis is revealed. Before this table was constructed some
variables were recode due to a negative manner of questioning. Afterwards the model was
tested for outliers with the Z-score method. No outliers were found.
The Cronbach’s alpha of job resources has been constructed, low levels for two items
belonging towards Job resources were removed, due to a severe influence on the Cronbach’s
alpha. From the job resources scale item 9 and 14 were removed, resulting the Cronbach’s
alpha has risen from 0,48 towards 0,78. Item 37 of job demands also negatively affected the
Cronbach’s alpha of this scale, after excluding this variable the Cronbach’s alpha has risen
from 0,67 towards 0,72. A total number of three questions were excluded from the complete
model. All other measurement scales showed acceptable Cronbach’s alpha coefficients: the
Cronbach’s alpha coefficient met the rule of thumb of 0,70 or higher. Table 1 presents ranges,
means, standard deviations, number of items in the final scales and reliability coefficients.
4.2 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP AND BURNOUT
Table 2 presents the correlation matrix for the variables. The results show that
transactional leadership will lead to less employee burnout (r = - 0,22, p<0.05). Meaning that
transactional leadership reduces employee burnout. Therefore we found no support for
hypotheses H1a.
Table 6: Coefficients Burnoutsum
B SE-b Beta Pearson r
Partial
correlation
(Constant) 62,40 6,50
Intentiontoquitsum 1,41 0,14 0,61 0,81* 0,49
Jobresourcesum -0,69 0,20 -0,24 -0,68* -0,17
Transformsum -0,11 0,04 -0,18 -0,45* -0,15
Gender -3,25 1,51 -0,11 -0,16** -0,11
a. Dependent Variable:
Burnoutsum
**p<0.05
* p<0.01
Page | 25
4.3 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND BURNOUT
Consistent with our expectations, we have found (table 2) a strong negative
association between transformational leadership and burnout (r = -0,50; p<0.01). Therefore
we found support for hypotheses H1b, meaning that transformational leadership reduces
employee burnout. A strong positive relationship between transformational leadership and the
availability of job resources has been found (r = 0,63; p<0.01). No significant relationship
between transformational leadership and perceived job demands has been found (r = -0,17).
Within this study we found a strong positive relationship between job demands and employee
burnout (r = 0,50; p< 0.01).
4.4 TRANSACTIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INTENTION TO QUIT
No significant relationship between transactional leadership and intention to quit has
been found. Therefore we are not able to conclude wheatear the transactional leadership leads
to a higher intention to quit by employees. Therefore hypotheses H2a is rejected. Other
research have found that an higher level of contingent reward, offered by the leader, reduces
the intention to quit by the employee. Furthermore the higher the passive management-by-
exception, the higher the intention to leave (Bozeman, 2005; Rowold & Schlotz, 2009).
Management-by-exception passive is the most negative side of transactional leadership.
4.5 TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND INTENTION TO QUIT
The intention to quit was primarily predicted by the quantity of managers and the
leadership style of the manager. Hypothesis H2b expected that transformational leadership
decrease the intention to quit. Table 2 gives support to this relationship (r = -0,28; p<0.05).
The regression analysis shown in table 4 supports this relationship as well (ß = -0,28; p<0.01).
Therefore hypotheses H2b is accepted.These findings are in line with other studies, which
found that transformational leadership negatively correlates with employee intention to quit
(Bozeman, 2005).
Intention to quit was predicted by the amount of managers and is also influenced by
the leadership style of the manager. The amount of managers received the strongest weight in
the model followed by the transformational leadership style of the manager. The prediction
model contained four of the six predictors and was reached in four steps. One variable were
excluded, namely gender and quantity of managers. The model was statistically significant
(F(4, 99) = 14,63, p<0.001) and accounted for approximately 35% of the variance of burnout
Page | 26
(R2 = 0,37, Adjusted R
2 = 0,35). The Anova table of the intention to quit can be found in
Appendix B Table 7.
4.6 BURNOUT AND INTENTION TO QUIT
Burnout was primarily predicted by the intention to quit of employees and to a less
extent by higher levels of the availability of job resources. The prediction model contained
four of the six predictors and was reached in four steps with two variables removed, namely
gender and quantity of managers (see table 5). The correlation table (table 2) show that
intention to quit positively correlates with employee burnout (r = 0,80; p <0.01). The model
was statistically significant (F(4,99) = 74,34, p<0 .001, and accounted for approximately 74%
of the variance of burnout (R2 = 0,75, Adjusted R
2 = 0,74). The Anova table for burnout can
be found in Appendix B Table 8.
The leadership style of the manager has also an effect on employee burnout, see table
6. Hypothesis H3 expected that the intention to quit would be positively related to burnout.
The results of table 2 support this (r = 0,80; p<0.01). The regression analysis supports this
connection (ß = 0,61; p<0.01). The raw regression coefficients of the predictors together with
their correlations with employee burnout are shown in Table 6. The intention to quit received
the strongest positive weight in the model (ß = 0,61; p<0.01). The availability of job resources
(ß = -0,24; p<0.01) and the transformational leadership style (ß = -0,18; p<0.01) are
negatively influencing employee burnout. Because of the findings from table 6 we conclude
that the relationship between transformational leadership, intention to quit and employee
burnout is partially mediated. Because the relationship between transformational and
intention to quit are both significantly predicting employee burnout. These finding support
partial mediation as stated by (Baron & Kenny, 1986).
Page | 27
5. DISCUSSION
5.1 DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to study the relationship between transformational and
transactional leadership and employee burnout, and the extent of intention to quit influencing
this relationship. It was expected that transformational leadership negatively affect employee
burnout and that the intention to quit would be a predictor of burnout. Moreover transactional
leadership was expected to be positively correlated with employee burnout. The results in this
study show that the transformational leadership style leads to lower levels of employee
burnout. Contrary to our expectations the results in this study give evidence that transactional
leadership decreases employee burnout. No significant relationship has found for the
influence of transactional leadership and the mediating role of intention to quit on burnout.
Therefore this relationship could also be further explored in the future. The transformational
leadership style is strongly negatively related to employee burnout. The transformational
leadership style strives towards high levels of performance, however within this study it does
not lead to higher levels of burnout by subordinates. Transformational leaders focus on the
communication of a long-term vision which is based on shared values and common goals.
Consequently, it might be argued that transformational leadership helps establishing a
meaningful - stress-preventing - frame for everyday work. Concluding, transformational
leaders aims for superior levels of performance successfully, but on the other hand their
subordinates do not perceive an increased level of burnout. These findings imply that
transformational leaders could increase performance without adding stress to their
subordinates. Within this research we did not measure job performance, therefore we cannot
say that transformational leadership is a more efficient leadership style. The transformational
leadership style has also a positive influence on the availability of job resources. This is in
line with earlier findings (Bass & Avolio, 1991).
Earlier research about leadership theory manly addresses the relationship between
transformational leadership and employee burnout. However, there are limited studies that try
to understand the process of transactional leadership and the influence on employee burnout.
This study tried to explain the relationship between leadership style on employee burnout.
Findings imply that transactional leadership negatively affects employee burnout. This is in
line with earlier research (Ori & Roth, 2011). In other studies (Rowold & Schlotz, 2009) there
has found a positive relationship between one particular aspect of transactional leadership,
Page | 28
namely management-by-exception. This part of transactional leadership is seen as the most
negative side of transactional leadership.
The JD-R model supposes when job demands are high, they are positively associated with
the exhaustion component of burnout. Job resources are mainly and negatively associated
with disengagement leading towards lower employee burnout. The results of the regression
analysis imply that the availability of job resources negatively influence possible employee
burnout. The more resources ones get, the less burnout he possesses. It can therefore be
concluded that the relationship of transformational leadership influences the availability of job
resources. Job resources reduce the degree of burnout by employees. Furthermore we find that
job demands are a precondition of employee burnout. These findings are consistent with the
proposed JD-R model of Schaufeli et. al (2009).
The intention to quit is one of the main predictors of employee burnout. Within this study
we found that the transformational leadership style reduces the intention to quit by employees.
No significant relationship between transactional leadership and the intention to quit has been
found.
5.2 THEORETICAL IMPLICATIONS
From both theoretical and practical point of view, the results of this study are
interesting. The results of this study contribute to the scientific study of leadership. Not only
because this study focuses specifically on accountancy firms, but also because of the
explanation of the impact of leadership style on employee burnout. Theorists state that a
vision is a precondition to achieve effective organizational change (Conger & Kanungo, 1987;
House, Spangler, & Woycke, 1991). They emphasize that the implementation of change starts
with a leader who formulates a vision associated with a desired organizational outcome
(Nanus, 1992). Theorist also states that transformational leadership has a positive influence on
reducing employee burnout. However theorists do not have a clear and congruous
explanation regarding the relationship between transactional leadership and employee
burnout. Within this research both leadership styles have shown a positive relationship
reducing employee burnout. Leadership function may vary by organizational level, discipline
or employee. In order to met all these demands a combination of the transactional as well as
the transformational leadership style should be adopted (Aarons, 2006). For gaining better
audit quality, managers need to take multiple hurdles to change the organization.
Page | 29
5.3 PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
The managers main role is to collaborate and communicate with subordinates in order to
achieve constructive a relationship with subordinate(s). The internal letter of the Big 4 Audit
firm stated that employees within the organization need to “learn, adopt and communicate”
with each other. Teams with transformational managers perform better and the degree of
burnout by employees is lower (Schaufeli, Dierendonck, & Bakker, 2009). Burnout and
engagement exhibit different patterns of possible causes and consequences. As Schaufeli et al.
(2009) mentioned “different intervention strategies be used when burnout is to be reduced or
engagement is to be enhanced” (Schaufeli, Dierendonck, & Bakker, 2009). A major role for
achieving this is for the HR department of the company. The HR department should realize
that an employee who is “engaged” is one who is fully absorbed - and enthusiastic – about
their work. To increase the effectiveness of the organization and to lower health costs the HR
department of the organization should focus on optimizing the leadership style of the
managers. By embracing a transformational leadership style, employees remain longer in the
organization and show less exhaustion. The organization will prove to work more effectively.
5.4 LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
The research methodology used during this study had some impact on the findings
during this study. First, the change has been introduced in October 2014 the outcomes and
consequences during business season (January until June) were not visible when the
questionnaire has been sent in December. Therefore employees could not see all the outcomes
of the change when the questionnaire was send.
Because of the direct involvement of the researcher - an employee of the Big 4 Audit
firm - the outcomes could be biased because the respondents could give pleasing answers.
Moreover, people who generally have a very positive perception of their leadership more
likely the questionnaire are very positive to be completed and for people who think negatively
about their managerial vice versa. During this study respondents knew that their response
would be anonymous and reliable processes, however it is likely that employees feared that
their answers would be used for other purposes.
The quantitative data could be processed quickly and a large group of possible
respondents could be reached. This study is conducted in one particular organization – a Big
4 accounting firm in the Netherlands, this makes it complex to generalize beyond these
boundaries. Due to the type of research no causality conclusions can be made, this is a general
limitation of (behavioural) questionnaires (Yukl, 2009). To determine causality the
Page | 30
independent variable should be manipulated by means of an experiment or by longitudinal
research.
Future research should focus on the manager which could fill-in a questionnaire
regarding his subordinates. When there are differences between the perception of leader and
follower these difference could be overtaken for achieving better fit.
The theoretical model used in this study could be extended with the variable “support
of the obligated change”. By applying such a model the role of the manager could be taken
apart and the resistance to change could further be determined. Future research could also
discuss leader group prototypicallity. Leader group prototypicallity describes the extent to
which the leader is representative for the group (Van Knippenberg, Van Knippenberg, &
Bobbio, 2007; van Knippenberg & van Schie, 2000). Prototypicallity prescribes beliefs,
attitudes, norms, values and behavior. We believe that when an employee represents the group
values, norms, standards, feelings and perceptions, the intention to quit of possible employee
burnout will be reduced. A follow-up study could be extended with multiple dependent
variables - such as prototypicallity and support - to test whether several independent variables
influence a dependent variable resulting in positive or negative effects, furthermore it is
possible to check for interaction effects.
Future research could distinguish transactional leadership and the management-by-
exception separately to check for opposite results for employee burnout. Management-by-
exception positively effects employee burnout, while transactional leadership itself decreases
employee burnout. An explanation for this phenomenon is that employees know what is
expected from them and how they are rewarded for their achievements. Management-by-
exception passive leaders wait until issues occur, when standards are not met expectations
they intervene. Instead of rewards, punishment is a response for unacceptable performance.
5.5 CONCLUSION
In this master thesis, the effect of the transactional as well as the transformational
leadership style on employee burnout is exposed. A negative relationship between these two
concepts has been found, meaning that the transactional as well as the transformational
leadership style reduces employee burnout. The Big 4 Dutch accounting firm state in their
internal document that employees should “learn, develop, innovate and communicate”. Taken
this study into account, this desired situation is understandable for preventing the intention to
Page | 31
quit. Intention to quit is seen as a precondition of employee burnout. By reducing the intention
to quit of employees the burnout should reduce as well.
Page | 32
REFERENCES
Aarons, G. A. (2006). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: Association With
Attitudes Toward Evidence-Based Practice. Psychiatric Services , 1162–1169.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action
approach. New York: Psychology Press.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of
Management Review , 20-39.
Avey, J. B., Luthans, F., Smith, R. M., & Palmer, N. F. (2010). Impact of Positive
Psychological Capital on Employee Well-Being Over Time. American Psychological
Association , 17-28.
Avolio, B., Bass, B., & Jung, D. (1999). Re-examining the components of transformational
and transactional leadership using the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 441–462.
Awamleh, R., & Gardner, W. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma and effectiveness: the
effects of vision, content, delivery and organizational performance. Leadership Quarterly ,
345-373.
Bakker, E., Tuckey, M., & Dollard, M. (2012). Empowering Leaders Optimize Working
Conditions for Engagement: A Multilevel Study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology
, 15-27.
Baron, R., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology , 1173-1182.
Bass, B. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1991). The transformational and transactional leadership
behavior of management women and men as described by the men and women who directly
report to them. Binghamton, NY: State University of New York at Binghamton.
Bass, B., Avolio, B., & Jung, D. (1999). Re-examing the components of transformational and
transactional leadership using the multifactor leadership questionnaire. Journal of
Occupational and organizational Psychology , 441-462.
Baum, J., Locke, E., & Kirckpatrick, S. A. (1998, Vol 83). A Longitudinal Study of the
Relation of Vision and Vision. Journalk of Applied Psychology , pp. 43-54.
Bigliardi, B., & Dormio, A. I. (2005, 26 (6)). Organizational socialization, career aspirations
and turnover intentions among design engineers. Leadership & Organization Development
Journal , pp. 424 - 441.
Page | 33
Bluedorn, A. (1982). unified model of turnover from organizations. Human Relations ,
135‐153.
Boselie, P., & van der Wiele, T. (2002). Employee perceptions of HRM and TQM, and the
effects on satisfaction and intention to leave. Managing Service Quality: An International
Journal , 165 - 172.
Bozeman, W. C. (2005). An Analysis of the Relationships Between Job Satisfaction,
Leadership, and ... Louisville: University of Louisville.
Brymann, A. (1992). Charisma and leadership in organizations. London: Sage Publications.
Bucic, T., Robinson, L., & Ramburuth, P. (2010). Effects of leadership style on team learning.
Journal of Workplace Learning , 228-248.
Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Campbell, J. D., Trapnell, P., & Heine, S. (1996). Self-concept clarity: Measurement,
personality correlates, and cultural boundaries. ournal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70(1), 141-156 , 141-156.
Chen, Z., Eisenberger, R., Johnson, K., & Sucharski. (2009). Perceived Organizational
Support and Extra-Role Performance: Which Leads to Which? Journal of Social Psychology ,
119-124.
Cherniss, C. (1995). Beyond burnout. New York: NY: Routledge.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Toward a Behavioral Theory of Charismatic
Leadership in Organizational Settings. Academy of Management Review , 637-647.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1987). Towards a behavioral theory of charismatic
leadership in organizational settings.
Corrigan, P., Diwan, S., Campion, J., & Rashid. (2002). Transformational Leadership and the
mental health team. . Administration and Policy in Mental Health , 97-108.
Dai, J., Collins, S., Yu, H., & Fu, H. (2008). Combining job stress models in predicting
burnout by hierarchical multiple regressions: a cross-sectional investigation in Shanghai.
American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine , 785-790.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2001). The job demands
resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology , 499-512.
Demerouti, E., Nachreiner, F., Bakker, A., & Schaufeli, W. (2001). The Job Demands-
Resources model of Burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology , 499-512.
Den Hartog, D., & Hoogh, D. (2009). Empowerment and leader fairness and integrity:
Studying ethical leader behavior: From a levels-of-analysis perspective. European Journal of
Work and Organizational Psychology , 199-230.
Page | 34
Eigenberger, R., Huntington, R., Hutchison, S., & Sowa, D. (1986). Perceived Organizational
support. Journal of Applied Psychology , 500-507.
Ekkirala, V., & Kumar Goute, A. (1998). The Role of Transformational and Transactional
Leadership in Contextual Performance. Hong Kong: Asia Academy of Management meeting.
Fedor, D., Herold, D., & Caldwell, S. (2006). The effects of organizational changes on
employee commitment: a multilevel investigation. Personnel Psychology , 1-30.
Fiol, C. M. (2002, 12 1). Capitalizing on Paradox: The Role of Language in Transforming
Organizational Identities. Organizational Science , pp. 653-666.
Firth, L. (2004). How can managers reduce employee intention to quit? Journal of managerial
psychology , 170-187.
Francis, J. R., & Yu, M. D. (2009, 09 01). Big 4 Office Size and Audit Quality. The
Accounting Review , pp. 1521-1552.
Halawi, A. (2014, June 1). Stimuli and effect of the intention to leave. European Scientific
Journal , pp. 184-197.
Harris, K., James, M., & Boonthanom, R. (2005). Perceptions of organizational politics and
cooperation as moderators of the relationship between job strains and intent to turnover.
Journal of Managerial Issues, XVII , 26-42.
Hasin, H. H., & Omar, N. H. (2007). An Empirical Study on Job Satisfaction, Job‐Related
Stress and Intention to Leave Among Audit Staff in Public Accounting Firms in Melaka.
Journal of Financial Reporting and Accounting , 21 - 39.
Himle, D., Srinika, J., & Thyness, P. (1986). Predictors of job satisfaction, burnout and
turnover among social workers in Norway and the USA: a cross-cultural study. International
Social Work. , 323-34.
Holladay, S., & Coombs, W. (1993). Communicating visions: an exploration of the role of
delivery in the creation of leader charisma. Management Cummncation Quarterly , 405-427.
House, R. J., Spangler, W. D., & Woycke, J. (1991). Personality and Charisma in the U.S.
Presidency: A Psychological Theory of Leader Effectiveness. Administrative Science
Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 3 , 364-396.
International Labour Office. (1993). Report World Labo. Geneva: International Labour
Office.
Jackson, S., Schwab, R. L., & Schuler, R. (1986). Toward an understanding of the burnout
phenomenon. Journal of Applied Psychology , 630-640.
Johnson, E., Khurana, I. K., & Reynolds, K. (2002). Audit-Firm Tenure and the Quality of
Financial Reports. Contemporary Accounting Research , 637-660.
Page | 35
Judge, T., & Piccolo, R. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: a meta-
analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology , 755-68.
Kalliath, T. B. (2001). Is the path to burnout and turnover paved by a lack of supervisory
support: a structural equations test. New Zealand Journal of Psychology , 72-8.
Kalliath, T., & Beck, A. (2001). Is the path to burnout and turnover paved by a lack of
supervisory support: a structural equations test. New Zealand Journal of Psychology , 72-8.
Kamariah, I., Wafa, K., Tajammal, H., & Syed, K. A. (2011). Perceptions for
Transformational leadership, Followers’ Psychological Capital and Intent to Leave in
Pakistan: an insight from Medical and Engineering Sector Interdisciplinary. Journal of
Research in Business , 49-61.
Keil, J., Armstrong-Stassen, M., & Camerson, S. J. (2000). Part-time nurses: the effect of
work status congruency on job attitudes. Applied psychology , 227-236.
Kemery, E., Bedeian, A., & Mossholder, K. (1985). Outcomes of role stress: A multisample
constructive replication. Academy of Management Journal , 363-375.
Kessler, R., Price, R., & Wortman, C. (1985). Social Factors in Psychopathology: Stress,
Social Support, and Coping Processes. Annual Review of Psychology , 531-572.
King, A. S. (1990, April-Juni). Evalutation of leadership. Northern Illinois University,
DeKalb , pp. 43-54.
Kirkpatrick, S. A., & Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects of three core charismatic
leadership components on performance and attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology , 36-51.
Kramer, M., Callister, R., & Turban, D. (1995). . Information‐receiving and information
giving during job transitions. Western Journal of Communication , 151-70.
Kramer, M., Callister, R., & Turban, D. (1995). Information‐receiving and informationgiving
during job transitions. Western Journal of Communication , 151-70.
Lane, N., & Crane, A. (2002). Revisiting Gender role stereotyping in the sales profession.
Journal of Business Ethics , pp. 121-132.
Lee , R., & Ashforth, B. (1996, 01 01). A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the
three dimensions of job burnou. Journal of Applied Psychology , pp. 123-133.
Leiter, M., & Maslach, C. (2001). Burnout and quality in a sped-up world. The Journal for
Quality and Participation , 48-51.
Leithwood, K., Menzies, T., Jantzi, D., & Leithwoood, J. (1996). School restructuring,
transformational leadership and the amelioration of teacher burnout. Anxiety, Stress and
Coping: An International Journal , 199-215.
Page | 36
Lerner, D., David, A., Adler, M., Hong, C., Lapitsky, L., Hood, M., et al. (2004).
Unemployment, Job Retention, and Productivity Loss Among Employees With Depression.
Psychiatric Services , 50-62.
Lewin, J., & Sager, J. K. (2008). Salesperson burnout: A test of the coping of social support. .
Journal of Personnel Selling & Sales Management XXVIII , 233-246.
Lyons, T. (1971). Role clarity, need for clarity, satisfaction, tension, and withdrawal.
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 99-110.
Markus, L., & Robey, D. (1988). Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal
Structure in Theory and Research. Management Science , 583-598.
Maslach, C. (1982). Understanding burnout: definitional issues in analyzing a complex
phenomenon. In M. C., Job Stress and burnout (pp. 29-40). Beverly Hills, CA: WS Pain.
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. (2001). Burnout and quality in a speed-up world. Journal for
Quality & Participation , 48–51.
McClelland, D., & Burnham, D. (1976). Power is the Great Motivato. Harvard Business
Review , 100-110.
Mobley, W., Horner, S., & Hollingsworth, A. (1978). An evaluation of the precursors of
hospital employee turnover,. Journal of Applied Psychology , 408–414.
Moreno-Jiménez, B., Gálvez-Herrer, M., Rodríguez-Carvajal, R., & Sanz Vergel, A. I.
(2012). A study of physicians’ intention to quit: The role of burnout, commitment and
difficult doctor-patient interactions. Psicothema , 263-270.
Morrison, R., Jones, L., & Fuller, B. (1997). The relation between leadership style and
empowerment on satisfaction of nurses . J Nurs Adm , 27-34.
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction for you
organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ori, E., & Roth, G. (2011). Principals' leadership and teachers' motivation: Self‐determination
theory analysis. Journal of Educational Administration , 256 - 275.
Penn, M., Romano, J. L., & Foat, D. (1988). The relationship between job satisfaction and
burnout: A study of human service professionals. Administration in mental health , 157-165 .
Peters, L., Bhagat, R., & O'Connor, E. (1981). An examination of the independent and joint
contribution of organizational commitment and job satisfaction on employee intention to quit.
Group and Organization Studies , 73-82.
Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Meta-analysis of the
relationships between Kerr and Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job
attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 380-399.
Page | 37
PriceWaterhouseCoopers. (2014). Wat we samen kunnen en moeten doen. Eindhoven:
Pricewaterhouse.
Reilly, N. P. (1994). Exploring a paradox: Commitment as a moderator of the stressor
relationship. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, , 397-414.
Rome, K. (2000). The palliative effect of leadership agents on reactions to
workplacestressors. Dissertation Abstracts International , US:Univ Microfilms International.
Rotham, S., Diedericks, E., & Swart, J. (2013). Manager relations, psychological need
satisfaction and intention to leave in the agricultural sector. SA Journal of Industrial
Psychology/SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, , 39-50.
Rouleau, v., Fournier, P., Phili, A., & Dumont, A. (2012). The effects of midwives’ job
satisfaction on burnout, intention to quit and turnover: a longitudinal study in Senegal. Human
Resources for Health , 1-14.
Rowold, J., & Schlotz, W. (2009). Transformational and Transactional Leadership and
Followers’ Chronic Stress. Leadership Review , 35-48.
Saks, A. (1996). The relationship between the amount of helpfulness of entry training and
work outcomes. Human Relations , 429-51.
Saks, A. (1996). The relationship between the amount of helpfulness of entry training and
work outcomes. Human Relations , 429-51.
Sarros, J., & Santora, J. (2001). The transformational-transactional leadership model in
practice. Leadership and organization deverlopment journal , 393-393.
Sashkin, m. (1993). A New Vision of Leadership. Washington, DC: Journal of Management
Development.
Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Rhenen, v. W. (2009). How changes in job demands and
resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of
Organizational Behavior , 893-917.
Schaufeli, W., Dierendonck, v. D., & Bakker, A. (2009). Burnout: prevalentie, risicogroepen
en risicofactoren. Utrecht: Schaufeli.
Shamir, B., Zakay, E., Brainin, E., & Popper, M. (2000). Leadership and social identification
in military units: Direct and indirect relationships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 30 ,
612–640.
Shirom, A. (1989, 01 01). Burnout in work organizations. International Review of Industrial
and Organization Psychology , pp. 25-48.
Sosik, J. J., & Godshalk, V. M. (2000). Does Mentor-Protégé Agreement on Mentor
Leadership Behavior Influence the Quality of a Mentoring Relationship? Group &
Organization Management, , 291-317.
Page | 38
Stogdill, R. M. (1950). Leadership, membership and organization. Psychological Bulletin , 1-
14.
Stordeur, S., D’hoore, W., & Vandenberghe, C. (2001). Leadership, organizational stress, and
emotional exhaustion among hospital nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing , 533-542.
Syrek, C., Apostel, E., & Antoni, C. (2013). Stress in highly demanding IT jobs:
transformational leadership moderates the impact of time pressure on exhaustion and work-
life balance. J Occup Health Psychol , 252-61.
Tett, R., & Meyer, J. (1993, 46). Job satisfaction, organizational commitment, turnover
intention and turnover: path analysis based on analytic findings. Personnel Psychology , pp.
259-93.
Tims, M., Bakker, A., & Xanthopou, D. (2011). Do transformational leaders enhance their
followers' daily. The Leadership Quarterly , 121–131.
Twigg, N., Fuller, J., & Hester, K. (2008). Transformational Leadership in Labor
Organizations: The Effects on Union Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of Labor Research , 27-
41.
Van Dick, R., Christ, O., Stellmacher, J., & Wagner. (2004). Should I stay or should I go?
Explaining turnover intentions with organizational identification and job satisfaction. British
Journal of Management , 351–360.
van Knippenberg, D., & van Schie, E. (2000). Foci and correlates of organizational
identification. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology , 137-147.
Van Knippenberg, D., Van Knippenberg, B., & Bobbio, A. (2007). Leaders as agents of
continuity. Rotterdam: Erasmus Universiteit.
Vera, D., & Crossan, M. (2004). Strategic leadership and organizational learning. Academy of
Management review , 222-240.
Weisberg, J. (1994). Measuring Workers′ Burnout and Intention to Leave. International
Journal of Manpower , 4 - 14.
Westley, F., & Mintzberg, H. (1989). Visionary leadership and strategic management.
Strategic management journal , 17-32.
Williams, E., Konrad, T., & Scheckler, W. (2001). Understanding physician intentions to
withdraw from practice: The role of job satisfaction, job stress, mental and physical health. .
Health Care Management Review , 7-19.
Yuk, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weakness in transformational and charismatic
leadership theories. Leadership Quarterly , 285–305.
Yukl, G. (2009). Leading organizational learning: reflectrions on theory and research.
Leadership Quarterly , 49-53.
Page | 39
APPENDIX A
Likert scale TA/ TF leadership (all items are rated on a seven point Likert scale with anchors
1 = strongly disagree; 2 = moderately disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = neutral; 5 = slightly
agree; 6 = moderately agree; and 7 = strongly agree)
1. This manager provides others with assistance in exchange for their efforts
2. This manager re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are
appropriate
3. This managers fails to interfere until problems become serious
4. This manager focus his attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and deviations
from standards
5. This manager talks about his most important values and beliefs
6. This manager seeks differing perspectives when solving problems
7. This manager talks optimistic about the future
8. This managers instills pride in others for being associated with him
9. This manager discusses in specific terms who is responsible for achieving
performance targets
10. This managers wait for things to go wrong before taking action
11. This manager talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished
12. This manager specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
13. This manager spends time teaching and coaching
14. This manager makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance goals are
achieved
15. This manager shows that he/ she is a firm believe that “if it ain’t broken, don’t fix it”
16. This manager goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group
17. This manager treat others as individuals rather than just as a member of a group
18. This manager demonstrate that problems must become chronic before he takes action
19. This manager act in a way that build others’ respect for me
20. This manager concentrates his full attention on dealing with mistakes, complaints and
failures
21. This manager considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions
22. This managers keeps track of all mistakes
Page | 40
23. This manager displays a sense of power and confidence
24. This manager articulates a compelling vision of the future
25. This manager directs my attention towards failures to meet standards
26. This manager considers me as an individual as having different needs, abilities and
aspirations from others
27. This manager get others to look at problems from many different angles
28. This manager helps others to develop their strengths
29. This manager suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignment
30. This manager the importance of having a collective sense of mission
31. This manager expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations
32. This managers expresses confidence that goals will be achieved
Job demands (all items are rated on a seven point Likert scale with anchors 1 = strongly
disagree; 2 = moderately disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = neutral; 5 = slightly agree; 6 =
moderately agree; and 7 = strongly agree)
33. My work physically demands a lot of me
34. I get carried away when I’m working
35. The contact with people to whom I provide a service requires a lot of me
36. It is physically hard for me to get used to my working hours
37. My physical working conditions are good (think of the work climate, light, sound,
design of the workplace and the equipment)
38. I often think about leaving this organization
Intention to quit (all items are rated on a seven point Likert scale with anchors 1 = strongly
disagree; 2 = moderately disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = neutral; 5 = slightly agree; 6 =
moderately agree; and 7 = strongly agree)
39. I think a lot about leaving this organization
40. I am actively searching for an acceptable alternative to this organization
41. When I can, I will leave the organization.
Page | 41
Job resources (all items are rated on a seven point Likert scale with anchors 1 = strongly
disagree; 2 = moderately disagree; 3 = slightly disagree; 4 = neutral; 5 = slightly agree; 6 =
moderately agree; and 7 = strongly agree)
42. I get enough feedback about my performance
43. My performance are well rewarded
44. I can decide how I want to do my work
45. Only the board decides what everyone should do
46. The threat of losing my job is very low
47. My manager keeps distance from his / her employees
Burnout (all items are rated on a six point Likert scale with anchors 1: never, 2: once a year 3:
once a month 4: once a week 5: more than once a week 6:on a daily basis)
48. I feel mentally exhausted by my work
49. I doubt about the usefulness of my work
50. Working all day at my work is a heavy for me
51. I know how to manage with the problems in my work adequately
52. I feel 'burnt' due to my work
53. I notice that I have got too much space from my work
54. I'm not as enthusiastic as before about my work
55. I think I do my job well.
56. If I finish a task at work, this cheers me on
57. At the end of a working day I feel empty
58. I learned many valuable things with my work
59. I just want to do my job and not be further harassed
60. I feel tired when I get up in the morning and a new day of work
61. I have become cynical towards my work
62. In my work I’m self-confident
General questions
63. How many managers have you had during the change?
64. How many years have you been employed?
65. What is your function?
a. Assistant Manager
b. SA4
Page | 42
c. SA3
d. SA2
e. SA1
f. A2
g. A1
66. What is your gender?
a. Men
b. Woman
Page | 43
APPENDIX B
Table 7 ANOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square F Sig.
1 Regression 737,08 1 737,08 28,97 ,000b
Residual 2595,14 102 25,44
Total 3332,22 103
2 Regression 999,93 2 499,97 21,65 ,000c
Residual 2332,29 101 23,09
Total 3332,22 103
3 Regression 1139,99 3 380,00 17,33 ,000d
Residual 2192,23 100 21,92
Total 3332,22 103
4 Regression 1238,11 4 309,53 14,63 ,000e
Residual 2094,11 99 21,15
Total 3332,22 103
a. Dependent Variable: Intentiontoquitsum
b. Predictors: (Constant), qtymangers
c. Predictors: (Constant), qtymangers, Transformsum
d. Predictors: (Constant), qtymangers, Transformsum, function
e. Predictors: (Constant), qtymangers, Transformsum, function, tenure
Page | 44
Table 8 ANOVAa
Model
Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
1 Regression 11746,91 1 11746,91 194,394 ,000b
Residual 6163,70 102 60,43
Total 17910,62 103
2 Regression 12956,91 2 6478,45 132,09 ,000c
Residual 4953,71 101 49,05
Total 17910,62 103
3 Regression 13227,11 3 4409,04 94,14 ,000d
Residual 4683,51 100 46,84
Total 17910,62 103
4 Regression 13436,96 4 3359,24 74,34 ,000e
Residual 4473,65 99 45,19
Total 17910,62 103
a. Dependent Variable: Burnout2sum
b. Predictors: (Constant), Intentiontoquitsum
c. Predictors: (Constant), Intentiontoquitsum, Jobresourcesum
d. Predictors: (Constant), Intentiontoquitsum, Jobresourcesum, Transformsum
e. Predictors: (Constant), Intentiontoquitsum, Jobresourcesum, Transformsum, gender