Better bored than burned-out? Cynicism as a mediator between boredom at work and exhaustion

ABSTRACT

Boredom at work occurs in the context of low demands and resources and can have a host of negative outcomes for employees. However, the existing literature is lacunary concerning the mechanisms underlying the link between boredom and its negative outcomes. Based on the concept of tedium, this study examines the link between boredom at work and burnout, with a particular attention to the possibility of indirect effects. Analyses were conducted on a sample of 452 adults working in Switzerland. Our study’s results showed that the link between boredom at work and exhaustion was mediated by cynicism, representing a disengagement from work. These findings are discussed based on the conservation of resources theory and several practical implications for organisations are highlighted.

KEYWORDS:

• Boredom
• burnout
• work environment
• job resources
• wellbeing at work

In the last decades, there has been scholarly effort to understand boredom at work, defined as a state of employee ill-being, which occurs as a reaction to situations or tasks that fail to stimulate individuals, and consequently to capture their interest and attention (Harju & Hakanen, 2016). Even though boredom at work was traditionally studied in relation to monotonous and repetitive activities, more recent research has revealed its prevalence in a large number of work contexts and organisations (e.g. Harju et al., 2014), which implies that a variety of jobs may trigger this state of mind to some extent.

Boredom at work typically manifests in a context of low job demands and low job resources¹, and it is associated with performance-related negative outcomes, such as counterproductive behaviours (Bruursema et al., 2011; Spector & Fox, 2005; van Hooff & van Hooft, 2014), turnover intentions (Reijseger et al., 2013), absenteeism (Kass et al., 2001), as well as ill-health indicators, namely stress symptoms (Harju et al., 2014), depressive feelings and distress (van Hooff & van Hooft, 2014, 2016), and frustration (van Tilburg & Igou, 2017; van Hooft & van Hooff, 2018). Such findings clearly suggest that boredom may lead to a host of negative outcomes, both at an organisational and an individual level (Reijseger et al., 2013), and as such should be considered a serious threat in terms of work-related health and wellbeing.

Although the actual state of research is mainly focused on the correlates of boredom, the detrimental outcomes mentioned above call for a better understanding of the psychological mechanisms linking boredom to its negative effects. To date, empirical investigations exclusively aimed at exploring the so-called passive dimension of work have been quite scarce. This line of research has been largely overshadowed by studies focusing on the effects of excessive demands and overload at work in terms of strain and burnout, and thus considering overstimulating job conditions as the key source of health problems and ill-being. However, as Schaufeli and Salanova (2014) suggest, “the effects of overstimulation (e.g. burnout) and understimulation (e.g. boredom) seem to overlap to some extent since both are characterised by feeling worn out” (p. 298). Whilst this observation seems to point to two essential pillars of adverse work experiences, namely under – and overstimulation, to our knowledge, no studies to have tried to empirically investigate their different underlying mechanisms that may lead to similar and overlapping outcomes.

The current study aims to explain this overlap by drawing on the concept of tedium (Kafry & Pines, 1980). This concept is particularly useful in disentangling the negative effects of various and somewhat different work environments because it postulates that adverse working conditions (i.e. those that may be demanding too much or too little) can ultimately lead to experiencing tedium, defined as the depletion of mental, emotional, and physical energy and generally referred to as a state of exhaustion. Notably, as a result of understimulation, tedium is preceded by the absence of key motivating elements and opportunities to fulfil basic needs at work (e.g. the need for challenge, meaning, and opportunities for achievement; Kafry & Pines, 1980) that are usually catered for various job resources and/or challenge demands. As explained below, we regard boredom at work to stem from the lack of motivating and stimulating job characteristics, which presumably triggers a state of detachment and cynicism, ultimately leading to exhaustion.

In this paper, we thus contribute to the literature by disentangling the link between boredom at work and exhaustion, drawing on the concept of tedium and prior conceptualizations of the subdimensions and processes of burnout. To do so, we posit cynicism as a potential mediator of the process through which experiencing boredom unfolds and translates into exhaustion. In the following sections, we first present the concept of tedium and then explain how it applies to our investigated variables of boredom at work, cynicism, and exhaustion.

Tedium and boredom at work

The concept of tedium can be particularly useful to unravel the link between boredom at work and exhaustion. First, tedium is defined as “a general experience of physical, emotional and mental exhaustion” (Kafry & Pines, 1980, p. 478), characterised by “feelings of strain and burn out, by emotional, as well as physical depletion, and by negative attitudes toward one’s self, one’s environment, and one’s life” (Kafry & Pines, 1980, p. 478). This definition largely overlaps with that of exhaustion – generally considered burnout’s core feature (Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996). Furthermore, whereas tedium may represent similar symptoms to those of burnout, it differs somewhat in its occurring conditions. Particularly, tedium stems from features characterised by two types of pressures. The first refers to the “pressures imposed on the cognitive capacity and decision-making mechanism either by excessive demands or by lack of challenge” (Kafry & Pines, 1980, p. 479). The second type of pressure takes into account the constraints “imposed on one’s sense of meaningfulness and achievement by lack of feelings of self-actualization and success” (Kafry & Pines, 1980, p. 479), which may undermine the individual’s basic needs for meaning, purpose, and achievement at work (Morin & Aranha, 2007). In sum, the state of exhaustion can appear in a context characterised by the absence of satisfaction variables where challenge and cognitive demands are perceived as being insufficient.

The experience of boredom in the workplace fits well in the tedium theory and encompasses both types of pressure described above. Concerning the first type, boredom at work occurs in a context of low demands and low resources resulting in a lack of challenge and variety (Harju et al., 2014; Loukidou et al., 2009; van Hooff & van Hooft, 2014). Moreover, concerning the second type of pressure, boredom occurs in conditions undermining the need for meaningfulness, achievement, and success at work, which bring employees to perceive their activities as lacking meaning (Gemmill & Oakley, 1992; Harju et al., 2014; Reijseger et al., 2013) and purpose (Barbalet, 1999; van Tilburg & Igou, 2012).

We hence postulate that boredom, which occurs in working conditions characterised by a lack of stimulation and significance, may create the basis for experiencing tedium and exhaustion. This idea is also supported by the work of Harju et al. (2014), who consider boredom as an affective state characterised by low arousal and low pleasure, at the opposite of work engagement, and conceptually close to burnout (Figure 1). Similarly, O'Hanlon (1981) links boredom to exhaustion by explaining that when employees work below the minimal arousal level, they “must exert effort to maintain their arousal setpoint at the task-optimal level” (p. 72). As previously mentioned, the existing literature shows an overlap between the health-related outcomes of over – and understimulation at work through similarities between symptoms (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2014). However, it is unclear whether the effects of strain and boredom on employees’ health follow the same underlying processes, and further studies need to explore the indirect paths through which specific job conditions lead to adverse health outcomes. As argued in the next section, we expected cynicism to mediate the link between boredom at work and exhaustion since the latter specifically denotes detachment and loss of meaning in an individual’s work that seem to be closely connected to the two types of pressures inherent in the boredom experience.

Figure 1. Dimensions of affective well-being (adapted from Harju et al., 2014).

Boredom at work, cynicism, and exhaustion: a mediation model

To translate the theoretical framework into measurable variables, and to represent the process explained above, our model takes into account three variables: boredom at work, cynicism, and exhaustion (Figure 2). Boredom is considered an experience related to a work context that lacks challenge and stimulation, whereas cynicism and exhaustion represent two dimensions of the burnout construct. These variables will be defined in the following sections.

Figure 2. Mediation model between boredom at work, cynicism and exhaustion.

Boredom at work and cynicism

The first link in our model concerns the relation between boredom at work and one of the three dimensions of the burnout construct, namely cynicism (Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996). Note that this dimension – first labelled as depersonalisation – was redefined in the General Survey version of the burnout model (MBI-GS, Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996). Whilst in the context of human services, depersonalisation was defined as a “dysfunctional mode of coping with the emotional demands of service provision by distancing oneself emotionally from recipients” (Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996, p. 231), this dimension was relabelled in a new proposal as cynicism, reflecting “indifference or a distant attitude toward work” (p. 231). Cynicism is hence characterised by an individual’s mental disengagement from their professional tasks, perceived as insignificant (Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996; Maslach et al., 1996).

Boredom at work implies feelings of uselessness in the face of underchallenging and meaningless tasks (Harju et al., 2016) and leads to employees’ “distancing from engagement in the work itself” (Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996, p. 231). Such a distant attitude toward work, characterised by feelings of uselessness and disengagement, is well represented by the cynicism dimension (Cartwright & Holmes, 2006). We thus consider cynicism to be a particularly pertinent construct for the investigation of the proximal associations of boredom at work.

Cynicism and exhaustion

The second link in our model questions the relation between cynicism and exhaustion and the sequence of their occurrence in the burnout process. Here, it is important to consider that such an (implied) sequence may be different in high-strain versus understimulating jobs. Indeed, in the context of overstimulation and job strain, cynicism is usually considered a strategy for coping with the depletion of energy and resources resulting from excessive job demands (Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996). In such a context, t the burnout experience starts with exhaustion and is followed by cynicism (Leiter, 1990, 1991). However, some authors note that the burnout features do not always follow the same sequence since the way it unfolds may depend on certain characteristics of the work environment (Leiter, 1993). For instance, Golembiewski and Munzenrider (1988) distinguish between acute and chronic stressors, explaining that in a context characterised by less intense, yet chronic hassles, this sequence can be reversed, leading to the rise of cynicism followed by exhaustion.

Based on this reasoning, in our study, we expected a reversed sequence to underlie the experience of boredom at work, which is presumably triggered by passive working conditions. Specifically, underchallenging and meaningless tasks can be hypothesised to act as subacute and chronic stressors, resulting in disengagement and a cynical attitude toward work, which in turn predicts exhaustion. As a result, and in accordance with former studies (Gkorezis et al., 2015; Wei et al., 2015), we assume cynicism to mediate the effects of boredom on employees’ well-being, leading to exhaustion through a progressive loss of resources.

Current study

The current study aimed at understanding the underlying mechanism linking boredom at work to exhaustion, considered the core feature of burnout. As described in the theoretical section, we expected the process through which boredom is linked to exhaustion to manifest differently from the classical burnout process. More specifically, we presumed cynicism to mediate the link between boredom and exhaustion, but not vice versa (Figure 2). Thus, we have articulated the following hypothesis:

H1: Boredom at work is positively related to exhaustion through cynicism.

However, to support our model’s pertinence in comparison to the predominantly formulated burnout process in the existing literature, we also tested an alternative model which posits that exhaustion mediates the effects of boredom on cynicism (Figure 3). We hence formulate a second hypothesis as follows:

Figure 3. Mediation model between boredom at work, exhaustion and cynicism.

H2: Exhaustion does not mediate the link between boredom at work and cynicism.

Method

Sample

The sample was composed of 452 active adults in the French-speaking part of Switzerland, 43.4% of whom worked in the private sector and 44% in the public sector, with 12.6% not reporting this information. Participants were 59.3% of women, with a mean age of 39.39 years (SD = 12.05). Moreover, the sample regrouped different professional and educational levels: 15% of the participants held executive positions, 29.2% were active in academic and liberal professionals, 12.8% were active in intermediate professions,² 27.4% were administrative personnel, 8.8% were sales personnel, and 6,7% were blue-collar workers, such as craftsperson, machine operators, and unskilled workers.

Data in the public sector were collected through an online questionnaire using the LimeSurvey platform, with the support of the human resource departments of two public institutions that agreed to participate. Data in the private sector were collected through an online questionnaire by undergraduate students as part of a methodology course. Table 1 shows descriptive characteristics of the sample and measures.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics of the study variables.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4
(1) Age	39.39	12.05
(2) Gender	1.41	0.49	−.05
(3) Boredom at work	2.41	1.04	−.32***	.05
(4) Cynicism	2.72	1.34	.01	−.00	.42***
(5) Exhaustion	3.04	1.29	−.03	−.03	.32***	.59***

N = 452. ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05.

Measures

Boredom at work

Situational boredom was measured with the DuTCH boredom scale (DUBS; Reijseger et al., 2013). The validated French version of the scale was used (Toscanelli et al., 2022). This instrument is composed of six items (“I feel bored at my job”). Participants answered this questionnaire using a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always). The scale scores showed good reliability (Cronbach's α = .86)

Cynicism

Cynicism was measured with the cynicism subscale from the Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey (MBI-GS; Schaufeli et al., 1996), using its validated French version (Bocéréan et al., 2019). This subscale includes five items (e.g. “I have become more cynical about whether my work contributes anything”), using a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). The scale scores showed good reliability (Cronbach's α = .86).

Exhaustion

Exhaustion was measured with the exhaustion subscale from the Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey (MBI-GS; Schaufeli et al., 1996), using its validated French version (Bocéréan et al., 2019). The subscale consists of five items (e.g. “I feel emotionally drained from my work”) rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always). In the current study, Cronbach’s α’s for exhaustion showed good reliability (α = .86).

Statistical analyses

Before testing the hypothesised models, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess the structural validity of the measures used.

To test the hypotheses, mediation analyses were conducted, controlling for standard demographics, namely age and gender when estimating the main predictor.

The mediation models were tested with SEM, using AMOS version 26 for SPSS. The criterion for mediation was the identification of a significant indirect effect as indicated by the 95% confidence interval not including the zero value.

Results

As shown by descriptive statistics in Table 1, the main variables correlated in the expected way. Boredom at work showed a moderate significant correlation with cynicism and a weaker, yet significant correlation with exhaustion, whereas cynicism and exhaustion were strongly and significantly correlated.

CFA results

To test whether our investigated variables denoted separate and well-distinguishable constructs, a series of alternative factor models were run. First, an overall one-factor model was tested. The analysis showed unsatisfactory results: χ² = 1983.074, df = 104, p < .001, CFI = .522, TLI = .449, RMSEA = .200. Then, a two-factor model, including one factor with 6 items (Boredom) and one factor with 10 items (cynicism and exhaustion), was tested because cynicism and exhaustion denote two sides of a broader construct. The analysis also showed unsatisfactory results: χ² = 1045.906, df = 103, p < .001, CFI = 760, TLI = .721, RMSEA = .142. Thirdly, we tested a three-factor solution in which all variables were treated as separate constructs, including boredom, cynicism, and exhaustion. This model showed the best fit compared to previous models; however, its fit indices did not reach the recommended cutoff values with some quite low factor loadings. We therefore made two adjustments to the model. First, we removed the lowest loading items (i.e. one item from the DUBS scale, “I tend to do other things during my work”; one item from(?) the cynicism subscale, “I just want to do my job and not be bothered”; and one item from(?)the exhaustion scale, “I feel emotionally drained by my work”). Second, following the suggestions in modification indices, several residual correlations were added (i.e. Items 4 and 5 in the cynicism subscale, namely “I have become more cynical about whether my work contributes anything” and “I doubt the significance of my work” as well as Items 7 and 8 in the exhaustion subscale, namely “I feel used up at the end of the workday” and “I feel tired when I get up in the morning and have to face another day on the job”). This resulted in a significant improvement in model fit, which was considered acceptable, χ² = 230.510, df = 60, p < .001, CFI = .946, TLI = .930, RMSEA = .079.

Mediation analyses

The fit indices of the hypothesised mediation model (i.e. boredom → cynicism → exhaustion) χ²= 300.172, df = 84, p < .001 corresponded to the recommended cutoff values as suggested by Cheung and Rensvold (2002) and Hu and Bentler (1999). CFI and TLI were above .90 (.93 and .92, respectively) and RMSEA was below .08 (.076). The alternative reversed mediation model (i.e. boredom → exhaustion → cynicism) showed the same fit, as it was based on exactly the same variables and had the same number of parameters.

Results supported the two mediation models. Table 2 synthesises the hypothesised mediation model’s results. As expected, results showed that the independent variable (i.e. boredom at work) directly predicted the outcome variable (exhaustion, path c) and also predicted the mediator (cynicism, path a). Moreover, cynicism predicted exhaustion (path b). Finally, once the mediator was added to the equation, the direct effect between boredom and exhaustion became non-significant, with a significant indirect effect (path c) indicating a full mediation.

Table 2. Results of the mediation analysis by path – hypothesised model.

	Mediator Cynicism	Outcome Exhaustion
	Direct effect (a)	Total effect (C)	Direct effect (c′, b)	Indirect effect (ab)	95% CI indirect effect
	β	β	β	β	LLCI	ULCI
Boredom at work	.46***	.32***	.09	.23	.360	.849
Cynicism (b)			.51***
R^2	.21		.31

Note. N = 452. β standardised coefficients ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, 95% CI indicates the lower limit and upper limit of 95% confidence interval.

Table 3 presents the alternative mediation model’s results. As seen in the table, even though the indirect effect was significant after introducing exhaustion as a mediator, the direct effect also remained significant, which indicates a partial mediation in this case.

Table 3. Results of the mediation analysis by path – alternative model.

	Mediator Exhaustion	Outcome Cynicism
	Direct effect (a)	Total effect (C)	Direct effect (c′, b)	Indirect effect (ab)	95% CI indirect effect
	β	β	β	β	LLCI	ULCI
Boredom at work	.32***	.46***	.31***	.15	.085	.226
Exhaustion (b)			.45***
R^2	.10		.39

Note. N = 452. β standardised coefficients ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, 95% CI indicates the lower limit and upper limit of 95% confidence interval.

In both models, the standardised coefficients for age and gender modelled as covariates were respectively: r = −.327 p < .001 and r = .039, p = .43.

Discussion

This study aimed to contribute to the literature by proposing an explanation of the mechanism through which boredom at work leads to work-related ill-being. In doing so, we aimed to deepen the understanding of potential psychological processes underlying the manifestation of boredom and its detrimental effects. Our first hypothesis posited that the link between boredom at work and exhaustion would be mediated by cynicism – referring to disengagement and perceiving work tasks as lacking purpose and significance. Results supported our hypothesis, showing that boredom was indeed indirectly linked to exhaustion through cynicism. Moreover, this study also aimed at investigating the underlying – and potentially specific – processes linking boredom to its negative effects, arguing that boredom could be associated with exhaustion through a different pathway. To explore this, our second hypothesis brought us to test an alternative model, based on the assumptions of the predominant burnout process in which exhaustion leads to cynicism. The alternative model’s test results demonstrated partial mediation, while our hypothesised model showed that the effect of boredom on exhaustion was totally mediated by cynicism. These findings lead to several considerations.

Firstly, they are congruent with the concept of tedium (Kafry & Pines, 1980) and suggest that the perceived lack of challenge characterising boredom at work (Harju et al., 2014; Loukidou et al., 2009; van Hooff & van Hooft, 2014) and the consequent disengagement from work tasks and work perceived as underchallenging, meaningless, and purposeless (Barbalet, 1999; van Tilburg & Igou, 2012; Harju et al., 2016) could create the basis for experiencing exhaustion.

Moreover, our findings also showed that cynicism mediated boredom’s effects on exhaustion. This is particularly interesting because the latter may have a slightly different role depending on the context. As explained in the theoretical section, whilst in the case of overdemanding job conditions, cynicism represents a strategy to cope with fatigue and exhaustion (Leiter & Schaufeli, 1996), in the context of our study, cynicism could rather precede exhaustion and – representing a disengagement and the perception of professional tasks as insignificant – could be interpreted as a process of eroding resources. Such an interpretation could be supported by the conservation of resources theory (COR; Hobfoll, 2010). Specifically, this theory focuses on the role of resource availability and maintenance as the foundation of human wellbeing, whilst also pointing to the stressful, detrimental consequences of resource depletion. Notably, it posits that resource loss has a more significant impact on wellbeing than resource gain since “people must invest resources in order to protect against resource loss, recover from losses, and gain resources” (Hobfoll, 2010, p. 3), and that “those with fewer resources are more vulnerable to resource loss and less capable of resource gain” (Hobfoll, 2010, p. 4). Applied to our study, this theory could imply that experiencing boredom at work demands efforts from individuals to pursue their tasks, whilst seeking to satisfy their need for stimulation and maintain a sense of purpose. These efforts, when undermined and hindered by an unfavourable context that is a priori low in resources (or both in resources and in demands), could then encumber fostering valuable aspects of the job (e.g. in terms of achieving mastery, self-esteem, or status that refer to personal and conditional resources in COR) and could lead to an erosion of employees’ resources, represented by cynicism, and ultimately to their exhaustion.

Finally, these findings suggest that individuals who experience boredom at work are not exempt from developing signs of exhaustion, thereby highlighting the importance of considering boredom at work as a risk factor for employee health and wellbeing.

Practical implications

In terms of practical implications, by showing that boredom at work can undermine well-being in different occupational domains, our results highlight the importance of job design strategies to promote positive working environments. Considering the possible adverse effects of boredom at work, organisations and HR managers should pay attention to a certain balance of job characteristics because both extremes (understimulation and overstimulation) could lead to detrimental outcomes. Their efforts should thus be twofold: aimed at preventing overload and strain and promoting opportunities for stimulation and growth. In this sense, job crafting interventions could support employees’ proactive efforts to seek challenges, meaning reduce the risk of cynicism and withdrawal, and thus reinforce their work engagement and wellbeing through accumulating their resources (Harju et al., 2016).

Limitations and further research

Our study has several limitations. The first stems from its cross-sectional design, which implies a certain caution in interpreting the results and does not allow for distinguishing causality. To this end, a longitudinal design should be used because it would yield better insight into the sequential effects of our investigated variables.

Moreover, our sample has a limited size and only includes participants from the French-speaking working population in Switzerland. Further studies should target a larger sample, but also allow differentiating between specific job domains and settings that are more at risk of experiencing boredom and its negative effects, in order to achieve better generalizability.

Thirdly, the concept of cynicism is conceptually close to a lack of meaning of work and the tedium theory also hints at the absence of meaning. Therefore, further research may consider paying more attention to meaning variables and inspect them more closely in relation to boredom, as for example in the MAC model (Westgate & Wilson, 2018), to gain a more integrated and comprehensive approach of boredom, which could help to better understand the components of this experience.

Our current model exclusively concentrates on the boredom path. To obtain a clearer answer about burnout processes and especially the sequential development of its sub-dimensions, it would be important to test both the boredom and strain paths in the same study using a longitudinal design.

Finally, a recent study (van Hooft & van Hooff, 2018) showed that depending on work characteristics, the affect linked with boredom at work can be characterised by low or high arousal (depressed vs. frustrating feeling). As the affect linked with boredom at work could lead to different outcomes, it would be interesting to examine our model taking into account this difference.

Conclusion

Our study showed that boredom may be linked with exhaustion through cynicism. This finding is important because cynicism may serve as an explanation for the detrimental outcomes of boredom. At the same time, it shows the need for a better understanding of the underlying processes that lead from boredom to ill-being at work.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in figshare at http://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14559486.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

Ieva Urbanaviciute and Koorosh Massoudi made their contributions partly within the framework of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES – Overcoming vulnerability: Life course perspectives (NCCR LIVES), financed by the Swiss National Science Foundation [grant number 51NF40-185901]. We have no conflicts of interest to disclose. The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Cecilia Toscanelli, upon reasonable request.

Notes on contributors

Cecilia Toscanelli

Cecilia Toscanelli holds a doctoral degree in Psychology from the University of Lausanne (Switzerland) and the KU Leuven (Belgium) on the topic of job boredom. She is currently working as a Postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology at the University of Bern (Switzerland). Her interests are in the field of work psychology, specifically on the social utility of work, “bullshit jobs”, exhaustion through boredom at work, as well as on cultural psychology.

Ieva Urbanaviciute

Ieva Urbanaviciute holds a doctoral degree in Psychology from Vilnius University (Lithuania), where her thesis was aimed at investigating career planning and vocational decision-making in youth. Her current research integrates knowledge from work and career psychology as well as related sub-fields of occupational science. She has been a senior research fellow at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES at the University of Lausanne which is dedicated to the investigation of the various forms and dynamics of vulnerabilities over the life course. She is currently working at the Vilnius University in Lithuania. Her work specifically focuses on work- and career-related vulnerabilities and their long-term effects. She is also involved in several international collaborations on related topics, such as job insecurity, psychosocial working conditions, and new ways of working.

Hans De Witte

Hans De Witte is a full professor in Work Psychology at the Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences of the KU Leuven, Belgium. He is member of the Research Group Work, Organizational and Personnel Psychology and is also appointed as Extraordinary Professor at Optentia Research Focus Area, Vaal Triangle Campus, North-West University, South Africa. His research includes the study of the psychological consequences of job insecurity, unemployment, temporary employment and downsizing, as well as mobbing and burnout versus work engagement. He has published in journals such as the European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, Work & Stress, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Applied Psychology: An International Review and Economic and Industrial Democracy.

Koorosh Massoudi

Koorosh Massoudi is an Associate Professor at the University of Lausanne and at the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research LIVES. His research includes the study of contemporary career trajectories, psychosocial risk factors at the workplace and work-related health and well-being. As a counseling psychologist and a career counselor, he promotes positive working conditions in organizations, and supports individuals in their efforts to develop their career and attain decent and meaningful work.

Notes

1 In this paper, job demands are considered “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” (Demerouti et al., 2001, p. 501). Job resources are defined as “those physical, psychological, social or organizational aspects of the job that may (…) (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 et al., 2001, p. 501).

2 In the current study, intermediate professions reflect such occupational categories as, for example, technicians, accountants, nurses, etc.