Psychological Capital, Workload, and Burnout: What’s New? The Impact of Personal Accomplishment to Promote Sustainable Working Conditions

Abstract

Research on burnout has traditionally focused on job demands, with less attention paid to protective factors. From the emerging and innovative area of psychology of sustainability and sustainable development, this study aimed to analyze the relationship that job demands (workload), and personal resources (psychological capital) have with burnout. The sample includes 517 workers from various professional sectors. Results of the structural equation analysis show that (1) psychological capital and workload are related to burnout, and (2) personal accomplishment is more a personal resource than burnout dimension. The results confirm the role of psychological capital as a protective factor for burnout. Finally, the importance of examining the relationship between the components of psychological capital, personal accomplishment, and positive emotions is pointed out due to the importance of organizations promoting the development of psychological strengths and resources to promote well-being and sustainable working conditions.

1. Introduction

Burnout is a public health problem that involves great economic and social cost. Therefore, the World Health Organization (WHO) has recently decided to include burnout syndrome as a work-related problem in the next Review of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11). This will take effect on 1 January 2022. Burnout is an individual reaction to interpersonal and emotional stress [1] and has been defined as a syndrome with three dimensions: emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment [2]. Emotional exhaustion is characterized by a lack of energy and feelings of being emotionally drained. Depersonalization refers to negative reactions towards people encountered at work. Reduced personal accomplishment is seen as negative self-assessment and a feeling of failed performance at work [3]. Several studies have indicated that burnout affects physical and mental health [4,5,6] and has a negative impact on employee performance and job satisfaction [7,8].

1.1. Job Demands, Individual Resources, and Burnout

One of the theoretical frameworks in research on job stress to understand burnout is the Job Demands-Resources Model (JD-R) [1]. This model identifies that job demands stand out as the most important predictor of burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization) though a process of deterioration of an employee’s health. Job demands are aspects of the job that involve a physical, emotional, and cognitive effort, and among these what stands out is workload [9]. Workload is a construct that reflects the interaction between task demands (cognitive, temporal, and performance demands) and subjective experience (emotional demands). Cognitive demands refer to the amount of mental and perceptual activity the task requires, and the decision-making aspects required by the job. Temporal demands include aspects related to the number of tasks to do and how quickly. Performance demands include both performance requirements and the job’s level of responsibility. The emotional demands dimension considers the degree to which a job makes the worker anxious or stressed [10]. Excessive workload has an impact on workers’ health: anxiety, exhaustion, occupational stress, as well as on performance: delays in work, errors, and negative organizational behavior. Workload not only affects well-being and safety, but also negatively affects job satisfaction and contributes to high turnover [11,12].

Burnout is related to job cognitive demands, including workload, and to temporal and emotional demands, such that workers who perceive a high level of workload will have a greater risk of suffering job burnout and exhaustion at work. Several studies show this relationship [13,14,15].

As an extension of the original JD-R model, personal resources were included to complete the structure of the model [16], highlighting that the influence on burnout happens through the impact of the perceived nature of a person’s work environment [17]. Individual resources refer to personal characteristics, such as personality traits, positive and negative affectivity, and specific traits (e.g., self-efficacy, optimism, proactive personality).

Recent studies have shown that individual factors are closely related to burnout and that they should be examined in future studies [18,19]. Several authors consider that the dimension personal accomplishment has a separate role from both emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and therefore represents a perceived professional efficacy [20,21]. That is, workers may come to believe that they can perform their jobs adequately and be successful in meeting their work-related goals. Thus, personal accomplishment would reflect the workers’ personal characteristics and not their reactions to stressful situations [22,23] so it may be considered not a burnout dimension but an individual resource that develops largely independently of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization [21,24]. Some authors have also considered this idea and have removed the personal achievement dimension from burnout studies [23]. Self-efficacy, locus of control, emotional stability, extraversion, conscientiousness, agreeableness, positive affectivity, optimism, and proactive personality show a stronger relationship with personal accomplishment [18,25]. However, few studies have considered the personal accomplishment for coping with burnout and improving the conceptual framework on work stress and behavioral/health outcomes [21,26].

1.2. Psychological Capital and Psychology of Sustainability and Sustainable Development to Well-Being in Organization

Positive psychology [27] has had a notable influence on research on burnout, pointing out the importance of not focusing on the negative aspects of the syndrome but on the strengths of people and organizations to improve the employee health, well-being, and performance [24,28]. This approach is aligned with the psychology of sustainability and sustainable development which considers sustainability both in terms of the ecological and socioeconomic environment and in terms of the quality of life of the people [29,30].

Well-being plays a key role in health, which is understood as “a state of complete physical, mental, spiritual and social well-being and not simply the absence of illness or disease” [31]. Well-being has been included among UNESCO’s sustainable development goals [32]. These are seventeen goals that highlight the importance of individual and community development for sustainable growth and development. Well-being is included in two of them, specifically in number three, which refers to good health and well-being, and in number eight, dedicated to decent work and economic growth. The promotion of resources and the development of the strengths of workers implies a preventive perspective that allows achieving high performance, satisfaction, and health in terms of sustainable development for the well-being of organizations [33,34,35].

One of the most important individual resources that has received a lot of attention and could be a deterrent against job burnout is psychological capital (PsyCap) [36,37,38]. The term PsyCap refers to: “an individual’s positive psychological state of development and is characterized by: (a) having confidence (self-efficacy) to take on and put in the necessary effort to succeed at challenging tasks; (b) making a positive attribution (optimism) about succeeding now and in the future; (c) persevering towards goals and, when necessary, redirecting paths to goals (hope) in order to succeed; and (d) when beset by problems and adversity, sustaining and bouncing back and even beyond (resiliency) to attain success” [39]. According to previous studies, PsyCap positively affected employees’ job satisfaction, commitment [40], performance [41], and well-being [42]. PsyCap is significantly and positively correlated with personal accomplishment and negatively correlated with emotional exhaustion [5,43,44]. In addition, the four components of PsyCap have a profound effect on reducing job burnout and increasing physical and mental well-being. For example, in a sample of 305 flight attendants, all four components are negatively related to emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, and positively related to personal accomplishment [45].

Studies among healthcare personnel conclude that individuals with greater self-efficacy and optimism show higher readiness to accept new roles and face job stress, and they show lower rates of job burnout [6,46]. Along the same lines, other research indicates that hope and resilience are negatively correlated with depersonalization and are positive with personal accomplishment [47,48,49]. Traditionally, studies on burnout have focused more on the effects of job demands and situational factors than on the impact of personality characteristics on the burnout process [9,18].

1.3. The Current Study

Previous research has shown that PsyCap could be a positive resource to cope with job burnout [50,51,52]. Despite these results, the study of the relationship between job demands (e.g., workload) and individual variables (e.g., PsyCap) has received less attention [9], so more research about the role of personal resources and job demands on the development of burnout is needed to design efficient strategies of prevention.

Based on the consulted literature, the main purpose of this research is to test two models of burnout. In Model 1, we test the traditional tridimensional concept of burnout and the structure of relations with workload and PsyCap. In Model 2, we test a model of burnout considering it as formed by two dimensions (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization) and personally accomplished as a personal resource, so more related to PsyCap.

Considering the above we hypothesized the following: (1) workload is positively associated with burnout (H1); (2) PsyCap is negatively associated with burnout (H2); and (3) personal accomplishment has a positive relationship with PsyCap (personal resources) and load higher with PsyCap (personal resources) than with burnout (H3).

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

A total of 517 workers in an age range from 18 to 64 (M = 39.86, SD = 13.08) participated in the study. Two hundred and seventeen were male (42%) and three hundred were female (58%). As for having children, 50.3% (260) had between one and six, (vs. the 49.7% that reported not having children), the most frequent being two children (n = 135). Most of the participants had a permanent job (n = 348, 67.30%), followed by those who had a temporary job (n = 132, 25.50%) and those who are freelance (n = 37, 7.20%). Only 16.40% of the sample had taken sick leave in the last year. The most frequent educational level among participants was the university (n = 264), followed by high school (n = 172) and primary studies (n = 81). The occupational profile was as follows: administrative staff (n = 285, 55%), liberal professions (lawyers, tax consultants, engineers) (n = 134, 26%), healthcare staff (n = 98, 19%). The sample was varied, although burnout often occurs in people working in professions requiring intense interpersonal contact with other people; burnout can occur among all occupational groups [26]. In this way, the results will allow greater generalization and comparison with other studies by not being limited to a professional group. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymity guaranteed.

2.2. Instruments

Psychological Capital. We used the shorter Spanish version of the Psychological Capital Questionnaire (PCQ- 12) [53] having 12 items. This evaluates four dimensions: Hope (four items; e.g., “Right now I see myself as being pretty successful at work.”), Self-efficacy (three items; e.g., “I feel confident presenting information to a group of colleagues.”), Resilience (three items; e.g., “I can be ‘on my own,’ so to speak, at work if I have to.”), and Optimism (two items; e.g., “I’m optimistic about what will happen to me in the future as it pertains to work.”). Items are answered according to a 6-point Likert scale containing in a range from 1 (completely disagree) to 6 (completely agree). The score for each dimension is calculated as the mean of the responses for the corresponding items. A high score in each of the components of psychological capital would indicate that the individual had a higher level of the characteristic being measured. Cronbach’s alpha values for each of the subscales were adequate: Hope (α = 0.71), Self-efficacy (α = 0.84), Resilience (α = 0.65), Optimism (α = 0.70).

Workload. It was evaluated with the CarMen-Q [10], a questionnaire designed to assess mental workload in a simple, valid, and reliable way that consists of 29 items. Four dimensions are evaluated: Cognitive demands (ten items; e.g., “My work involves the processing of complex information.”), Temporal demands (seven items; e.g., “I have to work constantly, I cannot take breaks beyond strict regulations.”), Emotional demands (seven items; e.g., “My work affects me a lot emotionally.”), and Performance requirements (five items; e.g., “My mistakes can have serious consequences.”). Each of the items is rated on a 4-point scale, so a subscale score from 0 (never) to 3 (always) is calculated as the mean of the responses for the corresponding items. All items have been stated so that a higher score indicates a higher mental workload. The subscales had good Cronbach’s alpha values: Cognitive demands (α = 0.80), Temporal demands (α = 0.74), Emotional demands (α = 0.71), and Performance requirements (α = 0.70).

Burnout. We used the Spanish version of the Maslach Burnout Inventory [54]. This questionnaire consists of 22 items with three subscales: Emotional Exhaustion (nine items; e.g., “I feel emotionally drained from my work.”), Depersonalization (five items; e.g., “I have become more callous toward people since I took this job.”), and Personal Accomplishment (eight items; e.g., “In my work, I deal with emotional problems very calmly.”). The three factors demonstrated appropriate internal consistency indices: α = 0.84 in emotional exhaustion; α = 0.70 in depersonalization; and α = 0.77 in personal accomplishment. The total Cronbach’s Alpha was 0.79.

A total score for each subscale is calculated as the sum of the response to the corresponding items. High scores on emotional exhaustion and depersonalization and low on the personal accomplishment subscale indicate a high level of burnout. Moderate scores on the three subscales reveal a moderate level of burnout.

2.3. Procedure

Before collecting data, the authors contacted several organizations and work centers to explain the study and request their collaboration. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee obtaining a favorable report on November 2018 (Ref. 2018/19-04). Once the assessment tools were authorized, participants were given information about the objectives of the study and the anonymity and confidentiality of the responses. The instruments were administered in work contexts, in the presence of the authors, and on a single occasion. All participants did so anonymously, completely voluntarily, and signed an informed consent statement. The questionnaires were administered in a paper and pencil format and the evaluation session was organized by the work-center managers in collaboration with the authors and lasted about 35 min.

2.4. Data Analysis

All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 25.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) and AMOS 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). First, mean and standard deviation of all the variables included in the study were calculated.

The relationship between PsyCap, workload and burnout were established by structural equation modelling (SEM) techniques using the Unweighted Least Square (ULS) estimation method, which is considered the most suitable when the variables are measured using Likert scales [50].

The goodness of fit of the SEM models was evaluated with the following indices: (1) the magnitude of Chi-square divided by its degrees of freedom (CMIN/DF, indicates a good fit when it is less than (3); (2) the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA shows a good fit when it is less than 0.05); (3) the Standardized Root Mean Residual (SRMR indicates a suitable fit when it is less than 0.08); (4) Goodness of Fit Index (GFI); Normed Fit Index (NFI); and finally, (6) the Comparative Fix Index (CFI). The values of these last indices should be close to 0.90 or above to be considered a good fit [55].

3. Results

Correlation coefficient matrix and descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for all measures are in

Table 1. Correlation coefficient matrix and descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for all measures.

	M	SD	EE	DP	PA	SE	H	R	O	CD	ED	TD
EE	20.77	11.18
DP	6.10	5.54	0.51 **
PA	35.61	8.36	−0.22 **	−0.22 **
SE	4.08	1.25	−0.27 **	−0.16 **	0.29 **
H	4.30	0.93	−0.32 **	−0.19 **	0.51 **	0.54 **
R	4.82	0.85	−0.16 **	−0.08	0.24 **	0.29 **	0.38 **
O	4.60	1.13	−0.41 **	−0.19 **	0.39 **	0.34 **	0.52 **	0.34 **
CD	1.79	0.49	0.40 **	0.21 **	0.09 *	−0.13 **	0.05	0.02	−0.11 **
ED	1.61	0.50	0.30 **	0.12 **	0.11 *	−0.04	0.12 **	0.04	−0.06	0.77 **
TD	1.55	0.57	0.35 **	0.19 **	0.11 *	−0.08	0.06	0.01	−0.10 *	0.76 **	0.71 **
PD	1.86	0.48	0.25 **	0.14 **	0.02	−0.18 **	0.01	−0.01	−0.10*	0.54 **	0.50 **	0.53 **

Note: EE: Emotional exhaustion; DP: Depersonalization; PA: Personal accomplishment; SE: Self-efficacy: H: Hope; R: Resilience; O: Optimism; CD: Cognitive demands; ED: Emotional demands; TD: Temporal demands; PD; Performance demands. * p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

.

Two models were tested. In the first model, the effects of PsyCap and workload on burnout were evaluated, considering the traditional tridimensional concept of burnout. In the second model, we test the effects of PsyCap and workload on a bidimensional concept of burnout (emotional exhaustion and depersonalization), excluding personal accomplishment.

Model 1: The results showed direct effects of both PsyCap and the workload on burnout (Figure 1). Both effects were statistically significant (p < 0.001). The results show that the greater the PsyCap, the lesser burnout, while as the workload increases, burnout rises. So, hypotheses 1 and 2 are confirmed. This model showed adequate fit indices: GFI = 0.926; NFI = 0.986; CFI = 0.904; however, other indices did not show a good fit: CMIN/DF = 6.067; RMSEA = 0.099 (CI 95%: 0.087–0.111); SRMR = 0.0958; χ² (41) = 248.745 (p < 0.001).

Regarding measurement of burnout, the model shows that although all the regression coefficients were significant for the three dimensions—p < 0.001 that is, emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment—the last dimension, personal accomplishment, had less weight than the other two.

Model 2: Results showed direct effects of both psychological capital and workload on burnout (Figure 2). Both effects were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and were along the same lines as the results in Model 1: the greater the psychological capital, the lower burnout, while as the workload increases, there is an increase in burnout levels. Model 2 had good fit indices and better than Model 1: GFI = 0.963; NFI = 0.995; CFI = 0.966; CMIN/DF = 2.820; RMSEA = 0.059 (CI 95%: 0.047–0.072); RMR = 0.055; χ² (41) = 114.634 (p < 0.001); χ²_dif = 134.11 (p < 0.001).

Results for Model 2 are similar to those found in Model 1 regarding the relationship between workload and burnout. Job demands (workload) affect the development of burnout, so higher demands are associated to higher emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. In contrast, personal resources (PsyCap) can be considered as protective factors against burnout as higher PsyCap, lesser burnout. The better fit of Model 2 shows that personal accomplishment had a high and positive relationship with psychological capital and less weight on burnout, so the hypothesis 3 is confirmed. These results would indicate that personal achievement could be more of a personal resource to cope with burnout than a dimension of it.

4. Discussion

The research purpose of the present study has been to test the relationship between PsyCap, workload, and burnout with the aim of exploring the impact of PsyCap on burnout based on an interest to boost sustainable working and the well-being of organizations [33]. The study of burnout has traditionally been oriented toward identifying those factors, situations, and job demands that cause it, ignoring the variables that could act as a protective factor. In contrast, from a more positive perspective, we also considered important focusing on the personal strengths that can act as a protection barrier against burnout.

Our results show that job demands have an effect on burnout, since as workload increases, burnout levels also increase [1,56,57] (hypothesis 1). It is also shown that the greater the psychological capital, the lower the levels of burnout, which underlines the protective role and positive effect that personal resources, in this case psychological capital, have on burnout [18]. The results confirm hypothesis 2. On the other hand, the results of this study show that there is no significant relationship between personal resources (PsyCap) and job demands (workload), which coincides with previous research [58,59]. Other studies have shown the mediation role of personal resources on the relationship between workload and burnout in specific simples (nurses, policies) [60], which it could be considered to future research.

In accordance with previous research and the JD-R model, the confirmation of hypothesis 1 and 2 reveal that the workload (jobs demands) is a powerful stressor and that the PsyCap (personal resources) seems to be a relevant individual resource to cope with burnout; in other words, higher PsyCap, less burnout [6,45].

The results of this study showed that personal accomplishment has a high and positive relationship with PsyCap [44,45] and less of a weight on burnout dimension, which seems to indicate that personal achievement, traditionally considered a subdimension of burnout, would instead be a personal resource to cope with burnout. These results support the approaches of other authors who consider that exhaustion and depersonalization are the core parts of burnout and that personal accomplishment is not a reaction to stressful situations but an individual resource (personality) that develops largely independently and so has a separate role in burnout [23].

The positive impact of PsyCap on personal accomplishment could be explained by the fact that people with high scores on these factors (self-efficacy, optimism, hope, and resilience) believe they have greater control over the work setting, can better handle their job demands and feel more satisfied, which leads to positive assessment of the possibility for success which, in turn, can increase individual skills to cope with burnout [6,9,61]. People with high levels of optimism find better solutions when facing stressful job demands [38,46]. People who are highly hopeful are intrinsically motivated, find varied ways of achieving their work goals, and are less likely to suffer the effects of burnout [44,47]. Individuals with a high level of self-efficacy are more confident in their abilities to accomplish their goals and are self-motivated [62,63]; moreover, other studies show that a low level of self-efficacy is a risk factor to develop burnout [26]. Our study shows that relationship between self-efficacy and personal achievement is stronger than the other two dimensions of burnout, as in other studies [18,26]. These results could indicate that there is an overlap between self-efficacy and personal accomplishment and that it may also refer to professional efficacy [21,26]. In this way, personal accomplishment does not fulfill the key role of burnout, but is a resource similar to self-efficacy to cope with burnout.

As with self-efficacy, optimism and hope, the relationship between resilience and personal accomplishment may be due to individuals with high levels of resilience being able to overcome emotional exhaustion and improve their personal competence, as such lowering distress and job burnout [48,49]. The low reliability value (α = 0.65) observed in our study is also found in other studies that used the PCQ-12. Dawkins et al. [64] observed in a review of 29 psychometric studies that optimism and resilience dimensions tend to be lower than the self-efficacy and hope dimensions [65,66,67].

Although some studies have demonstrated the role of PsyCap and other individual variables (e.g., self-efficacy) as moderators of burnout [30], few studies have addressed this role of personal accomplishment [21]. The higher correlation with PsyCap could be explained because personal achievement is a personal resource more similar to self-esteem, self-efficacy, and optimism. Our results seem to indicate that personal achievement may be a new dimension of PsyCap, but this cannot be concluded with the current study, so future research could address this problem and to have a better understanding of personal variables in burnout.

The higher correlations of PsyCap with personal achievement than emotional exhaustion and depersonalization show that personal achievement does not fulfill the key role of burnout, but is a crucial personal resource to cope with it. These results could serve to address a new conceptualization of burnout and move from a conceptualization of three components to a burnout model in the framework of work stress [21] that distinguishes objective and subjectively perceived events (workload) of its impacts in the individual (emotional exhaustion), in part through the identification of factors that influence this impact, coping strategies, and personal resources (personal accomplishment). This conceptualization would specify that personal accomplishment as a mediating/moderating variable and will allow to address burnout from a broader perspective, not only from the framework of work stress and behavioral/health outcomes but from a preventive and well-being approach.

4.1. Implications for Promoting Well-Being and Sustainability in Organizations

The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development [28,29] underlines a prevention approach [68,69] and promotes well-being in individuals and organizations to sustainable development and global growth [33]. This study has shown that there is a direct and positive relationship between personal accomplishment and PsyCap, as in previous studies [44,45]. Personal accomplishment seems to be a personal resource, rather than a burnout dimension, which contributes to employee health and well-being.

The results have important theoretical and practical contributions. From the JD-R model, the results provide evidence on the protective role of personal factors in burnout and their direct impact on burnout, not only through interaction with work resources. Regarding the conceptualization of burnout, these results confirm that personal accomplishment could be a personal resource and not a burnout dimension, improving the conceptual framework on work stress and behavioral/health outcomes. Despite the fact that several studies indicate a strong relationship between positive affectivity, self-efficacy, and personal accomplishment, as a personality construct and an independent dimension of burnout has not been sufficiently studied.

On the practical implications, these findings provide new evidence for the role of PsyCap on burnout. One of the key characteristics of PsyCap is its plasticity [70]. Previous research has shown that the development of PsyCap is related to an improvement in performance, both as assessed by a superior and in the evaluation of objective results [64,71]. Likewise, several studies have shown the positive effect of psychological capital on burnout [37,72].

The malleability of psychological capital is explained by social cognitive theory, self-efficacy, and the human agency theory of Bandura [66,73]. Human agency is the ability to exercise control over our own functioning and over the events that affect our lives [73]. The concept has emerged as a result of self-control and self-efficacy concepts. This agency is a strategy of change so that individuals can generate modifications and transformations, both of themselves and their environment. Since psychological capital could be developed, it is possible to design interventions both organizationally and individually to increase individual resources and strengths. Among the strategies used are modelling, mastery experiences, self-regulation, self-reflection [66], feedback from leaders [71], and job redesign [72]. Training provides development of personal resources such as self-efficacy [73], optimism [74], resilience [75], and hope [76].

The research consulted has shown that workers achieve the better job performance and well-being in a challenging work environment. Management can influence the demands and job resources of employees to mobilize their own personal resources. There can be several ways to implement these interventions. One of them would be to inform employees individually about their most important strengths. Thereafter, one option would be to give employees a clearer picture of how often they use their strengths in the daily performance of their activities at work. If it turns out that employees do not use their strengths enough, the next step would be to provide them with alternatives so they can use them in a new way. This could lead employees to (re)consider how to use their strengths in certain types of work activities which, in turn, could improve their personal resources, performance, and level of well-being [52].

4.2. Limitations

One of the limitations of this study was the use of self-report measures. Future studies could enhance with other different procedures. Second, the cross-sectional design does not warrant causal relationships among variables. The third limitation is the absence of a measure of engagement. Further studies should check the complete JD-R model and include engagement (motivational path) instead of solely burnout (exhaustion path). In this way, the role of personal resources and the relationship between PsyCap, workload, personal achievement, and engagement could be examined to buffer the impact of job demands and influence motivation. This study only confirmed the validity of the hypothesis based on the difference of the general model. Future research could perform new analysis (Confirmatory Factor Analysis, CFA) to verify if personal achievement is a PsyCap or Burnout dimension, as it could be affected by other factors (for example, job context, or individual variables). In addition, it could be checked whether personal accomplishment is a specific work-related self-efficacy construct and to examine the relationship with other positive personal variables to develop flourishing individuals [77]. Finally, the low reliability value for the resilience dimension of PsyCap observed in this study can be also a limitation; however, previous studies have indicated that such a dimension evaluated with PCQ-12 usually presents lower reliability than the other core dimensions of PsyCap [64,65].

5. Conclusions

The psychology of sustainability and sustainable development underlines a prevention approach and promotes well-being in individuals and organizations to sustainable development and global growth.

This study shows a better understanding of the risk factors, the role of the personal resources as protective factors against the development of burnout, and various underlying mechanisms. There is a high direct and positive relationship between psychological capital and the dimension of personal accomplishment. The psychological capital seems to be a protective factor to burnout which contribute to employee health and well-being. By the other hand, the personal achievement does not fulfill the key role of burnout, but is a crucial personal resource to cope with it. These results could serve to address a new conceptualization of burnout and move from a conceptualization of three components to a burnout model in the framework of work stress and preventive perspective.

Considering that burnout is a public health problem involving great economic and social cost, the main contribution of this study is to show the role of individual resources as protectors from burnout and that the personal accomplishment is more a dimension of personal resources which opens up new perspectives for intervention on these factors, since we could act not only on the situational variables that predict burnout, but also on the personal variables, making more effective interventions to prevent burnout, promote well-being, and sustainable working conditions and organizations.