Work-related ill- and well-being among Finnish sport coaches: Exploring the relationships between job demands,job resources,burnout and work engagement

Abstract

Objective

This research examined the work-related ill- and well-being of Finnish sport coaches and the associations of job demands and resources with burnout and work engagement. Our study was based on the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model. The JD-R model proposes that job demands relate especially to burnout and job resources relate especially to work engagement.

Methods

Finnish coaches (N = 499) within top-level sports completed a questionnaire measuring burnout, work engagement, job demands and resources.

Results

The results of hierarchical regression analyses showed that burnout was explained with job demands, but also lack of job resources added the explanation rate almost equally. The most important single contributor to burnout was lack of positive challenge at work. Work engagement was explained by job resources, from which positive challenge at work together with mastery of work were the strongest contributors. In addition, decision demands contributed slightly to the explanation of work engagement.

Conclusions

The results suggest that in the work of sport coaches, job resources or lack of them are more essential than job demands to explain both burnout and work engagement.

Keywords

High-performance coaching,health,stress

Introduction

The study of stress and burnout in sports has typically focused on athletes’ experiences.¹ Nevertheless, the existing research has highlighted that sport coaching is also stressful. For example, pressures which result from expectations of winning, athlete development and improvement, managing athlete concerns and success at the national or international level have all been identified as stressors within sports coaching.^2–4 Also, in the review on stress in sports coaches, Fletcher and Scott⁵ concluded that the potential health and performance costs of psychological stress to sports coaches are significant. However, coaching work does not only include negative stressors. There are also positive aspects and experiences of coaching. For example, in an interview study among 14 Canadian sports coaches enjoying coaching process and seeing athletes’ development were mentioned as causes not leaving the job.⁶

So far sport coaches’ burnout has received a lot of research attention as the consequence of stress and specific stressors.^7–17 It has been claimed that the phenomenon of burnout among sport coaches is still poorly understood, although it has been present in the scientific research for about 30 years.⁹ The reason for that is that earlier studies have mainly focused on examining such personal factors as gender, age, and personality traits as antecedents of burnout, whereas working conditions have not been as often in a central focus. In addition, the majority of the studies has been conducted in the USA, where the context of coaching differs from the European context. Although coaches are exposed to similar expectations and pressures in terms of performing roles in all countries, in each country there is a specific macrosocial context in the form how sport is organized and how the profession is legally authorized, which may play a role, for example, in the risk of burnout in the profession.

Burnout is most often defined as a work-related state of ill-being characterized by exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional efficacy.¹⁸ Exhaustion describes feelings of overstrain, fatigue and depletion of emotional energy. Cynicism is characterized by an indifferent and distant attitude towards one’s work, which develops as a dysfunctional way of coping in exhausting situations. Reduced personal efficacy describes loss of competence and productivity, and the tendency to evaluate negatively one’s past and present accomplishment of work. Burnout is seen as a consequence of prolonged job stress.¹⁹ Thus, severe stress can accumulate and over time lead to burnout.

Job satisfaction, in turn, has this far been the research outcome of positive experiences in coaching work.^20–23 Job satisfaction is a pleasurable, positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one's job experiences.²⁴ The state is passive by its nature, and therefore it has been argued that a more active mental state is needed to promote better performance.²⁵ Work engagement has been seen as such a state improving performance.^26,27 Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling affective-motivational mental state of work-related well-being, characterized by vigor, dedication and absorption.^26,28 Vigor refers to high levels of mental energy and resilience while working and personal investment in work. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in onés work and experiencing a sense of meaningfulness, enthusiasm, pride and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated and happily engrossed in onés work, whereby time passes quickly and one has difficulties with detaching oneself from work.

There is clear meta-analytical evidence showing that persons who are exposed to a higher degree of job demands and stressors report poorer health and well-being than persons not exposed to such high levels of job demands and stressors.²⁹ Job demands and stressors are work characteristics that individuals experience as taxing and that elicit strain reactions. In this study we approach sport coaches’ work and occupational well-being using Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model.^26,30,31 According to this model, working conditions can be divided into two categories: job demands and job resources. Job demands refer to physical (e.g. noise), psychological (e.g. workload), social (e.g. interaction load) and organizational (e.g. leadership) aspects that require sustained physical and/or psychological effort and are therefore associated with psychological and/or physiological costs. Because effort depletes one’s resources (e.g. energy), symptoms of strain and burnout may follow. Job resources refer to physical (e.g. adequate tools), psychological (e.g. control), social (e.g. support from colleagues and supervisors) or organizational (e.g. innovative climate) aspects that might help one to achieve work-related goals, reduce job demands and stimulate personal growth and development. Job resources have the potential to replenish one’s resources (e.g. energy), and therefore they contribute to motivation and well-being.

JD-R model^26,30,31 postulates that job demands and resources instigate two very different processes, namely job demands lead to a health impairment process and job resources to a motivational process. Burnout and work engagement are typically examined as outcomes of these two processes.^26,31 Several studies, including meta-analyses, have shown a positive relationship between job demands and burnout^32,33 and between job resources and work engagement.^34,35 In addition, lack of job resources is associated especially with cynicism and reduced professional efficacy.^32,33 According to the meta-analysis of Crawford et al.³⁴ so called hindrance jo demands (e.g. role conflict) are negatively associated with work engagement and challenge job demands (e.g. time pressure) are positively associated with work engagement.

Earlier studies among sport coaches have shown that especially role conflict, role ambiguity and lack of support are among those factors contributing to burnout symptoms among coaches.^2,6,7,10 In addition, tight schedules and overload play a role in advancing burnout.^2,6,11,36,37 As far as we know work engagement has not been studied among sport coaches, but among other occupations especially job autonomy and social support contribute to work engagement.³⁵

Thus, there is a call for studies taking working conditions into account when examining sport coaches’ ill- (job burnout) and well-being (work engagement) in their work. This is important as working conditions can be changed, and therefore coaches’ well-being improved, which in turn is crucial for the viewpoint of athletes. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to explore possible relationships between job demands, job resources, burnout, and work engagement in a population of Finnish sports coaches.

This study provides more information in three ways. First, it focuses on working conditions as antecedents of ill- and well-being in sport coaches and not on demographic or individual correlates. Second, it takes both ill- and well-being into account, as typically earlier studies have examined either ill-being or well-being. Therefore the present study gives a more holistic view on sport coaches’ occupational well-being, including both job burnout and work engagement. Third, we study work engagement, which has not been studied among sport coaches as far as we know. Work engagement is important for performance,^26,27 that is, in our case how efficiently coaches behave and gain their goals. This is the first study on burnout and work engagement among sport coaches in Finland. Although differences between countries are interesting, it seems that the search for factors which may be of universal nature in the professional environment is particularly important.¹⁵

Methods

Participants and procedure

Participants for this study were sought from Finnish top-level sport coaches coaching athletes, who have won medals at either national or international or both levels. Altogether 499 from those 1,052 sport coaches who were contacted responded to the questionnaire (response rate 47.4%) and mailed it back to the researcher. Since Finland does not have a comprehensive register of sports coaches, participants were searched from all over the Finnish sport fields, such as the Sports Federations, members of the Coaches Association and Professional Coaches of Finland. In this way we strived to identify all top-level sport coaches, who were asked to send their contact information to the researcher, who then mailed the questionnaire to them. Of the respondents, 77% were men and 23% women, and 35% were full-time coaches and 65% worked as coaches on part-time basis (i.e. in addition to their regular job). Of the coaches, 39.3% worked as team sport coaches, 53.4% as single sport coaches and 7.4% as coaching both teams and individuals. The largest share of the coaches (35%) were 40–49-years old. The participants were informed about the study goals and assured that their responses would be treated in confidence and that participation was voluntary.

When comparing the background information of the sport coaches taking part in the present study with the information available from nationally representative Finnish studies,^38,39 we could conclude that our participants were representative in terms of gender (77% men in both cases), working as team sport coaches (40% vs 39%) and working on the part-time basis (62% vs. 65%). In Finland, the majority of sport coaches work part-time. Nevertheless, they are very committed to their job and have a professional background in terms of adequate sport coaching education.

Measurements

Job demands

Workload, decision demands and role conflicts were examined as job demands in sport coaches’ work. We chose these demands because there are earlier studies which have revealed that they are crucial stressors in sports coaching.^{2,6,7,10,11,36,37} All job demands were measured by using the Nordic Questionnaire for Psychological and Social Factors at Work (QPSNordic).⁴⁰ Workload was measured with four questions (e.g.” Is your workload irregular so that the work piles up?”, Cronbach α = .81) and decision demands were measured with three questions (e.g. “Does your work require quick decisions?”, α = .64). Role conflict was measured with three questions such as: “Do you receive incompatible requests from two or more people?” (α = .70). Work-family conflict, a specific type of role conflict, was measured by using Carlson, Kacmar and Williams’ inventory⁴¹ focusing only on conflict from work to family based on time management (e.g. “My job prevents me from participating in joint activities with my family as much as I would like to”; α = .88). Questions about workload, decision demands and role conflict were answered on a scale from 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very often or always), and work-family conflict on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree).

Job resources

Control at work, mastery of work, role clarity and fair leadership were measured as job resources in coaching work. We selected these resources as they have turned out to be important for well-being in coaching^17,42 and other occupations.^31,34,35,43 All job resources were also measured by using the QPSNordic.⁴⁰ Control at work included both positive challenge at work (3 questions, e.g. “Are your skills and knowledge useful at your work?”, α = .68) and control of work pacing (2 questions, e.g. “Can you influence the amount of work assigned to you?”, α = .69). Mastery of work was assessed with seven questions such as: “Are you content with your ability to solve problems at work?” (α = .70). Role clarity was measured with three questions such as: “Do you have clear goals for your work?” (α = .75) and fair leadership with three questions such as: “Does your nearest superior treat workers fairly and equally? (α = .84). All questions were answered on a scale from 1 (rarely or never) to 5 (very often or always).

Burnout

Burnout was measured by using the Maslach Burnout Inventory – General Survey (MBI-GS),¹⁸ which has been validated in Finland.⁴⁴ MBI is the most often used measure for burnout in scientific research and also used among sport coaches.^9,12,13,17 Exhaustion was measured with five items (Cronbach α = .93) Cynicism was also measured with five items (α = .83) and reduced personal accomplishment with six items (reverse-coded α = .82). All items were rated using a 7-point rating scale (0 = never, 6 = every day). We made the sum variable of burnout (α = .87), indicating burnout syndrome, combining the three dimensions together. In addition, we calculated sum variables for exhaustion (α = .93), cynicism (α = .83) and reduced professional accomplishment (α = .82). Sample items are not reported because the measure is protected and used with a permission in the present study.

Work engagement

Work engagement was measured with the shortened Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES),⁴⁵ which is the most often used instrument to measure work engagement in Europe. The measure has been validated in Finland.⁴⁶ All three dimensions were measured with three items. Sample items for the dimensions are as follows: vigor “At my job, I feel strong and vigorous” (α = .86); dedication “I am enthusiastic about my job” (α = .80) and absorption “I feel happy when I am working intensely” (α = .80). All items were rated on a seven point scale (0 = never, 6 = every day). The sum variable of work engagement (α = .91) was made by combining all of the dimensions.

Demographics

The background factors of gender (women/men), age (in years), employment position type (full-time or part-time), and whether the coach was working for individual (yes, other) or team sports (yes, other) were asked and used as controls in the analyses.

Data analysis

Descriptive statistics (i.e. means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations) were calculated for all variables. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to examine the associations of job demands and resources with burnout and work engagement. The variable groups (background antecedents, job demands and job resources) were entered in separate sttif (1–3) to the models in which burnout and work engagement served separately as dependent variables. Background antecedents were always the same (gender, age, full-time or part-time coaching job and working for an individual or/and team sports), but only those job demands and resources that correlated with the dependent variable were entered to the models to reduce multicollinearity, as job demands and resources correlated with each other. The order of the demands and resources entered to the models was based on the JD-R model.

Results

Descriptive results

Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations and correlations among the study variables.

Table 1.

Correlations between the study variables (N = 423–499).

Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15
1. Burnout	1.12	0.79
2. Work engagement	5.17	0.74	–.45
3. Workload	3.05	0.91	.32	. 07
4. Decision demands	3.73	0.67	.05	.21	.45
5. Role conflict	2.26	0.74	.39	–.03	.44	.23
6. Work-family conflict	2.34	1.03	.34	.05	.49	.31	.34
7. Positive challenge of work	4.55	0.47	–.39	.43	.01	.26	–.11	.05
8. Control of work pacing	3.54	0.94	–.24	.12	–.11	–.05	–.18	–.17	.10
9. Mastery of work	3.84	0.46	–.44	.37	–.27	.01	–.32	–.26	.33	.24
10. Work clarity	4.22	0.71	–.26	.35	–.03	.14	–.12	–.04	.37	.15	.41
11. Fair leadership	3.88	0.96	–.06	.19	–.01	.04	.03	.06	.16	–.02	.12	.10
12. Gender (women/men)	–	–	–.11	–.04	–.04	.04	.05	.06	–.09	.22	–.02	.03	.04
13. Age	41.1	10.8	–.06	.05	–.04	.05	.01	–.02	–.02	.20	.16	.18	–.02	–.23
14. Full/part-time coach	–	–	–.13	–.14	–.34	–.18	–.18	–.21	–.04	.05	.13	.04	–.18	–.15	.11
15. Individual sport/ other	–	–	–.00	–.09	–.10	–.23	–.06	–.09	–.01	.07	.12	–.02	–.08	–.13	.11	.01
16. Team sport/other	–	–	.01	.12	.14	.24	.08	.09	.04	–.06	–.03	.05	.06	.11	–.12	.02	.80

If r ≥ |.15|, p < .001. If r ≥ |.12|, p < .01. If r ≥ |.09|, p < .05.

According to the results, 76% of Finnish coaches did not experience burnout according to the Finnish criteria of burnout (no symptoms, sum score 0–1.49).³³ However, 22% did have mild symptoms occurring monthly (sum score 1.50–3.49) and 2% had severe symptoms occurring daily or weekly (sum score 3.50–6.0). The corresponding figures were 70% (no), 25% (mild) and 5% (severe) for exhaustion, 77% (no), 18% (mild) and 5% (severe) for cynicism and 72% (no), 26% (mild) and 2% (severe) for reduced professional accomplishment.

As Table 1 shows, women had a slightly higher burnout level than men (p < .05) and full-time coaches experienced more burnout than part-time coaches (p < .01). The prevalence figures were 68% (no burnout), 28% (mild burnout) and 4% (severe burnout) among full-time coaches and 80% (no), 19% (mild) and 1% (severe) among part-time coaches. Coaches experienced work engagement on average a few times a week (M = 5.17, SD = 0.74). Full-time coaches experienced more work engagement than part-time coaches at the correlational level (p < .01), which was also seen as a significant (p < .01) mean difference between full-time coaches (M = 5.31, SD = 0.61) and part-time coaches (M = 5.10, SD = 0.78). In addition, those coaches working in individual sport experienced more work engagement than others (p < .01).

Burnout

The results of the hierarchical linear regression analysis for burnout are shown in Table 2. We entered job demands before job resources to the model as according to the JD-R model job demands primarily explain job burnout. The model was statistically significant (F_(25,898) = 119.26, p < .001). On the first step demographic variables explained 2% of the variance in burnout and only gender was statistically significantly related to burnout (p < .01): women had more burnout than men. On the second step, all job demands (except for decision demands, which did not correlate with burnout) explained 22% of burnout: role conflict and work-family conflict (p < .001) and workload (p < .05). On the third step, the lack of job resources (except for fair leadership which did not correlate with burnout and work clarity) increased the explanation rate significantly, 19%. Especially lack of positive challenge at work and lack of mastery of work contributed to burnout (p < .001). The total explanation rate of the model was 43%.

Table 2.

Demographics, job demands and job resources explaining job burnout: results of regression analysis.

	Job burnout (N = 489)
Variables	β	ΔR²	R²	aR²
Step 1: Demographic variables		.02*	.02*	.02
Gender (Women/men)	–.13**
Age	.02
Full-time/part-time	–.02
Individual sport/other	.08
Team sport/other	.04
Step 2: Job demands		.22***	.24***	.23
Workload	.08*
Role conflict	.19***
Work-family conflict	.20***
Step 3: Job resources		.19***	.43***	.42
Positive challenge at work	–.33***
Control of work pacing	–.08*
Mastery of work	–.19***
Work clarity	–.02

β: standardized regression coefficient from the last step of the model; ΔR²: change of explanation rate; R²: explanation rate; aR²: adjusted explanation rate.

*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Additionally, we also ran the models separately for exhaustion, cynicism and reduced professional accomplishment. The three models were all statistically significant. Exhaustion was best (40%) explained by the variables, followed by cynicism (31%) and reduced professional accomplishment (23%). Job demands explained best exhaustion (25%) and job resources cynicism (13%) and reduced professional accomplishment (18%). Of the single variables, work-family conflict (β = .23, p < .001) was the strongest contributor to exhaustion, lack of positive challenge (β = −.34, p < .001) to cynicism and mastery of work (β = .33, p < .001) to professional accomplishment.

Work engagement

Table 3 shows the results for work engagement. Job resources were entered to the model on the second step before job demands on the basis of the JD-R model, as it proposes that job resources primarily explain work engagement. The model was statistically significant (F_(19,611) = 77.10, p < .001). On the first step demographic variables explained 5% of work engagement and only employment type was statistically significantly connected to work engagement (p < .001): full-time coaches experienced more work engagement than part-time coaches. Job resources explained 26% of the variance in work engagement. Especially positive challenge at work and mastery of work contributed significantly to work engagement (p < .001). On the third step, of the job demands, decision demands were positively related to work engagement (p < .05). The model explained totally 32% of the variance in work engagement.

Table 3.

Demographics, job resources and demands explaining work engagement: results of regression analysis.

	Work engagement (N = 489)
Variables	β	ΔR²	R²	aR²
Step 1: Demographic variables		.05***	.05***	.05
Gender (women/men)	–.05
Age	.08
Full-time/part-time	–.14***
Individual sport/other	–.05
Team sport/other	.04
Step 2: Job resources		.26***	.31***	.30
Positive challenge at work	.28***
Control of work pacing	.06
Mastery of work	.28***
Work clarity	.06
Fair leadership	.07
Step 3: Job demands		.01*	.32*	.30
Decision demands	.09*

β: standardized regression coefficient from the last step of the model; ΔR²: change of explanation rate; R²: explanation arte; aR²: adjusted explanation rate.

*p < .01, **p < .01, ***p < .001.

Discussion

The aim of the research was to study the associations of job demands and resources with burnout and work engagement in a population of Finnish sport coaches. Although sport coaches’ burnout has been examined for a long time, their working conditions, that is, job demands and job resources have received less attention as antecedents of burnout. In addition, quite often in earlier studies only ill- or well-being and their antecedents have been examined. However, lack of burnout does not alone show that coaches feel well. We need to study simultaneously also the positive side of well-being, which was covered by the concept of work engagement in our study. Thus our study is unique in the regard that it gives a comprehensive picture both about Finnish sport coaches’ ill- and well-being and working conditions in terms of demands and resources.

The results showed, first, that job demands were positively related and job resources were negatively related to burnout, as expected on the basis of the JD-R model.^26,30,31 This was especially valid for exhaustion, which is considered the first symptom of burnout.¹⁹ For this reason it is probable that exhaustion was the best explained symptom of burnout. Of the job demands, role conflict and work-family conflict were the most important contributors to burnout. This is not a surprise as it is well-known that sport coaches have multiple roles with multiple responsibilities, of which at least the following have been mentioned: instructor, friend, mentor, organizer, counselor and educator.² Consequently, conflicting demands are targeted at coaches, which deplete personal resources and promote burnout. This has been noticed also in earlier studies concerning sport coaches^2,9,11,37 and other occupational groups.^32,33 Work-family conflict, as a specific form of role conflict, has also been related to burnout.^37,47,48 In the interview study by Knight et al.⁶ sport coaches described difficulties related to balancing their family and coaching commitments because of the time of coaching sessions (usually evenings and weekends) and travelling disturbing their children’s and families commitments. In that study work-family conflict was a consideration for coaches regarding leaving a position.

Of the job resources, lack of positive challenge at work and lack of mastery of work were the strongest contributors to burnout. This concerned especially cynicism and reduced professional accomplishment. In earlier studies (lack of) control and autonomy in different forms at work have been related to burnout.³² Mastery of work comes close to the concept of control, as if one masters one’s work it is under one’s control. Nevertheless, as the questions related to mastery were all asked in the form of “Are you content with … ” the concept resembles job satisfaction, which has been negatively related to burnout in earlier studies.³² If one has lost positive challenge at work and feels that work is not meaningful, it goes hand in hand with prior burnout theory and research. Maslach et al.¹⁹ have proposed that burnout entails a process whereby “what started out as important, meaningful, and challenging work becomes unpleasant, unfulfilling, and meaningless”. The present study confirms this outcome also in the work of sport coaches.

The results indicated, secondly, that job resources contributed to work engagement, as expected based on the JD-R model.^26,30,31 Positive challenge at work and mastery of work proved to be the most essential job resources in this regard. Positive challenge at work fosters intrinsic motivation leading via the motivational path to work engagement, which itself has been defined as a positive affective-motivational state.²⁶ Instead, mastery of work may foster extrinsic motivation at work because it helps to deal with job demands and achieve work goals. Irrespective of whether intrinsic or extrinsic motivation is behind, in both cases, the outcome is work engagement.⁴⁹ Of job demands, decision demands were also significant in explaining work engagement when job resources were taken into account. It seems that in this case decision demands function as so-called challenge demands boosting work engagement in line with the results of the meta-analysis by Crawford and colleagues.³⁴ All in all, our results on the role of job demands and resources among sport coaches’ ill- and well-being are close to those obtained in studies among other occupations.

Finally, it can be concluded that background factors played only a minor role in explaining burnout in Finnish sport coaches compared to job demands and resources. This confirms our assumption that especially working conditions serve research attention in studying burnout and work engagement in sport coaches. The prevalence of burnout among sport coaches was approximately at the same level as in other occupations in Finland,⁵⁰ but work engagement was above the average when compared to other professions in Finland.⁵¹ Full-time sport coaches had both higher level of burnout and work engagement than part-time coaches. Thus full-time coaching depletes resources although at the same time it is highly motivating, whereas part-time coaching does not deplete resources as much but it does not motivate as much either. This may relate to the fact that part-time coaching can be considered a hobby that a person can quit more easily than in the case of working full-time. In all, according to the present study, Finnish sport coaches’ well-being level can be considered good on average. However, a fourth of sport coaches suffered from burnout.

In the process of preventing burnout and maintaining work engagement it is important to take care both of the person and the job, that is, to strengthen the resources of the person (e.g. self-efficacy, competence) and keep the demands and resources of the job in balance. Although job-related factors are considered essential contributors to burnout, as our study showed, many burnout interventions have focused on changing the individual rather than the work.¹⁹ Interventions that combine individual skill training with wider changes in work practices have, however, shown promise for increasing employees’ perceptions of workplace resources, and reducing burnout.⁵² In addition, interventions aiming to increase individual and job resources have increased work engagement.⁵³

There are some limitations to be taken into account when interpreting our results. First, since the study was cross-sectional we cannot draw conclusions about the direction of causality. We based our study on the JD-R model which assumes that the relationships go from working conditions to ill- and well-being. However, it has been shown that also reverse relationships are possible.⁵⁴ For example, job demands may be perceived as more negative if the person has stress and burnout symptoms due to depleted personal resources. Therefore longitudinal studies would be needed in the future. Second, our data were based on self-reports, which may inflate the relationships found between the phenomena examined due to common method variance. Although it has been argued that common method variance does not automatically inflate associations measured with self-report measures,⁵⁵ in the future, for example, working conditions could be observed to get a more objective picture of them. Third, although the response rate was quite good (47%) we do not know whether those coaches having a high level of burnout symptoms did not participate in the study. This may limit the generalizability of our results. The broad sample consisting both of full-time and part-time sport coaches increases the possibility to generalize the results more widely compared to a narrower sample; however, it may have also contributed to heterogeneity in the results. Fourth, the reliabilities of three scales were under .70, but they, however, were over .60. Nevertheless, Nunnally⁵⁶ has considered that scale reliability may be considered acceptable at values below .70. It is also known that low reliability decreases the strength of the relationships obtained, that is, low reliability does not imply overestimated relationships.

Conclusion

Our results provide greater understanding of the role working conditions play in sport coaches’ burnout and work engagement. The results suggest that job resources or the lack of them are more essential than job demands to explain both burnout and work engagement. This is an important observation when thinking about coaching in a working context where are many job demands that are difficult to reduce. Therefore, increasing job resources is crucial as they also help to reduce the negative effects of job demands on well-being. Nevertheless, it is also important to alleviate the overall demand placed upon coaches by reducing the quantity, frequency, and/or intensity of demands. In line with the results work-family conflict is such a demand which should be reduced. It is known that keeping workload under control helps to keep also balance between work and family life.⁵⁷ The most important job resource in sport coaches’ work was positive challenge at work as it increased work engagement and decreased burnout symptoms. Therefore the key question is how coaching remains challenging and meaningful throughout the career. It would be important to ensure that the job matches with skills and is not accompanied by too many and diverse expectations.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Satu S Kaski

References

Eklund

Defreese

JD.

Burnout in sport and performance. In: Acevedo E (ed) Oxford research encyclopedia of psychology. USA: Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 1–32.

Knights

Ruddock-Hudson

Experiences of occupational stress and social support in Australian Football League senior coaches. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2016; 11: 162–171.

Olusoga

Butt

Maynard

, et al. Stress and coping: a study of world class coaches. J Appl Sport Psychol 2010; 22: 274–293.

Thelwell

Weston

Greenlees

, et al. Stressors in elite sport: a coach perspective. J Sports Sci 2008; 26: 905–918.

Fletcher

Scott

Psychological stress in sports coaches: a review of concepts, research, and practice. J Sport Sci 2010; 28: 127–137.

Knight

Rodgers

Reade

, et al. Coach transitions: influence of interpersonal and work environment factors. Sport Exerc Perform Psychol 2015; 4: 70–187.

Bentzen

Lemyre

Kenttä

The process of burnout among professional sport coaches through the lens of self-determination theory: a qualitative approach. Sports Coach Rev 2014; 3: 101–116.

Gencay

OA.

Burnout among judo coaches in Turkey. J Occup Health 2011; 53: 365–370.

Goodger

Gorely

Lavallee

, et al. Burnout in sport: a systematic review. Sport Psychol 2007; 21: 127–151.

10.

Kelley

Eklund

Ritter-Taylor

Stress and burnout among collegiate tennis coaches. J Sport Exerc Psychol 1999; 21: 113–130.

11.

Lundkvist

Gustafsson

Hjälm

, et al. An interpretative phenomenological analysis of burnout and recovery in elite soccer coaches. J Qual Res Sport Exerc Health 2012; 4: 400–419.

12.

Pastore

Judd

MR.

Burnout in coaches of women's team sports. J Phys Educ Rec Dance 1992; 63: 74–79.

13.

Pastore

Judd

MR.

Gender differences in burnout among coaches of women’s athletic teams at 2-year colleges. Soc Sport J 1993; 10: 205–212.

14.

Raedeke

TD.

Coach commitment and burnout: a one-year follow-up. J Appl Sport Psychol 2004; 16: 333–349.

15.

Sas-Nowosielski

Szóstak

Herman

What makes coaches burn out in their job? Prevalence and correlates of coaches’ burnout in Poland. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2018; 13: 874–882.

16.

Tashman

Tenenbaum

Eklund

The effect of perceived stress on the relationship between perfectionism and burnout in coaches. Anxiety Stress Coping 2010; 23: 195–212.

17.

Ryska

TA.

Multivariate analysis of program goals, leadership style, and occupational burnout among intercollegiate sport coaches. J Sport Behav 2009; 32: 476–488.

18.

Maslach

Jackson

Leiter

MP.

Maslach burnout inventory: manual. 3rd ed. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1996.

19.

Maslach

Schaufeli

Leiter

MP.

Job burnout. Annu Rev Psychol 2001; 52: 397–422.

20.

Chelladurai

Ogasawara

Satisfaction and commitment of American and Japanese collegiate coaches. J Sport Manag 2003; 17: 62–73.

21.

Davies

Bloom

Salmela

JH.

Job satisfaction of accomplished male university basketball coaches: the Canadian context. Int J Sport Psychol 2005; 36: 173–191.

22.

Hardin

Zakraisek

RA.

Job satisfaction and burnout in fast-pitch softball coaches. Res Quart Exerc Sport 2014; 85: A112–A113.

23.

Kim

Cunningham

GB.

Moderating effects of organizational support on the relationship between work experiences and job satisfaction among university coaches. Int J Sport Psychol 2005; 36: 50–64.

24.

Locke

EA.

What is job satisfaction?

Org Behav Human Perform 1969; 4: 309–336.

25.

Bakker

Oerlemans

Subjective well-being in organizations. In: Cameron

Spreitzer

(eds) The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 178–189.

26.

Bakker

Demerouti

Job demands–resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol 2017; 22: 273–285.

27.

Demerouti

Cropanzano

From thought to action: employee work engagement and job performance. In: Bakker

Leiter

(eds) Work engagement. A handbook of essential theory and research. UK, Sussex: Psychology Press, 2010, pp. 132–146.

28.

Schaufeli

Salanova

González-Romá

, et al. The measurement of engagement and burnout: a two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. J Happ Studies 2002; 3: 71–92.

29.

Sonnentag

The recovery paradox: portraying the complex interplay between job stressors, lack of recovery, and poor well-being. Res Organ Behav 2018; 38: 169–185.

30.

Demerouti

Bakker

Nachreiner

, et al. The job demands – resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol 2001; 86: 499–512.

31.

Schaufeli

Bakker

AB.

Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement. J Organiz Behav 2004; 25: 293–315.

32.

Alarcon

GM.

A meta-analysis of burnout with job demands, resources, and attitudes. J Voc Behav 2011; 79: 549–562.

33.

Lee

Ashforth

BE.

A meta-analytic examination of the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout. J Appl Psychol 1996; 81: 123–133.

34.

Crawford

LePine

Rich

BL.

Linking job demands and resources to employee engagement and burnout: a theoretical extension and meta-analytic test. J Appl Psychol 2010; 95: 834–848.

35.

Halbesleben

JRB.

A Meta-analysis of work engagement: relationships with burnout, demands, resources, and consequences. In: Bakker

Leiter

(eds) Work engagement. A handbook of essential theory and research. UK, Sussex: Psychology Press, 2010, pp. 102–117.

36.

Kelley

BC.

A model of stress and burnout in collegiate coaches: effects of gender and time of season. Res Q Exerc Sport 1994; 65: 48–58.

37.

Lundkvist

Gustafsson

Davis

, et al. Workaholism, home–work/work–home interference, and exhaustion among sports coaches. J Clinic Sport Psychol 2016; 10: 222–236.

38.

Professional coaching in Finland, report. Finland: Finnish Coaches Association, 2007 (in Finnish).

39.

Kärmeniemi

Coaching as a profession in Finland. Research Institute for Olympic Sports. Finland: Jyväskylä, 2012 (in Finnish).

40.

Pahkin

Björklund

Mykletun

, et al. User's guide for the QPSNordic-ADW: Nordic Questionnaire for Monitoring the Age Diverse Workforce. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers, 2008.

41.

Carlson

Kacmar

Williams

LJ.

Construction and initial validation of a multidimensional measure of work-family conflict. J Voc Behav 2000; 56: 249–276.

42.

Kilo

Hassmen

Burnout and turnover intentions in Australian coaches as related to organizational support and perceived control. Int J Sports Sci Coach 2016; 11: 151–161.

43.

Robbins

Ford

Tetrick

LE.

Perceived unfairness and employee health: a meta-analytic integration. J Appl Psychol 2012; 97: 235–272.

44.

Kalimo

Hakanen

Toppinen-Tanner

The Finnish assessment tool for Maslach burnout inventory – general survey. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2006 (in Finnish).

45.

Schaufeli

Bakker

Salanova

The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire. A cross-national study. Educ Psycholog Measur 2006; 66: 701–716.

46.

Seppälä

Mauno

Feldt

, et al. The construct validity of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale: multi-sample and longitudinal evidence. J Happiness Stud 2009; 10: 459–481.

47.

Allen

Herst

Bruck

, et al. Consequences associated with work to family conflict: a review and agenda for future research. J Occup Health Psychol 2000; 5: 278–308.

48.

Amstad

Meier

Fasel

, et al. A meta-analysis of work-family conflict and various outcomes with a special emphasis on cross-domain versus matching-domain relations. J Occup Health Psychol 2011; 16: 151–169.

49.

Hakanen

Roodt

Using the job demands-resources model to predict engagement: analysing a conceptual model. In: Bakker

Leiter

(eds) Work engagement. A handbook of essential theory and research. UK, Sussex: Psychology Press, 2010, pp. 85–101.

50.

Suvisaari

Ahola

Kiviruusu

, et al. Mental symptoms and disturbances. In: Koskinen

Lundqvist

Ristiluoma

(eds) Health, functional capacity and well-being in Finland 2011. Helsinki: Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare, 2012, pp. 96–107 (in Finnish).

51.

Hakanen

JTF.

Assessment tool of work engagement. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, 2009 (in Finnish).

52.

Maricuţoiu

Sava

Butta

The effectiveness of controlled interventions on employees’ burnout: a meta-analysis. J Occup Organ Psychol 2016; 89: 1–27.

53.

Knight

Patterson

Dawson

Work engagement interventions can be effective: a systematic review. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2019; 28: 348–372.

54.

Tang

A reciprocal interplay between psychosocial job stressors and worker well-being? A systematic review of the “reversed” effect. Scand J Work Environ Health 2014; 40: 441–456.

55.

Spector

Method variance in organizational research: truth or urban legend. Org Res Meth 2006; 9: 221–232.

56.

Nunnally

JC.

Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

57.

Michel

Kotrba

Mitchelson

, et al. Antecedents of work-family conflict: a meta-analytic review. J Organiz Behav 2011; 32: 689–725.