临安市中学教师职业倦怠的现状及其阻碍因素外文翻译.docx

1、临安市中学教师职业倦怠的现状及其阻碍因素外文翻译外文翻译：原文1Personality hardiness, job involvement and job burnout among teachersBurnout syndrome occurs in response to prolonged stress at work place. Burnout is common among those who are unable to cope with extensive demands and pressure on their energy, time, and resources an

2、d those who require frequent contact with people. The term “burnout” originated during the 1960s as a description of the effect of drug abuse on an individual (Golembiewski, 1993). However, it lacked definitional clarity until the development of a widely accepted instrument for its measurement, the

3、Maslach burnout inventory.Maslach and Jackson (1981) defined burnout as a condition characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and loss of a sense of personal accomplishment. Similarly there has been diverse evidence from scholars on the occurrence of burnout. For example, Maslach and

4、Leiter (1999) indicated that burnout occurs when work load is combined with lack of personal control, insufficient rewards, the absence of fairness, the breakdown of the working community, or conflicting values. Lee and Ashforth (1996) identified work load and time pressure as antecedents of burnout

5、. Numerous work related factors have been found to be associated with burnout among teachers, including excessive time pressure, poor relationships with colleagues, large classes, lack of resources, fear of violence, behavioral problems of pupils, role ambiguity and role conflict, poor opportunities

6、 for promotion, lack of support, and lack of participation in decision-making (Abel and Sewell, 1999; Fimian and Blanton, 1987; Friedman, 1991; Wolpin et al., 1991). Researchers found that burnout negatively impacts employees job attitudes and leads to undesirable behaviors, such as lower job involv

7、ement, reduced task performance, and increased turnover intentions (Jackson and Maslach, 1982; Leiter and Maslach, 1988; Motowidlo and Packard, 1986; Shirom, 1989; Wright and Bonett,1997; Wright and Cropanzano, 1998). This study intends to explore the relationship and effects of job involvement and

8、personality hardiness on burnout.During the last few years, some personality variables have attracted the attention of researchers in correlation of job stress and burnout. Despite a common acknowledgement that personality factors play a critical role in mediating stress, these factors have been ove

9、rlooked in majority of empirical studies on stress. A notable exception has been a series of studies carried out by Kobasa (1979; 1982a,). Kobasa et al. (1982) explored the concept of “personality hardiness” as a resistance resource that mediates the negative consequences of high level stress. Conce

10、pt of hardiness focuses on the person that remains relatively healthy after experiencing high amounts of stressful life events. Kobasa argues that persons who experience high degree of stress without falling ill have a personality structure differentiating them from a person who becomes sick under s

11、tress. This personality difference is best characterized by the term “hardiness”. Hardiness reflects the individuals response to life events both personally and professionally (Kobasa, 1979). Three factors, commitment, control and challenge measure hardiness (Kobasa et al., 1982). Commitment reflect

12、s a dedication to oneself and to ones work. Control is the extent to which an individual influences life events to ensure a particular outcome. Challenge refers to life events and ones response to those events. Individuals who are hardy cope with various stressors, both personal for example life cyc

13、le, family and professional for example occupational roles and relationships, are better than those individuals who are not hardy (Simoni and Paterson, 1997). Rush et al. (1995) found negative relations between hardiness and self-reported illness as a result of stress or burnout. Chan (2003) assesse

14、d hardiness and burnout among teachers and found that hardiness has significant impact on emotional exhaustion and personal accomplishment. Crainie et al. (1987) found out that hardiness has beneficial major effects in reducing burnout but does not prevent high level of job stress from leading to hi

15、gh level of burnout. Maslach et al. (2001) found out that people who display low levels of hardiness (involvement in daily activities, a sense of control over events, and openness to change) have higher burnout scores, particularly on the exhaustion dimensions. Other conceptual way of describing job

16、 involvement is the “degree to which a person is identified psychologically with his work” or “the importance of work in his total selfimage” (Lodahl and Kejner, 1965). Such a psychological identification with work may result partly from early socialization training during which the individual may i

17、nternalize the value of goodness of work. Lodahl and Kejner (1965) emphasized that during the process of socialization, certain work values are injected into the individual that remains even at the later stage in the form of attitude toward job. Burnout may have negative effects on employees job att

18、itudes, for example a reduction in job involvement and job satisfaction (Kahill, 1988). Kahill (1988) in a longitudinal study found that burnout negatively affect job involvement. Elloy et al. (1991) demonstrated a negative relationship between burnout and job involvement. Su and Mioa (2006) affirme

19、d the mediating effect of job involvement on emotional exhaustion, diminished personal accomplishment dimensions of burnout.Author：Syed Mohammad AzeemNationality：IranOriginate from：International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education Vol. 2(3), pp. 36-40, July 2020译文1教师的人格抗压性，工作踊跃性和职业倦怠的关系职业倦

20、怠综合症发生在长期的工作压力中。职业倦怠是指那些从事助人职业的的人无法应付外界超出个人能量和资源的过度要求。“倦怠”这一术语源自20世纪60年代期间，是作为个人对滥用药物的阻碍的说明（Golembiewski，1993）。但是，明白Maslach倦怠量表被普遍运用之前它一直缺少明确的概念。Maslach和Jackson（1981）概念职业倦怠有情绪衰竭、去个性化和地成绩感三个维度的心理状态。有很多学者一样对职业倦怠的发生作了研究。例如：Maslach和Leiter（1999）指出当工作超出人的负荷、不足的报酬、缺乏公平性、较差的工作环境或价值观冲突都会致使职业倦怠的显现。Lee和Ashfort

21、h（1996）以为工作负荷和长时刻的工作压力是致使职业倦怠的重要因素。阻碍教师职业倦怠的因素有很多，包括过度的压力、与同事关系不融洽、师资力量薄弱、担忧工作不稳固性、学生的不良行为、角色模糊和角色冲突，升职机遇少、缺乏支持和缺乏参与决策的机遇等。Abel和Sewell（1999）；Fimian和Blanton（1987）；Friedman（1991）；Wolpin等人（1991）。研究人员发觉职业倦怠会对员工的工作态度造成负面阻碍，而且会致使不良的行为，比如较低的工作踊跃性，降低任务演出并增加离职意向。Jackson和Maslach（1982）；Maslach和Leiter（1988）；Mot

22、owidlo和Packard（1986）；Shirom（1989）；Wright和Bonett（1997）；Wright和Cropanzano（1998）。本研究旨在探讨职业倦怠与工作踊跃性和个人忍耐力的关系和阻碍。在过去的几年中，一些个性变量吸引了研究人员关注工作压力与职业倦怠的相关性。尽管普遍以为个性因素在调剂压力中发挥关键作用，可是这些因素在大部份的实证研究中都被忽略了。值得注意的是Kobasa等人（1982）在一系列的学术研究中探讨了人格抗压性作为阻力来论述较高的负面压力阻碍的概念。抗压性的概念偏重于领导的大量的生活压力事件后心理仍然相对健康的人。Kobasa以为那些经历高强度的压力仍

23、旧没有受挫的人与那些受挫的人有一个人格特点来区别他们。这种个性特点概念为“抗压性：。Kobasa等人（1982）以为抗压性反映了个体独自面对生活压力的态度，他们指出三个因素，别离是：许诺、个体操纵力和事件挑战性。许诺反映了对自己工作的一种奉献精神。操纵力是个体确保生活事件一个特定结果的阻碍程度。挑战是人们对待事件的态度。Simoni和Paterson（1997）以为抗压性强的人应付各类压力，比如个人的生活和家庭的关系，还有职业的角色和关系等，都要强于那些抗压性弱的人。Rush等人（1995）发觉抗压性与自我报告疾病之间呈负相关。Chan（2003）评判抗压性和教师职业倦怠时发觉抗压性对情绪枯竭

24、和个人修养有重大阻碍。Crainie等人（1987）发觉抗压性对减少职业倦怠有着踊跃作用，但可不能阻止工作压力而产生的职业倦怠。Maslach等人（2001）提出那些较低的抗压能力的人在情绪耗竭的状态下，在日常活动的参与、操纵能力和改变意识的能力中更易产生职业倦怠。Lodahl和Kejner（1965）指出：描述工作踊跃性的方式确实是在心理上分辨个人的工作踊跃的程度，或是他个人以为工作的重要性。部份初期社会化培训期间个人内在化的工作价值可能致使这种心理分辨能力。他们强调在社会化进程中，某些工作价值观会注入到个人的思想中，职业倦怠对他们以后的工作态度有着消极的阻碍，比如减少工作踊跃性和工作中意度

25、。Kahill（1988）在一项纵向研究中发觉职业倦怠会对工作的踊跃性产生负面阻碍。Elloy等人（1991）证明职业倦怠与工作踊跃性之间的负面关系。Su and Mioa（2006）提出情绪衰竭、较低的个人成绩感和去个性化对工作踊跃性有较大的阻碍。作者：Syed Mohammad Azeem国籍：伊朗出处：国际职业教育期刊，2020,2（3），第36-40页原文2Antecedents and consequences of employee absenteeism:A longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and

26、burnoutA large portion of those who are absent from work for a prolonged time are diagnosed as emotionally exhausted, burned out, overstrained, or depressed (Houtman & Blatter, 2005). The central element of burnout is emotional exhaustion (Maslach & Jackson, 1986), which refers to a loss of emotiona

27、l resources and a lack of energy. In so-called stress models (De Boer et al., 2002; Johns, 1997), absence from work is seen as a consequence of stressful work conditions. Workers do not feel able to work, due to their (subjective) health condition, or try to prevent further stress or illness by temp

28、orary absence from work. Burnout may make absence from work necessary to recover from job stresses. In addition, burnout may undermine satisfaction and the motivation to attend, and burnout may therefore operate as a third variable that may heighten absence and lower job satisfaction. In this study,

29、 we consider burnout as an indicator of psychological ill-health at work, which may result from either personality characteristics such as negative affectivity, work characteristics such as job demands, and somatic health complaints.Iverson, Olekalns, and Erwin(1998) presented and tested a model in

30、which job satisfaction was considered an attitudinal consequence of burnout , where as absence from work was regarded as a behavioural consequence. Such a model would imply that correlations between job satisfaction and absence could be spurious, and are due to third variables, most notably, burnout

31、. Nevertheless, in their study, a negative relationship between job satisfaction and absence remained after controlling for burnout. Iverson and his colleagues found evidence for a strong relation between burnout and job satisfaction, but only a weak relationship between burnout and the frequency of

32、 absence from work.Saxton, Phillips, and Blakeney(1991) examined the correlates of burnout (emotional exhaustion) among airline reservation workers with computerized work in a cross-sectional study. In contrast to Iverson et al.(1998) , Saxton et al. considered low job satisfaction as an antecedent of burnout rather than a consequence. Moreover, absence frequency was considered a consequence of burnout. This study tested a model in which burnout could be regarded as a mediator of the relationship between job satisfaction and absence frequency. Their data seemed to confirm the mediating role