Adaptive Leadership and Burnout in Military Healthcare Workers During a Global Health Pandemic
Renée I Matos,Ronald M Cervero,John L Melton,Melissa A Clemons,Britt W Sims,TingLan Ma
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usae057
2024-08-19
Abstract:Introduction: Occupational burnout among healthcare workers has continued to climb, impacting workforce well-being, patient safety, and retention of qualified personnel. Burnout in military healthcare workers, who have had the added stress of increased deployments, remains unknown. Although certain leadership styles have been associated with lower rates of burnout, the association between adaptive leadership and burnout in military healthcare has not previously been described. The aim of this study is to examine the role of adaptive leadership in burnout among military healthcare workers following the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and methods: A convenience sampling of military healthcare workers employed at a military medical treatment facility between March 2020 and March 2023 was anonymously surveyed using an online link, which included demographics, the Maslach-Burnout Inventory Health Services Survey (MBI-HSS), the Adaptive Leadership with Authority Scale, and the Pandemic Experiences and Perceptions Survey. Data were analyzed for associations. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed using MPlus 8.0, which included demographics, all three subscales that contribute to burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment [PA]), adaptive leadership (indicated by a subscale mean), and COVID impact and COVID risk perception. Results: Of the 365 participants analyzed, 88.5% had high emotional exhaustion, and 80.4% had high depersonalization. Burnout was significantly associated with adaptive leadership (r = -0.302, P < .001), COVID impact (r = 0.208, P < .001), and COVID risk perception (r = 0.174, P < .001). A total of 93.0% scored high in at least one subscale of the MBI-HSS (i.e., emotional exhaustion ≥27, depersonalization ≥10, or PA ≤33), although 78 (21.8%) met the complete definition of burnout, because of the overwhelmingly high levels of PA (77.8% reported high PA). In the SEM model, burnout was significantly and negatively predicted by adaptive leadership (b = -0.28, SE = 0.05, Standardized b = -0.31, P < .001). Burnout was also significantly and positively predicted by COVID impact (b = 0.25, SE = 0.09, Standardized b = 0.17, P = .028) and health professions' perception of risk (b = 0.15, SE = 0.07, Standardized b = 0.14, P = .008). Together, this model explained 17% of the total variance in health professions' reported burnout. Conclusions: The findings of burnout in this military healthcare worker population were higher than have previously been described in healthcare workers or other military personnel, and the significant associations between adaptive leadership and burnout suggest the protective role of adaptive leadership in healthcare systems to address burnout. Implementing adaptive leadership training or selecting leaders with more adaptive leadership skills may be beneficial in a health care system where employee burnout is prevalent, especially during periods stressed by adaptive problems. This may be especially important in military healthcare when active duty service obligations preclude attrition in the presence of additional stressors such as deployments and Federal Emergency Management Agency responses. Further research is needed to determine whether this intervention is successful at reducing healthcare burnout.