Objective 3- Assessment Techniques
Educational Entry
Andreas Konstantinou
McDaniel College
This objective is written as an educational entry since it demonstrates my thorough
understanding of assessment techniques and theories introduced in the educational setting and as
such have been the catalyst for my development since it can be used to improve awareness and in
turn effectiveness and productivity. Created for my Introduction to Human Resources
Management course, Human resources development (HRD) 502, Artifact 3 early predictors of
job burnout and engagement is an example of my educational mastery of the material since I
gained the understanding on assessment techniques through research in the academic setting.
This assessment technique can be used as a proactively to measure, control, thus prevent
accidents and limit ailments that arise from employee burnout. As a graduate student of HRD I
understand that organizations need to invest in their employees’ wellbeing and provide
development opportunities to maximize employee effectiveness, involvement, and participation.
Artifact 3 identifies burnout as a major reason for employee work related stress, that if
left unchecked may result in higher levels of presenteeism, absenteeism, and eventually turnover
(Maslach and Leiter, 2008). Presenteeism is a term that refers to an employee being at work
though not producing any work. Absenteeism refers to an employee being absent from work due
to work alienating factors such as employment dissatisfaction, limited motivation, and elevated
stress levels; while turnover refers to employee termination (Ose, 2005). Although, burnout may
eventually result in termination of the employees affected by it, this stressor can be easily
prevented if identified in its initial stages.
Using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) as means of assessing employees in terms
of energy, involvement, and efficacy may provide ample data for detecting, and limiting stressors
that cause employees to be absent, or present without being productive; therefore, increasing
organizational effectiveness. Usually departments that suffer from employee burnout are visible
to management since they exhibit high levels of absenteeism, low productivity, high accidents
rates, injuries at work, and turnover. Another reason that may be attributed to causing elevated
stress levels in employees is the lack of satisfaction employees have toward their work.
Marginality of work is a better expression that can be used when the work engaged by the
employee is producing only extrinsic rewards such as money.
Identifying the reasons behind the marginality of work and inquiring the reasons as to
why a department, position, or individual may suffer from burnout, will enable management or
the human resources (HR) department to address, and attempt to resolve or at least limit the
issue. Usually organizational stressors that induce marginality of work and affect employees are
related to one or more of the following job factors; lack of organizational structure and control;
insufficient reward systems; cumbersome Human resource systems; ineffective leadership
(Ivancevich, 1990). Factors related to the marginality of work therefore include, over or under
organized organizational structure, under compensating reward systems, lack of human resource
systems, and lack of leadership that increase stress. To resolve the multifaceted issue of
marginality of work a human resources (HR) professional can address these following
development opportunities; role conflict; workload; autonomy; poor policies; inflexible work
schedule; faulty and infrequent feedback; lack of career advancement opportunities; lack of
training; poor relationships; and lack of reciprocity.
Byars and Rue (2008) explain the limitations of such assessment tools as being time
consuming. People usually do not have the time to take individual assessment tools as part of a
reoccurring organization-wide initiative. In order for such initiatives involving assessment tools
to being successful they need to be administered to the employees systematically, while
organizations must provide the proper structure in which such assessment methods can be
evaluated, and carefully analyzed, a punctual manner in efforts to limit employee-plaguing
burnout, and promote overall organizational enhancement through wellness, effectiveness,
retention, and increased productivity.
Shaarf (2008) provides two kinds of assessment techniques which he categorizes as tests
and inventories. The author explains that a test assessment instrument includes the presence of
wrong and right answers; while the employees are called to achieve maximum performance by
giving the right answer. The author further explains that inventories, unlike the test assessment
instruments, have no right or wrong answers since they are designed to collect interests, values,
and personal viewpoints. It is therefore essential for such instruments to have content validity in
order to ensure that such assessments measure what they are supposed to measure. Having a
problematic department in an organization, management should seek to receive information by
the employees as to why they are stressed, or perhaps the reasons behind their alienating view of
the organization through the use of an inventory. An inventory collecting anonymous responses
could be used to attain realistic information, from the employees, without the threat of penalizing
Cummings and Worley (2008) explain that there is a plethora of such instruments that
can be used as part of a yearly assessment regiment in order to acquire responses through a set of
questions designed to introduce development opportunities an organization can use to develop
enhancement or training initiatives for its employees. The MBI is designed to be administered as
a proactive and preventative tool administered annually, bi-annually, quarterly, or monthly to
identify employee related stressors that may be the product of or otherwise induce burnout.
Having used the MBI, organizations may predict and prevent increased employee burnout levels
in their workplace while getting to the bottom line of the problem.
As an HRD student, I understand that fixing a problem before it worsens will enhance the
organizational effectiveness and productivity while it may cut costs the organization would have
otherwise incurred, like for example time and resources for attracting, hiring, and training new
employees. Having used the MBI assessment tool in the educational setting I am convinced that
it could merit positive effects in an organizational setting where awareness may be the key
between success and failure.
Byars, L. L and Rue. L. W. (2008). Human resources management. (9th ed.). New York, NY:
Cummings, T. G. and Worley, C. G. (2008). Organization development & change. (9th ed.).
Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage Learning.
Ivancevich, J. M. (1990). Worksite stress management interventions. American Psychologist, 45,
Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(3), 498-512.
Sharf, R. S. (2010). Applying career development theory to counseling. (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Brooks-Cole Cengage Learning.