The groups in the diagram that appears above were identified in a subgroup of 515 people who responded to my survey. The burnout and engagement variables were used to define the groups. 

People's responses followed quite recognisable patterns within the groups when the Areas of Worklife variables were graphed using the groups. This supported the hypothesis that the work environment as defined by people's indication of match or mismatch on the Areas of Worklife could predict whether they were engaged or burned out with their work. It got a bit interesting when I tried to work out what was happening with the middle group - I have just written a paper on this!

The Areas of Worklife are (workload, control, fairness, reward, community and values), procedural justice, management trustworthiness, burnout and engagement. I chose the Six Areas of Worklife Model to define the work environment, because the areas of worklife are described in terms of Match or Mismatch. My argument is that when people say that they have a match with their workplace in any of the areas of worklife, they are refering to their expectations of their work. This brings in the concept of the Psychological Contract.

The graph shown below shows how the Areas of Worklife variables were distributed in the groups. In general people who were engaged in their work reported matches on the Areas of Worklife and those who reporte tht they were burned out said that they experienced mismatches on the Areas of Worklife. 

The CJMT variable I have shown in the graph is a combination of Procedural Justice and Management Trustworthiness. I found that these scales (from two different areas of research) overlapped a lot and could be tapping into the same construct.