**3. Results**

As noted in the method chapter, the majority of the participants, 95% were women, the mean age was 44.7 years. Most participants were married or cohabiting (76.5%), most were living in their own home (89%), and the average number of children living in the household was 2.6.

The participants had worked as social workers from few months for up to 50 years. On the average their work experience was 13 years. The majority of the participants, 76% worked in the capital city area. A small number of participants worked in the Nordic part of the country (7%), in the south part of the country (6%), and in the area near the international airport (Suðurnes) (5%). Even fewer worked in other parts of the country, 3% in the western part, 1% in the Westfjords, 0.7% in the Eastern part of the country, and 0.3% in the Eastfjords. Eight participants noted "other" as work area. Most social workers, 69% were working in a 100% position. However, 14% were working 49–99% and 14% were working from 101 to 130%. Few were not working at the time they participated in this study. The average salaries that most social workers were receiving for a 100% position was 701–800 thousands Icelandic krona or between 5.016 and 5.724 euro, 26% of social workers were receiving those salaries

before taxes. Interestingly, six social workers (2%) were receiving under 500.000 ISK or under 3.577 euro for 100% position, and 8.3% were receiving more than 1.000.000 ISK or over 7.155 euors. There was not a significant difference between salaries among social workers in the capital city area on the one hand and in other parts of the country on the other hand (t = 0.690, df = 245, p = 0.5) when a middle point was used to mark each category.

The social workers worked in various settings. However, not surprisingly, over half of them, 60% were working in the social services, and most of the social workers that were working in social services were working in the area of child protection as can be seen in **Table 2**. Most of the social workers worked as a social worker/case worker/program manager (66%). Few worked in counseling/therapy (14%) or as directors (12%). Very few were teaching and/or doing research 1%. More men worked as directors (27%) than women (12%). However, the difference was not significant, Chi-square = 2.351 (df = 1, p = 0.142).

The participants were asked on what theory or ideology they based their work. They could mark as many as they liked. Most social workers were using empowerment in their work with their clients, 79%, followed by the solution focused perspective (66%). The theories that several social workers were using were narrative therapy (27%), the life cycle perspective (27%), cognitive behavioral perspective (28%), behaviorism (26%), and humanism (25%). Other theories that the social workers were using in their work with their clients can be seen in **Table 3**. The participants were able to select "other" and mention theories. Examples of other theories mentioned by participants were attachment (2%), harm reduction (1%), and independent life empowerment perspective with people with disabilities (1%). Other theories/ ideology/models were mentioned by one or two participants under "other."

The participants were asked about the main reasons for interventions with their clients. Most of the social workers, 70% mentioned "various kinds of social problems," followed by psychiatric problems (65%) and alcohol or drug abuse problem (53%). A considerable number of social workers mentioned financial problems (44%), child abuse, neglect or risk behavior of children (42%), physical health problems (40%), and specific problems related to children, such as ADHD, autism spectrum, or behavior problems (40%). Fewer mentioned disability (27%) and older adults (15%). Seventeen percent marked "other" and 5% marked "does not apply." There were few reasons mentioned by four or five participants each under "other." Those were trauma, lack of housing, parental- and family problems, communication problems, and abuse. Other reasons were mentioned by one or two participants and included cultural difference and problems regarding custody or visitations with parents following a divorce or separation. The participants were asked about how they perceived the availability of interventions for their clients. The largest part of the social workers or third of them thought that the relevant interventions existed, but that they could be better, they were difficult to receive or that their clients had to wait for too long for those interventions (33%). A similar proportion thought that the relevant intervention did exist, but that it was difficult to receive or that there was too long wait for the clients (20%) on the one hand, and on the other hand, 18% thought that relevant interventions were lacking for their clients. In addition, 15% though that relevant interventions did exist, but they could be improved (**Table 4**).

As can be seen in **Figure 1**, most of the social workers were rather satisfied with the management at their workplace or a total of 45%. Only 15% were very dissatisfied with the management.


#### *Social Workers in Iceland in the Pandemic: Job Satisfaction, Stress, and Burnout DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106515*

**Table 2.**

*Work settings.*

As can be seen in **Figure 2**, most social workers were rather or very satisfied with the social environment at their workplace (84%). Most social workers, 44% were rather satisfied with their work condition as well (**Figure 3**). A rather small ratio, 16% was rather unsatisfied or very unsatisfied with the work conditions.

Most social workers, 92% were very satisfied or rather satisfied with the work itself, the content of the work. Only 2% were rather or very unsatisfied with the content of their work (**Figure 4**).

### *Social Work - Perspectives on Leadership and Organisation*


#### **Table 3.**

*Theories/ideology in work with clients.*


#### **Table 4.**

*The availability and quality of relevant interventions for clients.*

And finally, nearly half of the social workers 48% were rather satisfied with their salaries. However, a considerable number of social workers, 23% were rather or very dissatisfied with their salaries. Only 9% were very satisfied with their salaries (**Figure 5**).

When the job satisfaction variables were combined into one variable, there was a significant difference regarding the role of the social workers. Social workers in all

#### *Social Workers in Iceland in the Pandemic: Job Satisfaction, Stress, and Burnout DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106515*

**Figure 1.** *Satisfaction with management.*

**Figure 2.** *Satisfaction with social environment.*

roles had a similarly high job satisfaction, except social workers who were teaching and/or doing research. Those social workers were significantly less satisfied than social workers who were working as directors, social workers/project managers, or those who were doing counseling/therapy, F = 2.849 (df = 4), p < 0.05. The participants were asked how much stress they perceived in their job on a five-point Likert scale. Most of them thought that the stress was very much (48%) or rather much (39%). Thirteen percent thought that it was not too much and not too little, only two thought it was rather little, and nobody thought it was too little.

The participants had experienced various kinds of stress symptoms (**Table 5**). The most common were lack of energy, worries, sleep difficulties, irritation, and work anxiety. The least common symptom the participants marked was arrogance toward clients. As can be seen in the table, a rather high ratio of the social workers were experiencing health-related symptoms and/or psychosomatic symptoms such as discomfort in head or stomach. Only 12% noted that they had not experienced any workrelated stress or burnout symptoms at all. Stepwise regression was used to see if (1) marital status (single vs. cohabiting or married), (2) number of children living in the household, (3) housing (renting on the general market vs. other), (4) work area (child protection vs. other), (5) salaries, (6) years of experience, (7) job satisfaction regarding social environment, (8) job satisfaction regarding leadership, and (9) job satisfaction regarding work environment influenced number of stress symptoms. Only

**Figure 3.** *Satisfaction with work conditions.*

**Figure 4.** *Satisfaction with the content of the work.*

**Figure 5.** *Satisfaction with salaries.*

four of those variables significantly influenced number of stress symptoms; (1) job satisfaction regarding social environment, unstandardized beta = −1.328, standardized beta = −0.230, t = −3.401 (df = 255), p < 0.01. (2) social workers who worked in the area of child protection had significantly more stress symptoms, unstandardized beta = −2.520, standardized beta = −0.200, t = −3.409 (df = 254), p < 0.01, (3)


### *Social Workers in Iceland in the Pandemic: Job Satisfaction, Stress, and Burnout DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106515*

#### **Table 5.**

*Stress symptoms.*

job satisfaction regarding leadership, unstandardized beta = −1.080 standardized beta = −0.215, t = −3.078 (df = 253), p < 0.01, and (4) job satisfaction regarding work environment, unstandardized beta = −0.082, standardized beta = −0.145, t = −2.389 (df = 252), p < 0.05. Child protection workers were experiencing the highest number of stress symptoms, 8.45 on the average compared with 5.94 among social workers who were working in other areas, t = 3.347 (df = 275), p < 0.001. There was not a significant difference in number of stress symptoms among social workers working in the capital city area compared with social workers working in rural areas, t = 0.686 (df = 262), p = 0.495. The higher number of stress symptoms the social workers were experiencing, the more likely they were to want to get another job in the near future. Beta = 0.061, standardized beta = 0.277, t = 4.718 (df = 268), p < 0.001.

Moreover, 62 social workers (22%) had been from work previously because of a burnout. Regression analysis was used to investigate the relationship of age with burnout in the past. Age did not seem to affect burnout. Standardized beta = − 0.17 (df = 272, p = 0.8). However, the higher the employment ratio was, the more likely the social workers were to have experienced burnout. Standardized beta = 0.128 (df = 269, p = 0.035). Child protection workers (27%) and social workers working in psychiatric health care (11%) were not more likely to have experienced burnout compared with social workers in general (22%), Chi-square = 1972 (df = 2, p = 0.373).

When asked about how likely the social workers were to change jobs in the next future, nearly a third (31%) thought that it was very unlikely that they would change jobs, and additional 26% thought rather unlikely that they would change jobs. Onequarter (24%) thought that there were neither more likely nor less likely that they would change jobs. However, 10% thought it was rather likely, and 6% that it was very likely that they would change jobs. Thus totally, quarter of the social workers thought that it was rather likely or very likely that they would change jobs in the near future.

Supervision is important for social workers, especially when they are faced with stress and are experiencing stress and even burnout symptoms. They were asked if they had received supervision, both in general and the last year. They were also asked about the education background of the supervisor. **Table 6** shows the educational background of the professionals that the social workers had received supervision from. Note that each social worker could mark more than one educational background, since some of them might have had received supervision from more than one professional during the past. Interestingly, more social workers had received supervision from psychologists (61%) than from social workers (51%). Few had received supervision from professionals with other educational background as can be seen in **Table 6**. A considerable part of the social workers (57%) had received supervision during the year prior to participating in this study, and nearly two-thirds (63%) had received group supervision sometime in the past. Social workers who had received supervision at any time in the past were more likely to have experienced burnout in the past. Chi-square = 4.471 (df = 1, p = 0.034). However, social workers who had experienced burnout in the past might have been more likely to have experienced more stress in their job prior to the burnout. Social workers who had been in supervision during the last year had significantly fewer stress symptoms compared with social workers who had not been receiving supervision during the last year before they participated in the study, t = 3.465 (df = 272), p < 0.001.


**Table 6.** *Supervision received.*

*Social Workers in Iceland in the Pandemic: Job Satisfaction, Stress, and Burnout DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.106515*

The participants were asked about their work conditions during the pandemic, if they had worked at home completely or in part and if they preferred to work not at all, in part, or completely at home. The mean number of days that the social workers worked at home during the week before the epidemic was 0.31, but 1.83 during the epidemic. The difference was significant (t = 13.3, df = 204, p > 0,001). Most of the social workers, 75% wanted to be able to work partly at home following the epidemic. However, a quarter (25%) did not want to work at home at all following the pandemic. Only two social workers wanted to work completely at home following the pandemic.
