Job boreout among dual-role professionals: moonlighting as a psychological response to primary-role understimulation

1 Introduction

1.1 Background of the study

While burnout has been extensively studied across various professions, job boreout remains an overlooked concern. Boreout is the chronic state of boredom which results from a lack of stimulation and challenge at work (Stock, 2016). Unlike burnout, which results from excessive demands, boreout emerges from insufficient challenges and repetitive tasks. In professional settings where autonomy is constrained or task variety is low, boreout may silently develop while appearing less visible. Over time, this condition can undermine engagement and overall productivity.

In the Philippines, the rising cost of living and persistent inflation have made it increasingly difficult for many workers to rely on a single source of income, driving a significant proportion toward multiple jobholding (Wicaksono et al., 2024). To bridge this gap, a substantial share of workers take on additional employment, commonly referred to as moonlighting, in which a person holds a secondary job outside regular working hours while maintaining their primary employment (Kisumano and Wa-Mbaleka, 2017). Traditionally, moonlighting is viewed as primarily driven by financial reasons. However, moonlighting may also serve as a coping mechanism to counteract boreout. In this study, dual-role professionals (DRPs) are operationally defined as individuals who engage in moonlighting, meaning they concurrently hold two or more professional roles within the same or related fields. DRPs in this context are used interchangeably with moonlighters who manage multiple professional responsibilities simultaneously.

1.2 Theoretical underpinning

This study adopts the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model and Person–Environment Fit (PEF) theory as its primary theoretical frameworks to examine boreout in healthcare, education, and industry sectors. The JD-R model posits that work environments comprise job demands, which require sustained effort and may lead to strain if excessive and job resources, which support goal attainment, personal growth, and buffering against stress (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). In the context of boreout, insufficient job demands, under-stimulation, and low engagement reflect the imbalance between work demands and available resources, leading to decreased motivation and disengagement (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2014).

To complement this, PEF theory emphasizes the compatibility between employees' personal attributes such as skills and needs and the characteristics of their work environment (De Cooman and Vleugels, 2022). Boreout can thus be understood as a form of person–environment misfit, where employees experience a mismatch between their abilities or aspirations and the work they are assigned, or where their need for meaningful and stimulating work is unmet (De Cooman and Vleugels, 2022). Recent research further supports this perspective, showing that perceived over qualification and lack of career prospects significantly predict boreout, as employees who feel their skills exceed job demands tend to experience greater boredom and exhaustion (Liu et al., 2024).

1.3 Boreout among DRPs

When work fails to provide sufficient arousal and challenge, employees may experience a persistent lack of stimulation and dissatisfaction: a condition known as job boreout (Kawada et al., 2024). It is essential to conceptually distinguish among momentary boredom, job boredom, and boreout. It is a psychological syndrome stemming from chronic under-stimulation and lack of meaningful work (Loukidou et al., 2009; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2014). While momentary boredom is a transient state tied to a specific task, and job boredom refers to a general disinterest in work tasks, boreout represents a deep-seated crisis of meaning and a lack of growth opportunities (Stock, 2016). Unlike momentary boredom, boreout represents a sustained state of disengagement and demotivation which can significantly impact one's mental and physical health and job satisfaction. Furthermore, when examining person-job fit, perceived over qualification acts as a critical predictor; employees who feel their skills exceed job demands experience greater exhaustion and boredom (Katsoula, 2022).

Boreout is not limited to a single industry but can manifest across different professional environments. Stock (2014) demonstrated this among frontline employees in diverse service sectors, including retail, IT/telecommunication, public services, health services, and finance. Across these settings, employees experienced boreout in the form of a crisis of meaning, job boredom, and crisis of growth, suggesting that under-stimulation and lack of challenge are pervasive issues regardless of industry. Similarly, Copková (2021) found that secondary school teachers, a helping profession traditionally not associated with boreout, experienced boredom and under-stimulation during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting that boreout can occur in education and other service-oriented roles.

Research on monotonous environments by Loukidou et al. (2009) further supports this pattern. They highlight that employees cope with such under-stimulation by seeking additional stimulation, either individually (e.g., daydreaming, seeking extra tasks) or socially (e.g., interactions with coworkers, collaborative activities). These coping mechanisms are consistent with the adaptive responses to boreout, as employees attempt to regain engagement in their work. To navigate this under-stimulation, employees engage in various coping strategies, ranging from counterproductive withdrawal behaviors to proactive job crafting, where they attempt to alter the boundaries of their work to regain meaning and engagement. For dual-role professionals these coping strategies may extend beyond individual behaviors to manifest as deliberate secondary employment: a structural response to primary-role underload.

1.4 Moonlighting among DRPs

Moonlighting as defined by Kisumano and Wa-Mbaleka (2017) is the act of having a second job, part time, or full-time, in addition to a primary job (in Kisumano and Wa-Mbaleka, 2017). It may also be referred to as multiple job holding (Pouliakas and Conen, 2023). In this study, dual-role professionals (DRPs) are operationally defined as individuals who engage in moonlighting. A full-time job typically requires at least 40 h per week, whereas part-time work involves fewer than 30 h per week. This distinguishes DRPs from part-time workers, as they take on additional work after full-time h. The motivations for moonlighting can be systematically categorized into economic and non-economic drivers. According to Moonlighting Behavior Theory, these are understood as primary job constraints, where institutional limits drive workers to supplement their income (economic necessity), vs. job heterogeneity, where workers voluntarily take on secondary jobs to utilize their skills and grow professionally (Conway and Kimmel, 1992). Non-economic moonlighting allows professionals to achieve a sense of generativity, expand their professional network, fulfill esteem needs by gaining recognition across diverse settings (Kisumano and Wa-Mbaleka, 2017). However, balancing dual roles can lead to a poor work-life balance and increased fatigue which significantly impedes the psychological recovery necessary following occupational strain (Pouliakas and Conen, 2023).

Globally, moonlighting is a widespread phenomenon. Wicaksono et al. (2024) reported that approximately 4% of European workers held a second job in 2018, while 4.8% of U.S. workers were moonlighters by 2022. In the Philippines, 14.5% of the workforce were moonlighters as early as 2009, while Indonesia reported a higher prevalence at 17.64% in 2019. These trends suggest that moonlighting in developed countries is often seen as a tool for career development, whereas in developing countries, it is more commonly a survival strategy driven by economic necessity.

1.5 Purpose and research questions

This study aimed to explore the phenomenon of boreout among dual-role professionals across the healthcare, education, and industry sectors in Metro Manila. Although these sectors are characterized by diverse job demands, dual-role professionals may still experience under-stimulation, lack of challenge, or misalignment between their skills and tasks. While research on burnout is well-established, boreout remains a silent concern, particularly in environments where workload is heavy, but tasks may lack variety or challenge. Three research questions guided the study:

• How do dual-role professionals experience and navigate job boreout within their primary roles?
• In what ways do organizational constraints and routine work impact their perception of professional growth?
• How do these professionals manage the integration and potential conflicts of holding multiple professional identities?

1.6 Significance of the study

This study contributes both practically and academically. It provides data that can inform institutions, administrators, and policymakers about the psychological risks of under-stimulation in multi-role employment. On a larger scale, the study contributes to the growing body of research in industrial-organizational psychology. For professionals experiencing chronic cognitive underload across multiple roles, occupational wellbeing is not a peripheral concern: it sits at the intersection of dignified work and sustainable workforce health. Additionally, the study aligns with and supports broader global initiatives such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 3: Good Health and WellBeing and SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth. By addressing the intersection of occupational wellbeing and job quality among dual-role professionals, this research may help promote healthier and more productive work environments.

2 Methods

This section describes the research design, participant selection, instrumentation, procedures, and analytical approach employed in the study.

2.1 Research design

To explore the phenomenon of boreout among dual-role professionals (DRPs) in the Philippines, a phenomenological research design was employed to capture and describe the lived experiences of individuals (Creswell and Poth, 2018). This approach focused on the subjective perceptions of the participants, providing valuable insights into the motivations and challenges associated with moonlighting. Specifically, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was utilized. IPA informed the interviews by focusing the protocol on the participants‘ subjective sense-making, and it informed the analysis by prioritizing idiographic depth (Smith and Osborn, 2015). This ensured the participants' voices led the initial coding process before any theoretical frameworks were applied.

2.2 Participants

The study used snowball and purposive sampling. Purposive sampling is the process of selecting participants based on the study's objectives and desired characteristics (Palinkas et al., 2015). Participants were purposively selected based on predefined inclusion criteria (Table 1). Additionally, snowball sampling was utilized to access hard-to-reach individuals (Pasikowski, 2024); because DRPs often do not publicly disclose their dual roles, referrals from initial participants helped identify others who met the study's criteria.

Table 1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Participants must (1) be currently employed in at least two professional roles within the same or related fields; (2) have maintained both roles for a minimum of 6 months; (3) be between 28 to 45 years old, representing early to mid-career professionals actively navigating role balance; and (4) be working in education, healthcare, or industrial sectors. The age range captured early-to-mid career professionals, a stage theoretically associated with heightened sensitivity to role fit and professional growth expectations (Bakker and Demerouti, 2017). The study also included professionals who moonlight for reasons beyond purely financial necessity, such as seeking stimulation, professional growth, or fulfillment. Those who expressed both financial and non-financial motivations were also considered (Table 2).

Table 2. Provisional screening items for participant inclusion.

Individuals who (1) engage in moonlighting primarily for financial reasons (e.g., economic necessity alone), (2) are self-employed entrepreneurs rather than employees in dual roles, or (3) are students, interns, or trainees were excluded from the sample. By isolating individuals who seek secondary roles despite financial stability, this research ensures that the moonlighting behavior observed is a genuine psychological response to primary-role boreout. Similarly, individuals whose secondary job is unrelated to their primary profession (e.g., side hustles with no professional overlap) were excluded, as the study focuses on the professional continuity between roles.

2.3 Instruments

This study collected qualitative data to explore the phenomenon of moonlighting, lived experiences of boreout, and identify culturally relevant themes. Semi-structured interviews were utilized to acquire more in-depth accounts and experiences from the participants. An interview guide consisting of open-ended questions covering primary role experiences, motivations for moonlighting, and psychological responses to dual-role engagement was developed and reviewed by two subject-matter experts prior to data collection. This type of instrument allowed for more flexibility as the researcher was allowed to ask follow-up questions while still being guided with the focus of the study (Ruslin et al., 2022).

2.4 Procedures

A review of literature was conducted to establish the theoretical grounding and basis for interview questions. Next, recruitment of participants used snowball and purposive sampling. Eligible participants were dual-role professionals that met the inclusion criteria. This was done through referrals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted either in-person or online, depending on the participant's preference and availability. Each interview lasted from 45 to 60 min. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim; for participants who declined recording, the researcher took detailed live notes. Subsequently, thematic analysis was conducted to identify themes both inductively and deductively. After conducting thematic analysis, the findings were shared with selected participants for member checking to ensure that the identified themes were validated to be accurate and resonated with them.

2.5 Data analysis

To analyze the qualitative data, thematic analysis was employed. This method was used to identify and interpret themes that capture the narratives and meanings embedded in the data (Braun and Clarke, 2006). This study used both deductive and inductive approaches to thematic analysis. To align with the phenomenological design, the analysis began purely inductively; IPA principles guided the open coding to capture the raw, lived experiences of the participants. Once these emergent themes were established, a deductive approach was subsequently applied to map these organic findings against the theoretical concepts of the JD-R and PEF frameworks. This allowed the researcher to examine data in relation to theoretical concepts while remaining open to emergent themes beyond initial assumptions. To explicitly address and mitigate confirmation bias, the theoretical frameworks were used primarily to guide the semi-structured interview protocol, not to force participant selection or constrain the coding process. During open coding, the researcher utilized reflexivity to ensure that codes were grounded strictly in the participants' verbatim lived experiences, allowing unexpected insights to emerge naturally.

The study followed the six-phase process of Braun and Clarke (2006), which includes: familiarization with the data, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and writing the report. The qualitative data underwent a six-phase thematic analysis. To directly address the inherent subjectivity often found in qualitative research, the researcher established a stringent audit trail and conducted member checking. The semi-structured interviews and initial open coding were conducted by the primary researcher. To ensure analytical rigor and mitigate individual bias, the second researcher guided the process by reviewing the generated codes, categories, and themes. Any interpretive disagreements during this review phase were resolved through collaborative consensus discussions and a re-examination of the raw transcripts. Furthermore, all six participants were contacted for member checking to validate the accuracy of the thematic framework against their lived experiences. While the other participants did not reply, one participant provided detailed feedback, noting: “I agree with the themes extracted so far, though the strain in Theme 3 of having sacrificed recovery and social life is not necessarily true for me, but may be true for the other responders.” This feedback highlighted individual variability in coping mechanisms and multi-role strain, confirming that while physical and logistical exhaustion emerged as a major category, its experienced severity differs across personal contexts. This audit trail meticulously documented the transformation of raw interview transcripts into the thematic framework. By doing so, the researchers eliminated personal bias and ensured that the resulting scale items were deeply and authentically rooted in the participants' actual lived experiences.

3 Results

Thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews revealed three major themes and ten categories, supported by a total of 31 codes. To ensure the credibility of the findings, member checking was conducted. Participants were provided with the overview of the results without any identifiable information of the other participants.

Table 3 presents the demographic profile of the six DRPs who participated in the study. The sample consists of individuals aged 28 to 43, evenly distributed across the three sectors. Participants demonstrated a wide range of experience in managing multiple professional identities, with dual-role durations ranging from 1 to 10 years. Furthermore, while most participants cited financial necessity alongside other factors as their primary motivation for moonlighting, the sample also captures the experience of a professional driven primarily by under-stimulation in their main job (EP2).

Table 3. Demographic profile of participants.

HP, Healthcare Participant; EP, Education Participant; IP, Industry Participant

Figure 1 provides a comprehensive overview of the findings wherein the emergent themes and categories are organized into a visual hierarchy for clarity. At the highest level is the central phenomenon investigated which was job boreout among dual-role professionals (DRPs). It then branches into the three themes that represent categories and codes within it. It is heavily anchored with the interview data (inductive) and review of related literature (deductive). The first theme (left) outlines the structural and psychological catalysts of boreout within the primary job of the participants. The second theme (middle) illustrates the response to the first theme which is intentional pursuit of the participants to grow economically and professionally. Lastly, the third theme (right) shows the physiological and logistical consequences of overlapping identities.

While the thematic framework is organized to reflect the general narrative progression shared by the participants which moves from structural underload and internal conflict to secondary employment, and finally to psychological and physical costs, it is important to clarify that this presentation does not assert a definitive causal sequence. Given the retrospective and cross-sectional nature of the interviews, these themes are best understood as highly interrelated facets of the participants' lived experiences rather than a universally sequential pathway.

Table 4 shows the major themes, categories, and codes that emerged from the interviews that encapsulate the lived experiences of dual-role professionals. The first theme, Structural Constraints and the Internal Experience of Professional Underutilization, captures the rigid environments, lack of cognitive stimulation, internal conflict, and non-work-related behaviors that are present within the participants' primary jobs. The second theme, Intentional Pursuit of Economic and Professional Growth, details the proactive choice of moonlighting as a way to find fulfillment professionally and economically. Lastly, the third theme, Psychological and Physical Toll of Juggling Roles, documents the challenges that come with managing multiple professional identities that may be unique to the demographic.

Table 4. Thematic framework of job boreout among dual-role professionals.

The frequency (f) represents the number of individual participants (out of N = 6) who endorsed the code, prioritizing representation across cases rather than total excerpt occurrences.

Taken together, these themes describe a sequential psychological trajectory: structural underload appears to contribute to internal conflict, which was associated with deliberate secondary employment, which in turn introduces new physical and psychological costs

To ensure the findings address the goals of the study, the 10 categories that encapsulate the emergent codes were mapped with the research questions (Table 5). This illustrates how lived experiences answer the exploratory inquiries of the study and the alignment of theory with the actual data gathered.

Table 5. Alignment of categories and research questions.

Legend of Categories: C1 - Rigid Procedural Routines. C2 - Under-stimulation. C3 - Internal Conflict of Stalled Potential. C4 - Non-work Related Activity as Mental Escape. C5 - Financial Stability and Obligation. C6 - Intentional Pursuit of Variety. C7 - Achievement of Professional Purpose. C8 - Workplace Support. C9 - Overlapping Work Demands. C10 - Multi-Role Physical Exhaustion.

The second research question is addressed with Categories 1 through 4 which suggests that professional stagnation is rooted in rigid routine work and under-stimulation which may lead to non-work-related activities. The first question is answered by Categories 1 through 8 which shows that the decision to moonlight is driven by a combination of multiple factors such as to cope with boreout and seek financial stability, professional purpose, and autonomy. The last question reveals that DRPs experience conflict not only in the logistical and physical aspects but also psychologically as they navigate the internal frustration with their stalled potential.

4 Discussion

The findings elucidate the complex phenomenological trajectory of job boreout and moonlighting among DRPs. The emergence of the first theme, Structural Constraints and the Internal Experience of Professional Underutilization, encapsulates the manifestation of boreout among these professionals, confirming that this syndrome is rooted in the structures of organizations rather than individual detachment. Participants experienced a person-environment misfit, where the rigid procedural routines and under-stimulation restrain their potential and capabilities. Specifically, the data reveals a profound needs-supplies misfit; the participants' intrinsic need for cognitive challenge, autonomy, and skill utilization is deficient caused by the structural constraints of their primary work environment. These findings support the Person-Environment Fit (PEF) theory, demonstrating that professionals' need for meaningful and challenging work is unmet which appears to contribute to an internal conflict of stalled potential (De Cooman and Vleugels, 2022). When these factors are combined, individuals do what they can to try and passively cope such as doing non-work-related activities.

When passive coping is not enough, the second theme, Intentional Pursuit of Economic and Professional Growth, highlights moonlighting as an active coping mechanism. Viewed through the JD-R model, the data identify rigid procedural routines and administrative burdens not merely as hindrances, but as structural job demands. Conversely, autonomy, task variety, and cognitive challenge represent severely depleted resources. Through this mechanism, moonlighting functions explicitly as a resource-seeking strategy: professionals proactively take on a secondary role to restore the psychological and cognitive resources entirely missing from their primary job (Schaufeli and Salanova, 2014). Crucially, this research extends existing occupational health literature by demonstrating that professionals do not solely rely on passive withdrawal behaviors to cope with boreout. Instead, they actively seek solutions, such as taking on secondary employment, to regain cognitive engagement and professional identity. By intentionally isolating individuals who are not driven by financial survival, this study confirms that the psychological strain of a severe person-environment misfit is a potent enough catalyst to drive moonlighting.

While financial motivation remains as a drive of moonlighting, the active pursuit of task variety and professional purpose highlight that it is also a strategic attempt to reclaim professional identity. Job heterogeneity is when workers take on secondary jobs voluntarily to be utilized and grow professionally. This complements the findings of other studies that moonlighting can be driven by economic or personal reasons (Kisumano and Wa-Mbaleka, 2017). This dual motive aligns with the concept of boreout, where individuals seek stimulation and meaning in secondary roles to compensate for under-challenging primary work (Loukidou et al., 2009; Schaufeli and Salanova, 2014). This intentional pursuit is often enabled by workplace support. The presence of accommodating formal and informal norms provide the structural freedom for professionals to pursue secondary roles.

However, this compensatory behavior comes with challenges captured in the third theme, Psychological and Physical Toll of Juggling Roles. While having a secondary role mitigates the boreout in the primary job, it amplifies physical and psychological demands. The secondary role presents a paradox: it successfully provides the missing cognitive resources, such as stimulation and purpose, but simultaneously generates intense demands and strain, such as sleep disruption and emotional switching. The relationship among boreout, moonlighting, and possible burnout is presented here as an emerging theoretical interpretation rather than a demonstrated causal pathway. Thus, while moonlighting resolves the psychological resource deficit of boreout, it introduces a unique work conflict that poses a risk of transitioning from boreout directly into physical burnout. However, because clinical burnout was not directly measured, this relationship cannot be definitively established. It is therefore presented as a theoretical proposition for future research.

Several limitations warrant acknowledgment. The main methodological concern relates to participant selection; because the study excluded individuals who moonlight exclusively for financial reasons and focused on those reporting under-stimulation, the procedure preselected cases consistent with the theoretical relationship. Consequently, while the data describes how under-stimulated professionals experience moonlighting, it cannot establish that boreout is a general driver for all moonlighters. The exclusion of purely financially motivated moonlighters, while theoretically justified, may underrepresent the experiences of economically driven DRPs whose secondary roles may also generate boreout-related responses. Future studies should employ larger and more diverse samples across additional Philippine regions and occupational sectors.

5 Conclusion

The study highlights the lived experiences of Filipino dual-role professionals, suggesting that moonlighting may act as a means of achieving professional fulfillment and cognitive stimulation for certain employees experiencing under-stimulation. Anchoring the findings in the JD-R model and PEF theory, it is evident that under-stimulation, rigid routines, structural constraints, and person-environment misfit in primary roles drive professionals to seek secondary employment to reclaim autonomy, purpose, variety, and skill utilization. However, this compensatory behavior comes with a cost such as physical and psychological exhaustion from alternating with two or more roles. Ultimately, this study indicates that addressing boreout requires targeted, sector-specific organizational interventions grounded in the lived experiences of employees, rather than relying on generic retention strategies. In the healthcare sector, where participants noted that existing hospital trainings focus heavily on “compliance and protocol updates,” administrators must offer deeper, specialized professional development and streamline administrative burdens to restore cognitive challenge. In education, where boreout often stems from mechanical, repetitive tasks like grading, institutions can facilitate job crafting by integrating collaborative mentorship or curriculum design opportunities that satisfy the educators' intrinsic need for generativity. In the industry and BPO sectors, where strict protocols leave employees feeling like they are on 'autopilot,' managers should implement strategic skill utilization through cross-training or task rotation to break rigid procedural routines.

Furthermore, organizations must recognize the inherent risks of relying on moonlighting as an unofficial coping mechanism for under-stimulation. While it replenishes psychological resources, the data reveals that juggling multiple identities creates significant temporal role conflict, impedes psychological and physical recovery, and exacerbates fatigue. In high-stakes environments like healthcare, these multi-role demands raise critical safety and contractual concerns, as participants explicitly highlighted the performance pressure of maintaining patient safety despite severe sleep disruption. Therefore, mitigating primary-role boreout is a critical organizational responsibility. By proactively addressing under-stimulation, employers can protect their workforce from the severe exhaustion of multi-role coping, thereby safeguarding both employee wellbeing and overall workplace safety.

6 Future Directions

While this qualitative phase establishes a foundational thematic framework for boreout among dual-role professionals, future research must build upon these findings quantitatively. The themes identified in this study should be utilized to develop a culturally sound psychometric instrument. Furthermore, longitudinal studies are recommended to track the long-term trajectory of the “stagnation-exhaustion paradox,” specifically examining how prolonged multi-role physical exhaustion impacts primary job retention and overall occupational health. At the organizational level, future intervention studies should evaluate the effectiveness of job crafting programs and role enrichment initiatives specifically targeting DRPs in Philippine healthcare and education sectors, where boreout risk appears structurally embedded.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/forgp.2026.1938501/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Vagner Ferreira Do Nascimento, State University of Mato Grosso, Brazil

Reviewed by: Filomena Riemma, University of Naples Parthenope, Italy

Ganga Karunathilaka, Sabaragamuwa University, Sri Lanka