Rethinking Burnout: Beyond Resilience and Systems

Abstract 

Burnout has traditionally been addressed through two primary lenses: as a failure of individual resilience or as a failure of organizational systems. Both perspectives contribute valuable insights but remain incomplete. This paper proposes a more comprehensive framework that incorporates psychological processes, relational dynamics, meaning alignment, and biological recovery as essential factors in understanding and addressing burnout.

This framework emphasizes psychological agency: burnout is not solved by making work painless, but by helping people develop the capacity to face pressure differently while ensuring organizations maintain ethical boundaries and don't cross into exploitation.

Introduction

Burnout is globally acknowledged as a workplace phenomenon defined by the WHO as exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy (World Health Organization, 2019). Corporate initiatives often focus on individual wellness programs (e.g., mindfulness, meditation apps) or system-level adjustments (e.g., redesigning workloads, improving processes). However, many corporate responses—such as mindfulness initiatives or workload redesigns—fail to address burnout's multifaceted origins because they fail to address the interplay between psychological, relational, and biological dimensions of work life.

Beyond Systems and Resilience

Psychological Processes

Burnout is not solely the result of excessive workload. Individual factors such as coping strategies, stress appraisal, and self-regulation play a pivotal role in burnout vulnerability (Maslach & Leiter, 2016). The Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, integrated with self-regulation mechanisms, reveals how sustained strain and lack of recovery systems erode resilience (Bakker & de Vries, 2021). Conservation of Resources (COR) theory further demonstrates how resource loss cycles intensify burnout when self-regulation fails—individuals become increasingly depleted as they invest remaining resources trying to prevent further losses.

Rather than viewing burnout as something that happens to passive recipients of workplace stress, this perspective emphasizes psychological agency—the capacity to develop adaptive responses to professional demands. The goal is not to eliminate workplace pressure, which is inherent to meaningful work, but to help individuals expand their capacity to engage with that pressure constructively.

Relational Dynamics

Burnout frequently involves significant relational components. Leaders and high-performing team members may find themselves locked into unhealthy patterns of over-functioning while others under-contribute. Harvard Business Review research illustrates how collaboration overload and structural micro-stressors substantially increase burnout risk, often more than workload intensity alone (Cross, Dillon, & Reeves, 2023). McKinsey's research consistently documents how harmful workplace behaviors are among the strongest organizational predictors of burnout outcomes, making them vital leverage points for intervention (McKinsey Health Institute, 2022).

Research distinguishes between objective workplace dysfunction—including harassment, discrimination, sabotage, ethical violations, and clear policy breaches—and subjective experiences of workplace discomfort. However, it's important to note that individual differences in distress tolerance may influence how normal workplace friction (feedback, accountability, competition, or professional disagreements) is interpreted and whether it contributes to burnout symptoms.

Work Meaning and Purpose

Work meaning significantly influences the stress–burnout relationship. Meaningful work can buffer stress—as outlined in JD-R theory, where job resources (including meaningful work) mitigate high demands and protect against burnout (Bakker & de Vries, 2021). Research demonstrates that when employees perceive their work as aligned with a larger purpose, they can better manage higher levels of demand. However, this protective effect has limits—even meaningful work cannot completely protect against genuinely dysfunctional work environments characterized by objective workplace violations.

Somatic and Biological Reset

Physiologically, burnout reflects prolonged sympathetic activation without adequate recovery periods. Chronic stress without deliberate downregulation produces physiological depletion that extends beyond cognitive fatigue to encompass nervous system dysregulation. Heart rate variability (HRV) research has highlighted its importance as a biomarker for resilience and recovery capacity (Shaffer & Ginsberg, 2017). However, most organizations delegate recovery to individual "self-care" rather than embedding systematic recovery cycles into organizational practice, leaving individuals to manage what should be structural interventions.

Toward a Comprehensive Approach

A more effective model integrates multiple dimensions:

Systemic Infrastructure: Clear roles, aligned reporting lines, streamlined processes, and reduced unnecessary collaboration overload (Cross, Dillon, & Reeves, 2023). Organizations must address the collaborative demands and structural micro-stressors that create chronic strain throughout the workday, while recognizing that organizations frequently emphasize wellness apps and programs but neglect these fundamental structural changes.

Psychological Support: Development programs that help individuals expand their capacity to handle professional demands rather than simply reducing those demands. This includes training in adaptive stress appraisal, resilience building, and emotional regulation skills. The focus shifts from "protecting" employees from workplace pressure to empowering them to engage with that pressure more effectively.

Relational Architecture: Cultures that address objective workplace dysfunction while also supporting individual development of professional resilience. This includes clear guardrails against harassment, discrimination, and sabotage, alongside coaching to help individuals distinguish between legitimate workplace challenges and genuinely problematic behaviors.

Biological Recovery Integration: Structured recovery cycles—including sleep optimization, stress recovery training, and strategic work breaks—integrated into organizational practice while supporting individual initiatives for recovery. This approach empowers individuals to take ownership of their recovery while providing the systemic support necessary for sustainable practices.

Conclusion

Burnout is a multifactorial phenomenon that represents a complex breakdown at the intersection of psychological processes, organizational infrastructure, relational dynamics, and biological capacity. Rather than being fundamentally any single thing, burnout emerges from various combinations of individual vulnerabilities, systemic pressures, interpersonal dynamics, and physiological factors. Addressing burnout requires organizations to move beyond superficial interventions and integrate systematic, psychological, relational, and biological strategies into their leadership and performance models.

The most effective approach balances organizational accountability with individual agency. Organizations must maintain ethical boundaries—preventing harassment, discrimination, and exploitative practices—while simultaneously helping individuals develop the psychological capacity to handle legitimate professional challenges. This dual approach avoids both the trap of making work artificially painless (which undermines growth and resilience) and the trap of expecting individuals to endure genuinely harmful conditions.

Future research should continue to explore the specific mechanisms underlying these interactions and develop targeted interventions that honor both organizational responsibility and individual empowerment in addressing the multifaceted nature of burnout.

References

Bakker, A. B., & de Vries, J. D. (2021). Job Demands–Resources theory and self-regulation: New explanations and remedies for job burnout. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 34(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10615806.2020.1797695

Cross, R., Dillon, K., & Reeves, M. (2023). What's fueling burnout in your organization? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2023/10/whats-fueling-burnout-in-your-organization

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20311

McKinsey Health Institute. (2022). Addressing employee burnout: Are you solving the right problem? McKinsey & Company. Retrieved from https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/addressing-employee-burnout-are-you-solving-the-right-problem

Shaffer, F., & Ginsberg, J. P. (2017). An overview of heart rate variability metrics and norms. Frontiers in Public Health, 5, 258. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00258

World Health Organization. (2019). Burn-out an "occupational phenomenon": International classification of diseases. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/news/item/28-05-2019-burn-out-an-occupational-phenomenon-international-classification-of-diseases