We thank De Beer and Schaufeli [1] for reacting to our review of the controversies that surround the burnout construct [2]. We believe burnout researchers should more carefully examine the paradigms within which they operate, and we commend De Beer and Schaufeli for contributing to this effort [1]. Burnout has had a ‘bumpy ride’, undoubtedly. The construct promises to be a rich subject of study for historians of science. We believe, however, that the problems affecting burnout become far less enigmatic when considering how the construct was created [3].
Contrary to what one might assume, the burnout construct did not emerge from systematic research [3–5]. The definition of burnout that has dominated the field of occupational health was formulated in the 1970s based on prenotions and anecdotal evidence [2–5]. No sound empirical studies, no in-depth theoretical reflections, not even a review of the stress literature underpinned the introduction of the burnout construct [2, 3]. Given this backdrop, it is unsurprising that some observers regard the edifice of burnout research with immense scepticism. The pioneers of burnout research neglected basic scientific standards and, by overlooking the (already abundant) work of stress researchers, deprived themselves of important safeguards against illusions of novelty.
The tendency of the burnout pioneers to make big claims based on weak evidence is perhaps most obvious when dealing with burnout’s aetiology. Although the pioneering works on burnout were clearly unsuited for addressing causality questions, Maslach [4] treated the cause of burnout as a settled issue as early as 1976. Psychological researchers ordinarily know how challenging it is to draw causal inferences with any degree of confidence, especially when studying the determinants of complex conditions [3]. The burnout pioneers drew causal conclusions without conducting any robust investigations. To be fair, questionable practices and ‘prewritten conclusions’ were not unique to burnout research in that era [6].
In a socio-historical examination of exhaustion-related afflictions, Schaffner [7] concluded that entities such as nervous weakness (18th century), neurasthenia (19th century) and burnout (20th century) can be regarded as successive avatars of melancholic weariness—a depressive condition already described by physicians of the Hellenic and Roman eras. We share Schaffner’s conclusion. The depressive features that constructs such as burnout confusingly capture have been identified for centuries. It was understood well before the 1970s that working life can depress people and drain them of their energy and spirit.
De Beer and Schaufeli [1] aptly noted the close connection between anxiety and depression. In fact, anxio-depressive symptoms have long been regarded as the core constituents of psychological suffering. Figure 1 lists common anxio-depressive symptoms, as inventoried by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the International Classification of Diseases. As can be seen from the figure, there is little doubt that anxio-depressive symptomatology encompasses so-called burnout symptoms.
Common anxio-depressive symptoms.
