The starting point for the relational burnout model (RBM) was research conducted by the Culture Shock Foundation as part of the international Burnout Aid project (2019–2021), carried out in cooperation with partner organizations from Croatia (Vox Feminae) and Slovenia (Mesto Žensk/City of Women). It aimed to broaden knowledge about burnout in NGOs and build an online support system, as well as to create and launch the REFLOW tool to check the level of burnout risk.
The first stage of research (desk research) consisted in reviewing available reports, articles and narratives on professional burnout in the third sector present in the media and social discourse. The analysis concerned three countries: Poland, Croatia and Slovenia. The collected data revealed that despite many years of interest in burnout, this phenomenon was considered mainly a psychological and individual problem. This inspired us to study team and systemic factors in the process of burnout and to seek effective ways to prevent it.
For this purpose, we carried out a qualitative study. We conducted 45 interviews with leaders, employees, volunteers and experts from 15 organizations. The collected data clearly showed that burnout in the third sector is not only an individual problem, but also a systemic phenomenon rooted in the way the organization operates and in the broader socio-political context. Respondents described burnout as a loss of flow – a state in which energy, meaning, and relationships stop circulating between the individual, the team and the organization. Burnout was therefore seen not as an individual deficit, but as a disruption in the relational system that affects individuals, teams and entire organizations simultaneously.
Based on this, we decided to create a model that would capture burnout holistically, taking into account individual, relational and systemic factors as well as the relationships between them. Therefore, we resorted to classic theories of burnout as well as systemic, humanistic and salutogenic theories. We also used psychodynamic theories, having agreed that many of the dependencies that contribute to burnout are unconscious.
Classic theories of burnout – from idealism to the system
The first theories of burnout were developed in the 1970s when the interest in the psychological effects of aid work was growing. It was then that Herbert Freudenberger, an American psychiatrist working with volunteers at a free clinic, noticed that individuals who are the most dedicated to their mission begin to lose energy, motivation and sense of action over time. Freudenberger (1974) described burnout as a state of emotional, mental and physical exhaustion resulting from excessive commitment to the realization of unrealistic ideals. He pointed to perfectionism, denial of fatigue, over-responsibility and the unconscious need for recognition as typical defense mechanisms. Freudenberger believed that burnout means calling for authenticity, which is a signal that the individual has moved away from their own limits and values in the name of ideals they are unable to carry.
Freudenberger attributed the name "burnout" and emotional meaning to this phenomenon, but it was Christina Maslach and Michael Leiter (1981, 1997) who developed its most recognizable scientific model. They have demonstrated that burnout is a response to long-term overload at work and manifests itself in three main areas:
- emotional exhaustion – its signs include a feeling of emptiness, overload and loss of energy;
- depersonalization (which is sometimes called cynicism). The person experiencing it approaches others with distance and indifference, sometimes even with passive aggression.
- a reduced sense of value of personal achievements, loss of faith in the meaning and effectiveness of one's own work.
Maslach and Leiter's concept shifted the emphasis from the individual to the working environment. Therefore, burnout was no longer interpreted as a deficit of mental toughness, but as a consequence of the mismatch between the individual and the organization in six key areas:
- workload,
- control,
- recognition,
- sense of community,
- justice,
- values.
In Maslach and Leiter's model, it is the chronic tension resulting from the mismatch between the employee and the organization in these areas of worklife that leads to the loss of meaning and motivation and, consequently, to burnout.
At the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, further structural and organizational models were developed to capture this phenomenon in terms of energy economics and mental resources. The JD-R (Job Demands–Resources) model by Demerouti and Bakker (2001) pointed out that burnout results from an imbalance between job demands and job resources – both personal and organizational. The greater the demands and the more limited the resources (support, autonomy, meaning), the more severe the process of burnout.
Karasek's model (Job Demand–Control), in turn, emphasized that the key protective factor is the sense of control – the ability to influence the style and rhythm of work. When high demands are accompanied by low autonomy, an individual falls into a state of chronic tension and helplessness.
Siegrist's model (Effort–Reward Imbalance) added an emotional and motivational perspective to this puzzle. According to him, burnout occurs when effort and commitment are not reflected in the reward – understood not only as something material, but also as recognition, respect and meaning. The imbalance between giving and receiving generates frustration and a sense of injustice that lead to cynicism and withdrawal over time.
These models brought a relevant organizational perspective, but they still focused mainly on the individual – their resources and reactions. They did not take into account the broader relational and cultural context which affects the functioning of entire teams and organizations, and thus the functioning of a single employee or volunteer. Such a perspective was brought by systemic theories, which began to treat organizations not as a set of individuals, but as a network of mutual dependencies.
Drawing on Ludwig von Bertalanffy's theories of general systems, cybernetics and organizational ecology, researchers such as Katz and Kahn (1966), Senge (1990) and Luhmann (1995) described institutions as living, self-regulating systems. In this approach, a disturbance in one part of the system, e.g. an overload of an individual, may signalize an imbalance of the entire structure. This has opened the way to understanding burnout not only as a response to stressors, but as a systemic process in which individual symptoms reveal tensions and relational deficits in the organization. It is precisely this approach that gave rise to the idea that burnout may be a systemic symptom and not solely an employee's problem.
Towards humanistic and salutogenic approaches
In parallel with the development of organizational models, humanistic and existential approaches emerged which gave burnout research a dimension of meaning and value. Viktor Frankl, Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow pointed out that human well-being depends on authenticity, self-realization and a sense of meaning. A lack of recognition and the inability to realize one's own values lead to alienation and loss of meaning, which are the emotional roots of burnout. This approach has also introduced a language of mental toughness, compassion and development that allows us to consider burnout not only a moment of crisis, but also a potential period of transformation.
This foundation gave rise to Aaron Antonovsky's salutogenic model (1979), and later to the concepts of Luthar, Seligman and contemporary resilience researchers. Antonovsky introduced the concept called a sense of coherence – the belief that the world is understandable, meaningful and manageable. This global experience of coherence between oneself and the environment is a key protective factor against burnout. Antonovsky, inspired by systems theory, emphasized that a human being is part of a complex system in which health and well-being result from a dynamic balancing of chaos and order. It is the idea of balance being a process that resonates particularly strongly with the assumptions of the relational burnout model.
The psychodynamic roots of the relational burnout model
An important reference point for the relational burnout model was psychodynamic and systemic approaches which introduced the language of relationships, emotions and unconscious processes to the theory of burnout.
Cary Cherniss described burnout as a reaction to the discrepancy between idealism and the realities of work. Thus, it results from emotional exhaustion as a defense against disappointment when the organization does not support the values that motivate the individual to act. According to this concept, cynicism and distance are a form of protection against the pain of losing meaning.
By combining psychoanalysis with organizational theory, Manfred Kets de Vries pointed out that institutions reflect the unconscious mechanisms of their leaders and teams. He believed that organizations can function as defense systems in which collusions – mutual, unconscious contracts between individuals and groups – maintain draining patterns of sacrifice, control or perfectionism. Burnout is a signal that relationships in the organization have become emotionally burdensome.
On the other hand, Isabel Menzies Lyth has shown that care institutions (such as hospitals, schools or NGOs) create structures to protect employees from the fear caused by contact with suffering and helplessness. These structures – hierarchy, bureaucracy and procedures – have a defensive function, but they can also lead to cutting off emotions and losing meaning. In this context, burnout becomes a symptom of a systemic functional freeze.
The relational burnout model builds upon these threads, presenting burnout as a relational and circular mechanism in which individual emotions, collusion patterns (organizational entanglements) and organizational defenses become intertwined within a single system. In this spirit, the model interprets burnout not as a personal weakness, but as an adaptation strategy of the entire system in which the flow of energy, recognition and meaning was blocked.
The assumptions of the relational burnout model
The RBM assumes that burnout results from a disturbance in the flow of energy, meaning and recognition between the four levels of the system: the individual, the team, the organization and umbrella organizations. The model interprets burnout as a circular and co-created process. It is a dynamic system of mutual influences, in which individual symptoms reflect systemic tensions, and systemic tensions amplify the individual overload.
The key concept here is flow – understood not as a temporary state of euphoria (as in Csíkszentmihályi's work), but as a continuous, relational exchange of energy and meaning between the elements of the system. Burnout is a state in which this flow is interrupted – emotionally, cognitively, structurally and socially.
The model distinguishes four levels of the system forming a common ecosystem:
- individual (person) – internal resources, emotions, beliefs, body, identity and meaning;
- team – relationships, communication, trust, boundaries and co-responsibility;
- organizational – culture, structures, values, emotional climate, management method;
- institutional and social – relationships with the environment, financing, politics, social narrative and the recognition of work.
Flow disturbances on one level affect the others. An imbalance, e.g. between commitment and recognition or dependence and autonomy, causes internal conflict that blocks the energy of the entire system.
RBM distinguishes four stages of this process:
excessive mobilization → loss of flow → freeze → recovery of balance
Organizational entanglements as the main source of burnout
The central mechanism of the RBM are organizational entanglements – recurring, unconscious patterns of interdependence in which the system maintains its own overload. Entanglements are not mistakes or bad intentions, but an attempt to maintain balance under chronic tension. These are forms of adaptation – in the short term they protect the system from disintegration, but in the long term they block the flow and consolidate burnout.
The model distinguishes four umbrella types of organizational entanglements that can coexist and reinforce each other:
- Heroic entanglement – excessive identification with the mission; the belief that one should give as much as possible, even beyond one's strength. It leads to emotional and physical exploitation, and in organizations – to a culture of sacrifice.
- Caring entanglement – asymmetric care; transfer of rescue and dependency patterns. It deprives a person of autonomy and exacerbates leadership burnout.
- Structural entanglement – organizational defense mechanisms (bureaucracy, control, chaos, excessive procedures). It disables the flow and blocks the initiative.
- Systemic (institutional) entanglement – the relationship of an organization with external structures of power, financing and politics; especially in the third sector, it is project pressure, instability and a lack of recognition as an equal social partner.
Entanglements act circularly – they reinforce each other, creating a closed circuit of tensions. Recognizing them is the first step to breaking the burnout cycle and restoring the flow between the system levels.
Recurring process and possibility of regeneration
RBM presents burnout as a process of cyclic loss and recovery of flow. Each stage has the potential for transformation if the system recognizes its own limitations and activates its self-regulatory capacity.
The value and importance of the relational burnout model
RBM shifts the perspective from individual diagnosis to understanding the systemic determinants of well-being. It shows that individual symptoms are an indicator of relational tension, and burnout is a message from the system about a loss of balance. It served as a basis for our REFLOW tool – a test to help recognize the risk of burnout in non-governmental organizations.
The model provides a framework for working with both individuals and organizations – it allows you to notice blockades, design interventions and plan regeneration activities. It can be used in psychotherapy, supervision, team facilitation, change management and education.
Check your risk of burnout with our REFLOW tool.
References
Antonovsky, A. Health, stress, and coping. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1979.
Antonovsky, A. Unraveling the mystery of health. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, 1987.
Bertalanffy, L. von. General system theory, George Braziller, New York, 1968.
Cherniss, C. Professional burnout in human service organizations, Praeger, New York, 1980.
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., Schaufeli, W. B. The job demands–resources model of burnout „Journal of Applied Psychology”, 86(3), 499–512, 2001.
Frankl, V. E. Człowiek w poszukiwaniu sensu, Czarna Owca, Warszawa, 2019.
Freudenberger, H. J. Staff burn-out „Journal of Social Issues”, 30(1), 159–165, 1974.
Karasek, R. A. Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain „Administrative Science Quarterly”, 24(2), 285–308, 1979.
Katz, D., Kahn, R. L. The social psychology of organizations, Wiley, New York, 1966.
Kets de Vries, M. F. R. The leadership mystique. Prentice Hall, London, 2001.
Lencioni, P. Pięć dysfunkcji pracy zespołowej. Opowieść o przywództwie, MT Biznes, Warszawa, 2005.
Luhmann, N. Social systems. „Stanford University Press”, Stanford, 1995.
Mańkowska, B. Wypalenie zawodowe. Źródła, mechanizmy, zapobieganie, Harmonia, Gdańsk, 2022.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E. The measurement of experienced burnout „Journal of Occupational Behavior”, 2(2), 99–113, 1981.
Maslach, C., Leiter, M. P. Prawda o wypaleniu zawodowym, PWN, Warszawa, 2011.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P. Job burnout „Annual Review of Psychology”, 52, 397–422, 2001.
Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality, Harper & Row, New York, 1954.
Menzies Lyth, I. Containing anxiety in institutions, Free Association Books, London, 1988.
Pines, A., Aronson, E. Career burnout: Causes and cures, Free Press, New York, 1988.
Rogers, C. R. O stawaniu się sobą, Rebis, Poznań, 2023.
Sęk, H. (red.). Wypalenie zawodowe. Przyczyny i zapobieganie, PWN, Warszawa, 2000.
Senge, P. M. Piąta dyscyplina. Teoria i praktyka organizacji uczących się, Wolters Kluwer, Warszawa, 2012.
Siegrist, J. Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions „Journal of Occupational Health Psychology”, 1(1), 27–41, 1996.
Willi, J. Związek dwojga. Psychoanaliza pary. Fundament, Warszawa, 1996.
