ABSTRACT
This concluding rejoinder responds to the commentaries of De Witte and Schaufeli (2025. https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org">https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2025.2468715), Demerouti and Bakker (2025. https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org">https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2025.2473385), and Leiter and Day (2025. https://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" ext-link-type="doi" xlink:href="https://doi.org">https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2025.2473152) on our original paper, “Beliefs About Burnout.” After clarifying potential points of confusion, we delve into the history of burnout to contextualise the controversies that surround the construct. We note that burnout emerged as a largely predefined entity – an entity whose cause and symptoms were specified before any systematic research was conducted. We then emphasise the need for stricter adherence to the burden-of-proof principle in debates about burnout. We take stock of the disagreements that cut across the field in an effort to reflect on its future. As a general recommendation, we propose shifting the focus from burnout to the core manifestations of human distress – depressive and anxiety symptoms. We contend that the burnout construct offers a truncated view of job-related distress, neglecting crucial features such as worker suicidality and hindering the identification of individuals experiencing clinically significant symptoms. We see little justification for maintaining such a limiting framework. Finally, we underline that the attempt to preserve a distinct “niche” for burnout is at odds with current integrative approaches to psychopathology.
