This document provides an overview of the literature on employee burnout and work engagement. It defines burnout as a negative psychological state comprising physical fatigue, emotional exhaustion, and loss of motivation. Burnout is characterized by three dimensions - exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy. It is most commonly measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Work engagement is defined as a positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption. The relationship between burnout and work engagement and how they impact employee well-being is also discussed.

1. Running head: ​EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 1
Literature Review
Understanding the Links between Employee Burnout and Work Engagement
Ashley D. Preyar

2. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 2
Understanding the Link between Employee Burnout and Work Engagement
Burnout and work engagement are necessary factors to consider when addressing
employee well­being. Today’s employees are facing changes in their environments that are
expected to have an impact on them psychologically, and in some cases, physiologically (Lekutle
& Nel, 2012). With the growing demands, faster deadlines and increasing time constraints,
employees are expected to give more of their time and skills, however, the return of their efforts
in the form of career growth and job security are much less in comparison. In order for
organizations to maintain effectiveness, they must be able to cope with the outcomes of
environmental work changes and promote employee well­being. So, it is important to gain an
understanding of the influences and outcomes and relationship between employee burnout and
work engagement. The purpose of this literature review is to provide an overview of the current
research and most prominent aspects of burnout and work engagement. In doing this, several
articles were reviewed in order to gain insight into the current and possible future state of the two
factors. This paper will discuss what burnout and work engagement are and their dimensions,
how the constructs are studied and the debate about their relationship. In addition, the factors
relationships with similar constructs will be presented as well as how individual characteristics
and demographics such as age impact burnout and work engagement levels. Then, the most
commonly researched predictors of burnout and work engagement will be discussed, such as job
demands and resources. Lastly, the outcomes of the two factors and preventive methods of
burnout and promotion of work engagement will be reviewed.
What is Burnout and Work Engagement?

3. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 3
Burnout and Work Engagement’s Impact on Well­Being
The absence of burnout and the presence of work engagement are both important factors
of well­being (Lekutle & Nel, 2012). Well­being is defined by a positive state of life satisfaction,
“life satisfaction is the cognitive and global evaluation of the quality of one life as a whole”
(Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012, p.416). It’s important to note that life satisfaction has also been
related to reduced mortality in healthy populations and with organizational commitment, job
performance and intent to quit.
Burnout
Burnout has gained considerable empirical attention in the past few decades, which
reflects the rise in work­related stress complaints (Hallberg, Johansson & Schaufeli, 2007).
Research on burnout started in the mid­1970s and 1980s, the study of burnout was highly
concentrated in the United States and Canada, but with the increase in translations of empirical
articles, studies began to branch out into other countries (Maslach & Leiter, 2008). Currently, the
majority of studies on burnout are being produced internationally across post­industrialized
nations.
The term ​burnout​ was originally coined by psychologist Herbert Freudenberger, he
defined it as a “negative, job related psychological state comprising of a set of symptoms such as
physical fatigue, emotional exhaustion, and loss of motivation” (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012, p.
415). Following the work of Freudenberger, pioneer of burnout research, Christina Maslach later
operationalized burnout as a multidimensional stress syndrome developed as a response to
chronic occupational stress (“disruption of the equilibrium of the cognitive­emotional­

4. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 4
environmental system by external factors” (Rothmann, 2008, p.12)). The burnout syndrome is
characterized by “emotional exhaustion (the draining of emotional resources), depersonalization
(a negative, callous attitude towards patients, clients, students, or customers, reducing recipients
to objects (Van der Colff, 2009)), and lack of personal accomplishment (the tendency to feel
incompetent and to assess ones work with other people negatively” (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007,
p.177). The term burnout is used as a metaphor for the mental exhaustion that individuals
experience (Lekutler & Nel, 2012). Wilmar and Schaufeli state that burnout is a negative state of
mind (Rothmann, 2008) comprised of three symptoms: persistent distress, a decrease in
motivation and “dysfunctional attitudes and behaviors at work” (Lekutle & Nel, 2012;
Rothmann, 2008, p.12). Originally, the study of burnout was strictly limited to those in helping
professions, but the construct has been broadened to include all occupational types (Schaufeli,
Taris & Rhenen, 2008). Burnout is a syndrome with three dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism, and
reduced professional efficacy (Rothmann, 2008).
Dimensions and Measurement of Burnout
The ​exhaustion​ dimension of burnout is defined as feelings of over­extendedness and
depletion of one’s emotional resources (Rothmann, 2008) and the draining of mental energy
(Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen & Schaufeli, 2006). ​Cynicism​ represents a “cynical, negative and
insensitive attitude towards work” (Rothmann, 2008, p.12) and low identification or
depersonalization (Schaufeli, Bakker & Rhenen, 2009). Lastly, reduced ​professional efficacy
refers to the assumption that one is no longer able to fulfill their job duties and responsibilities
(Langelaan, Bakker, Doornen & Schaufeli, 2006). This includes both social and nonsocial

5. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 5
components of occupational accomplishment (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). In other words,
professional efficacy ​is the feeling of incompetence, underachievement and reduced productivity
(Rothmann, 2008).
Burnout is often measured using the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), created by
Christina Maslach, which has become the standard for measuring burnout (Maslach & Leiter,
2008) that is, more than 90% of studies on burnout use it (Schaufeli, Taris & Rhenen, 2008). The
MBI analyzes the three burnout dimensions, high scores on ​exhaustion, cynicism ​and low scores
on ​professional efficacy ​are indicators of burnout. Examples of MBI questions are: ‘I feel
drained when I finish work’ (exhaustion) and ‘I doubt the significance of my work’ (cynicism)
(Schauflei & Salanova, 2007). Despite there being psychometric aspects of the MBI shared
across cultures, there appears to be average differences on the rates of burnout, for instance,
North Americans report higher levels of burnout than Europeans do (Maslach & Leiter, 2008).
This suggests that culturally embedded beliefs and values may have factors that make individuals
more vulnerable or resistant to the development of burnout. Reflecting the state of the construct,
the MBI was originally structured strictly for helping professions (e.g., nursing, social work)
(Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007), after the realization that burnout was something seen across
occupations, the Maslach Burnout Inventory­ General Survey (MBI­GS) was produced (Maslach
& Leiter, 2008). The MBI­GS features the same three dimensions as in the MBI but the items are
worded in general terms instead of referring to other people as a source of exhaustion or
cynicism.

6. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 6
The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (OLBI) is another measure of burnout, it is comprised
of sixteen items that result in two scores: exhaustion (eight items: e.g., “There are days when I
feel tired before I arrive to work.”) and disengagement (eight items: e.g., “I can tolerate the
pressure of my work very well.”) from work (Lekutle & Nel, 2012, p.641). The OLBI’s
questions are meant to measure the cognitive and physiological aspects of exhaustion, and like
the MBI­GS, it is not hindered to only human service occupations.
Exhaustion symptoms are the most commonly reported, it is also studied more than the
other two dimensions (Maslach & Leiter, 2008). Exhaustion, followed by cynicism represents
strain, exhaustion produces behaviors that distance one’s self emotionally and cognitively from
work. Exhaustion is presumed to be a coping mechanism against work overload. Cynicism is
characterized by creating distance between oneself and components of the job, it is a response to
exhaustion, and this can be seen in the consistent strong correlations found between exhaustions
and cynicism. Specifically, the average correlation between emotional exhaustion and
depersonalization (cynicism) is .52. On the other hand, the professional efficacy dimension of
burnout has produced more complicated relationships with the first two dimensions, that is, the
average inter­correlation is ­.33. Sometimes the correlations for professional efficacy are shown
to be related and other times it is shown as independent of the other dimensions. Due to this, a
two­dimensional burnout has been argued (Schaufeli, Taris & Rhenen, 2008). Specifically,
cynicism and exhaustion are often considered the ​core​ and ​true​ dimensions of burnout. Another
issue with lack of professional efficacy pertains to the different correlations found between it and
job characteristics in comparison to exhaustion and cynicism (Schaufeli & Salanova, 2007). A
meta­analyses conducted by Lee and Ashforth showed that there was a positive relationship

7. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 7
between exhaustion and job stressors (i.e., work overload, work pressure, role problems)and
cynicism was shown to be negatively related to job resources such as “social support from
coworkers and supervisors, team cohesion, skill utilization, and family resources” (Schaufeli &
Salanova, 2007, p.178­179). On the other hand, efficacy was not related to job stressors but to
poor job resources and more so to poor coping skills. This has led to the assertion that lack
efficacy may be more of a personality characteristic.
Much of the argument against professional efficacy as a dimension of burnout extends
back to how it was first added as a dimension. Professional efficacy was added as a third
dimension after the MBI had already been constructed, it was only after a factor analysis that it
was included as the only positively worded dimension (Maslach & Leiter, 2008). This has raised
several questions about the validity of professional efficacy.
There are few studies that address the nature of burnout and efficacy. In addressing the
question of whether or not professional efficacy is a true dimension of burnout, Schaufeli and
Salanova (2007) tackled the issue and argued that in order to answer this question; the wording
of the items would have to match that of the negatively worded items of the other two
dimensions. Their study consisted of creating a ​reversed in​efficacy scale that was comprised of
negatively worded items instead of reversing the efficacy items. The results showed stronger
positive correlations between the ​in​efficacy scale and the other two burnout dimensions than the
negative correlations of efficacy. In addition, it was revealed that efficacy is an element of work
engagement instead of burnout. Burnout is a “three­dimensional syndrome comprised of
exhaustion, cynicism and ​in​efficacy, instead of the (reversed) efficacy” p. 190).

8. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 8
Work Engagement
It has been argued that empirical studies in psychology are negatively based, that is, the
Journal of Occupational Health Psychology ​has revealed that positive research is outnumbered
by a ratio of 15 to 1 (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). Positive psychology represents a focus from the
traditional negative weaknesses such as mental illnesses, “disease, damage, disorder and
disabilities” (p.702) towards studying and optimizing human strengths. The shift can be seen in
the emergence of work engagement as a result of burnout studies. Work engagement is defined
as a “positive, fulfilling, work­related state of mind, characterized by vigor, dedication and
absorption” (Langelaan et al., 2006, p.522). Engagement is a “persistent and pervasive
affective­cognitive state that is not focused on any particular object, event, individual, or
behavior” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2006, p.702).
Dimensions and Measurement of Work Engagement
Vigor​ refers to high levels of energy while engaging in work activities, mental resilience,
willingness to invest effort into work, and ability to persist despite difficulties (Schaufeli &
Bakker, 2006; Langelaan et al., 2006). ​Dedication ​refers to being heavily involved in one’s work
while experiencing feelings of meaningfulness, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride and challenge
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2006). Finally, ​absorption ​refers to being so concentrated and happily
engrossed in work that time is perceived as passing quickly and one has difficulty disengaging
from work (Langelaan et al., 2006; Schaufeli & Bakker, 2006).
Vigor and dedication are argued to be the ​core​ dimensions of work engagement.
Absorption is similar to ​flow​ “a state of optimal experience” and it has been argued to be a

9. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 9
consequence of work engagement (Langelaan et al., 2006, p. 522). Like burnout, it is argued that
work engagement is a two­dimensional construct.
Work engagement is measured using a 17 item self­report questionnaire called the
Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (UWES) it is comprised of three dimensions of work
engagement (i.e., vigor, dedication, absorption). An example of UWES questions are: ‘At my
work, I feel bursting with energy’ (vigor) and ‘I find the work I do full of purpose and meaning’
(dedication) (Demerouti, Mosert & Bakker, 2010, p.213). The internal consistency of the UWES
is rather strong with an average range between .80 and .90 (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2006). The
measure also has indicators of being universal; it has been validated in the U.S., China, Finland,
Greece, South Africa and Spain (Bakker et al., 2008). However, there has been a concern about
the use of metaphors that may act as language/cultural barriers such as “time flying”. In
addressing this issue, Schaufeli, Bakker & Salanova found that their 9 item version of the UWES
had a stronger cross­national validity in comparison to the original version (Bakker et al., 2008,
p.190).
Relationship between Burnout and Work Engagement
Two­Theoretical Perspectives
There is agreement amongst researchers that burnout and work engagement are related in some
way. One of the supported views is that symptoms of burnout are different to those experienced
by engaged employees. Engaged employees display an energetic and effective attachment to
their work and feel challenged instead of stressed like burnt­out employees (Bakker et al., 2008).
In essence, work engagement is identified by high levels of energy and intense identification

10. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 10
with work, whereas burnout is identified by low energy and weak identification with work
(Bakker et al., 2008). The inconsistency in research is whether the two constructs are opposite or
independent of each other. This has emerged as a debate regarding the relationship between
burnout and work engagement.
The first view argues that work engagement is the direct opposite of burnout’s
dimensions. This view supports the notion that “burnout is the erosion of work engagement”
(Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004, p. 294). In other words, if an employee is engaged, they cannot be
burnt­out. That is, energy is seen to turn into exhaustion, involvement in ones work converts to
cynicism, and efficacy is argued to transform into ineffectiveness (Bakker et al., 2008). This
polarity between constructs is measured using the MBI. So, work engagement is analyzed by the
“opposite pattern of scores on the three MBI dimensions: that is, low scores on exhaustion and
cynicism, and high scores on efficacy, are indicative of work engagement” (Schaufeli & Bakker,
2004, p.294). If the constructs are in fact opposites, the use of one measure such as the MBI is
argued to be acceptable (Demerouti, Mosert & Bakker, 2010). Empirically speaking, this creates
uniformity and consistency when measuring the constructs.
The use of the MBI to assess both burnout ​and ​work engagement has been highly
questioned in regards to the “polarity of positive and negative affect” (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004,
p. 294). Schaufeli and Bakker have expressed their views regarding the use of the MBI to assess
the polarity between the two constructs by stating, “we do not feel that engagement is adequately
measured by the opposite profile of MBI scores since…this implies that both concepts are each
other’s complements” (p. 294). Also, a respondent who reports that he/she is feeling drained one

11. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 11
week may report feelings of high energy the next, in this, they argue that burnout are
independent states and do not complement each other.
The bipolar perspective of burnout and work engagement is not only measured using the
MBI, it is also measured using the OLBI. The OLBI is represented by both negatively and
positively phrased items that are then used to assess both ends of the burnout­engagement
continuum (Demerouti, Mosert & Bakker, 2010). So, the exhaustion and disengagement scales
refer to their polar opposites, vigor and dedication, the positively framed items are then reverse
coded to measure burnout.
A study conducted by Gonzalez­Roma tested the bipolar dimensionality between the two
constructs. They used the MBI­GS and the UWES to test the hypothesis that the
exhaustion­vigor (energy) and cynicism­dedication (identification) items were the two
underlying bipolar dimensions. It was revealed that the core burnout and engagement dimension
could be viewed as opposite. However, after further analyses, the exhaustion­vigor items had a
weak to moderate energy dimension, and the cynicism­dedication items showed a strong
identification dimension. So, despite the inconsistency, the study does support the use of
negatively and positively phrased items to measure the core dimension of both burnout ​and​ work
engagement.
The second view states that both burnout and work engagement are independent
constructs that correlate negatively (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). So, according to this view,
unlike the fulfillment that engaged workers feel, burnout sufferers are presented with feelings of
emptiness (Bakker et al., 2008). In testing this perspective, Demerouti, Mostert and Bakker

12. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 12
(2010) used the MBI­GS, OLBI and the UWES to assess the independency of the two
constructs’s ​core​ dimensions (i.e., vigor­exhaustion/energy; dedication­cynicism/ identification).
The results revealed that even though the identification dimension of burnout (cynicism,
disengagement) and work engagement appeared to be each other’s opposites, the energy
dimensions (exhaustion­vigor) appeared to be two independent yet highly correlated constructs.
It has also been revealed that depending on the type of measure used and its operationalization of
dimensions, the results regarding independence change. For instance, Demerouti et al. (2010)
also found that vigor items for the OLBI (e.g., “After working, I have enough energy for my
leisure activities”) differ between the vigor items for the UWES (e.g., “At my work, I feel
bursting with energy”) (p. 218). The OLBI assumes that vigor means having just enough energy
resources whereas UWES assumes that there is more than enough energy while at work. Vigor is
also argued to be comprised of motivational factors related to investing effort into work. So, the
UWES­vigor is not considered the direct opposite of exhaustion as it is measured in the MBI­GS
because it includes motivational elements as well.
Differentiating Burnout and Work Engagement from Similar Constructs
Burnout and work engagement have features that, to some degree, cross­over and overlap with
other constructs. Depressive symptoms and workaholism have several similarities with the two
constructs, thus there has been confusion and difficulty when differentiating them.
Depressive Symptoms
There has been some ambiguity regarding the relationship between burnout and
depression (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2008). Burnout symptoms are argued to be inherently

13. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 13
job­related and situation specific, on the other hand, depressive symptoms are generalizable to
varying situations and areas of life. In putting this thought into perspective, researcher Warr
(1990) differentiated job related burnout and context­free depression. It has been questioned
whether or not it is logical to distinguish between the two in the first place (Hakanen &
Schaufeli, 2008). This is mainly because of overlaps between the two constructs. Research­wise,
there have been consistent findings that support the notion that burnout and depressive symptoms
are different yet related negative aspects. The main issue is the temporal precedence of the two,
that is, which comes first, the chicken or the egg or the causal order. It was once thought that
burnout preceded in the developing stages of depression, there have been studies that supported
both perspectives. An example is a three year study conducted by Ahola and Hakanen (2008)
who examined the depressive symptoms of dentists. The results revealed that dentists, with
burnout without depressive symptoms during baseline, developed depressive symptoms at follow
up, and dentists with depressive symptoms during baseline without burnout, reported burnout at
follow up (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2008).
Research has also revealed that the vigor dimension of work engagement may function as
an antecedent that reduces future depressive and anxiety symptoms (Hakanen & Schaufeli,
2008). Hanaken and Schaufeli (2008) conducted a three wave seven year cross­lagged study on
Finnish dentist to evaluate the causal direction of the relationship between burnout, work
engagement and depressive symptoms as well as life satisfaction. The results of their study
revealed that work related well­being had a spillover effect to general well­being. That is,
burnout and work engagement were found to be predictive of depressive symptoms and life
satisfaction over time. Second, burnout was found to be predictive of depressive symptoms,

14. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 14
meaning that it preceded it. Third, it was also shown that work engagement negatively predicted
depressive symptoms, this shows that work engagement has strong consequences on health and
overall well­being. It is argued that the reasoning for the negative relationship between
engagement and depressive symptoms is that it is rare for engaged workers to burnout because
they are not prone to becoming depressed.
Workaholism
There has been empirical confusion about the differences between workaholism, burnout
and work engagement, all three are well­being constructs (Schaufeli, Taris & Rhenen, 2008).
Workaholism is defined as “...the compulsion or the uncontrollable need to work”( p.175). The
workaholism model consists of three dimensions like burnout and work engagement, which
include work involvement, drive, and work engagement. Varying combinations of these result in
six types of workaholism and two types overlap with burnout and work engagement. There is
one with ​true ​workaholism which is characterized by high levels of involvement, high drive and
low enjoyment whereas ​work enthusiasts​ have high involvement and enjoyment and low drive,
this matches engagement . On the other hand, ​disenchanted workers​ have low involvement, low
enjoyment and high drive, this models burnout. As one can see, there are similarities and overlap
amongst the three constructs, which can easily lead to confusion. In response to this overlap,
Schaufeli, Taris and Rhenen (2008) argue that “subsuming different types of employee
well­being under the same heading is not a very good strategy because it blurs the meaning…”
(p.176).

15. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 15
In addressing the differences between burnout and workaholism, research has shown that
workaholism can potentially lead to burnout since workaholics use up a lot of their energy and
mental resources, resulting in exhaustion. This supports the idea that the two are different. Few
studies have addressed this though. In addition, interviews revealed that engaged employees with
high scores on vigor, dedication, and absorption are not addicted to their work. On the contrary,
workaholics feel guilty when not working, have reduced happiness, reduced interpersonal/social
interactions (Bakker et al., 2008) and they do not view work as fun (Schaufeli, Taris & Rhenen,
2008).
Schaufeli, Taris and Rhenen (2008) investigated whether the three dimensions of
employee well­being (workaholism, burnout and work engagement) can be differentiated. After
collecting self­report questionnaires from a sample of 587 telecom managers, the results revealed
that burnout and work engagement act as opposites as opposed to independently, whereas
workaholism interacts with both constructs. In addition, the results indicate that burnout and
work engagement are negatively related whereas workaholism and burnout are positively related.
Specific results indicate that managers high in burnout displayed negative factors such as health
issues, low social functioning, high job demands, lack of resources and overall poor outcomes.
Workaholics and engaged managers high in burnout were “too tired to work hard, too cynical to
feel committed” ( p. 195). On the contrary, managers high in work engagement reported mostly
positive factors such as being mentally healthy, high social functionality, sufficient resources at
work and had positive outcomes (. Lastly, managers high in workaholism worked hard and

16. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 16
displayed negative factors like the burnout managers, but similarly to the engaged managers,
they felt a sense of commitment to their jobs.
The Role of Individual Characteristics on Burnout and Work Engagement
Research has also investigated the role that individual characteristics such as personality
and Type A play on the level of burnout and work engagement that employees experience.
Personality and Temperament
There has been much interest in whether personality traits influence burnout, on the
contrary, few studies have investigated personality factors and work engagement. Even though
the research on work engagement and personality is scarce, some conclusions can be drawn
about potential relationships. For instance, extraversion has been shown to be predictive of
well­being, the likelihood of well­being increases as extraversion increases whereas neuroticism
decreases (Langelaan et al., 2006). In addition, unlike neurotic individuals, extraverted
individuals have a greater chance of experiencing vigor. Past studies have revealed positive
relationships between burnout and neuroticism, often resulting in weak negative correlations
between burnout and extraversion.
In addressing these concerns, Langelaan et al. (2006) was interested in studying whether
burnout (cynicism and exhaustion) and work engagement could be differentiated based on
personality (enduring personal characteristics) and temperament (biologically rooted
characteristics of personality). The results of the study reveal that burnout is related to
neuroticism. In addition, similar to past studies, extraversion and temperament had a strong

17. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 17
significant correlation with exhaustion and cynicism. A possible explanation for this result is that
neurotic individuals are more prone to view their environments as threatening, making them
vulnerable to becoming burnt­out. For work engagement, the findings show that work
engagement is indicated by high extraversion and low scores on neuroticism. As for
temperament, mobility (ability to adapt to environmental changes) plays an important role in
identifying employees high and low on work engagement. These results show that engaged
workers are able to handle sudden changes in work better than burnt­out employees.
Type A Personality
Type A personality has been shown to be related to burnout. Specifically, individuals
who use performance to measure their own value are more likely to burnout than those who do
not base their self­worth on unknown outcomes (Hallberg, Johansson & Scahufeli, 2007). Type
A personality has been associated with over­achievement behaviors when working on tasks.
Type A consists of a behavioral pattern which includes “ambition, competitiveness, time
urgency, impatience and hostility” p.136). There are two dimensions of Type A: achievement
striving and irritability/impatience. A study conducted by Hallberg, Johansson & Schaufeli
(2007) looked at the association between burnout, work engagement and Type A amongst
Swedish information technology consultants. The results reveal that workers who displayed more
achievement striving behaviors were more engaged in work tasks; however, they did not display
burnout symptoms. It is then argued that the achievement dimension of Type A acts as a buffer
against burnout. In addition, Type A workers who displayed more irritability/impatience
behaviors displayed more burnout symptoms. A potential reason for these results is that

18. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 18
irritability and impatience may drain/exhaust mental resources thus increasing exhaustion and
cynicism. It’s important to note that this was the first known study to investigate the relationship
between Type A and work engagement.
The Role of Demographics on Burnout and Work Engagement
There have been few, yet meaningful, studies that address the associations between
demographic variables and burnout and work engagement.
Age
Studies on age and burnout and work engagement have shown that older employees
appear to experience higher rates of work engagement whereas younger employees report more
burnout symptoms than older workers (Haley, Mosert & Els, 2013). Research has the tendency
to focus more on the well­being of older workers while ignoring the well­being of younger
workers. It is assumed that burnout forms during the early career of employees, perhaps due to a
reality shock and lack of skills when first entering the workforce.
Haley et al. (2013) was interested in studying the effects of age on burnout and work
engagement outcomes. The study consisted of 582 junior managers in the financial sector, there
were three age groups: younger, middle and older employees. The results revealed similar
findings to past research, younger and middle aged employees reported more exhaustion in
comparison to older employees. Each age group displayed unique relationships with burnout and
work engagement. For older employees, exhaustion and cynicism were predicted by burnout and
work engagement. For middle aged employees, it was exhaustion and lower vigor, and for

19. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 19
younger employees, it was lower vigor and dedication. These results indicate that the different
stages (in relation to age) in one’s career may dictate how employees handle the everyday
demands of work. Past experience seems to act as a job resource.
Gender
Gender and its relationship with burnout and work engagement has not been studied
much. However, there are assumptions regarding potential outcomes, for instance, some studies
have shown that women report more burnout symptoms than men (Norlund, Reuterwall, Hoog,
Linhahl, Janlert & Birgander, 2010). In investigating the relationship between burnout and
gender, Norlund et al. (2010) found that there was not a relationship; however, they did find that
women who worked with ‘things’ instead of ‘people’ reported higher rates of burnout . The
possible reasoning for this may be that socioeconomic status may play a role in the types of
encounters one has at work, that is, interacting primarily with people or things may impact
feelings of burnout and stress. In all, the relationship between work engagement and gender is
unknown, but gender seems to not be indicative of burnout.
Predictors of Burnout and Work Engagement
There has been research on the relationship(s) that burnout and work engagement have
with job demands­resources, sense of coherence and coping style. These are amongst the most
researched variables found to be predictors of the two well­being constructs.
Job­Demands and Resources

20. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 20
Job demands and job resources are variables that are often researched alongside burnout
and work engagement studies. According to Schaufeli and Bakker (2004), ​job demands ​are
characterized by “physical, psychological, social, or organizational aspects of the job that require
sustained physical and/or psychological effort and are therefore associated with certain
physiological and/or psychological costs”. Job demands are not inherently negative; however, it
is only when demands ​demand high levels of energy and effort in order to get completed. Under
such situations, job demands can transform into job stressors which can then turn into
depression, anxiety or burnout. Job resources represent the physical, psychological, social, or
organizational components of a job that either (1) decreases job demands and the related
physiological and psychological ailments, (2) are active in achieving work milestones or (3)
encourage personal growth and development.
It has been argued that certain job demands (e.g., overload and interpersonal conflict) and
the lack of certain resources (e.g., control coping, social support, autonomy) result in outcomes
such as poor health, turnover, absenteeism and reduced organizational commitment. The Job
Demands­Resources model (JD­R) is commonly used when studying the effects of job
demands/resources on burnout and work engagement. The JD­R model has two assumptions: (1)
high job demands result in depleting an employee of their stored energy resources, resulting in
exhaustion and (2) lack of resources reduces motivation when handling job demands, resulting in
withdrawal and/or disengagement from work. In this respect, it is argued that burnout and work
engagement have different predictors when it comes to demands and resources.

21. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 21
Schaufeli & Bakker (2004) were interested in testing the accuracy of the JD­R model,
that is, whether job demands and resources have varying outcomes in relation to burnout and
work engagement. The study consisted of distributing self­report questionnaires to a sample of
1698 participants from four Dutch organizations ranging from the financial sector to the health
sector. Both the MBI­GS and UWES were used. The results of the study reveal that job demands
and lack of resources predict burnout whereas engagement is only predicted by the availability of
job resources. In all, when job demands exceed resources, employees are more likely to
experience burnout. On the other hand, when employees have enough resources to handle their
jobs, they are more likely to experience engagement.
Sense of Coherence
Sense of coherence is another predictor of burnout and work engagement in employees.
Coherence is defined as “a relatively stable dispositional orientation that is represented by the
concepts of comprehensibility, manageability and meaningfulness” (Van der Colff, 2009, p. 1).
Coherence is deemed an important factor in the overall health and well­being of employees and
has been found to have a significant correlation with the exhaustion and cynicism dimensions of
burnout as well as the vigor and dedication dimensions of engagement (Haley, Mosert & Els,
2013). In all, having a strong sense of coherence (believing that one is competent) is likely to
result in work engagement whereas a weak sense of coherence is likely to result in burnout.
Coping Style
Coping style has also been linked to burnout and work engagement. There are two types
of coping strategies, ​problem­focused​ (defining the problem, creating and evaluating solutions)

22. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 22
and ​emotion­focused​ (avoidance, denial, seeking emotional support) (Van der Colff, 2009).
Burnout and coping strategies have been found to be significantly related, that is,
emotion­focused coping has been linked to high levels of burnout whereas problem­focused
coping has been associated with lower levels of burnout and higher rates of engagement.
Job Satisfaction
Job satisfaction has also been found to be related to work engagement and burnout. Job
satisfaction (the degree to which one is satisfied with their work) is comprised of pleasure and
displeasure (Rothmann, 2008). It has been shown that high stress paired with low satisfaction
results in low energy. This aspect seems familiar with exhaustion and vigor. Rothmann (2008)
was interested in understanding the relationship between job satisfaction, burnout, work
engagement and other factors (occupational stress) using a sample of South African police
officers. The results revealed that both dimensions of burnout and work engagement had a
statistically significant relationship with job satisfaction. Also, dissatisfaction was shown to be
moderately correlated with exhaustion. The latter finding is typical of research on burnout and
satisfaction, the major problem is not whether the two are related, but ​how​ they are related. That
is, does job dissatisfaction cause one to burnout or does burnout cause one to become dissatisfied
with their work?
Outcomes of Burnout and Work Engagement

23. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 23
Due to the nature of burnout and work engagement, the outcomes are assumed to be
different. The most researched (and arguably the most important) outcomes linked to burnout
and work engagement ­ mostly burnout are: turnover intention, health, absenteeism and safety.
Turnover Intentions
Turnover intentions have been linked to burnout and work engagement. Burnout is the
strongest predictor of depression and depression is a predictor of turnover intentions (Pooly &
Roodt, 2010). There have also been a few studies that show burnout as a partial mediator
between turnover intentions. Pooly and Roodt (2010) conducted a cross­sectional survey of
turnover intentions, burnout and engagement of South African IT workers. The results support
the notion that burnout is a mediator between the (highly significant) engagement­turnover
relationship. So, employees with high levels of burnout are likely to have lower levels of
engagement, this increases the chance of turnover and vice versa.
Health
Burnout has been linked to employee health outcomes. Specifically, it has been tied to
chronic work disability and increased hospital admissions due to mental and cardiovascular
diseases (Hakanen & Schaufeli, 2012). In addition, positive relationships have been found
between burnout, distress and psychosomatism (Schaufeli, Taris & Rhenen, 2008). The
exhaustion dimension of burnout has the strongest relationship with health issues, for instance,
exhaustion shares 40% of its variance with depression and 45% with psychosomatic issues.
Research shows that burnout is negatively related to health, and work engagement does not seem

24. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 24
to have a relationship with health issues. This shows that engaged workers may be less prone to
illness, possibly due to lifestyle and outlooks on life.
Absenteeism
Absenteeism has been associated with burnout and work engagement. There are two
types of absenteeism, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary absenteeism refers to the frequency
(number of absences in a certain period) and involuntarily refers to duration (total length of an
absence in a given period) (Schaufeli et al., 2009). Engaged employees usually do not report
illnesses, on the other hand, burnout employees are more likely to have difficulty attending work.
Perhaps this is due to illnesses, exhaustion and/or avoidance. Schaufeli, Bakker and Rhenen
(2009) conducted a two­wave longitudinal study, using a sample of Finnish managers; they
found that burnout is related to involuntary absenteeism. This often results in longer absences,
whereas engagement is related to voluntary absenteeism which leads to fewer absences. The
results of this study supports the findings of other similar studies, for instance, another
longitudinal study found that chronic burnout resulted in 52 additional absences in comparison to
lower burnout employees.
Safety
Jobs that expose workers to high risk environments, along with other job demands such
as exposure to harmful chemicals and labor intensive tasks have been linked to work accidents,
injuries and deaths (Nahrgang, Morgeson & Hofmann, 2010). It can be assumed that employees’
motivation and energy plays a role in their safety behaviors. A study conducted by Nahrgang et
al. (2010) investigated the relationship between job demands­resources, burnout, work

25. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 25
engagement and safety outcomes. The results reveal that stressful job demands such as
workplace hazards deteriorate employee health which leads to burnout. Burnout was also found
to be negatively correlated with safety behaviors (e.g., following safety procedures), but work
engagement acted as a motivator for employees to participate in safety behaviors.
Other Outcomes
There are other outcomes that have been linked to high levels of burnout, most are
scarcely studied. They include, low organizational commitment, reduced performance and
counterproductive behaviors (Siu, Cooper & Phillips, 2014).
Preventing Burnout and Increasing Work Engagement
As shown, the costs of burnout and reduced work engagement can have negative
outcomes for both employees (e.g., psychological, physiological) and organizations (e.g.,
financial, reputation). In this, it is in the best interest of organizations to take active steps in using
research based methods in improving employee engagement, while reducing burnout symptoms.
There is a strong need for providing organizations with the proper assessments to
measure burnout, they need to be able to conduct yearly checkups of the health of their
employees (Maslach, 2011).The information available on burnout and work engagement can
assist organizations in identifying the strengths and weaknesses of their organizations that are
counterproductive to employee well­being. In order for burnout to be prevented, the early signs
need to be detected before issues worsen. Measures such as the MBI can be used to predict
patterns that may appear later. For instance, individuals with high scores on exhaustion or

26. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 26
cynicism are signs of burnout, and if individuals have mismatch scores on at least one of the
dimensions, they are likely to be headed towards burning out.
As for interventions, research has shown that most interventions targeted towards burnout
use individual­level (strengthens the resource of employees) methods more than organizational
­level methods (reduces workplace sources of burnout) (Hatinen & Makikangas, 2013). It has
also been shown that different dimensions of burnout respond differently to interventions. For
instance, individual ­level interventions tend to result in reduced of exhaustion while the other
dimensions resist change. Other forms of interventions such as rehabilitation, which is studied
much less than other forms, includes a series of physicians, psychologist and social workers in
the treatment of burnout, this is more multidisciplinary and holistic in nature compared to the
other forms of interventions. It is important to note that this approach may not be practical in
most organizations due to lack of resources and time constraints. A six month rehabilitation
study showed that emotion­focused coping strategies were associated with weaker exhaustion
symptoms. Since different interventions have different effects, it is recommended that a mix of
approaches be used to reduce burnout. It’s also encouraged that organizations utilize customized
interventions that are in scope with the organization’s goals and the needs of the employees
regarding burnout and work engagement (Maslach, 2011). Interventions such as participatory
interventions allow customization as they pinpoint specific causes of burnout that are then used
to implement solutions to reduce undesired factors (Hatinen & Makikangas, 2013). Participatory
interventions have also been shown to be effective in reducing burnout in employees.
Recommendations for Future Study

27. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 27
Most studies on burnout and work engagement have used cross­sectional designs, which
have hindered the ability to make causal statements about burnout and work engagement. In this,
it is important that more longitudinal designs with control groups be used in order to assert
causations and temporal precedence. In addition, many of the studies relied on self­report
measures, even though such reports can be useful, they are prone to subjectivity such as social
desirability. So, utilizing other sources of information in addition to self­report questionnaires
such as readily available company data regarding turnover, absenteeism, and health records can
increase objectivity (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). As for demographic factors, there is a need for
more studies on the types of relationships that age and gender have on work engagement as most
of the research focus on burnout. Specifically, research should focus on the well­being of
younger workers as much as that of older workers, considering that younger workers seem to
have more negative experiences during the beginning of their careers. The effect that personality
has on burnout and work engagement also needs further investigation. Specifically, the research
on work engagement and its relationship with factors such as the Big 5 are scarce. It would be
beneficial to understand the associations of burnout and work engagement with factors such as
organizational commitment, and person­organizational fit as these factors are often mentioned
rather than included in studies on burnout and work engagement. In addition, as pointed out by
Rothmann (2008), job satisfaction and burnout deserve more attention in order to gain insight
into the true nature of their relationship.
Most importantly, industrial­organizational psychologists and other professionals should
come to a consensus as to what the relationship is between burnout and work engagement, that
is, whether they are independent constructs or opposites. Agreeing on the relationship can be

28. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 28
beneficial in regards to the types of measures used to study the dimensions. As it has been
shown, different measures produce different results for the same dimensions. Not to mention,
knowing the relationship between both constructs can help with developing prevention plans and
more effective workplace interventions. Also, researchers should update operational definitions
of factors similar to work engagement and burnout (i.e., workaholism) because it can become
problematic and confusing when it is difficult to differentiate between factors. As for the
dimensions of burnout, more research needs to be conducted on the role of professional efficacy.
This can enable researchers to agree on whether or not it should be removed from the model
completely. The same is true for the absorption dimension of work engagement. Lastly, it would
also be proactive to increase research on the relationship between depression, burnout and work
engagement considering that this area still has uncertainties.
Conclusion
Employees in the 21st century are facing more and more demands as skill set and
competition increases. With the fast­paced nature of the workforce, employees have a greater
chance of experiencing negative symptoms related to burnout. Burnout is not limited to just
social service and helping positions. Burnout and work engagement have varying relationships
with other factors, predictors and work­place and health outcomes. Despite the extensive
research on burnout, work engagement ­being a new and emerging factor­ still has several
uncertainties and much to be researched. But what is known is that work engagement provides
valuable information about how employees should and could be as opposed to what is often seen
in burnout suffers. Research on burnout and work engagement has branched off into two

29. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 29
perspectives, either viewing the two as completely separate or two ends of the same continuum.
This has resulted in very different results for the same factors and leaves it difficult to come to
any conclusion about the actual relationship between the two. In this regard, more research is
needed in order to come to an agreement, which is well needed in order to increase employee
well­being through methods such as workplace interventions.
References
Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Leiter, M. P. & Taris, T. W. (2008). Work engagement: An
emerging concept in occupational health psychology. ​Work & Stress, 22​(3), 187­200.
doi:10.1080/02678370802393649
Demerouti, E., Mostert, K. & Bakker, A. B. (2010). Burnout and work engagement: A thorough
investigation of the independency of both constructs. ​Journal of Occupational Health,
15​(3), 209­222. doi: 10.1037/a0019408
Hakanen, J. J. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive
symptoms and life satisfaction? A three­wave seven ­year prospective study. ​Journal of
Affective Disorders, 141​, 415­424. doi:​10.1016/j.jad.2012.02.043

30. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 30
Hallberg, U. E., Johansson, G. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2007). Type a behavior and work situation:
Associations with burnout and work engagement. ​Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,
48​(1), 135­142. doi: 10.1111/j.1467­9450.2007.00584.x
Haley, M., Mosert, K. & Els, C. (2013). Burnout and work engagement for different age groups:
Examining group­level differences and predictors. ​Journal of Psychology in Africa,
23​(2), 283­296. doi:10.1080/14330237.2013.10820625
Hatinen, M. & Makikangas, A. (2013). Recovery from burnout during a one­year rehabilitation
intervention with six­month follow­up: Associations with coping strategies. ​International
Journal of Stress Management, 20​(4), 364­390. doi: 10.1037/a0034286
Langelaan, S., Bakker, A. B., van Doornen, L. J. P. & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and
work engagement: Do individual differences make a difference?​Personality and
Individual Differences, 40​ (1), 521­532. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.07.009
​Lekutle, M. & Nel;, A. J. (2012). Psychometric evaluation of the utrecht work engagement scale
(UWES) and oldenburg burnout inventory (OLBI) within a cement factory. ​Journal of
Psychology in Africa, 22​(4), 641­656. doi: 10.1080/14330237.2012.10820580
Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. (2008). Early predictors of job burnout and engagement. ​Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93​(3), 498­512. doi: 10.1037/0021­9010.93.3.498
Maslach, C. (2011). Burnout and engagement in the workplace: New perspectives. ​European
Health Psychology, 13​(3), 44­47. Retrieved from
http://www.ehps.net/ehp/issues/2011/v13iss3_September2011/13_3_Maslach.pdf

31. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 31
Nahrgang, J. D., Morgeson, F. P. & Hofmann, D. A. (2010). Safety at work: A meta­analytic
investigation of the link between job demands, job resources, burnout, engagement, and
safety outcomes. ​American Psychological Association, 96​(1), 71­94. doi:
10.1037/a0021484
Norlund, S., Reuterwall, C., Hoog, J., Linhahl, B., Janlert, U. & Birgander, C. S. (2010).
Burnout, working conditions and gender­results from the northern sweden monica study.
BMC Public Health, 10​(326), 1­9. doi:10.1186/1471­2458­10­326
Pooly, J. & Roodt, G. (2010). Work engagement, burnout and related constructs as predictors of
turnover intentions. ​SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 36​(1), 1­13. doi:
10.4102/sajip.v36i1.910
Rothmann, S. (2008). Job satisfaction, occupational stress, burnout and work engagement as
components of work­related wellbeing. ​South African Journal of Industrial
Psychology,34​(3), 11­16.​ ​doi: 10.4102/sajip.v34i3.424
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with
burnout and engagement: a multi­sample study. ​Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25​,
293­315. doi: 10.1002/job.248
Schaufeli, W. B. & Bakker, A. B. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short
questionnaire: A cross­national study. ​Educational and psychological Measurement,
66​(4), 701­716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471

32. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 32
Schaufeli, W. B. & Salanova, M. (2007). Efficacy or inefficacy, that’s the question: Burnout and
work engagement, and their relationships with efficacy beliefs. ​Anxiety, Stress, and
Coping, 20​(2), 177­196. doi: 10.1080/10615800701217878
Schaufeli, W. B., Taris, T. W. & Rhenen, W. (2008). Workaholism, burnout, and work
engagement: Three of a kind or three different kinds of employee well­being? ​Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 57​(2), 173­203. doi:
10.1111/j.1464­0597.2007.00285.x
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B. & Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and
resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. ​Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 30​(7), 893­917. doi: 10.1002/job.595
Siu, O. L., Cooper, C. L. & Phillips, D. R. (2014). Intervention studies on enhancing work
well­being, reducing burnout, and improving recovery experiences among hong kong
health care workers and teachers. ​International Journal of Stress Management, 21​(1),
69­84. doi: 10.1037/a0033291
Van der Colff, J. (2009). Occupational stress, sense of coherence, coping, burnout and work
engagement of registered nurses in south africa. ​SA Journal of Industrial Psychology,
35​(1), 1­10. doi: 10.4102/sajip.v35i1.423
Warr, P. (1990). The measurement of well­being and other aspects of mental health. ​Journal of
Occupational Psychology, 63​, 193­210. Retrieved from
http://dtserv2.compsy.uni­jena.de/__c12577050026fef1.nsf/0/B2F1EFDB592015E1C125

33. EMPLOYEE BURNOUT AND WORK ENGAGEMENT 33
773E003BBAA8/$FILE/WARR%20The%20measurement%20of%20well­being%20and
%20other%20aspects%20of%20mental%20health.pdf