Theories and Models of Burnout
The phenomenon of burnout has generated considerable interest among counselling researchers,
as a result a number of theories have been proposed. Dunford et al. (2012) distinguished that
burnout models can be classified as either static models or dynamic. Static models are those that
can explain variations of burnout at a single point in time and dynamic models are those that
explain variations of burnout over a period of time. In general, these theories explain the causes,
the course and the interventions to relieve burnout. Some of these theories are: Cherniss’s model
of burnout (Cherniss, 1980), Golembiewski’s phase model (Golembiewski & Munzenrider,
1988), Leiter and Maslach’s model (Leiter & Maslach, 1988), conservation of resources theory
(Hobfall, 1989); humanistic existential theoretical model (Pines & Aronson, 1988, Lambie,
2006) and typology of burnout among counsellors (Lee et al., 2010). These theories are
discussed below; they highlight and explain the causes, the course and the interventions needed
to relieve burnout.
Cherniss’s Model of Burnout
Cherniss (1980) suggested that the components of burnout include work-setting characteristics,
sources of stress, person characteristics and attitude changes. Cherniss (1980) further asserted
that aspects of work environment and the character of the individual could both function as
sources of stress. For example, management interference with task completion or goal
achievement creates doubts in the individual’s competencies (Cherniss 1980). In addition, it has
been suggested that individuals will try to cope with these stressors in many ways such as
reducing work goals, taking less responsibility and being less idealistic (Gachutha, 2006).
Leiter and Maslach’s Model
The model explains that emotional exhaustion leads to depersonalisation that then makes the
individual to lose the sense of accomplishment. The Leiter and Maslach’s model has obtained a
lot of empirical support in reported studies (Gachutha, 2006; Maslach, Jackson & Leiter, 1997).
According to Vrendenburgh et al. (1999), burnout research has focused primarily on two
objectives namely; identification of potential correlates and covariates of burnout, and secondly,
the development of theoretical models of the burnout syndrome. Maslach (1982) and Maslach
and Jackson (1981) carried out investigations that culminated in the isolation of significant
domains of the concept of burnout.
Consequently, burnout has three dimensions, first is emotional exhaustion; described as feelings
of being overextended emotionally and exhausted by one’s work. Second is depersonalisation;
described as an unfeeling and impersonal response towards clients. Third is a reduced sense of
accomplishment, described as feelings of inadequate personal achievement accompanied by a
diminished sense of low self-esteem and a tendency of negative self evaluation (Vrendenburgh et
al. 1999; Gachutha, 2006).
In addition, Maslach et al. (1997) contended that the consequences of burnout are serious for
workers and clients. They note that it can lead to deterioration in the quality of care and services
provided by the staff.
Golembiewski’s Phase Model
This model seeks to explain how burnout develops. It adapted Maslach’s three-component model
of burnout, which includes: emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation and reduced personal
accomplishment. They argued that depersonalisation is first experienced in the
sequence. This is the emotional detachment from clients. In this view, it is the first
manifestation of burnout and has the effect of impairing performance because the
person recognises an inconsistency between treatment of clients and the ethics of
the profession. This results in the individual’s sense of personal achievement
being diminished. In addition, reduced sense of personal accomplishment is the
second phase. The depersonalisation and the diminished sense of accomplishment
finally lead to the development of emotional exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion
represents the final stage of burnout development (Golembiewski, 1999).
From these, Golembiewski developed an eight-phase model of burnout. The
assumption is that burnout is a progression. The model also assumes that
individuals in advanced phases experience more serious consequences than those
in earlier phases (Golembiewski, 1999; Golembiewski & Munzenrider, 1988).
Golembiewski and Munzenrider (1988) further state that the individual does
not have to go through the phases, rather they give a medical distinction that
allows for progression, namely acute burnout and chronic burnout (Goodman &
Boss, 2002).
