The conceptualization and measurement of burnout: Common ground and worlds apart

In this edition of Work & Stress , Kristensen and his colleagues critically discuss the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) and present an alternative, more general instrument to measure burnout that exclusively focuses on exhaustion. Here we critically examine their reasons for developing a new burnout measure, as well as the theoretical foundations of this measure. Whereas we agree with Kristensen et al.’s remarks concerning the availability and item wording of the MBI, we do not share their concerns regarding its theoretical underpinnings. In our view, burnout should be conceptualized as a primarily work-related syndrome of (at least) exhaustion and depersonalization/cynicism. The MBI would seem to fit that conceptualization very well. Studies published in Work & Stress typically examine well-defined research questions and present clear and unambiguous answers to these. In other cases, contributions report on research that are best characterized as ‘‘work in progress’’. Although such studies may perhaps be considered not fully developed from one point of view, they deserve to be published if they present fresh and provocative ideas and findings on a particularly interesting issue in occupational health psychology. The study of Kristensen and his colleagues, published in this issue, is a very good example of the latter type of paper. Focusing on burnout, the authors: (a) eloquently and elaborately criticize the instrument that is currently considered the ‘gold standard’ to measure burnout / the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI), and (b) present a new instrument for assessing burnout, namely, the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI). As scientists we respect and applaud any attempt to innovate a long-standing paradigm. Yet, as a Dutch proverb says, ‘do not throw away your old shoes unless you have got new ones’. Are the old MBI-shoes really that worn-out, and do the new CBI shoes improve upon the ancient MBI pair? In this Commentary we address some of the arguments and ideas for The views expressed in Work & Stress Commentaries are those of the author(s), and do not necessarily represent those of any other person or organization, or of the journal. Correspondence: W.B. Schaufeli, Utrecht University, Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, P.O. Box 80.140, NL-3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands. Email: [email protected]. ISSN 0267-8373 print/ISSN 1464-5335 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis DOI: 10.1080/02678370500385913 Work & Stress, July /September 2005; 19(3): 256 /262