3-Cilliers.qxd


Burnout is generally described as a condition happening only to

the individual employee. When he/she can not cope with work

demands anymore, remedies are prescribed to either help the

individual personally to get back on track or out of the

organisation (Maslach & Jackson, 1984; Schaufeli & Enzmann,

1998). This research argues from a systems psycho-dynamic

perspective (French & Vince, 1999), that burnout involves the

individual as micro, as well as the group as meso and the

organisation as macro systems. Coping with burnout thus

becomes a total system endeavour.

Burnout

Burnout occurs within a specific job related context - it refers to

a particular type of prolonged job stress, the final step in a

progression of unsuccessful attempts by the individual to cope

with a variety of negative stress conditions (Maslach & Jackson,

1984; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). Burnout differs from

depression, which refers to the individual’s symptoms across all

life situations (Basson & Rothmann, 2001).

Burnout can be defined (Cherniss, 1995; Golembiewski &

Munzenrider, 1988; Jackson, Schuler & Schwab, 1986;

Maslach, 1982a; 1982b; Maslach & Jackson, 1984; 1986; Pines,

Aronson & Kafry, 1981; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998) as a

persistent, negative, work-related state of mind (or syndrome)

developing over time in a so called “normal” individual,

characterised by an array of physical, psychological and

attitudinal symptoms, primarily exhaustion, accompanied by

distress, a sense of reduced effect iveness, decreased

motivation and the development of dysfunctional personal

and societal at t it udes and behaviours at work. This

psychological condition develops gradually, but may remain

unnoticed for a long time. It results from a misfit bet ween

intentions and realit y in the job.

The syndrome is described in terms of its self-perpetuating

characteristics within the individual and his/her inadequate

coping strategies, and especially three concept ually distinct

characteristics or dimensions, namely emotional exhaustion,

depersonalisat ion and low personal accomplishment

(Cherniss, 1995; Jackson, Schuler & Schwab, 1986; Maslach,

1982a; 1982b; Maslach & Jackson, 1984; 1986; Schaufeli &

Enzmann, 1998). Specific physical, cognitive, affective,

motivational, behavioural, interpersonal and work symptoms

are mentioned (Dubrin, 1990; Junt unen, Asp, Olkinuora,

Arimaa, Strid & Kautt u, 1988; Pines et al., 1981; Schaufeli &

Enzmann, 1998). The causes of burnout are classified in terms

of the individual’s profile and the work situation (Cherniss,

1995; Corrigan, Holmes, Luchins, Buican, Basit & Parks, 1994;

Freudenberger, 1989; Golembiewski & Munzenrider, 1988;

Landsbergis, 1988; Miller, Ellis, Zook & Lyles, 1990; Pines et

al., 1981; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 1998). Coping with burnout

is discussed in the literat ure on three levels, namely the

individual, the interpersonal and the organisational levels

(Cox & Ferguson, 1991; Muldary, 1983; Pines & Aronson,

1988; Schaufeli & Janczur, 1994). (The symptoms, causes 

and coping with burnout are mentioned as part of the 

results below.)

The Systems Psycho-dynamic perspective

The systems psycho-dynamic perspective does not address

individual behaviour per se, but rather the systemic group and

organisational behaviour influencing various systems, such as

the individual. The primary task of this paradigm is formulated

as pushing the boundaries to better understand organisations,

including the challenges of management and leadership. It serves

as a praxis for work group and organisational education,

training and consultation (Miller & Rice, 1976).

The central tenet of the systems psycho-dynamic perspective is

contained in the conjunction of these two terms (French &

Vince, 1999; Miller, 1993; Neumann, Kellner & Dawson-

Shepherd, 1997; Obholzer & Roberts, 1994; Stapley, 1996).

1. The systems designation refers to the open systems concepts

that provide the dominant framing perspective for

understanding the structural aspects of an organisational

system. These include its design, division of labour, levels of

authority and reporting relationships, the nature of work

tasks, processes and activities, its mission and primary tasks

and in particular the nat ure and patterning of the

organisation’s task, sentient boundaries and the

transactions across them. It is accepted that human beings

create social instit utions to satisf y their (sometimes

irrational, primitive and childlike) needs to experience

pleasure and avoid pain, as well as to accomplish required

tasks. Institutions become external realities, comparatively

independent of individuals. These affect individuals in

significant emotional and psychological ways, which offers

enormous learning opportunities.

2. The psycho-dynamic designation refers to psychoanalytic

perspectives (Freud, 1921) on individual experiences and

mental processes (such as transference, resistance, object

relations and fantasy) as well as to the experience of

unconscious group and social processes, which are

F CILLIERS
Department of Industrial & Organisational Psychology

UNISA

ABSTRACT
The aim of this research was to explore burnout from a systems psycho-dynamic perspective. A qualitative design,

using focus groups, was used. Burnout can be seen as a phenomenon resulting from the psycho-dynamic relatedness

between subsystems in the organisation. The macro system disowns and projects its unacceptable behaviour onto

and into an individual with a specific valence, who identifies with the behaviour. Through counter transference, the

individual experiences and contains the behaviour on behalf of the system. Coping with burnout implies that the

total system will try to become aware of its projections and own its good and bad parts alike.

OPSOMMING
Die doel van hierdie navorsing was om uitbranding vanuit ’n sisteem-psigodinamiese perspektief te eksploreer. ’n

Kwalitatiewe ontwerp met fokusgroepe is gebruik. Uitbranding kan gesien word as ’n fenomeen wat ontstaan uit die

psigodinamiese verbintenis tussen subsisteme in die organisasie. Die makrosisteem onteien en projekteer sy

onaanvaarbare gedrag op en in ’n individu met ’n spesifieke valensie, wat met hierdie gedrag identifiseer. Deur middel

van teen-oordrag, ervaar en behou die individu die gedrag namens die sisteem. Coping met uitbranding impliseer

dat die totale sisteem sal probeer bewus word van sy projeksies en om sy goeie en bose dele tegelyk te eien.

A SYSTEMS PSYCHO-DYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE ON BURNOUT

Requests for copies should be addressed to: F Cilliers, Department of Industrial &

Organisational Psychology, UNISA, PO Box 392, Pretoria, 0003

26

SA Journal of Industrial Psychology, 2003, 29 (4), 26-33

SA Tydskrif vir Bedryfsielkunde, 2003, 29 (4), 26-33



simultaneously both a source and a consequence of

unresolved or unrecognised organisational difficulties. The

observable and structural features of an organisation – even

quite rational and functional ones – continually interact

with its members at all levels in a manner that stimulates

particular patterns of individual and group dynamic

processes. In turn, such processes may determine how

particular features of the organisation come to be created,

such as its distinctive culture, how work is conceived,

structured, organised and managed.

On the psycho-dynamic level, a central feat ure of this

view stresses the existence of primitive anxieties – of a

prosecutory and depressive nat ure – and the mobilisation

of social defence systems against them. The nat ure of

such defences is concept ualised as either impeding or

facilitating task performance and readiness for change.

Interventions based on this perspective t ypically involve

understanding, interpreting and working through such

collect ive defences. This will hopef ully result in

enlarging the organisation’s capacit y to develop task

appropriate adaptations such as a rational distribution of

authorit y, clear role and boundary definitions, as well as

their management.

The concept ual origins of the systems psycho-dynamic

perspective stems from classic psychoanalysis, group relations

theory and open systems theory (De Board, 1978; French &

Vince, 1999; Hirschhorn, 1993; Miller, 1993; Neumann et al.,

1997; Obholzer & Roberts, 1994; Stapley, 1996). Bion’s (1961)

three basic assumptions are seen as its cornerstones (Kets de

Vries, 1991; Miller, 1993; Rice, 1965; Rioch, 1970).

1. Dependency. Group members unconsciously project their

dependency upon (imaginative) parental objects or systems,

representing authority. If these authority symbols do not

respond in the way the group wants them to, anger develops

which manifests in counter dependence. Later the group

develops through independence to interdependence, which

represents maturity and wisdom.

2. Fight/f light. These are defence mechanisms the group

unconsciously uses in trying to cope with discomfort.

Fight reactions manifest in aggression against the self,

colleagues and authority figures, accompanied by env y,

jealousy, competition, elimination, boycotting, rivalry,

fighting for a position in the group and for privileged

relationships. Flight reactions manifest in the avoidance of

others, threatening situations or feelings, and defences

such as rationalisation and intellectualisation.

3. Pairing. In order to cope with the anxiety of alienation and

loneliness, group members try to pair with perceived

powerful others or subgroups. The unconscious need is to

feel secure and to create. Pairing also implies splitting, which

may happen because of experienced anxiety in a diverse

work place. The need is to experience relief of internal

conflicts. Typical examples of splits could be seeing

management as both good and bad, dividing colleagues

bet ween black/white, male/female, senior/junior and

competent/incompetent. Unconsciously, the group tries to

split up the whole and build a smaller system, to which the

individual can belong safely and securely.

During the 1990’s the following two basic assumptions were

added (see Lawrence, Bain & Gould, 1996). 

4. Me-ness. This assumption refers to the risk of living in the

contemporary, t urbulent societ y. The individual is

increasingly pressed into his/her own inner reality in order

to exclude and deny the perceived disturbing reality of the

outer environment. The inner world becomes the

comfortable place and the outer the one to be avoided. The

group works on the tacit, unconscious assumption that the

group is to be a non-group. Only people present can be

related to, because their shared construct in the mind of

what the group is about, is of an undifferentiated mass.

They therefore act as if the group has no existence, because

if it did exist, it would be the source of persecuting

experiences. The idea of group is contaminating, taboo,

impure – all that is negative. The members act as if the

group has no reality – the only reality is that of the

individual. It exists in a culture of selfishness where the

individual is only aware of own personal boundaries which

have to be protected from others. This leads to mechanistic

transactions with no room for affect (which is seen as

dangerous because one would not know where feelings

may lead to).

5. We-ness. As the opposite of me-ness, this assumption is that

group members seek to join into a powerful union with an

omnipotent force, surrendering the self for passive

participation, thus experiencing existence, well-being and

wholeness. It is as if the individual group member gets lost

within oceanic feelings of unity. This wish for “salvationist

inclusion” can be seen in a team striving towards cohesion

and synergy where it is believed that problems will be solved

by this strong united force.

The most relevant concepts in this model (in understanding

burnout) are the following (Cilliers & Koortzen, 2000; Koortzen

& Cilliers, 2002):

1. Conflict. The systems psycho-dynamic perspective towards

organisational behaviour is in essence a conflict model. The

assumption is that behaviour is determined by two or more

conflicting powers, for example the system’s instinctive

needs opposed to the demands of society (a classic id-

superego conflict – De Board, 1978).

2. Anxiety. This is accepted as the basis of all system (group

and organisational) behaviour. French and Vince (1999)

refer to primitive anxiet y (the all-pervasive anxiet y that is

the fate of mankind), anxiet y arising from the nat ure of

work (that which the institution defends itself against in

such a way that the emphasis of the structure is on

defence related rather than work-related functioning –

thus neglecting the primary task and shifting form “on

task” to “off task” functioning such as revisiting job

descriptions, organigrams, appointing committees), and

personal anxiet y (triggered by external societal and work

issues, stimulated by conscious and unconscious past

personal experiences).

3. Defence mechanisms. These are used to act against anxiety in

order to avoid pain and to gain a sense of safety, security and

acceptance. Rationalisation and intellectualisation may be

used to stay emotionally uninvolved and in control

(Gabelnick & Carr, 1989; Neumann et al., 1997). Projection

refers to the intra-system defensive process, where one part

of the system denies and rejects feelings inherent in the

unconscious image (fantasy) of the situation. It then tries to

alter the uncomfortable experience by imagining that a part

of it belongs to another subsystem rather than to the self. It

then puts good or bad (unwanted) material onto the other,

thus distancing itself from the discomfort. This has no effect

or influence on the target. Projection may be used to blame

management for what goes wrong without management

being influenced.

4. Projective identification. This is an anxiety reducing process

(Coleman & Geller, 1985; Czander, 1993; Kets de Vries, 1991;

Obholzer & Roberts, 1994), and is one of the most elusive

and complicated concepts in group relations theory. It

refers to an inter-system, object relational interaction and

process, where one part of the system (as subject) projects

material into the other part (as object), who identifies with

the projection (taking it on). This results in changes in

both parts. The dynamics of projective identification can

be described as follows. The subject experiences anxiety

either because of its primitive env y of the object’s idealised

qualities and its consequent urge to destroy, spoil,

dominate, devalue and control, or its wish to re-fuse with

the object, or as a form of parasitism to be part of the

A SYSTEMS PSYCHO-DYNAMIC PERSPECTIVE 27



object. It tries to relieve itself of this anxiet y by

externalising it, splitting off parts and internal objects of

the self, leaving the self less aware of its whole and

diminished by the projective loss of important aspects of

itself. It requires or assigns the object to receive, identif y

with and contain these aspects of the self, as if it belongs to

the object, but still keeps a closeness to the object.

Depending on how subtle the projection is, the object may

experience being manipulated into a particular role. When

this behaviour predominates in the group, it becomes

difficult to find other ways of coping, because it is almost

impossible to think clearly, to locate sources of problems

and to find appropriate and creative solutions.

5. Counter transference. This refers to the state of mind in

which other people’s feelings are experienced as one’s own

(Miller, 1993; Neumann et al., 1997; Obholzer & Roberts,

1994). Projective identification frequently leads to the

recipient’s acting out the counter transference deriving

from the projected feelings. Also, through projective

identification, one group/member on behalf of another

group/member, can come to serve as a kind of sponge for all

the anger, depression or guilt of the one group towards

another. The angry members can be used to attack

management or a depressed member may be unconsciously

manoeuvred into breaking down and leaving the

organisation. This individual not only expresses or carries

something for the group, but may be used to export

something which the rest of the system then need not to

feel in themselves. Sometimes the organisation imports a

consultant to carry these feelings on its behalf.

6. Valence. Bion (1961) borrowed this concept from chemistry

to designate a part of the system’s tendency-cum-

unconscious-vulnerability or predisposition to being drawn

into one or other basic assumption type of functioning. For

example, these may be to become the fighter, spokesperson,

the counter dependant, the one referring to the past or to act

out specific feelings such as guilt, shame, env y or

satisfaction (French & Vince, 1999).

7. The paranoid-schizoid position. In the young or immature

system, splitting and projection are the prominent defences

for avoiding pain, which Klein referred to as the paranoid-

schizoid position. Paranoid refers to badness being

experienced as coming from outside oneself, and schizoid to

splitting (Colman & Bexton, 1975; Colman & Geller, 1985).

Schizoid splitting is normally associated with the splitting

off and projecting outwards of parts of the self perceived as

bad, thereby creating external figures who are both hated

and feared. The projection of feelings of badness to the

outside of the self helps to produce a state of illusionary

goodness and self-idealisation. This black and white

mentality simplifies complex issues and may produce a rigid

culture in which growth is inhibited. Splitting and

projection exploits the natural boundary between insiders

and outsiders which every system has. This often leads to

fragmentation because contact was lost between parts of the

system which belong together inside its boundary. If no

contact or dialogue takes place between conflicting parts or

points of view, change and development are frustrated

(Czander, 1993: Miller, 1993; Obholzer & Roberts, 1994;

Shapiro & Carr, 1991). 

8. The depressive position. When the system recognises that its

painful feelings come from projections, it is a natural

response to return these feelings to their source, saying:

“These are your feelings, not mine”. This gives rise to

blaming and the ricocheting of projections back and forth.

However, if the system can tolerate the feelings long

enough to reflect on them, and contain the anxieties they

stir up, it may be possible to bring about change (Bion,

1970). When the timing is right and some of the

projections can be re-owned, splitting decreases and there

is a reduction in the polarisation and antagonism. This

promotes integration and co-operation within the group

and a shift form the paranoid-schizoid to the depressive

position. When the group is functioning in the depressive

position, every point of view will be valued and a full range

of emotional responses will be available to explore. The

group will be more able to encompass the emotional

complexity of the work in which they all share, and no one

member will be left to carry his/her fragment in isolation.

However, the depressive position is never attained once and

for all. Whenever survival or self-esteem are threatened

there is a tendency to return to a more paranoid-schizoid

way of functioning (Czander, 1993: Miller, 1993; Shapiro &

Carr, 1991).

9. Boundaries. These refer to the physical and psychological

borders around and spaces between parts of the system. Its

function is to contain anxiety, thus making life controllable,

safe and contained (Cytrynbaum & Lee, 1993; Czander, 1993;

Hirschhorn, 1993; Kets de Vries, 1991; Miller, 1993; Neumann

et al., 1997).

10. Representation. This refers to when a member consciously or

unconsciously negotiates a boundary, acting on behalf of the

group (for example in crossing, resisting or erecting a

boundary). If the individual’s authority boundaries are

unclear, the high level of anxiety tends to immobilise and

dis-empower him/her (Kets de Vries, 1991; Obholzer &

Roberts, 1994).

11. Authorisation. This concept refers to empowering a group

member to act on behalf of the group in a specific role

(Czander, 1993; Obholzer & Roberts, 1994).

12. Relationship and relatedness. The relationship between group

members refers to any type of face-to-face interaction, as it

happens in the here-and-now. Unconsciously, the group

member is always in relatedness to the group, keeping “the

group in the mind” (Gabelnick & Carr, 1989; Neumann et al.,

1997; Shapiro & Carr, 1991).

13. Containment. In order to cope with discomfort, the system

unconsciously needs something or someone to contain the

anxiet y on its behalf (Menzies, 1993). Bion’s (1970)

container-contained model identifies and describes a basic

dimension of human experience, namely the relationship

between emotion and its containment – the ways in which

it is experienced or avoided, managed or denied, kept in or

passed on, so that its effects are either mitigated or

amplified. The container (1) can absorb, filter or manage

difficult or threatening emotions or ideas (the contained)

so that they can be worked with, or (2) it can become a

rigid frame or shell that restricts and blocks. The

contained, whether emotion, idea or person, can therefor

be experienced as an overwhelming threat or as the

welcome messiah.

14. Taking up a role. Role is defined as the conscious and

unconscious boundary describing the way to behave.

Miller (1993) refers to three types of roles, namely (1) the

existential role (the role ascribed to the individual by the

organisation – what the person must do), (2) the

phenomenological role (the role that the individual fulfils

as seen by others) and (3) the experiential role (the role as

seen by the incumbent). Congruence between the three

t ypes facilitates harmony, but incongruence leads to

anxiet y within the individual and bet ween him/her 

and colleagues.

15. Group as a whole. This concept refers to collectivism – one

part of the system acting, or containing emotional energy,

on behalf of another. This implies that no event happens in

isolation and that there is no co-incidence but rather

synchronicity in the behaviour of the group (Wells, 1980).

The Systems Psycho-dynamic perspective as a 

consultancy stance

This stance is not a form of counselling or psychotherapy for

problem managers (Obholzer & Roberts, 1994). Rather, it is a

developmentally focussed, psycho-educational process for key

staff, at any level, whose roles are critical to the organisation’s

CILLIERS28



functioning. The systems psycho-dynamic consultant engages

in an analysis of the interrelationships of some or all of the

following: boundaries, roles and role configurations,

structure, organisational design, work culture and group

process (Miller, 1989; 1993; Neumann et al., 1997). The

consultant is alert to and interprets the covert and dynamic

aspects of the organisation and the work group that comprise

it, with the focus on relatedness and how authority is

psychologically distributed, exercised and enacted, in contrast

to how it is formally invested. This work would include a

consideration of attitudes, beliefs, fantasies, core anxieties,

social defences, patterns of relationships and collaboration,

and how these in turn may influence task performance. The

consultant will work with how unwanted feelings and

experiences are split off and projected onto particular

individuals and groups that carry them on behalf of the

system – that is their process roles as distinct from their

formally sanctioned roles. Also, how work roles are taken up.

Menzies (1993) emphasised the analysis of social defence

aspects of structure and its relationship to task and process,

thus trying to understand how unconscious anxieties are

reflected in organisational structures and design (which

function to defend against them).

Aim and research design

The aim of this research was to explore burnout as a

phenomenon (within the above boundaries) from a systems

psycho-dynamic perspective. A qualitative design, using focus

groups, was used.

METHOD

Participants

Eight psychologists were chosen because of their knowledge of

both burnout and the systems psycho-dynamic perspective

towards group and organisational behaviour.

The focus groups

Two 60 minute focus groups (Brilhart & Galanes, 1992) were

conducted, with the researcher in the role of facilitator. Each

participant received a copy of the literature on burnout as

discussed above. The task of the group was as follows: In the role

as systems psycho-dynamic consultant, (1) give your

interpretation of the burnout behaviour and (2) formulate a

working hypothesis based on your interpretation.

RESULTS

The results are structured according the burnout context, the

definition, the characteristics, the individual’s profile, the causes

of and coping with burnout. The burnout behaviour is typed in

italics, followed by the systems psycho-dynamic interpretations

and the resultant working hypothesis.

The burnout context

1. “Burn-out”. Fire serves as a symbol of both purification and

destruction, and ashes symbolise nothingness – being

beyond death. Burnout as a syndrome represents the conflict

between life and death, and indicates that something in the

system is being killed of or pushed out, and which is

regarded as worthless.

2. Individual behaviour. By focussing on the individual alone,

the larger system is defending against its relatedness to its

parts. It denies the unconscious connections between the

individual as micro system and the group/organisation

he/she belongs to. It rationalises the causes of burnout as

only an individual issue, excluding the rest of the system

from carrying any responsibility for the illness.

3. In a team/organisation. Burnout manifests within an

immature system, experiencing splitting and paranoia. The

system defends against this (rather than owning and trying

to change or improve it).

4. Focus on overt organisational behaviour. This rational and

conscious part of organisational functioning (human

resources management, strategy, vision, mission, goals,

structures, jobs, tasks, roles, culture, climate, procedures),

which Bion (1961) referred to as the working group, is

incongruent to the covert and unconscious part,

containing the unspoken motives and drives (Miller, 1993).

This Bion (1961) referred to as the basic assumption group.

This means that the system is consciously trying to

manage its task in a rational way, whilst unconsciously, it

undermines an individual’s performance in a destructive

and anti-task manner.

Working hypothesis 1

Based upon the above interpretations on the burnout context,

the following hypothesis is formulated. Because of its

unrecognised difficulties, the system has created a social

institution to satisf y its irrational, primitive and child like

needs. The burnt-out individual is containing the pain, which

leaves the rest of the system to experience the pleasure.

The definition of burnout

1. A persistent, negative, work-related state of mind. The negative

issues belong to the system as a whole. Unconsciously, this

creates anxiety which can not be faced and dealt with. As a

result, the system is projecting its negative (evil/bad) issues

onto the individual and making him/her carry these on

behalf of the rest of the system.

2. Behaviour developing gradually and remaining unnoticed for a

long time. The nature of the (unconscious) projection is such

that it isolates the negative system issues, targets the

individual and then dumps this energy in a subtle way and

over a long period of time. Thus, the “game” stays out of

consciousness for the whole system, and creates the

impression that it is the individual’s issue and suffering.

3. Behaviour manifesting in “normal” individuals. It is not clear

what is meant with “normal” individual. It may rather be a

“special” individual, being unconsciously trusted and

chosen by the system to carry negative energy on its

behalf, thus fulfilling an important role in order for the

whole system to survive. The individual is either trusted to

transform part of the system into something more

acceptable, or seen as a threat to the system – by

eliminating the individual, the system’s fantasy is that its

threat will disappear.

4. Exhaustion, distress, reduced effectiveness, decreased

motivation. Instead of the system facing and owning these

experiences of incompetence within itself, which could lead

to its death, it dumps it onto the individual. Thus, the pain

is isolated and disowned, creating the fantasy of competence

in the rest of the system.

5. The de velopment of dysfunctional personal and societal

attitudes and behaviours at work. The powerful projection of

dysfunctional attitudes and behaviours (1) onto and (2) into

the individual, leads to his/her identification with these

projections and (3) experiencing these as his/her own.

Counter transference takes place – the system’s fear for

extinction/incompetence/lack of meaning is now carried

and experienced by the individual alone. Further, the system

can now control, dominate or even destroy the badness.

6. Burnout results from a misfit between intentions and reality in

the job. The system is putting the projection into an

individual in conflict (a “soft” target) – someone who is not

managing boundaries effectively and has a valance for

receiving these projections. The individual’s leadership is

challenged and he/she is de-authorised.

7. Self-perpetuating because of inadequate coping strategies. The

projection from the system is very strong and the individual

identifies with it well. It leads to further non-coping

behaviour.

BURNOUT AND ENGAGEMENT 29



8. Helplessnessness, hopelessnessness, disillusionment, a negative

self-concept, negative attitudes towards work, people and life

itself. These are the feelings of the system being contained

by the individual. The fantasy is that now the rest of the

system does not “suffer” form this illness anymore, it can

relax in a quasi state of effectiveness, hope, positive self

image and attitudes, and effective relationships. The system

is in denial and caught up in its own split between

competence and incompetence.

Working hypothesis 2

Based upon the above interpretations on the definition of

burnout, the following hypothesis is formulated. The system

develops work performance and relational conflicts over

time, which is not adequately addressed consciously and

openly. This creates discomfort (such as pain, free floating

and prosecutory anxiet y), which is suppressed into the

collective unconscious. Here the conf licts become the

unspoken objects. When these are not opened up and

voiced/aired, the anxiet y around them becomes unbearable

and uncontainable. Consequently, the system needs relief of

the energ y, gets dependent upon someone and starts

defending by using flight. It finds an object to project the

conflict onto in order to “function normally again”. The

discomfort, with all that it represents, is split off and

projected onto a ready recipient. An individual is chosen who

is seen as a hard worker, who achieves well and wants to

progress. This becomes an object of env y and he/she becomes

the target of the projected discomfort. This individual is

ready for challenges and offers his/her valance for more work

and the dumping of more anxiet y. This may also serve as a

confirmation of what he/she thinks and expects to represent

for the system – a willing worker. This may also satisf y the

individual’s neurotic need for acceptance. He/she identifies

with the projection and moreover, starts experiencing the

system’s conflicts as his/her own. The system is relieved from

its burden and the targeted individual is taking up the

important role of processing the unwanted issues until he/she

is “dead”. The system’s fantasy is that it has exported its

conf licts. Unfort unately, this does not happen through

playing unconscious games. The system has lost one of its

competent resources, and the conflicts get projected onto 

and into the next “victim”. If the pattern continues the

system falls into a repetition compulsion and it will lose all

its competence.

Characteristics of burnout

1. Emotional exhaustion, reduction in emotional resources, feeling

drained, used up. These experiences in the individual act as

evidence for the system’s dependence upon the individual.

The individual identifies with the system’s strong

projections and now contains the unwanted behaviour. The

counter transference lies in the individual experiencing the

system’s incompetence. This leaves the rest of the system

free to experience the opposite – for example positive

emotions, creativity, initiative, pro-activity and competence.

In this process, the system is splitting itself into a bad and

good part (because both can not be contained at the same

time in an immature system). The system believes that one

individual can not cope with demands, and this behaviour

“has nothing to do with us”.

2. Depersonalisation. The increase in negative, cynical and

insensitive attitudes towards work (reduced work goals,

loss of idealism, heightened self-interest), colleagues and

clients (an increasing emotional detachment), and the

judging of others as deserving their troubles, can be seen

as a form of coping and protecting the self against further

emotional draining. The individual experiences a loss of

individual distinctiveness – a defence occurring in the

disregard of own needs and capacities. This stems from

needs and contributions not being recognised and the

lack of importance attached to personal contributions to

work. This may be what the system wants to avoid

happening to itself and what the individual is now

carrying on its behalf.

3. Low personal accomplishment – a feeling of being unable to

meet other’s needs and to satisf y essential elements of job

performance. The individual is seduced by colleagues to

meet their needs, thus becoming the object of need

fulfiller and container of confusion between sets of needs.

This may result from unconscious fears amongst

colleagues that the same could happen to them and 

which could then interfere with organisational

productivity and creativity.

4. Physical symptoms – distress: headaches, nausea, dizziness,

restlessness, muscle pain, hyper ventilation, sexual problems,

sleep disturbances, sudden loss or gain of weight and chronic

fatigue; psychosomatic disorders such as ulcers, gastric-

intestinal disorders, coronary heart disease, prolonged colds and

f lu and a susceptibility to viral infections; physiological

reactions such as increased heart rate and respiration rate,

hypertension and high le vels of serum cholesterol. The

individual identified with the system’s strong projections

and now contains its physical pain. The counter transference

manifests in the individual experiencing the painful gut

issues and heart throb for the system. This indicates the

severity of the system’s issues – it needs a part of it to act out

its pain on a physical level because it can not accept

responsibility for its own behaviour.

5. Cognitive symptoms such as poor concentration, forgetfulness,

making mistakes in complex and multiple tasks, rigid

thinking, intellectualising problems, diff icult decision

making. Here, the counter transference manifests in the

individual experiencing cerebral incompetence in order

for the rest for the system to act rationally and to make

effective decisions.

6. Affective symptoms such as helplessness, hopelessness,

powerlessness, a tearful and depressed mode, low spirits, dim

mood, exhausted emotional resources because too much

energy has been used for too long, decreased emotional control

leading to undefined fears, anxiety and ner vous tension,

irritability, over sensitivity, cool, unemotional, bursts of

anger, intellectualising personal and emotional problems,

daydreaming, fantasising and a low frustration tolerance

leading to aggressiveness. These already strong projected

feelings may have another deeper layer, namely the

system’s anger and hurt being suppressed over a long time.

The counter transference manifests in the individual

experiencing and acting out the system’s madness and

unacceptable rebellious child behaviour.

7. Motivational symptoms such as lessened intrinsic motivation,

lessened initiative, enthusiasm, interest and idealism, increased

disillusionment, disappointment and resignation. Here, the

counter transference manifests in the individual

experiencing and acting out the system’s lack of interest,

stagnation and inability to move dynamically.

8. Behavioural symptoms such as hyperactivity without knowing

what to do about it, impulsiveness without carefully considering

alternatives, procrastination, doubt, indecisiveness, excessive

consumption of stimulants such as coffee, tobacco, alcohol,

tranquillisers, barbiturates, drugs, under and over eating and

accident proneness. Here, the counter transference manifests

in the individual experiencing and acting out the system’s

childish behaviour as well as emotional, physical and

substance dependency. On the superficial level, the system is

caring for “the poor colleague by offering cures” which

clearly indicates where the sickness and non-coping is

located in the system.

9. Interpersonal symptoms such as decreased involvement with

others characterised by isolation, withdrawal, negativism,

ir r itability, hostility, suspicion, lessened interest, in-

difference, discouragement, empathy and stereotyping, as

well as aggression because of weakened impulse control. 

Here, the counter transference manifests in the individual

CILLIERS30



experiencing and acting out the system’s paranoia, lack 

of connect ion, isolat ion and non-relatedness. By

“breaking down” the individual’s connections with

colleagues, the system is securing the containment of 

its incompetence and at the same time maintaining the

split in itself. This behaviour may relate to the philosophy

made popular by Sartre (McNeill & Feldman, 1998) that

“hell is other people”.

10. Work behaviour such as reduced effectiveness, minimal

productivity, accident proneness, low work motivation,

resistance in going to and doing work, low job satisfaction, a

sense of failure and that work has no meaning, as well as

forgetting appointments. The counter transference manifests

in the individual experiencing, containing and acting out the

system’s poor work performance and anti-task behaviour.

This could mean that the rest of the system is stuck in its

non-creative and irrational ways.

Working hypothesis 3

Based upon the above interpretations on the characteristics of

burnout, the following hy pothesis is formulated. The

unacceptable parts of the system’s identit y are projected into

the individual, infiltrating his/her ego boundaries, and

robbing him/her from his/her own identit y, individualism

and real self. Because of the individual’s prevailing me-ness

assumption and valence for these projections, he/she acts as a

sponge for the systems feelings, creating the impression that

non-coping is located in one individual. It is clear that the

projective process was successful and the individual is de-

authorised to take up his/her role as a “normal” employee.

For the individual to survive this process is very difficult.

He/she is manipulated into the role of representing a messiah

figure – someone who is serving the people (the system),

carry the burden or sins (containing many projections), is

crucified (emotionally drained), and goes to hell (burning

out). Where the real messiah re-appeared in a transformed

state, and represents hope and everlasting life, the mortal

individual will not survive. It may be impossible for a human

being to accomplish this without realising the role of the

larger system from a psycho-dynamic and collect ive

unconscious perspective.

The individual’s profile, the causes of and coping 

with burnout

1. Highly motivated, achieving well, having high expectations, who

is not compromising, who has striven hard to reach a goal, and

who has been stretching the self beyond the normal work

boundaries for too long in the quest for the experience of

meaning. The system is unconsciously robbing itself from

high performance and output, and is replacing this with pain

and suffering. This may indicate envy towards outstanding

performance, achievement and competence.

2. Good intentions, an external control, type A behaviour and

neuroticism. This represents the individual’s valence to

receive the projections from the system. The profile makes it

easy for the individual to act as a container because of the

need to work very hard and to satisf y others.

3. High and unrealistic expectations. These characteristics are

used by the system to set the individual up for failure.

4. Work overload, role conflict, role ambiguity, poor collegial

support, lack of feedback in decision making and autonomy.

Because of unclear authority boundaries, the individual

feels dis-empowered and immobilised. He/she becomes an

easy target for seduction into taking on more, stretching the

self to achieve more and better, then to be rejected and

isolated and “killed of”. This indicates the system’s

paranoid-schizoid position.

5. The individual to take responsibility to recognise the signs and

symptoms of burnout. The system is operating from the

basic assumption of me-ness, where the belief is that the

pain belongs to the individual and has got nothing to do

with the rest of the system. Even after it has successfully

projected its bad parts into the individual, the system

requires the individual to take responsibility to change

him/herself as well as the rest of the system. This is a set up

for failure.

6. To manage environmental and internal demands and conflicts

among them which tax or exceed a person’s resource, intra

personally the individual uses such strategies as awareness. This

is another set up. The system is powerfully and cruelly

ensuring that its agenda is played out whilst not accepting

responsibility for its own difficult issues.

7. Taking responsibility to do something about it, understanding

the issue and developing new tools for improving the range and

quality of old tools. No individual (micro) effort will be

successful if the total system can not accept responsibility

for what is happening on the macro level.

8. (1) Direct action, in which the individual tries to master the

stressful transaction with the environment. It is impossible

for the individual to do the work of the whole. The system

is now projecting the curing role onto the individual who

is already containing the system’s illness. This can be seen

as a further de-authorisation and dis-empowerment of the

individual.

9. (2) Palliation, in which the person attempts to reduce the

disturbance when he/she is unable to manage the environment,

or when action is too costly for the individual. This indicates

the system’s cruel and setting-up agenda for requiring the

individual as micro system to accept responsibility to move

macro issues on his/her own.

10. The interpersonal le vel – having and using social support

systems. It will be crucial to use support system(s) in a

very responsible way. The individual will have to gain

insight into the behavioural dynamics up to the point of

saying, “these are your feelings, not mine”. The system

will have to become aware of its projections, own them,

take them back and process the unconscious events until

the burnout symptoms have disappeared. Studies (Burke

& Greenglass, 1995; House, 1981; Kasl & Wells, 1985;

Russel, Altmaier & Van Velzen, 1982; Wells, 1982) have

indicated the valuable contribution of social support as a

buffer against job related stress and burnout. This implies

movement and growth amongst members of the support

system as well.

11. The organisational level – quality of the organisation, of the

work environment, and of work itself can affect the experience

of stress and employee health and work performance. A mature

and wise organisation will be able to own and process its

projections, moving to the depressive position of

experiencing and living out feelings. Consultancy to this

process will need insight into psycho-dynamics as

described above.

12. Offers a chance of promoting occupational health through

organisational de velopment. OD programmes can be

introduced aimed at the system being sensitively and

responsibly aware of what psycho-dynamic behaviour is

happening in the here and now.

Working hypothesis 4

Based upon the above interpretations on the individual’s

profile, the causes of and coping with burnout, the following

hypothesis is formulated. In order to move from the paranoid-

schizoid position to the depressive position, the total system

needs to become mature and wise in facing its own projections

of collective issues, process them and own them. It would be

the task of the Industrial and Organisational Psychologist in

the role of systems psycho-dynamic consultant to be

sensitively aware of the dynamics and its effects on all parts of

the system. These can be done officially through individual

counselling with a focus on the individual’s valence for specific

projections, team development and growth facilitation with

the focus on what the specific team represents for the larger

system, as well as (on the macro level) by means of OD and

health promoting programmes.

BURNOUT AND ENGAGEMENT 31



INTEGRATION

The systems psycho-dynamic perspective sees burnout as a

phenomenon involving the whole organisational system. The

macro system is splitting of its bad and unwanted parts and

projecting these into an individual who has a need to perform

well and a valence to attract projections of overload. He/she

then identifies with the strong projections and acts as a

container of the pain (on behalf of the system) while

becoming emotionally and physically incapacitated. The

system’s fantasy is that if he/she leaves the group or the

organisation, the badness will be exported successfully. The

realit y of the matter is that projections don’t make problems

disappear, but maybe consultation does. The outcome of the

consultation should be awareness in the system towards

ownership of the projections and including its good and bad

parts. Thus, the role and task boundaries can be maintained

and managed clearly and empowering of everyone in the

system can take place towards a more effect ive and

competent work force.

REFERENCES

Basson, M. & Rothmann, S. (2001, June). Sense of coherence,

coping and burnout of pharmacists. Paper presented at the

Annual Conference of the Society of Industrial Psychology,

Pretoria.

Bion, W.R. (1961). Experiences in groups. London: Tavistock

Publications.

Bion, W.R. (1970). Attention and interpretation. London: Tavistock

Publications.

Brilhart, J.K. & Galanes, G.J. (1992). Effective group discussions.

Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown.

Burke, R.J. & Greenglass, E. (1995). A longitudinal study of

psychological burnout in teachers. Human Relations, 48 (2),

187-202.

Cherniss, C. (1995). Beyond burnout. New York: Routledge.

Cilliers, F. & Koortzen, P. (2000). The psycho-dynamic view on

organisational behaviour. The Industrial-Organizational

Psychologist, 38 (2), 59-67.

Colman, A.D. & Bexton, W.H. (1975). Groups Relations Reader 1.

Jupiter, FL: A.K. Rice Institute.

Colman, A.D. & Geller, M.H. (1985). Group Relations Reader 2.

Jupiter, FL: The A.K. Rice Institute.

Corrigan, P.W., Holmes, E.P., Luchins, D., Buican, B., Basit, A.J. &

Parks, J. (1994). Staff burnout in a psychiatric hospital: A

cross-lagged panel design. Journal of Organizational Behavior,

15, 65-74.

Cox, T. & Ferguson, E. (1991). Individual differences, stress and

coping. In C.L. Cooper & R. Payne (Eds.), Personality and

stress: Individual differences in the stress process. Chichester:

John Wiley & Sons.

Cytrynbaum, S. & Lee, S.A. (1993). Transformations in global and

organizational systems. Jupiter, FL: A.K. Rice Institute.

Czander, W.M. (1993). The psychodynamics of work and

organisations. New York: Guilford Press.

De Board, R. (1978). The psychoanalysis of organisations. London:

Routledge.

Dubrin, A.J. (1990). Effective business psychology. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.

French, R. & Vince, R. (1999). Group relations, management, and

organization. New York: Oxford University Press

Freud, F. (1921). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego.

Complete works of Sigmund Freud. London: Hogarth.

Freudenberger, H.J. (1989). Burnout: Past, present and future

concerns. In D.T. Wessells, Jr., A.H. Kutscher, I.B. Seeland, F.E.

Selder, D. J. Cherico, & E.J. Dlark (Eds.), Professional burnout

in medicine and the helping professions. New York: Haworth.

Gabelnick, F. & Carr, A.W. (1989). Contributions to social and

political science. Jupiter, FL: A.K. Rice Institute.

Golembiewski, R.T. & Munzenrider, R.F. (1988). Phases of

burnout: Development in concepts and applications. New York:

Praeger.

Hirschhorn, L. (1993). The workplace within: Psychodynamics of

organizational life. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

House, J.S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA:

Addison Wesley.

Jackson, S.E., Schuler, R.S. & Schwab, R.L. (1986). Toward an

understanding of the burnout phenomenon. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 71, 630-640.

Juntunen, J., Asp, S., Olkinuora, M., Arimaa, M., Strid, L. &

Kautt u, K. (1988). Doctors’ drinking habits and

consumption of alcohol. British Medical Journal, 297, 951-

954.

Kasl, S.V. & Wells, J.A. (1985). Socail support and health in

middle years. In S. Cohen & S. Syme (Eds). Social support

and health. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Kets De Vries, M.F.R. (1991). Organizations on the couch:

Handbook of psychoanalysis and management. New York:

Jossey-Bass.

Kets De Vries, M.F.R. (2001). The leadership mystique. London:

Prentice Hall.

Koortzen, P. & Cilliers, F. (2002). The psychoanalytical approach

to team development. In R.L. Lowman (Ed). Handbook of

organizational consulting psychology. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Landsbergis, P.A. (1988). Occupational stress among health care

workers: A test of the job demands – control model. Journal

of Organizational Behaviour, 9, 217-239.

Lawrence, W.G., Bain, A. & Gould, L. (1996). The fifth basic

assumption. London: Occasional paper.

Maslach, C. (1982a). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Maslach, C. (1982b). Understanding burnout: Definitional issues

in analysing a complex phenomenon. In W.S. Paine (Ed.), Job

stress and burnout: Research, theory and inter vention. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage.

Maslach, C. & Jackson, S.E. (1984). Patterns of burnout among a

national sample of public contact workers. Journal of Health

and Human Resources Administration, 7, 184-212.

Maslach, C. & Jackson, S.E. (1986). The Maslach Burnout

Inventory (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists

Press.

McNeill, W. & Feldman, K.S. (1998). Continental philosophy. An

anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Menzies, I.E.P. (1993). The functioning of social systems as a

defence against anxiety. London: Tavistock Institute of

Human Relations.

Miller, E.J. (1989). The “Leicester” Model: Experiential study of

group and organisational processes. Occasional Paper No. 10.

London: Tavistock Institute of Human Relations.

Miller, E.J. (1993). From dependency to autonomy: Studies in

organization and change. London: Free Association Books.

Miller, E.J. & Rice, A.K. (1976). Systems of organisation. London:

Tavistock Publications.

Miller, K.I., Ellis, B.H., Zook, E.G. & Lyles, J.S. (1990). An

integrated model of communication, stress, and burnout in

the work place. Communication Research, 17, 200- 326.

Muldary, T.D. (1983). Burnout among health professionals:

Manifestations and management. Norwalk: Appleton-

Century-Crofts.

Neumann, J.E., Kellner, K. & Dawson-Shepherd, A. (1997).

Developing organisational consultancy. London: Routledge.

Obholzer, A. & Roberts, V.Z. (1994). The unconscious at work.

London: Routledge.

Pines, A.M. & Aronson, E. (1988). Career burnout: Cases and cures.

New York: Free Press.

Pines, A.M., Aronson, E. & Kafry, D. (1981). Burnout: From tedium

to personal growth. New York: Macmillan.

Rice, A.K. (1965). Learning for leadership. London: Tavistock

Publications.

CILLIERS32



Rioch, M.J. (1970). Group relations: Rationale and technique.

International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 20, 340-355.

Russel, D.W., Altmaier, E. & Van Velzen, D. (1982). Job-related

stress, social support and burnout among classroom

teachers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 269-274.

Schaufeli, W.B. & Enzmann, D. (1998). The burnout companion to

study and practice: A critical analysis. London: Taylor &

Francis.

Schaufeli, W.B. & Janczur, B. (1994). Burnout among nurses: A

Polish-Dutch comparison. Journal of Cross Cultural

Psychology, 25, 95-113.

Shapiro, E.R. & Carr, A.W. (1991). Lost in familiar places: Creating

new connections between the individual and society. London:

Yale University Press.

Stapley, L.F. (1996). The personality of the organisation. London:

Free Association Books.

Wells, J.A. (1982). Social support as a buffer of stressful job

conditions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2, 218-226.

Wells, L. (1980). The group-as-a-whole: A systemic socio-

analytical perspective on interpersonal and group relations.

In C.P. Alderfer & C.L. Cooper (Eds). Advances in experiential

social processes, 2, 165-198. 

BURNOUT AND ENGAGEMENT 33