Burnout, a syndrome, is seen as an occupational phenomenon in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) and is caused by exposure to prolonged chronic interpersonal and emotional stress at work (Maslach et al., 2001; World Health Organization [WHO], 2019). This can debilitate employees and their organisations (Edú-Valsania et al., 2022). Moreover, burnout is a risk factor for disease and somatic symptoms, increasing pressure on health services and lowering employees’ health statuses (Madigan et al., 2023; WHO, 2019). Somatic symptoms because of burnout can cause significant distress to employees and negatively affect their productivity (Chakravorty & Singh, 2022). Thus, understanding and managing the antecedents of burnout to devise interventions to counter the adverse outcomes of burnout is in the interest of all organisations (Marshal & Stephenson, 2020; Maslach & Leiter, 2008). An antecedent that has been shown to be a significant contributor and buffer against burnout risk and resulting somatic symptoms in employees is their set of unique personality traits (Bianchi, 2018; Grigorescu et al., 2018; Kipman 2021; Prins et al., 2019), as personality can impact employees’ perceptions and experiences of work-related stressors (Angelini, 2023).

A high prevalence of burnout risk has been found globally (Calitz 2022), as well as in South Africa, and merited research attention to the antecedents and outcomes of this phenomenon to create interventions for employee and organisational outcomes (Morar & Marais, 2022; O’Connor et al., 2022). Research on various sectors of South African workers indicates that they are overwhelmed by burnout (Oosthuizen et al., 2023) and that personality can influence their experience of burnout (Louw, 2014) and lead to somatic symptoms, such as diabetes, hypertension, and irritable bowel syndrome (De Beer et al., 2016). This research is echoed by that found in Western countries (for example, Kim et al., 2019) and Africa (Agoha et al., 2022).

Despite the impact of burnout on employees and research efforts, little is known about burnout (Schaufeli, 2023) and related somatic diseases (Von Känel et al., 2020), especially in the South African work context (Payne et al., 2020). Furthermore, the relationship between personality, burnout, and the somatic symptoms associated with burnout (Edú-Valsania et al., 2022; Melchers et al., 2015; Von Känel et al., 2020) has not been investigated as a central theme in South African research. Previous research on South African samples has followed international trends and focused on burnout and personality (Louw, 2014; Morgan & De Bruin, 2010) and burnout and somatic symptoms (De Beer et al., 2016; Khamisa et al., 2017; Rothmann et al., 2008), but not on these three concepts together. Moreover, current overviews of burnout indicate overwhelmingly broad indications of the syndrome’s antecedents (Angelini, 2023), and more studies are thus needed that look at specific antecedents of burnout, such as personality. Such investigations are imperative to devise interventions to target the somatic outcomes of burnout that impact employee health and organisational performance.

Therefore, more information is needed on the unique individual personality traits and contexts to inform appropriate future interventions and policies (Edú-Valsania et al., 2022). According to research, assisting employees in identifying personality strengths and weaknesses in relation to burnout can be an effective burnout intervention (Roloff et al., 2022). Thus, the current study aims to fill this gap in the literature regarding the relationship between personality (Big Five personality traits), burnout (the Burnout Assessment Tool [BAT]), and the resulting somatic symptoms and contribute to the information on burnout in the South African work context to assist companies in addressing this phenomenon.

Burnout represents a work-related condition of exhaustion experienced by employees in which they may feel drained, find it hard to focus on their work, may overreact emotionally, and might even feel detached or disinterested in what they are doing (Schaufeli, 2023). This state of exhaustion and mental strain can significantly impact employees’ overall well-being and job performance. A multitude of systematic reviews and meta-analyses have thoroughly investigated how prevalent burnout risk is across a wide range of jobs and occupations, such as the medical profession (Pradas-Hernández et al., 2018; Woo et al., 2020), the mental health profession (O’Connor et al., 2018; López-López et al., 2019), students (Frajerman et al., 2019; Kaggwa et al., 2021), managers (Membrive-Jiménez et al., 2020), and educators (García-Carmona et al., 2019; Urbina-Garcia, 2020). That these reviews cover such a variety of occupations serves as solid evidence of the pervasiveness of the burnout experience across a diverse spectrum of occupational contexts.

According to the job demands-resources model (JD-R), burnout is caused by an imbalance between job demands and resources because of chronic stressors (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Job demands encompass the emotional or physiological tolls associated with the psychological, physical, organisational, or social facets of a job that requires continuous mental or physical skills or exertion (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017). Emotional demands can include dealing with difficult clients or patients (Andela, 2020; Chou et al., 2012; Kim & Wang, 2018), resolving conflict in the workplace (Hall et al., 2010; Heuven et al., 2006), or continually showing empathy and compassion towards clients or patients (Heuven et al., 2006; Le Blanc et al., 2001). Physical demands can refer to hazardous work (Li et al., 2023; Nahrgang et al., 2011), repetitive tasks (MacDonald, 2003; Sharp et al., 2021), heavy lifting (Wemken et al., 2021; Ziaei et al., 2019), or prolonged standing (Apple & Letvak, 2021). Job resources include a job’s social, organisational, and psychological or physical aspects that assist employees in reaching work goals, promoting personal growth, and lowering job demands or physical and psychological costs (Bakker & Demerouti, 2017; Bakker et al., 2023). Examples of job resources include collegial and supervisory support (Crawford et al., 2010; Singh et al., 2020), digitalisation and automation (Demerouti, 2022), autonomy in decision-making (Naidoo-Chetty & Du Plessis, 2021), and fair and authentic management (Broetje et al., 2020). Research has found that job resources can act as a buffer against the impact of job demands that lead to burnout (Bakker et al., 2005).

Burnout has far-reaching implications for both organisations and individuals (see Salvagioni et al., 2017). In the workplace, organisations with burned-out employees have increased work interruptions and conflict and lower productivity and production time (Bakker et al., 2023; Maslach & Leiter, 2016). On an individual level, burnout can manifest as lower professional efficacy, emotional exhaustion, and negative attitudes towards work (Maslach et al., 2001). Individuals experiencing burnout can also have impaired cognitive or physical abilities and work potential, exhaustion and increased anxiety, suicidality, substance abuse, and turnover intention (Dyrbye et al., 2014; Golonka et al., 2017; Jackson et al., 2016; Marshal & Stephenson, 2020; Schaufeli & Enzmann, 2020). However, the subsequent effects of burnout also include various somatic and physiological effects. These may include cardiovascular disease, systemic inflammation, structural and functional brain changes, allostatic load, excitotoxicity, immunosuppression, metabolic syndrome, musculoskeletal pains, hyperhidrosis, and premature death (Bakker et al., 2023; Bayes et al., 2021; Chakravorty & Singh, 2022; Salvagioni et al., 2017; Shirom et al., 2005).

The correlation between burnout and somatic symptoms is an area of growing concern in the field of occupational health. Prolonged work-related stress can trigger a neurochemical response in the body, which may lead to various somatic and physical complaints (Nixon et al., 2011). Research by Von Känel et al. (2020) in Switzerland shows that burnout dimensions, especially high levels of exhaustion, are significantly associated with somatic diseases, such as high blood pressure, chronic lung disease, and skin diseases. Hammarström et al. (2023) add that their Swedish sample of burnout participants also experienced pain, fatigue, and gastrointestinal symptoms. Agoha et al. (2022) noted a significant relationship between somatisation, hostility, personal achievement, and emotional exhaustion. In South Africa, De Beer et al. (2016) found that burnout risk has been associated with increased employee experiences of hypertension, depression, irritable bowel syndrome, and diabetes. Employees who suffer from ill health because of burnout, such as those discussed earlier in the text, can become absent from work or exhibit presenteeism and impact organisational productivity (Fouad et al., 2017). It is therefore imperative to investigate the potential impact of burnout on employee health. As such, the following hypotheses were examined:

When reviewing burnout research, it is important to consider how the construct is being measured. While various instruments and approaches measuring burnout have been used, the gold standard in research for burnout measurement has been the Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI). However, research has identified various flaws in utilising the MBI for burnout measurement, namely, psychometric shortcomings (e.g., factor structure), conceptualisation (e.g., lack of accounting for cognitive impairment), and practical applicability (e.g., inability to present a valid total score) (see Bianchi et al., 2022; De Beer et al., 2024; Schaufeli et al., 2020a).

To address these shortcomings, the BAT was developed and validated in various European countries (De Beer et al., 2020, 2023) and also South Africa (De Beer et al., 2022) to determine burnout risk. In essence, the BAT is a scientifically validated tool that can identify burnout risk (Schaufeli et al., 2020a), and both an inductive and deductive approach were followed to create the instrument (see Schaufeli et al., 2020a for details). According to De Beer et al. (2022, 2023), the BAT performs well within the JD-R framework and defines burnout as employee exhaustion that comprises mental distancing and a lowered ability to regulate emotional and cognitive processes within a work-related mental state or context. An employee at risk of burnout may experience a depressed mood and non-specific psychological and psychosomatic complaints (Schaufeli et al., 2020b). Thus, the BAT consists of four components, namely, exhaustion (depletion and inability to exert effort), mental distance (cynicism and unwillingness to exert effort), cognitive impairment (lack of capacity to regulate cognitive processes), and emotional impairment (lower capacity to regulate emotions). Considering the BAT’s definition of burnout and the focus of this article on somatic complaints associated with burnout, the BAT’s definition of burnout served as the theoretical context of the study.

A quantitative method with a cross-sectional research design was followed to conduct this study (Maree & Pietersen, 2016). Positivism served as the philosophical underpinning to test hypotheses on a single reality through objective study (Davies & Fisher, 2018).

The model was found to be an excellent fit to the data χ² = 878.33; df = 475; CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.96; SRMR = 0.06; RMSEA = 0.06. All the standardised factor loadings of the specified model were above the 0.50 zero cut-off value set for this study. Similarly, all the AVEs were above 0.50 and all omega coefficients were above 0.70. Table 1 presents the correlation matrix, AVEs and omega reliability coefficients.

As can also be seen (Table 1), all the components of the BAT were correlated with another with large effect sizes (rs > 0.50). All personality traits, except for conscientiousness (r = −0.07, p > 0.05), were statistically significantly correlated with burnout, with at least small effect sizes. Finally, burnout was largely positively correlated with somatic complaints (r = 0.67; large effect size).

The standardised path results are provided in Table 2 and significant results are shown in Figure 1.

As can be seen from Table 2, two of the personality traits had statistically significant negative paths to burnout: emotional stability (β = −0.34; SE = 0.07; p < 0.001 – supporting hypothesis 2) and openness (β = −0.12; SE = 0.06; p = 0.048 – supporting hypothesis 8). Conversely, three personality traits had statistically significant paths to somatic complaints, two negative paths and one positive. The two negative paths to somatic complaints were extraversion (β = −0.13; SE = 0.06; p = 0.026 – supporting hypothesis 5) and emotional stability (β = −0.16; SE = 0.07; p = 0.024 – supporting hypothesis 2), whereas conscientiousness contributed to somatic complaints (β = 0.16; SE = 0.06; p = 0.009 – supporting hypothesis 3). Furthermore, burnout had a strong path to somatic complaints (β = 0.61; SE = 0.06; p < 0.001 – supporting hypothesis 1). Moreover, as can be seen from Figure 1, the model explained 22.10% of the variance in burnout risk and 51.10% of the variance in somatic complaints.

Table 3 reflects the indirect effects tested in the model.

There were two meaningful indirect effects present in the model. The first was the relationship from emotional stability to somatic complaints through burnout (β = −0.21; 95% CI [−0.30, −0.12]), and the second from openness to somatic complaints through burnout (β = –0.07; 95% CI [−0.15, −0.01]).

The current study adds to burnout research in South Africa. Results indicate the specific personality traits within the South African context that organisations can consider when determining burnout risk and designing interventions or training. The findings underscore the importance of considering personality traits, such as emotional stability and openness, which offer protection against burnout and its associated somatic symptoms in the recruitment process. These traits could be leveraged in designing workplace strategies to reduce burnout risk.

However, it is crucial to recognise that personality represents a relatively stable set of psychological characteristics, typically evaluated during the recruitment and selection phases. Thus, based solely on this study, it would be simplistic and inaccurate to suggest that individuals with lower levels of openness are inherently at greater risk of burnout. Instead, personality traits should be viewed as components of a broader personality profile, not in isolation. Considering our findings, interventions might beneficially focus on fostering traits such as extraversion and emotional stability or developing coping strategies that mitigate their absence. This could involve training programmes designed to enhance self-regulation and personal resilience, potentially lowering burnout and its physical manifestations among employees.

Moreover, while the link between conscientiousness and increased somatic symptoms presents a more complex picture, it suggests the need for a nuanced approach to managing high-conscientiousness individuals in the workplace – who may develop perfectionistic or workaholic tendencies. Such strategies could balance their work commitment with measures to prevent overexertion and burnout, thereby addressing the dual challenge of maintaining high performance without compromising well-being.

The following limitations should be considered when interpreting the results of this study. Firstly, the sample consisted of a majority of female participants; future research should endeavour to conduct a similar study with a different South African sample with a stratified sample of males and females. Secondly, a cross-sectional design was used to conduct this study; other research using different designs is therefore encouraged to determine causal evidence. Future research is also suggested to determine the effectiveness of personality trait interventions in limiting burnout risk and somatic symptoms for the chosen South African sample. Moreover, the usefulness of such interventions based on the current results as preventative training during orientation and university should also be investigated.