To all professionals dealing with Burnout. Do not make researchers say what they never said.

Why define systemic or organizational causes that 40 years of research have never validated?

Got fresh ideas? Great—back them up with a solid argument.

Let me remind you: this is a very serious mental health issue. Some of the people reading you might currently be going through it. Out of respect for them, you owe it to yourself to be impeccable in your content.

Not confusing “factors” and “causes” is pretty much the foundation. And for those who mix everything up, here’s a quick reminder.

Research on burnout (Maslach, Schaufeli, Leiter) focuses on:

• A syndrome of exhaustion with functional collapse

• Identifiable organizational risk factors

• A visible pathology with measurable symptoms

• Loss of performance and engagement

Organizational risk factors of burnout remain in the realm of external analysis: workload, lack of recognition, toxic climate… These are measurable variables of the work environment.

Max-out, however, analyzes something radically different:

• Sustained performance despite exploitation

• Subjective adherence experienced as fulfillment

• Sophisticated self-regulation that maintains balance at the limit

• Invisible alienation that escapes detection frameworks

• Transformation of the desire for autonomy into an instrument of exploitation

• etc.

These dimensions go far beyond the simple list of organizational factors: they also concern lived experience, social recognition, cognitive and emotional self-regulation.

This configuration has never been conceptualized in the burnout literature. Even the works on modern alienation (Honneth, Rosa, Jaeggi) or on new forms of domination (Boltanski & Chiapello, Dardot & Laval) have not thought of—nor captured—this articulation where exploitation feeds on subjective satisfaction. Existing research has not even scratched this invisible area where individuals remain functional while being pushed to their limits. My work is entirely original.

In mental health, conceptual precision is not an academic luxury but an ethical obligation. Fabricating causal links can lead to inadequate interventions and delay recognition of new forms of suffering.

I therefore call on all workplace mental health professionals to:

• question their certainties,

• accept that science and thought move forward through constructive critique, not undocumented assertions.

Workplace health research deserves better than sloppy approximations. And our patients—even more so.