Burnout Test with Competence Hyperdominance and Salutogenesis – Executive Burnout Profiler
This new Burnout Test (02/2026), offered as the Executive Burnout Profiler, is a stress and strain assessment designed specifically for owners, managing directors, partners, and other high‑responsibility leaders. It combines classical burnout research with Johannes Faupel’s Competence Hyperdominance diagnostics and Aaron Antonovsky’s salutogenic Sense of Coherence model. It is currently the only burnout test that includes targeted questions on Competence Hyperdominance and Sense of Coherence. In about four minutes and 23 questions, you receive a differentiated profile of strain, KHD patterns, and coherence resources that goes far beyond a simple “stress score.” The result does not replace a medical diagnosis, but it gives you a clear, structured basis for planning your next steps in terms of health, work, and key decisions. 23 questions in approx. 4 minutes.
Executive Burnout Profiler
Competence Hyperdominance Diagnostics | Salutogenesis Model (SOC)
What All Burnout Tests Measure – and What They Fail to See
More than four decades have passed since Christina Maslach published the Maslach Burnout Inventory in 1981. In the intervening years, a remarkably consistent paradigm for burnout assessment has emerged. Whether utilizing the MBI (22 items), the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (19 items), the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory (16 items), the Shirom-Melamed Burnout Measure, or the Burnout Assessment Tool (BAT), these instruments fundamentally evaluate the same core dimensions.
The Three Dimensions of Established Burnout Inventories
- Emotional Exhaustion – the profound sense of being depleted, overextended, and devoid of energy. This is assessed via 9 items in the MBI, categorized as “Personal Burnout” in the CBI, and defined as “Exhaustion” in the OLBI. Every validated psychometric instrument measures this dimension, as it is considered the hallmark characteristic of the syndrome.
- Depersonalization and Distancing – the psychological withdrawal from colleagues, clients, and the work itself. This appears as “Depersonalization” in the MBI (5 items), “Disengagement” in the OLBI, and “Mental Distancing” in the BAT. Research demonstrates that distancing is not a character flaw, but rather a functional defense mechanism against chronic overstimulation and overload.
- Reduced Self-Efficacy – the subjective experience of diminishing achievement despite significant effort. This is captured as “Personal Accomplishment” in the MBI (8 items, reverse-coded) and partially addressed as “Cognitive Impairment” in the BAT. This dimension remains a subject of academic debate; many researchers regard it as a distinct construct rather than an intrinsic component of the burnout syndrome itself.
What these instruments share is a singular focus on symptom intensity. They ask: How exhausted are you? How distanced? How ineffective do you feel? The output is a numerical value on a scale. A high score indicates a critical state; a low score suggests an unremarkable finding.
What No Conventional Burnout Test Addresses
No standard burnout assessment offers a differentiated analysis of the underlying etiology in both directions. The pivotal question—whether an individual is exhausted because they are doing too much of the wrong thing, or because they are doing too much of the right thing within an excessively narrow corridor—is never posed by existing burnout inventories.
The Executive Burnout Profiler is the first burnout assessment in the world designed to address these specific dynamics.
The first section of the Executive Burnout Profiler evaluates the same dimensions as the MBI, the CBI, and the OLBI. Nine questions regarding exhaustion, distancing, and self-efficacy constitute the load profile. These questions are intentionally aligned with the consensus dimensions of international burnout research, without infringing upon the proprietary formulations of existing inventories.
This ensures that the Profiler is scientifically compatible, allowing its load values to be interpreted within the context of established academic research.
What fundamentally distinguishes this tool from all existing assessments are Parts II and III.
Competence Hyperdominance: Why High Performers Burn Out Differently
In the 1970s, Aaron Antonovsky, the Israeli-American medical sociologist, posed a question that shifted the paradigm of health research: Why do some people remain healthy despite extreme stress? His answer—the model of salutogenesis—moved the focus from pathogenesis (what makes us ill?) to salutogenesis (what keeps us healthy?). At its core lies the Sense of Coherence (SOC): the conviction that one’s life is comprehensible, manageable, and meaningful.
Competence Hyperdominance (CHD) is a model that integrates this salutogenic perspective with a specific clinical observation: many executives, owners, and decision-makers do not reach exhaustion through overstrain or incompetence. Rather, they exhaust themselves through an overly dominant coupling of their strongest competencies to operational requirements.
The pattern functions as follows: An individual is exceptionally competent in a specific area. This competence naturally attracts tasks. Because these tasks are completed with high quality, more follow. Strength becomes the only operating mode. Other options for action—delegating, letting go, setting boundaries—atrophy. Not because the individual lacks the ability, but because the dominant competence displaces all alternatives.
From the outside, this appears as exceptionally high performance. From the inside, it feels like an ever-growing tower of tasks that never diminishes, no matter the effort—because every resolved task attracts three new ones.
The four drivers of Competence Hyperdominance are:
Hero Concepts – heroic self-definitions that prevent an individual from setting boundaries, as limits would contradict their self-image. The high performer defines themselves through their indispensability.
Constructed Concerns – negative projections of a catastrophic future that would supposedly unfold if one did not personally control every detail. These concerns are often unconscious and create a permanent pressure to act, based on assumptions rather than facts.
Self-Doubt and Self-Reproach – the anticipation of being “not good enough” despite outstanding objective performance. The friction between external recognition and internal devaluation creates a state of chronic energy depletion.
Repetitive Heroic Patterns – the attempt to overcome exhaustion through even higher performance. More tasks, more hours, more thoroughness. The individual fights against their own nature – and ultimately loses.
No existing burnout inventory poses questions regarding these patterns. The MBI does not ask if someone is exhausted because they are doing too much of the right thing. The CBI does not investigate hero concepts. The OLBI does not capture disengagement resulting from being “oversaturated” by one’s own competence.
Sense of Coherence: The Salutogenic Counter-Movement
The third part of the Executive Burnout Profiler measures what other burnout tests systematically ignore: countervailing resources. Aaron Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence (SOC) consists of three components:
Comprehensibility – the extent to which an individual perceives environmental stimuli as ordered, consistent, and explainable. Individuals with high comprehensibility can recognize patterns and establish connections even in chaotic situations.
Manageability – the extent to which an individual perceives the resources available to meet the demands placed upon them. These resources do not necessarily have to be internal; it is sufficient to know where external support can be found.
Meaningfulness – the extent to which an individual experiences life as emotionally significant. Antonovsky himself identified this dimension as the most critical: without a sense of meaning, the motivation to establish comprehensibility and manageability is lost.
In the Executive Burnout Profiler, SOC values are presented in inverted form: a high “Coherence Deficit” indicates that salutogenic resources are limited. This reveals what no pathogenetically oriented burnout test can show: whether the individual is not only stressed but lacks the internal structure required to process that stress effectively.
23 Questions Across Three Levels – The Profile Behind the Exhaustion
The Executive Burnout Profiler consists of 23 questions, distributed across three levels:
Part I – Load Profile (9 questions): Exhaustion, distancing, and self-efficacy according to the international consensus of burnout research. These questions are featured in every reputable burnout test and serve as the foundation.
Part II – Competence Hyperdominance Diagnostics (8 questions): Hero concepts, constructed concerns, self-doubt, and repetitive heroic patterns. No other burnout test poses these questions. They differentiate between “exhaustion due to overload” and “exhaustion due to an overly dominant coupling of competence to operational requirements.” This is the decisive difference for owners, CEOs, and C-level decision-makers whose exhaustion is not adequately reflected in standard burnout inventories.
Part III – Coherence Profile (6 questions): Comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness according to Aaron Antonovsky’s model of salutogenesis. Again, no other burnout test includes these, as conventional diagnostics are pathogenetically focused—asking what makes one ill, rather than what keeps one healthy. The Executive Burnout Profiler integrates both perspectives.
The result is not a single score, but a ten-dimensional profile with three composite values: Load, CHD Index, and Coherence Deficit. The combination of these values results in one of five profiles—including the Competence Hyperdominance pattern, which is of the highest relevance for high performers as it describes a state of exhaustion that externally mimics exceptionally high achievement.
Who is this Profiler Designed For?
This profiler is designed for owners, managing directors, shareholders, and C-level executives—individuals who regularly bear responsibilities exceeding their personal stress limits and who do not find themselves reflected in standard burnout tests. Conventional tests were primarily developed for the human services sector (e.g., healthcare, education, social work).
The Maslach Burnout Inventory was developed in 1981 based on interviews with members of the helping professions. The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory emerged in 2005 as a critique of the MBI, but its focus remains on the human service sector. The Oldenburg Burnout Inventory expanded the scope but remained limited to pure symptom assessment.
For individuals who do not work “too much” in the traditional sense, but work “too dominantly within an excessively narrow corridor,” these instruments provide no differentiated diagnostics. The Executive Burnout Profiler closes this gap.
What this Profiler is Not
This profiler is not a diagnostic instrument in a clinical sense. It does not provide a medical diagnosis. It does not replace an evaluation by a medical professional or psychotherapist. According to ICD-10, burnout is not a standalone diagnosis but is categorized under Z73 as a “problem related to life-management difficulty.” The ICD-11 defines burnout as a “syndrome resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.”
What the Profiler does: It offers structured self-reflection across three levels—symptom, pattern, and resource—allowing for a more nuanced assessment than any purely pathogenetically oriented burnout test.
The results are intended as orientational values. Load profiles are dynamic; what is moderate today may become critical in three months—and vice versa. In cases of persistent exhaustion, consultation with a specialist physician or psychotherapist is advised.
The Theoretical Framework
Pathogenesis (What makes us ill?): The three consensus dimensions of burnout—exhaustion, distancing, reduced self-efficacy—originate from the pathogenetic tradition. They describe what is malfunctioning.
Competence Hyperdominance (What masks itself as health?): The CHD model describes a pattern that externally appears as high capability and internally feels like a tower of tasks that never shrinks. The four drivers—hero concepts, constructed concerns, self-doubt, and repetitive heroic patterns—are described in detail in: Johannes Faupel, „Burnout-Prävention und -Intervention im Marketing”, Springer Gabler, Wiesbaden 2020, as well as in „The World’s Fastest Stop-Burnout-Book”, Exponere Publishing, Frankfurt am Main.
Salutogenesis (What keeps us healthy?): Aaron Antonovsky’s Sense of Coherence—comprehensibility, manageability, meaningfulness—is the polar opposite of the burnout dynamic. His works „Unraveling the Mystery of Health – How People Manage Stress and Stay Well” (1987) and „Health, Stress, and Coping” (1979) form the scientific foundation of the third profiler level.
To the best of our knowledge, the Executive Burnout Profiler is the only freely accessible online instrument that integrates all three perspectives in a single process: pathogenetic symptom assessment, Competence Hyperdominance diagnostics, and salutogenic resource measurement.
Start the Executive Burnout Profiler
23 Questions. Three Levels. Ten Dimensions. One Profile.
Answer all questions on a scale from “Never” to “Daily.” The process takes approximately four minutes. The result is displayed immediately—without the need for an email address, registration, or data storage.
Johannes Faupel is a Systemic Executive Coach (certified by the Systemic Society SG and the International Society for Systemic Therapy IGST), author of the Springer textbook „Burnout-Prävention und -Intervention im Marketing,” and works with owners, CEOs, and decision-makers on the structural decoupling of competence from operational dependence.
Office: Palmengartenstrasse 6, D-60325 Frankfurt am Main Phone: +49 69 4800 8888 johannesfaupel.com