This article examines why traditional formal support programmes often fail to address professional burnout, a problem that is becoming increasingly acute due to hybrid work arrangements and social isolation. This study aimed to develop and theoretically substantiate a comprehensive model explaining the formation of informal support networks within a team, integrating organisational, group, and individual determinants of this process and clarifying the underlying mechanisms. The article argues that their ineffectiveness stems from the neglect of the “meso level” – that is, authentic interpersonal relationships and social capital within the team. The core scientific problem lies in the lack of a comprehensive theoretical model that explains the genesis of informal support networks. Research on burnout has traditionally displayed a “blind spot”, focusing either on individual factors (the person centric approach) or on formal organisational conditions (the organisation-centric approach), while overlooking how and why spontaneous social connections emerge. Using systematic analysis, theoretical synthesis, and conceptual modelling, the article integrated insights from four academic domains: burnout theory, sociological network theory, models of network dynamics, and socio psychological theories, including homophily and social exchange. The principal outcome of the study was the development of a multilevel theoretical model describing the formation of informal support networks within a collective. The model demonstrated how contextual determinants – including organisational factors such as culture and leadership, group-level factors such as psychological safety, and individual characteristics such as emotional intelligence and motivation – create conditions that enable key mechanisms of support formation. The emergent network structure, characterised by macro level properties (for example, density) and micro-level roles (“stars”, “brokers”, and “isolates”), arised from the interaction of multiple mechanisms. These mechanisms included motivational drivers (such as the need for support) and structural principles (including homophily and reciprocity). The article’s conclusions emthasised a “management paradox”: such networks cannot be directly controlled and may generate unintended negative effects, including “star burnout” and excessive clustering. The practical significance of the model, therefore, lies in substantiating a shift in management strategy from attempts to artificially create support towards cultivating the conditions under which it can emerge organically