Organizations must help prevent job burnout.
“I cry every day when I finish work.” “It’s something beyond fatigue.” “I’m sinking into a black abyss of dread.” Statements like these are becoming increasingly common from people who are trying to put their finger on the mental and physical exhaustion they feel in relation to their job. Emotional and physical exhaustion alone, however, do not necessarily equate to the WHO’s definition of job-related burnout.
Burnout can occur in any profession, though health workers have experienced high rates of burnout for decades, and 2020–21 is no exception. By some estimates, one in three physicians is experiencing burnout at any given time. Some professions are undeniably exposed to more burnout, including in non-covid times. But now many of us feel closer to meeting the criteria for burnout, a syndrome described in the 1970’s as emotional exhaustion, depersonalization (or, cynicism), and a decreased sense of accomplishment. I described burnout in more detail in my last post.
Burnout can be dangerous to one’s mental health. It can lead to suicidal ideation, substance abuse, damaged relationships, anxiety, or depression. But what most of us know and too few acknowledge is that burned out workers can cause harm in their jobs, especially if they work in fields where errors may result in financial losses, flawed decisions, and even the injury and death of others. For example, a burned-out surgeon or airline pilot can be a serious risk to those they serve.
Think about an emergency or disaster responder. In emergency management, “burnout” seemed a syndrome most relevant to the adrenalin-fueled responders who burn the candle at both ends and work too many shifts, awash in the desire to help. These people become burned out after they do too much for too long with too few resources. Because lives are at stake, some professions have built protocols to protect workers against burnout. Taking care of workers also protects the people with whom the workers interact. This is not nearly as common a practice as it should be, and truthfully, all organizations could consider burnout a priority for prevention.
Burnout is less likely when people 1) have the management support they need, 2) have some autonomy over their own time, 3) are not overburdened with tasks that they do not have the time or resources to complete, and 4) are in an environment that fosters meaning and accomplishment in the work that they do. These are organizational issues much more than they are individual issues. It is true that some individuals may be at higher risk of burnout than others, but this fact does not negate the responsibility of the organization to prevent this phenomenon wherever possible.
So why don’t more organizations build internal structures to prevent burnout? In mitigating burnout, you prevent harm to an individual person, and you also prevent harm to the organization. It’s a duty-of-care issue, and it is also insurance against errors, losses, harm, and reputational risks.
A number of years ago, I was struck by a Johns Hopkins research finding that an individual’s emotional states, such as optimism and confidence, helped prevent burnout, illness, or the desire to leave one’s job. Researchers Everly, Smith, and Welzant found that the psychological state of the individual worker is a significant factor in long-term health. However, as we learn more about what causes burnout, we see that we must go further than pointing to the individual. It is often the organizational culture that promotes and supports such a mental state. Likewise, it is the organization that must take responsibility for the burnout of its employees.
A more holistic approach to employee wellness will help illuminate the action steps needed to prevent burnout. For example, Amy Edmondson recently published research on building psychological safety in the workplace. Psychological safety is not about merely being “nice,” but rather, refers to the ability for people to speak with candor. Employees must feel that they can raise concerns without fear of reprisal or negative reactions. This is not a perk of working in a great place, but rather a leadership responsibility to cultivate and maintain. As Google’s Aristotle Project uncovered, psychological safety has the positive benefit of making teams feel more connected and vastly more successful.
We have also seen increasing attention paid to compassionate leadership, a philosophy that supports taking the time to understand the lives and challenges of employees. Compassionate leaders are not indifferent to the struggles of their employees, and such an approach is critical during this pandemic. Leaders at all levels must learn to listen effectively, act on needed changes, and demonstrate the value of employee feedback. Even tackling low-hanging fruit, such as eliminating meetings during the lunch hour, can make a difference to the mental state of employees.
Most organizations have not yet figured out how to put employee wellbeing, psychological safety, and compassionate leadership practices in place. When it comes to preventing burnout, however, only an approach that combines an empathetic leadership style with meaningful efforts to create a safe and sustainable work environment will achieve true success. If you have even one manager who applies unfair methods, the organizational culture for that department will be damaged for both individuals and the enterprise. An organizational culture that prevents employee burnout must be intentionally constructed, and direction has to come from the top.
Fortunately, we can take immediate action to improve outcomes. We need to listen better in order to understand the extent of people’s struggles. Effective listening isn’t just an empathetic ear. We then need to help find ways to practically solve the work problems people face. If we can’t help them navigate to a solution, we may need to build a new one. Good leaders recognize that the true value of an organization lies in the experience, knowledge, and skill of our employees, our most valuable assets. Managers need to problem-solve and create new initiatives for the good of the workforce. Protecting people may require building a scaffolding of supports in which burnout becomes less probable. These structural supports bolster the individual worker and empower managers to innovate for the good of the organizational talent.
Jennifer Moss wrote in Harvard Business Review recently about the epidemic of burnout that we face as a result of Covid-19. In it, she identifies some excellent workplace solutions to mitigating the burnout brought on by the epidemic. She suggests simple structural tweaks to the work week such as a re-evaluation of video-conferencing meetings and reprioritizing workloads and deliverables. If you can put something on the backburner, you should. If something new is added to someone’s responsibilities, something else should be taken away. Moss also advocates for creating a space for discussion about the mental health of your workers — whether in anonymous forums or one-on-one check-ins with a manager.
Additional solutions might involve creating new employee benefits that enable them to better do their jobs. This is easier for larger organizations with deep pockets, but I know that smaller businesses and communities have created amazing initiatives by partnering with other organizations, creating shared “commons” for resource-sharing, and pitching in funds along with others to create a benefit that one organization would be unable to provide on their own. If you think creatively, it can probably be accomplished.
One example might be creating an on-site day care for workers (yes, especially during COVID times). Providing a tutoring service or subsidized summer day camp for the young children of working parents would be another wonderful benefit. During the pandemic, some workers have been placed in a position of providing elder care for aging parents or grandparents. An organization may have to figure out how to get home health care assistance for their valuable workers — staff that would have to otherwise leave their positions or be much less productive.
My own personal observation has been the problem of “single point of failure” positions — jobs where one person performs a critical job function and has no cross-trained back-up. This can happen in organizations that systemically delay hiring (usually to save money), even for mission-critical positions. If you’ve been putting off filling an empty position until “after the epidemic is over,” it’s time to stop putting it off. People can go a few months with an unsustainable workload, but anything more could result in turnover.
Regardless of the changes you make, the key to preventing burnout is to change the way you think of the humans who help to drive your mission forward. These people are your greatest resource, the source of your strength, growth, and advancement. It is time that employees are not treated like replaceable widgets. Treat them with the empathy, care and respect they deserve. No one can “self-care” their way out of burnout. Burnout is in many ways — perhaps most ways — the organization’s problem to solve.
