SUPPORTING RESILIENCE AND PREVENTING BURNOUT GLOBAL ORGANIZATION

INTRODUCTION

The global organization particularly faces a high rate of burnout, but employers can lessen the new problem by aesthetically improving workplace mental health and establishing the right backing structures. The nonprofit sector interest attracts employees who want to make a difference in the world, who care deeply about others, and who want to create sustainable and inclusive growth. These are passionate and skilled workers who want to perform outstandingly, feel as though their work is valued, and continue to serve their communities.

Yet this hasn’t been an easy task: the COVID-19 pandemic has caused additional strain on employee mental health and well-being levels, with correlated levels of higher burnout. For those organizations that lost staff during the Great Attrition, burnout can also be a risk for remaining employees as they shoulder more responsibilities with less institutional knowledge. Chronic work-related stress, coupled with not enough time and recovery resources, can leave even the highest achiever feeling fatigued exhausted, and emotionally drained, resulting in reduced job performance.  The combined wave effects of stress and burnout can go beyond employees’ physical and mental health and have directly affected families, organizations, and communities.

What is Burnout

Burnout is characterized by the triad of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a decreased sense of accomplishment in one’s occupation. Emotional exhaustion includes emotional depletion and work-related exhaustion. Depersonalization is the degree to which an individual is detached or the degree that an individual treats others with an impersonal response. Personal accomplishment is the feeling of achievement or competence related to one’s work. According to Smith’s (1986) cognitive-affective model, burnout develops as a result of chronic exposure to stress as a result of a long-term perceived inability to meet situational demands.

Signs of Burnout Stage one

Physical: Feeling tired most of the time, Lowered immunity, Frequent headaches, back pain or muscle ache, Change in appetite or sleep habits.

Emotional: Self-doubt, Feeling helpless and hopeless Detachment

Decreased motivation, increasingly negative outlook, and Decreased satisfaction and sense of accomplishment

Behavior: Withdrawing from responsibilities, Isolation, Procrastination, using food, drugs, or alcohol to cope, Taking out frustration on others, Physical aches or pains, Feeling like you are falling behind in work, and Dread the next day

Signs of Burnout Stage Two

Symptoms:  Longer lasting symptoms, More challenging to reverse symptoms, Disillusionment about the job, Feeling bored, apathetic, or frustrated, Feel ruled by a schedule, and Intermittent periods of psychological/physical symptoms that last even when the provoking situation subsides

Psychological symptoms

Irritability, aggression, anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and suicidal thoughts

Signs of Burnout Stage three

Chronic symptoms, If left untreated, can evolve into psychiatric and physical health disorders, Severe personal consequences, Substance dependence, Shorter life expectancy, Divorce, and High job turnover

Preventing Burnout

Early recognition of burnout and related risks, self-denial can occur,

Cultivate the ability to self-reflect, attend to your own needs, realign goals and expectations for yourself, evaluate a typical weekly schedule and reduce or eliminate unnecessary items, Complete a periodic assessment and realignment of goals, skills, and work passions, Exercise regularly, Eat a well-balanced, healthy diet, Get enough sleep, Include daily enjoyable “timeouts”, such as yoga, a hobby, or meditation. Build up your professional and personal support system, Dedicate family time, Meet with mentors to discuss setbacks, time management strategies, and other perceived barriers, etc.

 Synopsis of interactive activity and methodology, however, burnout can be addressed—and often avoided if organizations set up appropriate support structures and culture. Leaders often did not recognize that stressors were predominantly physical (such as a lack of sleep) rather than environmental; that the stacking of these stresses affects their well-being; and that by reducing their personal burnout risk, they model better behavior for employees. When asked about the main contributors to burnout, leaders cited work culture, financial concerns, and lack of control. However, when leaders participated in an interactive ranking exercise to reveal their highest stressors, the highest-ranked factors were quite different—and speak to additional areas of focus to address burnout.

Physical factors are the highest stressors

In contrast to leaders’ self-reported assessments (highlighting work culture, financial concerns, and a lack of control) and recent organizational research, BOT results suggested that top stress factors were predominantly physical, with environmental factors ranked lower. These findings emphasize the importance of acting on both physical and environmental factors to support social-sector leaders—and the sector—to be at their best.

Insight 1: Physical factors were rated higher than mental or environmental stressors

Poor sleep was by far the biggest stress factor for respondents. Six of the top ten stress factors were body-based. Beyond poor sleep, other factors included lack of exercise, body image, poor life routine, and no time for self-care.

Insight 2: Physical factors have a greater cumulative impact than we realize

Psychology has coined the term “allostatic load” to describe the cumulative impact that multiple different stressors have on the body. Sometimes stress factors are beyond an individual’s control, with a low likelihood of being resolved. However, the overall allostatic load can be lightened by tackling those that are more directly under an individual’s control. And in doing so, individuals can improve their stress responses, thus enabling more bandwidth to tackle bigger issues. For example, poor sleep is linked to an increased risk of health problems, poor mood, reduced job performance, and lower productivity. Conversely, better sleep is linked to improved memory and cognition. And by creating sleep consistency (sometimes more within your control), an individual can lighten the allostatic load on the body and have a greater cognitive capacity to manage issues that may not be within an individual’s control such as, for example, family demands or lack of organizational funding.

Insight 3: Leaders should take steps to reduce burnout risk, for themselves and their teams

When asked to rank these factors, survey respondents ranked environment-related stress factors lower than physical ones. As a result, the top stress factors can be at least partially addressed at an individual level, though doing so may be easier said than done—while organizational levers can encourage individuals to act. In discussion, nonprofit leaders indicated some resistance to taking care of their own needs when others are “worse off” or need more assistance than they do. However, a McKinsey survey on employee experience found that those who engaged in self-care were able to improve their work effectiveness by 21 % and their well-being by 45 %. In fact, for every 30 minutes of slow-wave sleep, executives show a 5 to 10 % increase in the performance of mental tasks the following day. In short, people who take care of their own needs are more effective as leaders.

How can organizations help battle burnout?

Reducing burnout is often seen as the role of the individual. As we’ve discussed previously, paying attention to the root causes of burnout within the organization—and treating toxic workplace behavior as a skills gap to be addressed—could be more effective. There are several key levers organizations—and their leaders—can pull to battle burnout at a systemic level. Our emerging global research suggests eight actions that can drive improvement in mental health and well-being, including creating a supportive growth environment, enabling a sustainable work model, and eliminating toxic workplace behaviors. In the nonprofit context, we suggest leaders prioritize the following:

Role modeling a supportive environment and sustainable models. 

For instance, leaders can be more open about their work and rest patterns to show they are actively prioritizing recovery. They can also structure their meetings and interactions with colleagues in a way that demonstrates respect for colleagues’ working hours and other commitments. When leaders manage their own stress burdens efficiently, they can support their organizations far more effectively.

Building organizational awareness and incentivizing employee well-being. 

This could be through simple initiatives like education about burnout risks—or even incentives. For example, one nonprofit we know joins September every year, with employees organized into teams to collectively track total steps over the course of a month.

Making operational changes and championing behavioral norms 

To address environmental factors like the overall work culture, resourcing, and expectations around hours worked. This can include reducing “always on” work cultures, for example, by setting expectations for focused time without meeting interruptions or expectations on responsiveness outside of working hours. Other areas could include creating norms around activity, such as walking meetings and standing desks, or providing options that lessen other stressors through part-time or hybrid models or flexible working hours. Many nonprofit employers have the power to reduce burnout rates among the Australian social-sector workforce. Changing the patterns stemming from the pandemic is possible, whether it’s by increasing sleep consistency or creating lighter workloads. These efforts could pay off in better outcomes and the ability to retain talent. When leaders “walk the walk” in reducing stress, they can create organizations that are better able to serve the country’s most vulnerable.

 ADDRESSING EMPLOYEE BURNOUT: ARE YOU SOLVING THE RIGHT PROBLEM?

 Employers have invested unprecedented resources in employee mental health and well-being. With burnout at all-time highs, leaders wonder if they can make a difference. Researchers forecast it can l be.

The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated and exacerbated long-standing corporate challenges to employee health and well-being, and in particular employee mental well-being. This has resulted in reports of rapidly rising rates of burnout around the world. Many employers have responded by investing more in mental health and well-being than ever before. Across the globe, four in five HR leaders report that mental health and well-being are top priorities for their organization. Many companies offer a host of wellness benefits such as yoga, meditation app subscriptions, well-being days, and training on time management and productivity. In fact, it is estimated that nine in ten organizations around the world offer some form of wellness program. As laudable as these efforts are, we have found that many employers focus on individual-level interventions that remediate symptoms, rather than resolve the causes of employee burnout. Employing these types of interventions may lead employers to overestimate the impact of their wellness programs and benefits and to underestimate the critical role of the workplace in reducing burnout and supporting employee mental health and well-being. Since many employers aren’t employing a systemic approach, many have weaker improvements in burnout and employee mental health and well-being than they would expect, given their investments.

Organizations pay a high price for failure to address workplace factors that strongly correlate with burnout, such as toxic behavior. A growing body of evidence, including our research in this report, sheds light on how burnout and its correlates may lead to costly organizational issues such as attrition. Unprecedented levels of employee turnover—a global phenomenon we describe as the Great Attrition—make these costs more visible. Hidden costs to employers also include absenteeism, lower engagement, and decreased productivity. We are seeing persistent burnout challenges around the world. To better understand the disconnection between employer efforts and rising employee mental health and well-being challenges (something we have observed since the start of the pandemic), between February and April 2022 we conducted a global survey of nearly 15,000 employees and 1,000 HR decision-makers in 15 countries. The workplace dimensions assessed in our survey included toxic workplace behavior, sustainable work, inclusivity and belonging, supportive growth environment, freedom from stigma, organizational commitment, leadership accountability, and access to resources. Those dimensions were analyzed against four work-related outcomes—intent to leave, work engagement, job satisfaction, and organization advocacy—as well as four employee mental-health outcomes—symptoms of anxiety, burnout, depression, and distress. Individual adaptability was also assessed.

The first of a broader series on employee mental health from the McKinsey Health Institute—will focus on burnout, its workplace correlates, and implications for leaders. On average, one in four employees surveyed reports experiencing burnout symptoms. These high rates were observed around the world and among various demographics, and are consistent with global trends. So, what is behind pervasive burnout challenges worldwide? Our research suggests that employers are overlooking the role of the workplace in burnout and underinvesting in systemic solutions.

Employers tend to overlook the role of the workplace in driving employee mental health and well-being, engagement, and performance

After all, the dimensions were assessed, toxic workplace behavior was the biggest predictor of burnout symptoms and intent to leave by a large margin predicting more than half f the total global variance. For positive outcomes (including work engagement, job satisfaction, and organization advocacy), the impact of factors assessed was more distributed—with inclusivity and belonging, a supportive growth environment, sustainable work, and freedom from stigma predicting most outcomes. across all dimensions assessed, toxic workplace behavior had the biggest impact on predicting burnout symptoms and intent to leave by a large margin.

The Danger of toxic workplace behavior—and its impact on

Across the 15 countries in the survey, toxic workplace behavior is the single largest predictor of negative employee outcomes, including burnout symptoms. One in four employees reports experiencing high rates of toxic behavior at work. At a global level, high rates were observed across countries, demographic groups—including gender, organizational tenure, age, virtual/in-person work, manager and nonmanager roles—and industries.

What is toxic workplace behavior?

Toxic workplace behaviors are a major cost for employers—they are heavily implicated in burnout, which correlates with intent to leave and ultimately drives attrition. In our survey, employees who report experiencing high levels of toxic behavior at work are eight times more likely to experience burnout symptoms. In turn, respondents experiencing burnout symptoms were six times more likely to report they intend to leave their employers in the next three to six months (consistent with recent data pointing to toxic culture as the single largest predictor of resignation during the Great Attrition, ten times more predictive than compensation alone and associated with meaningful organizational costs). The opportunity for employers is clear. Studies show that intent to leave may correlate with two- to three-times high rates of attrition; conservative estimates of the cost of replacing employees range from one-half to two times their annual salary. Even without accounting for costs associated with burnout—including organizational commitment and higher rates of sick leave and absenteeism the business case for addressing it is compelling. The alternative—not addressing it—can lead to a downward spiral in individual and organizational performance.

Individuals’ resilience and adaptability skills may help but do not compensate for the impact of a toxic workplace

Toxic behavior is not an easy challenge to address. Some employers may believe the solution is simply training people to become more resilient. There is merit in investing in adaptability and resiliency skill building. Research indicates that employees who are more agile tend to have an edge in managing change and adversity. We see that edge reflected in our survey findings: adaptability acts as a buffer to the impact of damaging workplace factors (such as toxic behaviors), while magnifying the benefit of supportive workplace factors (such as a supportive growth environment). In a recent study, employees engaging in adaptability training experienced three times more improvement in leadership dimensions and seven times more improvement in self-reported well-being than those in the control group. However, employers who see building resilience and adaptability skills in individuals as the sole solution to toxic behavior and burnout challenges are misguided. The reason is individual skills cannot compensate for unsupportive workplace factors. When it comes to the effect of individual skills, leaders should be particularly cautious not to misinterpret “favorable” outcomes (for example, the buffered impact of toxic behaviors across more adaptable employees) as the absence of underlying workplace issues that should be addressed.

Also, while more adaptable employees are better equipped to work in poor environments, they are less likely to tolerate them. In our survey, employees with high adaptability were 60 % more likely to report intent to leave their organization if they experienced high levels of toxic behavior at work than those with low adaptability (which may possibly relate to a higher level of self-confidence). Therefore, relying on improving employee adaptability without addressing broader workplace factors puts employers at an even higher risk of losing some of their most resilient, adaptable employees. Employees with high adaptability were 60 % more likely to report intent to leave their organization if they experienced high levels of toxic behavior at work than those with low adaptability.

What this means for employers: Why organizations should take a systemic approach to improve employee mental health and well-being

We often think of employee mental health, well-being, and burnout as a personal problems. That’s why most companies have responded to symptoms by offering resources focused on individuals such as wellness programs. However, the findings of our global survey and research are clear. Burnout is experienced by individuals, but the most powerful drivers of burnout are systemic organizational imbalances across job demands and job resources. So, employers can and should view high rates of burnout as a powerful warning sign that the organization—not the individuals in the workforce—needs to undergo meaningful systematic change. Employers can and should view high rates of burnout as a powerful warning sign that the organization—not the individuals in the workforce—needs to undergo meaningful systematic change.

Taking a systemic approach means addressing both toxic workplace behavior and redesigning work to be inclusive, sustainable, and supportive of individual learning and growth, including the leader and employee adaptability skills. It means rethinking organizational systems, processes, and incentives to redesign work, job expectations, and team environments. As an employer, you can’t “yoga” your way out of these challenges. Employers who try to improve burnout without addressing toxic behavior are likely to fail. Our survey shows that improving all other organization factors assessed (without addressing toxic behavior) does not meaningfully improve reported levels of burnout symptoms. Yet, when toxic behavior levels are low, each additional intervention contributes to reducing negative outcomes and increasing positive ones. When there are high levels of toxic behavior, addressing other organizational factors does not meaningfully improve burnout or intent to leave. Adjust workplace factors to see how it affects the below key outcomes.

 Definitions: Toxic workplace behavior:

 Employees face negative interpersonal experiences such as unfair treatment, exclusion from leaders or co-workers, derogatory and undermining behaviors, and abusive management; Inclusivity: Organization systems, leaders and peers foster a welcoming and fair environment for all employees to be themselves, find connection, and meaningfully contribute; Sustainable work: Organization and leaders promote work that enables a healthy balance between work and personal life, including a manageable workload and work schedule; Supportive growth environment: Managers care about employee opinions, well-being, and satisfaction and provide support and enable opportunities for growth; Work engagement: An employee's positive motivational state of high energy combined with high levels of dedication and a strong focus on work; Job satisfaction: An employee's level of contentment or satisfaction with their current job; Intent to leave: An employee's desire to leave the organization in which they are currently employed in the next three-to-six months; Burnout symptoms: an employee's experience of extreme tiredness, reduced ability to regulate cognitive and emotional processes, and mental distancing. Taking a preventative, systemic approach—focused on addressing the roots of the problem (as opposed to remediating symptoms)—is hard. But the upside for employers is a far greater ability to attract and retain valuable talent over time.

The good news: Although there are no silver bullets, there are opportunities for leaders to drive material change

We see a parallel between the evolution of global supply chains and talent. Many companies optimized supply chains for “just in time” delivery, and talent was optimized to drive operational efficiency and effectiveness. As supply chains come under increasing pressure, many companies recognize the need to redesign and optimize supply chains for resilience and sustainability, and the need to take an end-to-end approach to the solutions. The same principles apply to talent. The factors associated with improving employee mental health and well-being (including organizational-, team-, and individual-level factors) are numerous and complex. And taking a whole-systems approach is not easy. Despite the growing momentum toward better employee mental health and well-being (across business and academic communities), we’re still early on the journey. We don’t yet have sufficient evidence to conclude which interventions work most effectively—or a complete understanding of why they work and how they affect the return on investment.

That said, efforts to mobilize the organization to rethink work—in ways that are compatible with both employee and employer goals—are likely to pay off in the long term. To help spark that conversation in your organization, we offer eight targeted questions and example strategies with the potential to address some of the burnout-related challenges discussed in this article.

Do we treat employee mental health and well-being as a strategic priority?

This is fundamental to success. When a large organization achieved a 7 % reduction in employee burnout rates (compared with an 11 % increase in the national average within the industry over the same period), the CEO believed that leadership and sustained attention from the highest level of the organization were the “key to making progress.” Senior executives recognized employee mental health and well-being as a strategic priority. Executives publicly acknowledged the issues and listened to employee needs through a wide range of formats—including town halls, workshops, and employee interviews. They prioritized issues and defined clear, time-bound measurable goals around them—with a standardized measure of burnout being given equal importance to other key performance metrics. Although anonymous at the level of the individual, results were aggregated at the division/department level to allow executive leadership to focus attention and resources where they were most needed. This example highlights how CEOs have the ability to create meaningful change by listening to employees and prioritizing strategies to reduce burnout.

Do we effectively address toxic behaviors?

Eradicating toxic workplace behavior is difficult.  Organizations that face toxic behavior will deploy a set of joined work practices to face the problem and see the actions of others as an integral part of assessing an employee’s outcome. Indicators of toxic behavior are flagged, repeat offenders either change or leave, and leaders take time to become aware of the impact their behavior has on others. If you lead part of a company. given your own behaviors, and what you tolerate in your own company, is a good place to start.

 Leaders with higher self-regulation may be better, less toxic leaders

Another component of removing toxic behavior is cultivating supportive, psychologically safe work environments, where toxic behaviors are less likely to spread across the organization. Effective leaders know that emotional contagion may go both ways: displaying vulnerability and compassion fuels more compassionate teams; displaying toxic behavior fuels more toxic teams. There are two caveats: toxic behavior may not be intentional—particularly if individuals are not equipped to respond with calm and compassion under pressure—and regardless of intent, toxic behavior spreads faster and wider than good behavior. To prevent the unintentional dissemination of toxic behaviors, role modeling from adaptable, self-regulating, compassionate leaders may help.

Do we create inclusive work environments?

Most leaders recognize the established associations between performance and inclusion, but inclusion does not happen by accident. Inclusion is a multifaceted construct that must be addressed comprehensively and proactively. Most companies define inclusion too narrowly and thus address it too narrowly as well. Over the past three years, we’ve broadened our perspective on how to create truly inclusive workplaces and developed a modern inclusion model. A truly inclusive workplace implements systems that minimize conscious and unconscious bias, allowing employees to express themselves and connect with each other. It also features leaders who not only advocate for team members and treat them impartially but also uphold and support all organizational systems and practices. For example, one employer defined data-driven targets for the representation and advancement of diverse talent across dimensions (beyond gender and ethnicity) and role types (executive, management, technical, board)—leveraging powerful analytics to track progress and foster transparency along the way.

Do we enable individual growth?

Evidence suggests that individual growth, learning, and development programs are effective ways to combat burnout and to retain and engage employees, and therefore are important for addressing growing talent and skills shortages within organizations. Employers who “double down” on talent redeployment, mobility, reskilling, and upskilling tend to see improvement across a range of financial, organizational, and employee experience metrics. In a recent study of extensive employee data, offering lateral career opportunities was two-and-half times more predictive of employee retention than compensation, and 12 times more predictive than promotions—signaling an opportunity for leaders to support employee desires to learn, explore, and grow way beyond traditional career progression. Investing in your employees’ capabilities can drive financial returns, is often cheaper than hiring, and signals to employees that they are valued and have an important role in the organization.

Do we promote sustainable work?

Promoting sustainable work goes beyond managing workload. It’s about enabling employees to have a sense of control and predictability, flexibility, and sufficient time for daily recovery. It’s also about leading with compassion and empathy tailoring interventions based on where, when, and how work can be done, and how different groups are more likely to (re)establish socio-emotional ties after a long period of isolation and loss of social cohesion. One technology company is using real-time data on employee preferences to rapidly test and iterate solutions that work for specific groups around return-to-office options. To find solutions that work for your employees, consider adopting a test-and-learn mindset. This approach can help the organization make progress while adapting as context evolves (a hallmark of more productive organizations).

Are we holding leaders accountable?

Many organizations consider people leadership criteria in their performance management. Yet, there is substantial room to grow when it comes to employers providing transparency around employee mental health and well-being objectives and metrics. Organizations that are doing this well have set clear expectations for managers to lead in a way that is supportive of employees' mental health and well-being. They offer training to help managers identify, proactively ask about, and listen to employees’ mental health and well-being needs. They also introduce mental-health “pulse” checks and incorporate relevant questions into the broader employee satisfaction surveys, to establish a baseline and track trends in how employees are feeling. Discussion on employee mental health and well-being can be incorporated into regular leadership meetings, including concerns, risks, and potential actions.

To encourage leaders to lead by example and increase their accountability, some employers embed employee mental-health support into leaders’ reviews based on anonymous upward feedback from their teams. Finally, some companies are exploring if they can go even further and tie incentives to short- and long-term employee mental health and well-being objectives.

Are we effectively tackling stigma?

The majority of employers and employees acknowledge the presence of stigma in their workplaces. Stigma has been shown to have real costs to workforce productivity, often exacerbating underlying conditions because of people being afraid to seek help for mental health needs and driving down an employee’s self-worth and engagement. We see several actions that organizations are taking to eliminate stigma. Leading by example can make a difference, with senior leaders stepping forward to describe personal struggles with mental health, using non-stigmatizing language. Leaders showing vulnerability help to remove shame and promote a psychologically safe culture.

Stigma can also be reduced by companies prioritizing mental wellness as critical for peak performance instead of rewarding overwork at the expense of rest and renewal—rewarding an “athlete” mindset instead of overemphasizing a “hero.” This can begin to shift the perception of signs of burnout or other mental-health needs as being indicative of a moral failing. Finally, creating a dedicated role to support employee mental health and well-being and appointing a senior leader, such as the chief wellness officer, will increase awareness and show commitment.

Do our resources serve employee needs?

Leaders should evaluate whether mental health and well-being resources are at parity with physical-health benefits and how frequently they are being used by employees. An increasing number of employers have expanded access to mental health services however, research shows that almost 70 % of employees find it challenging to access those services.

CONCLUSION

Never in history have organizations around the world devoted so much attention and capital to improving employee mental health and well-being. It is lamentable that these investments are not always providing a good return regarding improved outcomes. Employers that take the time to understand the problem at hand—and pursue a preventative, systemic approach focused on causes instead of symptoms—should see material improvements in outcomes and succeed in attracting and retaining valuable talent. More broadly, employers globally have an opportunity to play a pivotal role in helping people achieve material improvements in health. With collaboration and shared commitment, employers can make a meaningful difference in the lives of their employees and the communities they live in.