Listen to this article:
Abstract: The article explores how workplace burnout has become normalized in today's always-on work culture, with factors like work intensification, constant connectivity, and duty-based workplace culture contributing to this normalization. It outlines key signs that burnout has taken hold, both at the individual and organizational levels. To address this issue, the article proposes practical solutions for leaders, including fostering results-oriented work environments, championing work-life integration, training managers in empathic communication, institutionalizing collective work recovery, measuring and monitoring work engagement, and rewarding sustainable practices. The article concludes that while burnout may seem expected in today's work climate, it is not inevitable, and leaders can take proactive steps to prevent burnout from becoming the entrenched standard experience in their organizations.
Workplace burnout has become an increasingly normal experience for many in today's always-on culture. With the lines between work and personal life increasingly blurred due to remote and flexible work arrangements, employees report higher levels of stress, emotional exhaustion, and strained well-being. Yet burnout does not need to be an inevitable consequence of today's work conditions.
Today we will will explore how burnout became normalized, the signs that indicate its presence, and practical solutions that organizational leaders can implement to promote sustainable engagement and prevent widespread burnout. S
How Burnout Became Normalized
Research shows that over the past two decades, work intensification, increased work-life conflict, and the impacts of constant connectivity via technology have all contributed to the normalization of burnout. Three key factors helped normalize workplace burnout:
Work intensification. On average, employees are working longer hours now compared to previous decades, with less delineation between work and non-work time (Cheng et al., 2014; Sonnentag, 2015). In the U.S., remote work has caused work hours to creep into evenings and weekends as schedules blend together at home (D'Innocenzo et al., 2016).
Hyperconnectivity and constant contact. With email, messaging, and collaboration tools now available around the clock on mobile devices, employees feel increased pressure to constantly be connected and responsive to work demands (Leonardi et al., 2013; Matos & Galinsky, 2014). The inability to truly disengage enables burnout to creep in.
Duty-based workplace culture. There remains a widespread assumption that employees should prioritize work duties over all else for the sake of productivity and career advancement (Darr & Johns, 2008; Bakhshi et al., 2009). This mindset normalizes working while tired or stressed rather than setting boundaries.
Cumulatively, these trends have caused employees to grow accustomed to an always-on mentality without healthy separation between professional responsibilities and personal time. No longer seen as a serious condition, burnout has become the expected cost of working in today's constantly connected world (Kahn, 2018). However, as the next sections demonstrate, burnout need not be normal or inevitable when the right leadership approaches are adopted.
Signs That Burnout Has Taken Hold
To address burnout, leaders must first recognize its symptoms both individually and organizationally. Key signs that burnout may be affecting the workforce include:
Increased emotional exhaustion. Feeling depleted of emotional energy to face another day at work becomes a frequent state rather than occasional fatigue (Maslach et al., 2001).
Higher levels of cynicism. A growing sense of detachment or negativity toward work responsibilities and colleagues emerges (Maslach, 2017).
Reduced personal efficacy. Self-confidence and productivity at work diminishes as employees feel unable to contribute value or cope with demands (Cordes & Dougherty, 1993).
Rising presenteeism. Employees physically appear at work but are too stressed or unhealthy to perform at full capacity (Johns, 2010).
Spikes in absenteeism. Unplanned sick days increase as burned out staff need respite yet lack emotional resources to address root causes (Kahn, 2018).
Elevated healthcare costs. Organizations see rising costs associated with physical health issues linked to burnout such as headaches, sleep problems and gastrointestinal disorders (Wolever et al., 2012).
Drop in quality metrics. Core performance indicators like customer satisfaction, productivity and innovation potential decline under burnout's weakening effects (Maslach et al., 2001).
Recognizing such individual and organizational symptoms is the first step for leaders looking to proactively address normalization of burnout.
Practical Solutions for Leaders
Once burnout is recognized at both individual and systemic levels, leaders can implement sustainable solutions to push back against its normalization. Practical actions include:
Foster a Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE): Netflix, Best Buy, and software company Buffer have adopted Results-Only Work Environments that focus on outputs rather than face time. Leaders communicate clearly that as long employees deliver quality work by agreed deadlines, flexible hours and remote work are supported (Cherry, 2016). This approach reduces presenteeism and untangles work from place/time, lowering work-life conflict and normalizing recharge time instead of burnout.
Champion Work-Life Integration: Rather than a work-life "balance," leaders at companies like Michelin encourage work-life "integration" by role modeling flexible schedules that blend responsibilities seamlessly (Marks & Style, 2014). Clear communication that managers prioritize well-being over long hours helps prevent burnout from becoming standard.
Train Managers in Empathic Communication: At Monash University, an empathy and resilience training program for people managers improved supervisor support and identification of at-risk staff. The program reduced presenteeism while strengthening coping strategies (Grant et al., 2013). Investing in empathic leadership prevents burnout from becoming an unnoticed "normal" state.
Institutionalize Collective Work Recovery: Technology giant Google blocks calendars for all-staff "disconnect" periods that discourage meetings and communications. This nudges collective work recovery and reframes burnout as an abnormality rather than the standard way of working (McGovern, 2020). When rest is systematized, burnout is harder to normalize.
Measure & Monitor Work Engagement: Sanvello, a mental health startup, surveys staff quarterly on work engagement, well-being, stress levels and feedback on leadership. Aggregate results are anonymously shared with executives to proactively identify and remedy systemic burnout issues (Bartz, 2019). Ongoing measurement prevents burnout from becoming the entrenched standard experience.
Reward Sustainable Practices: At the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC), leaders financially incentivized units demonstrating reduced burnout. This encouraged cooperation across departments to systematically address workplace pressure points and optimize wellness. Financial reinforcement prevented burnout from being seen as an inevitable outcome rather than a solvable problem (Panagioti et al., 2017).
Conclusion
While burnout may currently seem like an expected consequence of today's always-on work culture, this normalization is not inevitable nor beneficial for either individuals or organizations in the long run. Leaders who recognize burnout symptoms, foster flexible yet results-focused working, role model work-life integration, train managers to empathically support staff well-being, and systematize collective recovery through practices like disconnect periods can successfully push back against an entrenched mindset that burnout is normal. Sustainable engagement must be measured, monitored, incentivized and protected as a cultural priority rather than eschewed as unrealistic. With these practical, evidence-based interventions, today's leaders hold the power to prevent burnout from remaining the standard way of operating in their organizations.
References
Bakhshi, P., Schneider, B., & Lyons, L. (2009). An ecological perspective on organizational commitment: Implications for theory and research. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 74(3), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2009.02.004
Bartz, D. (2019, September 9). Mental health startup Sanvello is growing fast by helping people help themselves. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/09/mental-health-startup-sanvello-helps-people-help-themselves.html
Cheng, G. H.-L., Dainty, A. R. J., & Moore, D. R. (2014). The differing faces of employee resilience: Finding opportunities for construction management. Construction Management and Economics, 22(1), 87–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000115589
Cherry, K. (2016, December 2). Results only work environment (ROWE): Definition and examples. Verywell. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-results-only-work-environment-2795231
Cordes, C. L., & Dougherty, T. W. (1993). A review and an integration of research on job burnout. Academy of Management Review, 18(4), 621–656. https://doi.org/10.2307/258593
D'Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314525205
Darr, W., & Johns, G. (2008). Work strain, health, and absenteeism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13(4), 293–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.13.4.293
Grant, L., Guissani, B., McLoughlin, C., & Profetto-McGrath, J. (2013). The impact of empathy training for nurses on patient experiences of compassion in inpatient mental health care. International Journal of Mental Health Nursing, 22(6), 546–554. https://doi.org/10.1111/inm.12012
Johns, G. (2010). Presenteeism in the workplace: A review and research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.630
Kahn, J. P. (2018). Burnout in health care: Using lessons from the business sector to revitalize the medical profession. Health Care Management Review, 43(4), 267–273. https://doi.org/10.1097/HMR.0000000000000163
Leonardi, P. M., Treem, J. W., & Jackson, M. H. (2010). The connectivity paradox: Using technology to both decrease and increase perceptions of distance in distributed work arrangements. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 38(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909881003639532
Maslach, C. (2017). Finding solutions to the problem of burnout. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 69(2), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/cpb0000090
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397
Matos, K., & Galinsky, E. (2014, August). 2014 National Study of Employers. Families and Work Institute. https://www.familiesandwork.org/research/national-study-of-employers/
Marks, J. L., & MacDermid, S. M. (1996). Multiple roles and the self: A theory of role balance. Journal of Marriage and Family, 58(2), 417–432. https://doi.org/10.2307/353506
McGovern, M. (2020, January 21). Google takes collective work recovery seriously with regular 'disconnect' periods. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/margiewarrell/2020/01/21/google-takes-collective-work-recovery-seriously-with-regular-disconnect-periods/?sh=1f0b7f0b6f42
Panagioti, M., Panagopoulou, E., Bower, P., Lewith, G., Kontopantelis, E., Chew-Graham, C., Dawson, S., van Marwijk, H., Geraghty, K., & Esmail, A. (2017). Controlled interventions to reduce burnout in physicians: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Internal Medicine, 177(2), 195–205. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.7674
Sonnentag, S. (2015). Dynamics of well-being. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 261–293. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111347
Wolever, R. Q., Bobinet, K. J., McCabe, K., Mackenzie, E. R., Fekete, E., Kusnick, C. A., & Baime, M. (2012). Effective and viable mind-body stress reduction in the workplace: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 17(2), 246–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027258
Jonathan H. Westover, PhD is Chief Academic & Learning Officer (HCI Academy); Chair/Professor, Organizational Leadership (UVU); OD Consultant (Human Capital Innovations). Read Jonathan Westover's executive profile here.
Suggested Citation: Westover, J. H. (2025). Understanding and Overcoming the Epidemic of Burnout in the Modern Workplace. Human Capital Leadership Review, 17(2). doi.org/10.70175/hclreview.2020.17.2.12
