All aboard the burnout bandwagon & the victim-blaming to be found there

So, here it is, my blog on burnout. Another one to add to the pile!

Having been watching from a distance in 2023, I’ve been wondering what I might add to the screeds of sage advice that’s already been dispensed…& the more that will surely come. Well, more sage advice I guess, but hopefully something a little different. All I really know is that there’s quite a lot to say. So here goes with a few thoughts:

Stress is a transaction

In 1984, Richard Lazarus & Susan Folkman published a seminal work on appraisal, stress & coping. As with all seminal works, it illuminated something important. They provided a detailed description of how stress & coping is driven by a ‘transaction’ between the challenges one’s environment serves up (i.e., stressors) & the sense people make of those challenges (i.e., their appraisals).

No detailed description of the “transactional model of stress” is needed here, sufficed to say that if I perceive a work deadline (a stressor) is a threat to me (appraisal #1) + I think I lack the resources to deal with it (appraisal #2), stress is the result, followed by various attempts to cope.

A good model? I’ve always thought so & still do. It clarifies the role personal agency plays in this most human of experiences & helps people see that the physical & psychological malaise we call ‘stress’ can be altered by (i) how we actively make sense of stressors (emotion-focused coping) & what we decide to do about them (problem-focused coping).

That’s an empowering message, one I’ve emphasised many times to students, and also to clients when I’m about to recommend they read Man’s Search for Meaning by Viktor Frankl (the exemplar of emotion-focused coping).

So, what’s with the victim blaming?

To be clear, I’m NOT accusing Lazarus & Folkman of victim blaming. Nothing of the sort. As research psychologists, they did their job…they described & explained a complex phenomenon. What I’m saying is that their model can be used in ways that amount to victim blaming. How so? The recognition that individual’s have the potential to influence their stress levels, means not only that they can do something about it, it also means - if they wish to be independent & high functioning people - that they should do something about it. So far, no quibbles from me.

I’m a big believer in the natural resilience of people. Indeed, you don’t have to look far to find personal stories of great hardiness & fortitude in the face of adversity. Examples of people who encounter a significant stressor but do well with it, based on their appraisals & coping choices. Of course, this is relevant to occupational burnout: a severe and persistent form of fatigue occurring after a long period of stress.

From my casual observation of ‘expert’ advice provided online & in the media, I’m staggered by how skewed burnout mitigation strategies are towards the at-risk employee. In keeping with the transactional model, people are strenuously encouraged to (in no particular order)…set boundaries, learn how to say no, better manage time, practice self-care, etc.

The simple subtext? It’s your life & you’re responsible for how things turn out.

Whilst perhaps not intended, this amounts to a form of victim blaming, especially when you consider that many of the stressors that trigger an employee’s appraisal-coping process originate from the environments they work in. So, it’s pertinent to ask, where are organisations amongst all this? What can they be doing? Thankfully, this is getting some attention.

Solving the right problem

Recently, I noted with interest that the McKinsey Health Institute have been advocating for more systemic approaches to reducing burnout susceptibility & improving employee wellbeing. This is both valid & important. As they succinctly stated, “individual skills cannot compensate for unsupportive workplace factors” (p. 9). They argue organisations are better to down-scale wellbeing interventions that encourage employees to change, whilst up-scaling their efforts to change themselves.

For McKinsey, better solutions to the burnout problem come from answering questions like:

Do we treat employee wellbeing as a strategic priority?
Do we effectively address toxic behaviours?
Do we create inclusive work environments?

Clearly, these are complex questions with complex answers. But, for any organisation genuinely interested in sustainable performance, the questions need to be answered. Throwing more ‘positivity’ & wellbeing programs at employees won’t to cut the mustard. As I reviewed in my 2015 paper, employee participation in such programs has been chronically low for decades & there’s no reason to think that’s about to change.

After all, why should employees do the hard work of changing, if the companies they work for are not willing to do likewise?

Having said all that, let me now say this…

My argument about victim blaming is based on a skew that seems to exist about how to respond to burnout susceptibility. To my mind, organisations should do whatever they can to optimise their functioning & that extends well beyond financial performance. Naturally, the same onus exists for individuals, assuming they desire a healthy, prosperous life…which most people do.

I define success in life these days as a balance of accomplishments, or the ability to strive towards & reasonably attain a varied array of personal goals, rather than showing a preference to one or two (e.g., career, finances). Given my recent blog history, it should be no surprise that I consider physical health goals especially important. So, with this jump on the burnout bandwagon, my “something-a-little-different” was always going to emphasise physical health.

Physical activity & burnout

An interesting body of evidence is developing around the relationship between physical activity (PA) & burnout. From it, two things are worth calling out.

The first is that PA is well known to be an efficient way to recover from occupational stress. That’s why “be active” also shows up a lot in the burnout mitigation strategy lists I mentioned earlier. But PA does more than boost mood by fizzing extra dopamine, serotonin & norepinephrine through your neural circuitry. It’s a positive leisure-time experience that brings a raft of other benefits, such as enhancing:

Autonomy & control - as people can choose what they do
Mastery - via achievement in physical challenges
Psychological detachment - via mental separation from work
Relaxation - down-regulates the sympathetic nervous system

The second is rather more interesting & relates to the relationship that physical fitness, not mere PA, has with burnout.

Physical fitness & burnout

Whilst you’d expect someone who is physically active to also be physical fit, this cannot be assumed. A person’s fitness levels depend on a variety of things, such as the type of PA they do, along with its intensity, duration & frequency. Yet, it appears people who are more physically fit - when assessed using sub-maximal aerobic testing - show reduced burnout symptoms (e.g., emotional exhaustion, depersonalisation) compared to those who are less fit.

As such, people who commit themselves to PA in ways that enhance physical fitness may gain an additional buffer to burnout. Whilst the autonomy, mastery, detachment & relaxation of PA delivers psychological gains (see above), the addition of physiological gains, like better blood oxygenation & ATP production, increase the feeling of bodily energy & thus reduce fatigue.

The obvious implication of all this is that people benefit from moving more. This brings us back to the individual & what they can do.

But isn’t this just more victim blaming?

No, I don’t think it is. My objection at the start was based on an observation that the dominant response to occupational burnout is still to direct individuals to change, which focuses more on the appraisal & coping components of the stress model than it does on the stressors. Having made that point, & noting the emergence of systemic perspectives on burnout, I moved on.

My comments about PA & physical fitness were NOT for recommending them as specific antidotes to burnout. Yes, I linked both to burnout, but they confer a myriad of benefits on people & reduced susceptibility to burnout is but one. I believe PA is worth doing in & of itself, for its inherent enjoyment & satisfaction, & what it can add to a life (e.g., varied focus, challenge, social connections).

To wrap this up, whilst a dual responsibility exists in relation to employee wellbeing, it’s time for organisations to do more to reduce workplace stressors. As the McKinsey analysis confirms, that’s no small matter.

But it’s also time for them to be less prescriptive about what employee’s should do to help themselves, as this is akin to victim-blaming & can foster resentment. Given most people desire good health & find PA enjoyable, organisations would do well to keep developing flexible work practices & offer health support options that help employees decide for themselves how life might be configured to better accomodate healthy practices.

Maybe it’s time for the sneaky ‘mental health day’ (i.e., the “sickie”) to become a thing of the past, replaced by the fully-autonomous, organisationally-supported ‘physical health morning, afternoon, or day’. This could allow companies to endorse the importance of good health in more employee-centric ways, by giving employees the respect of choosing how they’d best like to spend that time.

Just a thought!

info@drgordonspence.com
(+61) 421 641649