Fascinating as always! On the burnout statistics, it's helpful to add that these numbers are for self-reported burnout. The WHO definition has 3 dimensions and most indexes have at least 10 items to establish whether people are truly experiencing burnout. Some experts (including Wilmar Schaufeli) contend that these numbers tend to be excessively high too, with the true rate of genuine burnout closer to 5%. I'm not saying it isn't dire – it absolutely is – just that when we use the term burnout we need to be careful in not overstating its prevalence, as this dilutes the term and undermines efforts to eradicate it.
Great insights and data! There's a prevalance of self-reported. To me what's more interesting than the sheer level is the shift - comparing populations and trends. WDYT?
Thanks Brian. I think there's always a danger with self-reporting, especially with a term as ubiquitous and frequently misunderstood as burnout. But yes, the differences in populations is so interesting – there's always a fascinating story (or stories) behind it.
Really great conversation. Loved “bike shedding” as an analogy. We clearly read a lot of the same research and wrestle with similar issues!
One of the challenges I’ve written about before as well is your description of people needing to know what “good work” looks like — too often even goals and priorities aren’t clear leading to wasted energy and effort, and negative work.
Not to mention a tax on engagement of people who are trying to do good work…
The whole thread of "AI means we can go back to Taylorism" is depressing. It's of a piece with "yank and rank" / remove the bottom 5% trend. Tech CEOs in particular follow each other around, instead of reading even a bit of history or research that would explain why both are bad for their business, not just their employees.
Fascinating as always! On the burnout statistics, it's helpful to add that these numbers are for self-reported burnout. The WHO definition has 3 dimensions and most indexes have at least 10 items to establish whether people are truly experiencing burnout. Some experts (including Wilmar Schaufeli) contend that these numbers tend to be excessively high too, with the true rate of genuine burnout closer to 5%. I'm not saying it isn't dire – it absolutely is – just that when we use the term burnout we need to be careful in not overstating its prevalence, as this dilutes the term and undermines efforts to eradicate it.
Great insights and data! There's a prevalance of self-reported. To me what's more interesting than the sheer level is the shift - comparing populations and trends. WDYT?
Thanks Brian. I think there's always a danger with self-reporting, especially with a term as ubiquitous and frequently misunderstood as burnout. But yes, the differences in populations is so interesting – there's always a fascinating story (or stories) behind it.
Amy and I talk about this on our podcast this week too. Important topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE_9vomxHtI
Thanks Meg — I’ll check yours out. Glad it resonated.
Really great conversation. Loved “bike shedding” as an analogy. We clearly read a lot of the same research and wrestle with similar issues!
One of the challenges I’ve written about before as well is your description of people needing to know what “good work” looks like — too often even goals and priorities aren’t clear leading to wasted energy and effort, and negative work.
Not to mention a tax on engagement of people who are trying to do good work…
What a depressing read. similar to various posts on Linkedin.
The richest, most successful companies in history treating their employees like dirt.
Really not good.
Antony
The whole thread of "AI means we can go back to Taylorism" is depressing. It's of a piece with "yank and rank" / remove the bottom 5% trend. Tech CEOs in particular follow each other around, instead of reading even a bit of history or research that would explain why both are bad for their business, not just their employees.