Employers must take a wider view to see the full picture of burnout

Staff burnout is a mix of resourcing, unreasonable expectations, overwork and sustained stress, says Allison Howell of Hogan Assessments

Allison Howell, CEO of Hogan Assessments, a specialist in workplace personality assessment and leadership development.

Employers need consider issues factors ranging from resourcing, unreasonable expectations, overwork and sustained stress when assessing reasons for any rise in staff burnout.

That is the advice to employers from Hogan Assessments, a specialist in workplace personality assessment and leadership development. The firm’s research assesses burnout in the context of AI-driven uncertainty, ongoing change fatigue, leaner team structures, and the lingering effects of the Covid pandemic.

Allison Howell, CEO of Hogan Assessments, has spent more than a decade at Hogan, working across global strategy, market research and product development.

In this Q&A interview, Allison Howell offers advice for employers as they focus on employee engagement, workplace behaviour and the challenges that employers face in their efforts to prevent and manage the risk of burnout in the workplace.

Are employers seeing a rise in burnout among workers due to AI-driven concerns about their job security?

There is evidence of concern about AI at work, but we should be careful about drawing a direct line between fears about job security and an increase in burnout. The sources discussed in Hogan’s published work identify anxiety around AI; they do not establish that this anxiety is specifically causing burnout to rise.

Back in August, with temperatures climbing across Europe, we published advice which placed AI-driven uncertainty alongside other pressures, including ongoing change, leaner teams and employee exhaustion. These pressures need to be understood together.

Hogan’s work on burnout highlights what happens when organisational demands exceed the resources available to employees, creating unreasonable expectations, overwork and sustained stress.

For employers, the priority is to examine how change is being managed. Introducing technology needs to be accompanied by investment in the people expected to use it. Employees need opportunities to develop relevant skills and an environment where they can ask questions and learn without fear.

Human judgement remains essential to deciding how AI is used and checking whether it is doing what organisations intend. Employers should therefore invest in human expertise longside the technology. Supporting people through the transition is a more constructive response than expecting them simply to absorb another layer of uncertainty.

What advice do you have for employers as surveys suggest that both manager and employee engagement are declining globally?

Employers should be willing to examine the factors that are contributing to the decline in engagement. If engagement is dropping at multiple levels in the organization, that points to a systemic issue rather than an individual one. Our research suggests that one of the biggest sources of stress in the workplace comes from a person’s direct manager.

The truth is that not everyone is suited to be a manager – nor does everyone want to manage people. Organisations should consider how managers are selected, what is expected of them and whether they receive the support necessary to succeed. Strong individual performance does not automatically translate into effective people management.

Selecting someone for a management role should involve understanding whether their characteristics fit the demands of leadership. But selection is only the beginning. Managers also need clear expectations, relevant training, coaching and organizational policies that support their wellbeing. Hogan’s published work on manager engagement highlights that investing in manager development can improve engagement and performance among both managers and their teams.

Employers should also pay attention to what employees actually want from their leaders. Our Global Leadership Effectiveness Study compared responses from 9,794 employees across 25 markets with personality data from more than 21,000 executives. Employees prioritized communication, integrity, accountability, sound decision-making and effective leadership. There was no overlap between those priorities and the five competencies most strongly demonstrated by executives in the comparison.

That finding should encourage employers to reconsider what they reward. Leadership effectiveness needs to be judged by whether someone creates the conditions for their team to succeed.

Supporting managers and strengthening their relationships with employees should be central to any effort to improve engagement.

Are there benefits for work teams in open communications around subjects like stress and workplace wellbeing?

Yes, when those conversations take place in an environment of trust and respect. Psychological safety allows people to ask questions, raise concerns and discuss difficulties without fearing embarrassment or punishment. Hogan’s work on psychological safety describes how this supports learning, information-sharing and constructive discussion within teams.

Leaders have a significant influence on whether that environment exists. When they acknowledge challenging situations and talk openly about emotions, they create space for colleagues to share their own struggles. Active listening, seeking feedback, taking responsibility and treating people respectfully all help establish those expectations.

The response to a concern matters as much as the invitation to speak. Leaders who replace blame with curiosity encourage people to discuss problems and contribute to finding solutions. That openness can also make it easier for teams to ask questions, report mistakes and share ideas.

Conversations about stress have another practical benefit: they can help people understand how their reactions are experienced by others. We may see ourselves differently from the way colleagues experience us under pressure. Honest feedback from trusted people can reveal those blind spots.

The aim is to build a team environment in which difficulties can be discussed respectfully and people can learn from one another.

Are there techniques that people can learn to moderate their behaviour and improve their emotional expression?

Yes. People can improve their emotional competence through sustained, systematic effort, beginning with accurate feedback. At Hogan, we emphasize strategic self-awareness: understanding your strengths, recognizing how others experience your behaviour, and learning how to adapt it to become more effective.

A useful starting point is to identify the situations in which you become frustrated or upset. For someone with a more excitable personality, everyday passion and enthusiasm can become disappointment or emotional volatility under pressure. Recognizing the triggers and early signs of derailment can help them pause before reacting.

Back in August, we highlighted the value of creating distance from a frustrating situation to avoid communicating unintended messages to colleagues. Hogan’s guidance also suggests taking a short break or going for a walk when you notice your reaction escalating.

Feedback is important because we do not always recognize these patterns ourselves. A 360-degree assessment, or an honest conversation with trusted colleagues, can help identify the gap between how we see ourselves and how others experience us.

With that understanding, people can practice managing their responses more deliberately. The goal is to communicate emotions in ways that support effective relationships and to recognize when pressure is making that harder.