Recommendation one: limit hours

Studies are relatively consistent that burnout is a response to work overload and chronic time pressure problems (Maslach et al., 2001). Clearly, some organizations believe they can save and/or make money if they can increase workload. Workers, on the other hand, asked to give more both in the way of time and energy, sooner or later discover that an enormous conflict exists between their private, human needs and the needs of the organization.

In 2006, Columbia University economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett conducted a study on the prevalence of “extreme jobs,” i.e., those in which individuals worked exceedingly long hours. Her summary of data collected on individuals working at a number of multi-national corporations revealed that

Not surprisingly, Hewlett discovered that half of the top group of executives she studied came home so tired that they were incapable of interaction or conversation with their families at the end of the day.

High-caliber professionals, regardless of age, gender, job sector, or continent, are working longer hours, according to Hewlett. But one does not need to work in the highest echelons of the business world to understand that the workplace is changing. Lower-ranking jobs not only demand more time, but are often more complex than they once were. Workers are also expected to fill multiple roles (i.e., multi-task) more often than they ever did.

The result is that it has become less and less possible to “turn off” the workday during personal time. Individuals headed for burnout not only work long hours, but often find themselves unable to stop thinking about work during their time away.

Pines and Aronson (1988) note that, although organizations are largely to blame, at least some of the fault may reside with the employee. They write,

These authors urge employees to be severe about keeping the spheres of work and home separate. This means that the employee should try to be fully at work while at work, and then fully at home while at home. The strict separation of these two areas, if it can be accomplished, is less likely to lead to burnout.

Most important, however, is this: employees need to understand that a backbreaking workload is unsustainable in the long run. This is why employees working long hours must attempt to exercise some control and to make a commitment to themselves to reduce those hours by some amount, even if only by 15 minutes a day or one hour a week. A commitment to reducing hours has a double effect: it makes workers more cognizant of the time they are committing to the job and it starts the process of beginning to slow down the pace over time. Cutting back or cutting down on hours worked is the first major step one must take to avoid burnout.

Recommendation two: learn to say no

Individuals headed for burnout are often idealistic, enthusiastic and reluctant to turn down any new work assignments. Taking on too much work, however, results not only in exhaustion but also in certain tasks being given less attention than they require simply because an employee has no more time to give. As a result, employees feel they are doing a job which is less than adequate and the sense of themselves as competent workers suffers.

Even though some workplaces don’t give employees much room to say no, there is often some wiggle room at the margins. For professionals, that might mean cutting back on volunteering for committees or doing less work outside the job with professional associations. Also, if there isn’t enough time in which to do a proper job, the employee needs to say so up front.

But how you say it is as important as why and when you say it. Vaccaro (1998) discusses several ways to say no, and emphasizes that being polite, firm and honest is key. The “pleasant no,” for example, is one in which you say pleasant things about the project and the person asking you to volunteer but then say no. She gives as an example the following: “[that project] sounds a lot more fun than what I’m going to be doing at that time, but I’m going to have to say ‘no.’ Thanks.”

Another option for Vaccaro (1998) is a “conditional no,” i.e., to offer to do a very small piece of the project while still saying no to the larger project. For example, an employee can explain that she can’t be at the meetings, but might be willing to do some research or look into some small matter which is part of the project, leaving the rest to others involved. With the conditional no, it is vital to set boundaries and make sure that people know what it is you will and will not do.

With the “sleep-on-it no,” Vaccaro suggests an employee can explain that she would like to think about it and will get back to the person making the request the next day. This avoids being put on the spot. It also gives the employee some chance to think about the pros and cons of saying no. As for the person who is asking you to do more work, it shows that even if you do say no, you have given it some serious thought.

The “alternative solution no,” according to Vaccaro, gives the person looking to download more work another place to look for help. For example, an employee might say, “I can’t do it, but I know Emily might not mind getting involved.” It’s good to know in advance, though, that Emily or whomever else you name won’t resent your recommendation.

Finally, Vaccaro’s “secret-weapon no” is simply to say no without explaining. The individual can simply say, “It’s not possible for me to do that at the moment” and resist any efforts to explain further. The secret weapon, of course, has to be used judiciously; like all secret weapons, it needs to be reserved for special occasions and is not meant for daily use.

Of course, as noted above, sometimes no is an answer that will not be tolerated in the workplace. In cases where no is not an option, another possibility is to negotiate. The negotiation can be for more time in which to do the work, some assistance from others in getting the project done, doing the project on a smaller scale, or changing the parameters of the project. Also, if by taking on the job the employee won’t have the time to do other important tasks, then the supervisor needs to know and to set the priorities. It is the supervisor who should decide which tasks can be left undone if the employee must say yes to this particular task.

Recommendation three: delegate

High achievers are unwilling to delegate, not only because they feel they can handle one more task, but also because they think they can do a better job than others even at the most mundane tasks. Management consultant Bonnie Elliot notes that employees who are unwilling to delegate don’t know how to separate the wheat from the chaff:

Nonetheless, Elliot also notes that, when questioned, overburdened employees often don’t delegate less important tasks which fill their day because these are the very tasks they find most enjoyable. The key, she notes, is for the non-delegator to determine which, among the less important tasks, are the most enjoyable, and to keep doing those. Once these are identified, there should be some attempt to delegate or cut down on other work which is less enjoyable and which is preventing workers from getting some of their more important tasks done.

Recommendation four: manage time wisely

Individuals headed for burnout often have difficulty managing their time and have trouble cutting down on distractions, particularly from electronic devices. What follows are suggestions from a variety of experts in the field for getting the most out of each working day, and for thinking seriously about how time should be managed during the course of one’s career.

Recommendation five: take vacations

The benefits of vacations on one’s physical and mental well-being are real and yet individuals are frequently reluctant to take them, often because of workload issues or because taking a vacation might be perceived negatively by the employer. A survey in the UK by the travel reservation website Expedia conducted in 2010 found that 20 percent of those surveyed do not take their annual leave because of work pressure (expedia.co.uk, 2010) and half of those who do take vacation feel compelled to check email and phone calls while on vacation (Expedia.com, 2011).

Americans are not much better. On average, workers in the US were allotted 14 vacation days a year but only used 12 (Expedia.com, 2011). At the end of 2011, approximately 57 percent of working Americans had not used up their allotted vacation. The most common reason given was that they had too much work (Censky, 2012).

Sixty-two percent of Canadian workers reported that they continued to check email and voicemail while on vacation (Expedia.ca, 2011). In addition, Canadian workers tend to leave one day of vacation on the table, taking an average of 15 of their 16 allotted vacation days. This leaves a total of 17 million unused vacation days overall in Canada (Expedia.ca, 2011). Thirty-eight per cent of Canadian workers have cancelled or postponed their vacation because of work commitments.

Not surprisingly, research has found that levels of stress drop significantly immediately after a return from a vacation (Etzion, 2003). People are more active on vacation, they tend to sleep better, and have the time to rejuvenate mentally. Lower levels of stress have been found in employees who took longer vacations compared to those employees who took shorter vacations; nonetheless, the ameliorative effect on burnout was found to exist whether vacations were short or long (Etzion, 2003). Rates of burnout dropped for approximately one month before rising again. As a result, several short breaks throughout the year (for example three one week vacations as opposed to one three week vacation) are thought to achieve the maximum, positive long-term effect in ameliorating stress (Etzion, 2003).

As important as the lowering of stress levels, time away from the office also gives an employee some distance. As mentioned earlier, employees often don’t notice or don’t understand the signs of burnout. Getting away from the workplace gives the employee the time and space necessary to analyze why he or she is feeling stressed. Having the time to mull it over might also lead to ideas on how better to cope with the situation.

Recommendation six: break the routine

Boredom is as stressful as too much work and some experts believe that, as workplaces are becoming more boring, workers are becoming less willing to tolerate boredom (Hoare, 2012). Studies have shown that even though the busiest employees are the happiest (Joyce, 2005), it is difficult for organizations to find a balance between the type of “busy” which is just right, versus work which is overwhelming or underwhelming. This shows in the statistics: 55 percent of all US employees do not feel engaged at work or psychologically connected to the organization (Joyce, 2005), and one in four British workers reports feeling chronically bored (“25 percent bored,” 2012).

Despite numbers which indicate a relatively wide scale boredom problem, organizations are generally unwilling to address it because of the signal it sends about the institution and the work itself. As a result, when the organization is unwilling to deal with boredom, it is up to an employee to find some way to shake up the routine at work. Even making small changes in the work day is important for both mental and physical well-being.

For example, incorporating new activities into the work day or carrying out old activities in different ways or at different times is a start. Employees who eat lunch at their desk each day while trying to work not only have no chance to unwind, but they risk the physical problems which result when eating while under stress. As Ashley Koff, RD, a Los Angeles dietitian, notes,

Another way of combating stress is having lunch away from the office, eating lunch outside or walking at lunch.

Experts also recommend identifying a hobby or a pastime which you feel passionate about and trying to engage in that activity over the lunch hour:

Along the same lines, organizing a lunch-hour activity among co-workers who are interested in a specific pursuit, or becoming involved in an activity already underway is another way to lessen stress.

Breaking up the daily routine by getting up at a different time, taking a different way to work or a different way home can also help. Reorganizing work space is yet one more way of inserting some change into the daily routine (Elson, 1979).

Finally, in order to break up the routine, Pines and Aronson (1988) suggest that individuals who work in cerebral, verbal jobs should look to incorporate more physical and non-verbal activities into their off-hours, and vice versa. For workers who sit at a computer each day, more walking, biking and spending time outdoors should be incorporated into time away from work. In contrast, workers who do physical work all day are better to read, listen to music, and find other ways of incorporating more cerebral hobbies during their time away from the job.

Recommendation seven: increase resilience

Shawn M. Talbott in The Secret of Vigor (2012) explains that eating wisely, taking dietary supplements, getting enough sleep, employing stress management techniques and exercising are necessary in order to increase resilience and combat stress and burnout. Talbott calls these “Vigor Improvement Practices” (VIPs) and emphasizes the importance of each of these in maintaining both mental and physical health. Talbott’s VIPs are discussed below.

a) Autonomy

Autonomy problems exist when workers have little or no control over how the job is to be done, or when their point of view seems not to be valued by management. Additional control issues include being micromanaged, having no scope for creativity, or dealing with weak leadership or ineffective teams. Issues also include having responsibility for a job over which one has little authority or decision-making power. As one burned out worker noted,

Lack of autonomy, studies tell us, is responsible for higher rates of burnout (Aiken et al., 2002; Verissimo et al., 2003; Keeton et al., 2007; Day et al., 2009). Not surprisingly, workers who are given greater autonomy and the ability to make choices about how the work is done have been shown to have better morale (Ward and Cowman, 2007), greater job satisfaction, more commitment to the organization, greater involvement in the job, better performance, fewer mental and physical problems, less absenteeism and less turnover (Spector, 1986).

The problem for most workers is how to gain more autonomy in an environment which offers little. Leiter and Maslach (2005) suggest identifying the type of control which is absent in the environment and then responding accordingly. For example, in an environment in which the employee is micromanaged, they suggest micromanaging back; i.e., shaping the flow of information that returns to the supervisor in order to better steer responses and outcomes. They also suggest testing the limits of control by starting small and determining whether acting with more authority at the edges of the job might lead to a loosening of oversight.

Another way to increase job autonomy is by building a record of exceptional performance on the job and earning the trust of management. This, of course, is something which can take some time to accomplish.

Volunteering to take more control is also an option. Workers who are aware that their supervisors are themselves overwhelmed on the job can suggest that some control be shifted their way. In this type of situation, offering to take on more responsibility might be a welcome suggestion to a supervisor struggling to tread water.

Finally, the way an employee might achieve more autonomy in the workplace is through external validation. Volunteering for professional associations, and receiving kudos through these associations, is useful in shifting the balance of power in the workplace as managers are often unable to ignore the opinions of their peers in other institutions (Leiter and Maslach, 2005).

b) Supervision

Weak or inefficient supervision is considered a control issue (Leiter and Maslach, 2005) and has also been associated with increased job dissatisfaction and higher levels of burnout (Hyrkas, 2005). Leiter and Maslach (2005) suggest ways to deal with weak or inefficient leadership by taking creative control, critical control or supportive control.

Creative control involves keeping the boss up to date on innovation, new ideas or new concepts and working with the boss to make both the monitoring and the implementation of new ideas part of the job. Supervisors may have little time to keep an eye on what is new in the field and offering to take on this role may serve to relieve some of the work burden of management and shift some control to the employee.

Critical control involves taking more interest in job performance and working with the supervisor to enhance quality in the workplace. This is a somewhat trickier role as employees who monitor the work or output of others quickly find themselves unpopular. Quality and performance are often best discussed in groups or teams where everyone has a voice and can offer suggestions. Employees interested in critical control might offer to lead or facilitate this type of group or team. Seeking to improve the quality of the work democratically is more likely to be acceptable to the group as a whole and to be less divisive in the workplace.

Finally, supportive control involves paying more attention to the supervisor and communicating more about frustrations and accomplishments in an attempt to model supportive behavior. The hope is that it will eventually be returned in kind (Leiter and Maslach, 2005). Supportive control is about being a shoulder to cry on or a safe person in whom to confide. The theory is that supervisors who find social support in their employees are more likely to return that support when the employees themselves are in need of assistance.

Clearly, how one responds to a lack of control depends on the specific problem encountered on the job. But these suggestions remind us that, even in a job which appears to have no room for autonomy whatsoever, there might be a small amount of room at the margins for ways to begin to improve the situation.

[t]he burned out individual is smoldering in place, riddled with stress and dissatisfaction and responding with an ever intensifying loss of energy and interest. The burned-up individual has progressed to such a degree of lethargy and immobilization that he or she is generally destined for a radical event, such as mental or physical illness, sudden resignation, or involuntary termination. (p. 69)

their organizations made the right noises about ensuring people didn’t burn out, but in practice tended to take a passive, reactive stance on work/life balance; they acted in a crisis or when asked to do so. Some mentioned that their employer had set up systems to try and prevent burnout but few would be willing to use them because of an endemic lack of trust in the organization’s motives. Indeed, in some organizations, there was a stigma attached to seeking support that was available. Overall, most felt that their organization saw burnout as a sign of weakness or failure. (Casserley and Megginson, 2009, p. 41)

Recommendation one: reduce excessive workload

The first of Leiter and Maslach’s (2005) six job domains – workload – is a problem when workload is excessive, when time pressures are too severe, when work is too complex or when workers feel they must be on call constantly. Managers must take steps to deal with these matters or face personnel problems such as illness, absenteeism, reduced output and turnover further down the road.

When, for instance, workload is expected to be busier than usual, but only temporarily, managers need to let employees know what has brought about this change, how long the increased amount of work is expected, and why additional staff are not being hired. They should explain their expectations but also ask employees if there are any scheduling problems or potential conflicts such as family or other commitments that might make it more difficult or impossible to meet an increased workload. An effort should be made to help such employees meet their commitments by tailoring the workload and the schedule if possible so that the disruption to the employee is kept at a minimum.

Managers also need to lead by example. Where employees are expected to take on an excessive load for a special project, for example, managers should be doing the same (Tunick, 2000). Employees are unlikely to go the extra mile if they suspect that the pain is not being shared by their supervisors.

Recommendation two: identify and reduce boredom

While an excessively demanding workload can lead to burnout, an undemanding workload can be equally as stressful and bad for the organization as a whole. Indeed, in certain circumstances, even employees with demanding workloads can find themselves as bored as those with not enough work to do (Hoare, 2012).

The problem with boredom in all its forms, however, is that workplaces are particularly unwilling to admit that their workers might be bored. Not to do so, however, is a problem. Bored employees harm their organizations in a number of ways: by picking on others, by deliberately failing at tasks or sabotaging work, by stealing, and horseplay. Bored employees also tend to be late or absent more often, or to take longer breaks (Hoare, 2012). They spend the day surfing the Internet, writing emails or taking care of personal business (Joyce, 2005). Studies have shown that workers who anticipate a day with a light workload are two and a half times more likely to call in sick (“Work boredom,” 2012). Accordingly, even though busy employees might be bored, they are less likely to be prone to absenteeism.

One way to combat boredom, experts suggest, is to create “a culture of ‘psychological safety’ in which ‘it’s okay to ask questions’” (Hoare, 2012). Allowing employees to talk about the doubts and worries they have, along with their feelings on boredom, boosts morale. Organizations which can learn to be less defensive about this type of honesty will see better results in the long run.

Supervisors may also have it within their power to organize work such that employees are given some relief. This involves allowing workers to change tasks periodically, to rotate through various duties, or to experiment with new ways of accomplishing the same tasks. Providing workshops and additional training sessions, not only geared to the work itself but also to mental and physical health, helps to alleviate the stress and to provide guidance on coping. Shorter work shifts, allowing personnel to take more breaks, or providing opportunities for lateral job swaps also offer some variety in the workplace.

Recommendation three: model desired behavior

Managers need to be aware they model behavior including work-life balance. Where managers work excessive numbers of hours and do not take time out for family or vacations, they signal to subordinates that this is expected behavior and, in turn, increase the levels of stress in the workplace.

A stressed-out manager may exhibit signs of irritability, impatience, frustration or irrational thinking. Employees are less likely to be creative or candid with such a manager, and are less likely to communicate openly (Kaufman, 2005).

In contrast, when managers model healthy behavior, they improve working conditions for both their employees and themselves. One example is scheduling a “walking meeting” where meetings take place while going for a walk around the block. Walking meetings are healthy in that everyone is getting some exercise and fresh air; changing how meetings are done may also stimulate creativity. Managers also need to remember to take breaks from time to time in order to let employees know that it’s okay to occasionally step away from their desks (Ray, 2012).

Recommendation four: don’t skip vacations

Because excessive workload is consistently linked to burnout, steps should be taken to ensure that employees are taking vacations. Employees who take vacations are more likely to be physically and mentally healthier and more productive than their non-vacationing counterparts, but the organization must take some responsibility to ensure that employees do not forgo vacation (Dixon and Wills, 2010).

Among the steps that organizations can take is drafting a vacation policy which mandates that employees use their vacation time. The same expectation must be set for managers. Employees and managers should also be given guidance on how to schedule vacation time (i.e., scheduling in advance, scheduling around the vacations of other workers, and indicating the optimal amount of time, from the organization’s perspective, to take for any vacation) (Dixon and Wills, 2010). At the same time, organizations should also be careful to give employees enough latitude in determining for themselves the dates and duration of their vacations so that they can work out scheduling around family and other personal commitments.

Recommendation five: consider sabbaticals

In 2012, one-quarter of the companies on Fortune’s 100 Best Companies to Work For offered paid sabbaticals, and many more offered unpaid leave (CNNMoney.com, 2012). More companies are now offering sabbaticals as a recruiting and retention tool and to ward off burnout. Sabbaticals are primarily associated with academia in order to foster professional accomplishment. Outside of academia, however, sabbaticals are often taken for the purpose of pursuing education (job-related or not), additional training, research or for personal or family reasons.

For employees who are burning out, a sabbatical might be the first big step towards recovery. Ironically, individuals who are at risk for burning out might be those most reluctant to relinquish control of their specific area of work. Getting time away is crucial in terms of establishing some perspective about the job. Sabbaticals alleviate stress; employees who take them talk about coming back feeling relaxed and rejuvenated (Gardner, 2007).

Organizations which offer sabbaticals see them as a means of attracting, retaining and rewarding employees. In addition, both the organization and the employee benefit when the employee returns revitalized and with renewed enthusiasm for the job.

Sabbaticals are not a universal panacea, however. For one thing, not everyone can take advantage of the opportunity – in cases where sabbaticals are unpaid, some employees may not be able to afford forgoing remuneration. Others might have family commitments which prevent them from travelling or taking advantage of various opportunities.

Also, while sabbaticals help heal employees at risk for burnout, employees returning from sabbatical will face a similar risk upon return if changes have not been made to alleviate key stressors in the workplace (Giancola, 2006). What makes the sabbatical so ideal in this situation, however, is that time away is likely to help the employee pinpoint the specific problem or source of stress, allowing the employee to try to address it with the organization and to make changes upon her return.

Job domain 2: control

The second of Leiter and Maslach’s (2005) six job domains – control – is one that is often difficult for organizations to share, and yet not sharing control with employees is one of the key ingredients of job strain. Job strain has been defined as “a measure of the balance between the psychological demands of a job and the amount of control or decision-making power it affords” (Wilkins and Beaudet, 1998, p. 47). Robert Karak’s job-strain model posits that workers most at risk physically and mentally from stress are those who have high job demands (such as workload or time pressures) and little say in how the work should be done.

Policies in the workplace generally give workers little scope to change their jobs even if those changes would allow for improvements. Instead, workers are closely monitored and work is expected to be carried out in a “narrow, cookie-cutter, one-size fits all-approach” (Maslach and Leiter, 1997, p. 12) which sends employees a message that “you can’t be trusted, we don’t respect your judgement, you aren’t very smart, you are incapable of doing this yourself” (Maslach and Leiter, 1997, p. 12).

One Statistics Canada survey found that older workers were four times more likely to retire early if they felt they had little or no job autonomy (Turcotte and Schellenberg, 2005). As a result, organizations intent on keeping valuable older employees must consider giving them more leeway to make decisions.

When workload is a problem, allowing employees some latitude in choosing how they will schedule additional hours, for example, is one way to provide more control. Another is to allow employees to have some say in what types of additional work they will take on. Workers who are given more control over their environment and the way in which they carry out the work are also more likely to report greater satisfaction with the job and to be able to mitigate the stress of demanding jobs.

Job domain 3: reward

The third of Leiter and Maslach’s (2005) six job domains – reward – is also a thorny issue for management. Organizations have typically used money as a reward for performance either in the way of salary or bonuses. Nonetheless, reward programs are approached, like issues of control above, in a “narrow, cookie-cutter, one-size fits all-approach” (Maslach and Leiter, 1997, p. 12).

They are narrow and mechanical in that they overlook equally important ways to reward employees. For example, in an age of lay-offs and downsizing, job security is increasingly seen as a material reward. For some employees, career advancement, greater responsibility (accompanied by the requisite support) and/or control over how the job is done are also seen as rewards. In other cases, a reward might involve adjusting an employee’s schedule in order to accommodate continuing education or training. Some kind of brief downtime (i.e., time away from the most hectic part of the job), or time away from the job itself may also be desirable.

Research over the years has shown that employees of all ages value non-monetary types of reward as much as money. Hewlett et al. (2009), for example, found similarities among the most junior and most senior employees regarding the rewards considered as important as money. “Gen Y” workers (those born between 1980 and 1994) were looking for such rewards in the following order:

Along similar lines, “Baby Boomers” (those born between 1945 and 1960) were looking for these rewards in the following order:

The good news for organizations, then, is that it’s not all about the money. Satisfying an employee’s compensation needs is, indeed, just one way of keeping an employee happy. For there to be a ‘fit’ in the organization with regards to reward, however, organizations must also keep in mind other employee aspirations which are often as important as salary itself.

Job domain 4: community

Number four of Leiter and Maslach’s (2005) six job domains – community – becomes a problem for employers when employees are unable to find positive social contacts and shared values. Research has shown that employees who have high-quality relationships or positive connections with co-workers are more likely to value and enjoy the workplace, and less likely to burn out over time (Fernet et al., 2010). High-quality relationships are defined as those which are “enriching, harmonious, satisfying, and that inspire trust” (Fernet et al., 2010; Senécal et al., 1992). Relationships of this sort act as a buffer for stress; in contrast, conflict with co-workers or feelings of isolation on the job are more likely to result in burnout. The increasing trend towards contract and short-term workers in workplaces creates a problem for building and sustaining community since full-t imers see little point in cultivating relationships with people who may only be working temporarily.

A study by career consultancy firm Sanders and Sidney reported that the majority of a worker’s friends are now made on the job. Friends are also a huge source of job satisfaction; like pay and benefits, they help to keep employees from moving to other jobs. According to the study, 80 percent of employers realize they should be working to create a positive atmosphere at work; however, most don’t understand that doing so is better for business (Hilpern, 2000; Collins, 2000) and good for the bottom line.

For organizations to benefit from cohesive employee relationships, they need to understand something about what it is that promotes or undermines community amongst employees. Some workplaces, for example,

Employers need to do what they can to bring down these invisible walls. To begin, they can encourage a sense of community by sponsoring more social activities, allowing for a relaxed dress code and designing work and social areas in such a way that they encourage positive interaction.

Employees must play a part in designing these social activities so that it isn’t seen as something imposed top-down which they must endure to keep management happy. By allowing employees to set aside a small amount of time each week to come together and do some activity that interests them, employers increase the possibility of making productive friendships in the workplace, and productive friendships lead to a better atmosphere, greater retention of valuable employees, and increased motivation.

Nevertheless, building a better community in the workplace involves more than just workplace friends, it also requires supportive managers. Research has shown that in workplaces lacking supportive managers, employees are more likely to have higher emotional exhaustion (Edwards et al., 2001; Hannigan et al., 2000) and more likely to have negative attitudes towards the individuals whom they serve (Hannigan et al., 2000). Where managers are given training in providing additional support to their subordinates, however, those subordinates not only had greater job satisfaction but also fared better both physically and psychologically (Deci et al., 1989). Employees who are treated with respect and made to feel valued in the workplace have less difficulty handling heavy work demands than their less respected co-workers (Galt, 2006). They are also less likely to want to quit; researchers have discovered that when employees see their supervisors as supportive, they are less likely to pack in the job (Leung and Lee, 2006).

Job domain 5: fairness

Fairness, the fifth of Leiter and Maslach’s (2005) six job domains, is a broad concept which covers various types of inequity in the workplace including the amount of work, remuneration for work, performance evaluations, and promotions. Fairness issues also include favoritism, discrimination, lying, cheating, and the way in which complaints or grievances are dealt with by the organization.

Fairness is hardwired into our systems, and treatment which is unfair touches a very old and primal part of our being. Research has shown that the amygdala, an ancient primitive part of the brain which controls feelings of anger and fear, also reacts strongly and automatically to issues of fairness. Specifically, researchers have found that humans react both instantly and aggressively when others are perceived to be acting unfairly. Individuals who perceive themselves as being treated unfairly will respond by making decisions that hurt the person acting unfairly even if it also means hurting themselves. For example, in studies involving how to split a certain sum of money, where the person in charge takes 80 percent for himself and leaves 20 percent for the other individual, that other individual will often refuse to take his 20 percent share even though it is not in his best interests to come away with nothing (ScienceDaily, 2011).

As a result, employers who act in ways which are perceived as unfair are likely to create a work environment in which employees not only act irrationally but are often openly hostile even if it means they are also hurting themselves by responding this way. To counteract this, for example, promotions should be handled fairly, and employees should have some understanding not only as to why one individual was promoted but why others weren’t. The reasons behind decisions regarding distribution of work, pay and other resources should also be communicated openly, and the opportunity provided for frequent and constructive feedback to employees.

Workers who feel they are being passed over for promotion or other rewards should not be ignored. Instead, supervisors should consider having them attend certain courses in skills and professional development or provide them with some other form of mentoring. Procedures should also be put in place to ensure that the same “high flyer” employees are not feted over and over again but that other employees have a chance to be recognized and to shine as well.

In addition to procedures to deal with the meting out of rewards, all organizations should have policies in place to handle harassment, bullying and other forms of abusive behavior which can also lead to inequitable treatment. Abusive behavior, discrimination and favoritism can have implications for employee behavior and morale that can reverberate throughout the organization and beyond.

These behaviors on the part of management can also lead to trouble with the law. Most jurisdictions in the industrialized world prohibit abusive behavior or bullying on the job. These laws also prohibit discriminatory behavior and various government agencies, boards and judicial and quasi-judicial bodies exist to deal with complaints involving discrimination. Organizations which are unable to handle these problems internally sometimes find themselves exposed publically and dealing with the negative publicity that accompanies it. Through education and training, management must understand what kind of behaviour is unacceptable in the workplace and employees must be provided with information regarding what they can do if they are the target of this kind of behavior. Similarly, both employees and supervisors must be given training in cultural diversity in order to avoid unpleasant incidents which lead to trouble with the law.

Having clear procedures in place in an organization is crucial as is open communication. Some employers, for example, have also experimented with weekly group sessions in which employees were encouraged to discuss any perceived inequities in the workplace (van Dierendonck et al., 1998). When these employees were later compared with a control group, the weekly group participants reported a significant decrease in emotional exhaustion which could lead to burnout, and an increase in perceived equity within the organization.

Job domain 6: values

Finally, the sixth of Leiter and Maslach’s (2005) six job domains – values – is also problematic even though at first glance this would not appear to be the case. Indeed, organizations like listing their values in their public documents and/or on their websites; doing so allows them to post heartwarming and inspirational statements about their goals and vision. Real values, however, have little to do with heartwarming words on promotional materials, and more about beliefs and opinions on what matters in the workplace. In order to know what an organization really values, one has only to look at the behavior which it rewards and punishes. This translates into a problem with fit when employees experience conflict between their individual or professional values and those of the organization, or between what is expected of them in the job and what they feel is the right thing to do.

For example, organizations which claim to value integrity and yet reward dishonesty, or which claim to value input and open communication and then develop plans in secret are sending a specific message to employees. Similarly, organizations which assert they care about work-life balance and then only reward employees who work long hours, or those which claim to have the client foremost in mind and then make decisions which hinder the delivery of frontline service are letting employees know what they really value. Management sows the seeds for discontent and burnout when it claims a commitment to quality, service and excellence, then undermines it in these and other ways.

Some experts suggest that organizations may occasionally want to conduct a “values inventory” or assessment in order to uncover any discrepancies between perceived and actual values (Benedictine University, 2012). Understandably, management and employees are likely to view a values inventory or survey as unimportant or as some “hoop jumping” exercise. Nonetheless, both organizations and employees can benefit not only when values are re-assessed honestly from time to time but also when they are reinforced. So, for example, if work–life balance is truly important (and not just something to which the organization pays lip service), then it is vital that supervisors talk to employees who are in the office day and night about going home at a decent hour. When management and employees take the time to define values and then to reinforce them with consistent behavior, employees are less likely to experience the stress that mixed messages send and less likely to have it affect their work performance. Also, organizations are less likely to have to address problematic behavior when values are clearly understood and reinforced in the workplace.