Despite greater attention in the media and efforts within organizations, burnout continues to be on the rise. According to Rachel Shaw, the issue is rooted much deeper than the individuals feeling it.
“The reality is that organizations often get the workforce they design,” says Rachel Shaw, president at Rachel Shaw HR Consulting based in Newbury Park, California. “If flexibility exists on paper but not in practice, if recognition is symbolic rather than meaningful or if accountability only flows downward, employees eventually disengage.”
In conversation with StrategicCHRO360, she details how HR teams can reduce chances of employee burnout, and foster a healthier workplace culture in general.
Why is employee burnout on the rise, and how can organizations address it?
Employee burnout is rising because many organizations are operating with systems that quietly extract more than they sustain. When employees experience stagnant pay, rigid schedules, unclear priorities or one-sided expectations around commitment, burnout becomes a predictable outcome—not a personal failure.
The reality is that organizations often get the workforce they design. If flexibility exists on paper but not in practice, if recognition is symbolic rather than meaningful or if accountability only flows downward, employees eventually disengage. Burnout isn’t a grit problem—it’s a systems problem.
Addressing burnout requires leaders to examine the conditions they’ve created. Are workloads realistic? Are roles clearly defined? Do managers have the authority to offer flexibility when it won’t disrupt operations and are they consistent in offering it? Are leaders modeling the behaviors they expect from others?
Small structural changes, such as aligning flexibility policies across leadership levels, reducing unnecessary decision bottlenecks and normalizing the use of leave can significantly reduce burnout.
When leaders take responsibility for the systems they oversee, they don’t just reduce burnout. They build trust, resilience and a workforce that is far more likely to stay and perform at a high level.
What early warning signs should executives watch for that indicate people systems are breaking down
Executives should pay close attention to patterns rather than isolated incidents. Rising short-term absences, repeated accommodation escalations, inconsistent manager decisions or increased employee relations issues often signal systemic problems, not individual ones.
Another warning sign is when HR teams become primarily reactive, spending most of their time managing crises instead of designing solutions. That usually means systems are underdeveloped or misaligned. Leaders who monitor these signals early can intervene before disengagement, burnout or litigation becomes the dominant outcome.
What should executives understand about flexibility and performance that is often misunderstood?
One of the biggest misconceptions executives have is that flexibility weakens performance. In reality, rigid systems are often what suppress it. Performance should be measured by outcomes, not by strict adherence to legacy processes around when, where or how work has historically been done.
When organizations allow thoughtful flexibility—whether through scheduling autonomy, workload design or adaptive technology—employees are better able to manage their energy, health and focus. The result is often higher productivity, fewer unplanned absences and stronger retention. Flexibility isn’t a concession; it’s a performance strategy when implemented with clear expectations and accountability.
How can leaders distinguish between thoughtful flexibility and loss of operational control?
Flexibility fails when it’s informal, inconsistent or poorly governed. It succeeds when it’s structured. Leaders don’t lose control by allowing flexibility; they lose control when decisions are made ad hoc or without clear parameters.
The most effective organizations define guardrails: performance standards remain clear, coverage requirements are non-negotiable and managers are trained to apply flexibility consistently. This approach gives leaders visibility and predictability while still allowing employees to work in ways that support their effectiveness. Flexibility without structure creates chaos. Flexibility with structure creates stability.
What are the most common mistakes companies make when navigating ADA compliance, particularly regarding invisible disabilities?
One of the most common mistakes organizations make is underestimating the complexity of invisible disabilities, particularly mental health conditions and neurodivergence such as ADHD and autism. Because these disabilities aren’t always visible, employers often feel uncertain about how to respond, what documentation is appropriate or how to evaluate requests consistently.
That uncertainty has grown as employees more openly discuss mental health and neurodivergence—including on social media—which has created confusion about what qualifies as a disability under the ADA and what employers can legally ask for. Without clear guidance, organizations tend to swing to extremes: either dismissing legitimate accommodation requests or providing accommodations without sufficient clarity or documentation. Both approaches increase legal and operational risk.
Another common mistake is treating ADA compliance as a checkbox exercise. When organizations focus only on meeting minimum legal requirements, they miss the opportunity to build consistent, defensible systems that support both employees and the business.
Effective ADA compliance requires education, structure and confidence. When HR teams and leaders understand the law and its intent, they are better equipped to ask appropriate questions, make consistent decisions and engage in good-faith problem solving. That proactive approach reduces disputes, protects employee privacy and creates workplaces where people can succeed long term.
How can AI tools and outsourced HR models, when not implemented with a human-centered strategy, negatively impact organizations despite their intended benefits?
AI tools and outsourced HR models are often adopted to improve efficiency, manage risk and reduce costs—but when they’re implemented without a human-centered strategy, they can create significant downstream problems. Organizations frequently see increased disengagement, higher turnover and even greater litigation exposure.
The issue isn’t AI or outsourcing themselves. It’s over-reliance. When organizations shift critical judgment calls entirely to vendors or algorithms, they lose institutional knowledge, consistency and trust. HR teams can also become thinner, less empowered and more reactive.
This is especially risky in areas like disability accommodations, leave management and employee relations, where nuance, context and empathy matter. These are not areas where one-size-fits-all solutions work well.
The most effective organizations strike a balance: They use AI and vendors to support efficiency, while maintaining strong internal expertise to guide decisions, oversee processes and preserve accountability. Technology should augment human judgment—not replace it.
