Some workdays disappear as soon as we close the door behind us. Others stay with us for hours.

We sit at the table, but our thoughts are still with that one conversation. In the middle of the night, we wake because a decision comes to mind again. A colleague’s remark stays with us longer than we would like. Not because the work was exceptionally demanding, but because something has continued to occupy our thoughts.

How much effort a workday requires of us does not tell us everything about the effect that day has on us. On other days, we work hard, put in more hours than planned, and still feel a deep sense of satisfaction. We are tired, but not depleted. The effort has cost us energy, but it has also given us something in return.

We recognize the difference. Work can ask a great deal of us and still leave us feeling fulfilled, while another day can leave us drained without our being able to say exactly why. Apparently, it is not only about how much we do, but also about what we experience in our work: whether we are able to make a meaningful contribution, do good work, and feel that our efforts matter.

Why does the same work energize us one day and leave us exhausted the next?

That question cannot be answered simply by looking at the amount of work. Work inevitably requires effort. A surgeon performing a complex operation, a teacher guiding a difficult class, or a landscape gardener working outdoors all day knows that good work is rarely effortless. Challenges allow us to learn, develop our skills, and experience satisfaction.

The question, then, is not whether work costs energy. The real question is whether that energy can also be replenished.

Just as muscles grow stronger when exertion and recovery alternate, the same is true of our attention, emotions, and our ability to work together. Exertion and recovery are not opposites, but part of the same process. Without exertion, there is little development. Without recovery, we become exhausted.

Most of the time, this alternation happens naturally. After an intense day at work, a walk, a conversation, or a quiet evening helps restore our balance. Our bodies and minds have the capacity to adapt to what life asks of us.

That capacity, however, has its limits.

When the demands placed on us remain greater than our opportunities to recover for an extended period, our experience of work begins to change. Not because the work suddenly becomes more demanding, but because the energy available to us decreases. The same tasks require more effort, concentration declines, small setbacks affect us more deeply, and recovery takes longer than it used to. Many people only notice this change in hindsight. While it is happening, it may simply seem as though they are going through a busy period.

This gradual process is what makes overload so difficult to recognize. We work a little harder, skip a break, or tell ourselves that things will probably be quieter next week. Often, this works for a while. Until the same strategies begin to yield less and cost more energy.

For decades, researchers have been trying to understand why this happens. Why does a period of high workload leave one employee temporarily tired, while another becomes increasingly exhausted under similar circumstances?

The answer appears to lie neither solely in the individual nor solely in the work. It emerges from the interaction between the two.

This insight lies at the heart of the Job Demands-Resources model, usually abbreviated as the JD-R model (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007). The idea behind it is simple. Every occupation places demands on people and, at the same time, provides resources. Healthy working does not arise from the absence of demands, but from having sufficient resources to deal with them.

Research consistently points to the same resources. People appear better able to cope with the demands of their work when they have a sense of control over their work, feel connected to others, experience psychological safety, and have sufficient opportunities to recover (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).

Influence over your own work

Almost everyone wants to have some influence over their work. Responsibility only becomes meaningful when there is room to make your own judgments. A nurse who knows what a patient needs, a teacher who senses that a student is not yet ready to move on, a manager who decides to have a difficult conversation tomorrow rather than today: these are small decisions, often barely visible to others. This is where professional skill takes shape. Good work rarely comes from simply doing what has been prescribed. It emerges in the space between the rules, where experience, judgment and attention come together.

No organization can function without agreements and rules. An operating theater has fixed protocols, a pilot follows safety procedures and an accountant works within legal frameworks. Such rules make cooperation possible and protect people from arbitrary decisions. But however carefully rules are drawn up, they can never account for every situation. Every working day brings circumstances that call for judgment, nuance and improvisation. Which task takes priority when everything demands attention at once? When is it wise to stay a little longer with a client, even though the schedule is slipping? When do you address a colleague immediately, and when do you wait for a quieter moment? These are not exceptions to the work. This is what professional practice looks like.

We do not only want to carry out tasks, but also to feel that our judgment matters. That we contribute something that cannot be captured in a protocol. Someone who experiences that freedom will often experience a high workload differently from someone who feels they are merely carrying out what others have decided.

As early as the 1970s, the American sociologist Robert Karasek showed that the strain people experience is determined not only by the amount of work, but also by the degree of influence they have over how they carry out that work (Karasek, 1979). High job demands are easier to manage when people have sufficient control over how they do their work (Karasek & Theorell, 1990). The work does not become easier, but it does allow people to put their knowledge, experience and professional expertise to use.

Mandy has worked as a community nurse for years and knows her clients well. She knows who needs a conversation and for whom a few words are enough. In recent years, however, she has noticed that her working days are increasingly governed by record-keeping, time standards and productivity targets. A fixed number of minutes is allocated to each home visit. When a conversation takes more time because someone has just received bad news, she knows she will have to make up the time later in the day. No one forbids her from staying longer. Yet she increasingly feels that she has to choose between the schedule and the care she believes her clients deserve.

At the end of the day, she is not only tired from the amount of work. Something else weighs on her. Gradually, she begins to feel that she can no longer be the kind of nurse she wants to be. It is not the amount of work alone that exhausts her, but the distance that is growing between her professional convictions and the reality of her daily work.

Here, influence touches on something deeper than autonomy. It touches on the ability to remain true to one’s profession and to the values that once led someone to choose that work.

An organization can give people a great deal of freedom and still leave them little room to exercise professional judgment. Conversely, a working environment with clear rules can offer considerable professional autonomy. The difference rarely lies in the number of rules, but in whether people feel that their knowledge and experience matter. Someone who constantly has to justify why they deviate from the standard will do so less often. The problem is not so much that they no longer see better solutions. Rather, they may experience less room to act on them.

No one decides on a Monday morning to take less initiative. It happens gradually. A suggestion that is dismissed a few times is not made again. A critical question goes unasked because the outcome already seems to have been decided. A professional who has trusted their own judgment for years notices that they increasingly think first: Am I actually allowed to do this? Where professional skill once began with curiosity, that curiosity gives way to caution.

That loss is difficult to measure. It does not appear in an annual report and rarely shows up in an employee satisfaction survey. Yet something fundamental changes. Work becomes poorer when people are no longer invited to use their professional judgment. Not only does the quality of the work suffer, but so does the engagement of those who do it.

Influence is never solely an individual experience. It arises between people.

A manager who asks an employee, ‘How would you approach this?’ does more than ask a question. They show that the other person’s judgment matters. A team in which colleagues can allow different views to coexist without immediately working toward a single solution creates more room for learning together. And an organization that sees mistakes not only as deviations from the norm, but also as a source of information, invites people to take responsibility rather than avoid it.

That requires trust. Not the naïve belief that everyone will always make the best decision, but trust that professionals are capable of making careful judgments within the boundaries of their profession. Trust, then, is not a reward for good behavior; it is one of the conditions under which valuable work can emerge.

Anyone who has worked in an environment where that sense of trust was palpable knows the difference. Decisions are not always made more quickly, and mistakes still happen. Yet the work often takes less out of people. Not because the demands are lower, but because they do not have to keep wondering whether their professional judgment is welcome.

This also makes clear that having influence over one’s work is about more than having the freedom to make decisions independently. It also means being able to do one’s work in a way that aligns with the values and principles of one’s profession. When that freedom is limited, another form of strain can arise: moral distress.

Almost every professional encounters moments when two realities collide. A notary wants to give a client the time and attention they need but finds that a packed schedule leaves little room for the conversation that is called for. A park ranger wants to protect a natural area while recreation and other interests compete for space. A police officer wants to handle a situation differently but is bound by procedures.

In situations like these, the problem is rarely a lack of knowledge or motivation. The tension arises precisely because people want to act in accordance with their professional values but find that circumstances make it difficult to do so.

Moral distress arises when someone knows what good professional practice calls for in a particular situation but feels unable to act accordingly because of organizational, social, or other external constraints. It is therefore not simply a matter of a heavy workload, but of the tension between professional values and the realities of everyday work (Epstein & Hamric, 2009; Fourie, 2015).

That tension often remains invisible. From the outside, it may look as though someone is simply doing their job. On the inside, there is a nagging sense of falling short. This is what makes moral distress fundamentally different from ordinary work pressure. Work pressure drains our energy. Moral distress touches our integrity.

Samantha is a nurse on a busy hospital unit. During an evening shift, she notices that an older patient is anxious and needs reassurance. She sees it, senses it, and knows from experience how much those few minutes can matter. But just then, her pager goes off for another patient, and several administrative tasks are still waiting. She puts a hand on the man’s shoulder and tells him she will come back later. By the time her shift ends, she has not been able to.

On her way home, it is not the busyness of the shift that stays with her, but that one patient. She wonders whether she let him down. She knows there was little more she could have done at the time. Still, she feels that she was unable to be the nurse she wanted to be.

When experiences like these occur only occasionally, people can often find a way to come to terms with them. But when the gap between professional values and what is possible in everyday practice continues to widen, moral distress can accumulate. People may become discouraged, lose enjoyment in their work, or withdraw. Some work even harder in the hope that they can still make a difference. Others protect themselves by becoming less involved. Both responses are understandable, but neither resolves the underlying tension.

Work becomes meaningful when people feel able to act in accordance with their values. When that possibility is constrained for a prolonged period, it is not only their energy that suffers, but also their sense of engagement and professional identity.

Moral distress therefore touches on a question that runs throughout this book: not only what people do at work, but whether they are able to do what truly matters to them.

Moral distress is not simply an individual experience. It arises in the interplay between people, their professional values, and the environment in which they work. How colleagues, leaders, and teams respond to dilemmas helps determine whether people feel supported or left to face them alone.

Connection

No one works alone.

Even professions we tend to think of as independent turn out to depend on others. A surgeon relies on the team in the operating theater. An entrepreneur relies on customers, suppliers and employees. Behind almost every individual achievement lies a network of relationships that makes the work possible.

Anyone who has ever been part of a team in which colleagues complemented one another without needing many words knows how valuable working together can feel. Little needs to be explained. People notice where help is needed, take over tasks from one another and speak up without every comment being experienced as criticism. Working together costs energy, but it also gives a great deal in return.

The opposite can be felt just as quickly. Every meeting turns into a series of carefully chosen words. People keep information to themselves because they do not know what will happen to it. Small irritations remain unspoken and gradually grow into mistrust. Colleagues may still work together, but the sense of collaboration begins to fade. No one openly argues, but neither does anyone dare to truly speak their mind.

In such environments, we are reminded just how social we are and how much our relationships with others matter. We do not come to work simply to carry out tasks. We also seek recognition, cooperation and a sense of belonging. That desire is not a luxury or a personality trait, but is woven into the way human beings develop. From our earliest years, we learn to understand ourselves in relation to others. That reciprocity continues at work. We understand who we are partly through the way others respond to us.

This helps explain why a single remark can sometimes stay with us longer than an overloaded schedule. A manager who casually says that a presentation was ‘quite good’. A colleague who visibly disengages during a meeting. Or someone who stays behind afterwards to say that a conversation helped. Such moments touch something fundamental. They affirm or undermine our sense that our presence matters.

We readily talk about roles, processes, and results, but much less about the relationships between the people who do the work together. Yet it is precisely those relationships that help determine whether people commit themselves wholeheartedly to their work.

The French philosopher Simone Weil once wrote that attention is the purest form of generosity (Weil, 1947/2002). This applies not only to personal relationships, but also in the workplace. Attention allows someone to experience that they are more than their job, their productivity or the role they fulfill. Someone who feels truly seen needs to spend less energy proving that they matter.

People who feel connected to colleagues and managers recover more quickly from setbacks, remain motivated for longer and experience their work as more meaningful. Research shows that social support does not remove problems, but can reduce their impact. Because people do not have to carry difficult experiences alone, they appear better able to adapt to what life and work ask of them (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Bakker & Demerouti, 2007).

Engagement does not arise because people become more strongly attached to an organization. It arises when people experience that others connect with them. The need to belong and to feel seen is among our fundamental psychological needs (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Loyalty is difficult to enforce. It grows through the quality of everyday encounters: in the simple question of how someone is really doing, in the colleague who notices that someone is quieter than usual and does not simply let it pass.

Connection does not mean that people always like one another. Nor does it mean that conflicts disappear or that a team always works together harmoniously. On the contrary. In teams where people feel connected to one another, differences of opinion are often expressed rather than avoided. Because the relationship is strong enough to tolerate tension, a differing opinion does not immediately have to be experienced as a personal attack.

A pleasant working atmosphere is therefore not the same as a healthy work culture. Teams can be friendly with one another while still avoiding difficult subjects. Problems then remain beneath the surface. Not because no one sees them, but because people are unsure what it might cost them to speak about them openly.

The calm that results can be deceptive. It is based not on trust, but on caution.

Psychological Safety

Organizations are not only places where people work together; they are also places where people are evaluated. Performance reviews, promotions and temporary contracts mean that almost every employee, consciously or unconsciously, wonders how much room there is to truly speak up.

Can I admit that I do not understand something? Can I say that I think a decision may have the wrong outcome? Do I dare report a mistake before someone else discovers it?

Such questions are rarely asked out loud. Yet the answers shape how people behave every day.

This becomes particularly visible in environments where mistakes can have serious consequences. Anyone entering a hospital sees an organization in which almost everything revolves around safety. Procedures are followed, medication is double-checked and operations are carried out according to carefully established protocols. At the same time, hospitals know better than most that people make mistakes. The question, therefore, is not only how mistakes can be prevented, but also what happens when someone suspects that something is going wrong. Does a professional feel free enough to raise the issue immediately?

That question formed the starting point for Amy Edmondson’s research (1999). She discovered something unexpected. Teams that reported making many mistakes often performed better than teams in which hardly any mistakes were reported. Not because they actually made more mistakes, but because they spoke about them more openly. As a result, errors came to light sooner and could be learned from.

Edmondson used the term psychological safety to describe this: a shared belief that a team is safe enough for people to take interpersonal risks. People dare to ask questions, show uncertainty, admit mistakes and express a differing opinion without constantly fearing rejection or loss of face.

This insight changes the way we think about safety. In many organizations, safety is still understood as the absence of mistakes. Psychological safety is about something else: the presence of openness. It is not the mistake itself that poses the greatest risk, but a culture in which people conceal it for fear of the consequences.

That fear rarely reveals itself in dramatic events. More often, it appears in small moments of hesitation. An employee who decides not to ask a question during a meeting after all. A young doctor who does not correct the specialist, even though she suspects something has been overlooked. A project manager who presents a risk as smaller than he himself believes it to be. Individually, such moments may seem insignificant. Together, they shape the quality of decision-making.

Google reached a similar conclusion during Project Aristotle. Of all the characteristics of successful teams, psychological safety proved to be the strongest predictor of effective collaboration (Rozovsky, 2015). It was not intelligence, experience or personality that made the greatest difference, but the extent to which team members felt free to ask questions, admit mistakes and put forward differing ideas.

This also changes the role of leaders. Their most important contribution is not to provide the right answers, but to create the conditions in which good questions can be asked. Curiosity proves at least as important as expertise. A simple question such as, ‘What might we be overlooking?’ can yield more than a quick confirmation that everything is going according to plan.

People who feel safe need to spend less energy protecting themselves. That energy becomes available for something else: attention to the work itself.

A working environment in which people have influence, feel connected to their colleagues and can ask questions without fear is not an ideal world. There are still deadlines, conflicts and periods when work piles up. Good collaboration does not remove the demands of work. It does, however, make it possible to carry those demands for longer without being overwhelmed by them.

Recovery

To keep doing what our work asks of us, we need time to recover.

People who work under high levels of strain for months often find that recovery no longer comes naturally. An evening off no longer feels restful, a weekend provides too little distance, and even a holiday seems to ease the fatigue only temporarily. The body may be resting, but it does not truly recover. As if the engine has been switched off for a while without giving the overheated parts a chance to cool down.

Many people recognize this experience but do not immediately take it seriously. After all, tiredness is part of working. It is normal to feel tired after an intense period. Only when that tiredness no longer disappears does something begin to change. Concentration requires more effort, small setbacks demand a disproportionate amount of energy, and where work once sparked curiosity, indifference gradually begins to take its place. This does not mean that engagement has disappeared. It simply has less and less room to find expression in everyday work.

Recovery, therefore, is more than rest. It is the ability of body and mind to return to a state in which energy becomes available again. This does not happen automatically as soon as work stops. Research on recovery from work demands shows that psychological detachment, relaxation, a sense of autonomy outside work, and activities that provide new energy all contribute to sustainable recovery (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). For many professionals, however, maintaining that psychological distance is becoming increasingly difficult. The phone comes home with us, messages keep coming in, and work continues to demand our attention even after the workday is over.

This development is not only about technology. It also says something about the place work has come to occupy in our lives. For many people, work is more than a source of income. It is a place where identity, ambition and social meaning come together. That makes it more difficult to step away. Those who identify strongly with their work do not simply leave it behind at the end of the day.

That does not have to be a problem. Strong engagement is often a source of motivation. People who are highly engaged willingly invest time and attention in their work and derive considerable satisfaction from it. The same engagement that gives people energy can also lead them to overlook signs of exhaustion for too long. Precisely because their work matters so much to them, they may find it harder to recognize when it is time to set a limit (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004).

This also helps explain why burnout so often occurs among people who once began their work with enthusiasm. It is rarely a matter of people who never considered their work important. Much more often, it concerns professionals who have felt responsible for a long time, wanted to deliver quality, and were repeatedly willing to go the extra mile. Gradually, their engagement became a force that was insufficiently balanced by recovery.

That is what makes burnout such a complex phenomenon. It does not develop over the course of one bad week, nor is it caused by a single difficult relationship with a manager or a single reorganization. Usually, it develops step by step, through the accumulation of hundreds of small moments in which the balance between demands and recovery shifts further. No single workday makes the difference. It is the accumulation of all those days that eventually does.

Resilience, therefore, is not a quality that some people possess and others do not. It emerges from the interaction between the individual and the environment. It grows when people have room to exercise influence, feel connected to others, feel safe enough to show themselves, and have the opportunity to truly recover. These are not separate conditions that exist alongside one another. They reinforce each other. When one of them is absent for a prolonged period, the others also come under pressure.

This brings us back to the question with which this chapter began. Why does the same work give us energy one day and leave us exhausted the next? The answer rarely lies solely in the amount of work. More often, it lies in the quality of the conditions in which people do their work and in the room they experience to respond to those conditions.

Resilience emerges where people are not only challenged, but also have room for autonomy, connection, safety and recovery.

But what happens when recovery no longer means returning to the way things were because our health itself has changed?

Back to Contents

Photo: AvO