Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

WHO Classifies Burnout as Occupational Phenomenon

The World Health Organization (WHO) has officially recognized workplace burnout as an occupational phenomenon in the latest version of its “International Classification of Diseases” (ICD). This official designation indicates how serious workplace burnout and stress are as an impediment to a healthy, productive work environment, and how important it is for employers to take concrete steps to address it.

Since 1948, the WHO has published the ICD, which “defines the universe of diseases, disorders, injuries and other related health conditions, listed in a comprehensive, hierarchical fashion.” The last published version of the ICD defines “burnout” as a “state of vital exhaustion,” but the forthcoming edition has updated that definition, clarifying that it is a condition that occurs specifically in the workplace.

The new definition includes: “Burnout is a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. … Burnout refers specifically to phenomena in the occupational context and should not be applied to describe experiences in other areas of life.

buy flagyl online shadidanin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/flagyl.html no prescription pharmacy

” The three factors the WHO identifies for classifying burnout are:

  1. Feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion,
  2. Increased mental distance from one’s job, or feelings of negativism or cynicism to one’s job, and
  3. Reduced professional efficacy

According to a 2017 Gallup poll, 23% of U.S. employees “reported feeling burned out at work very often or always, while an additional 44% reported feeling burned out sometimes.” When workers suffer from burnout, it can have serious effects on business performance. A 2017 survey conducted by Kronos Incorporated and Future Workplace also noted that “95% of human resource leaders admit employee burnout is sabotaging workforce retention,” and “nearly half of HR leaders (46%) say employee burnout is responsible for up to half (20% to 50%, specifically) of their annual workforce turnover.” This means higher recruiting costs, additional time for other employees and managers involved in the recruitment and training processes, as well as potential business interruptions and lost institutional knowledge.

buy xtandi online shadidanin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/xtandi.html no prescription pharmacy

Gallup also noted that employees experiencing burnout “are 63% more likely to take a sick day,” and alarmingly, “are 23% more likely to visit the emergency room.

buy anafranil online shadidanin.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/anafranil.html no prescription pharmacy

” Indeed, in 2015, the Harvard Business Review says that workplace stress caused additional physical and psychological healthcare spending between $125 and $190 billion annually in the United States. Given the rising costs of U.S. healthcare and increasing recognition and treatment related to burnout, it is likely that these numbers have only increased.

Gallup reports that the top five factors most highly correlated with burnout are:

  • Unfair treatment at work
  • Unmanageable workload
  • Lack of role clarity
  • Lack of communication and support from manager, and
  • Unreasonable time pressure

The American Psychological Association’s Center for Organizational Excellence has outlined the importance of communication to maintaining a psychologically healthy work environment, both bottom-up and top-down. The APA’s recommendations include “providing regular, on-going opportunities to provide feedback to management,” and “leading by example, by encouraging key organizational leaders to regularly participate in psychologically healthy workplace activities in ways that are visible to employees.” The organization also emphasizes work-life balance, noting that instituting policies like flexible work arrangements and assistance with childcare can provide “benefits in terms of increased productivity and reduction in absenteeism, presenteeism and employee turnover.”

When companies take workplace stress seriously, and implement processes to address burnout and create healthy work environments, they see happier workers, higher retention and greater productivity, as well as lower costs. The WHO officially acknowledging burnout as a serious workplace concern should be a wake-up call for employers.

Similar Posts:

1 thought on “WHO Classifies Burnout as Occupational Phenomenon

  1. Thanks for sharing this, it is a great news. I have been researching on executive burnout for the past several years in the Indian context and have published a book and a couple of papers:

    1.Sharma, Radha R. & Cooper, Cary. (2016/17). Executive Burnout: Concepts, Models and Eastern and Western Approaches for its Mitigation, Emerald, UK.

    2.Sharma, Radha R. (2013) Executive Burnout: Prediction and Prevention through HR Interventions in D.M. Pestonjee & S. Pandey (Eds) 21st Century Stress, Sage Publications.

    3.Sharma, Radha R. (2007) Indian Model of Executive Burnout. Vikalpa (Journal of Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad), 32:2, April-June, 23-38.

    4.Sharma, Radha R. (2006) Emotional Intelligence as a Mediator in Executive Burnout. Cutting Edge Monograph, Academy of Human Resource Development, USA, pp.7-13.

    5. Sharma, Radha R. (2006) Role of Spiritual Intervention in Executive Burnout, Asia Pacific Review, Vol. II, No.2, 25-36.

    6. Emotions in Executive Burnout in Conference Proceedings Peter Frost Commemorative Session on Emotions, Academy of Management, Hawaii, USA. August 5-10, 2005.
    7. Sharma, Radha R. and Sharma, N.P. (2015) Opening the Gender Diversity Black Box: Causality of Perceived Gender Equity and Locus of Control and Mediation of Work Engagement in Employee Well-Being, Frontiers in Psychology. 6:1371. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01371 http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01371/abstract

Comments are closed.