For about the last 10 years or more, collectively, across the country we have been discussing an occupational health issue that has been researched, written about and presented at conferences. This issue has been given the label of Burn-Out. Based on my childhood, that’s no the right term.
Burn-out is defined by The World Health Organization as:
“Burnout is a syndrome conceptualized as a resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It is characterized by three dimensions:
- Feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion
- Increased mental distance from one’s job, or feelings of negativism or cynicism related to one’s job
- Reduced professional efficacy
They further state, burn-out refers specifically to a phenomena in the occupational context.
Over the years I have studied, discussed, debated, presented on and built programs around understanding and managing Burn-out. I will make an admission. I have never fully understood origin of this label for this phenomenon. A part of the reason I struggle is because of how I was first taught the meaning of this term. I first learned about burn-out when I was a kid. At the time burnout was associated with candles. I remember my parents saying something to me like; “That candle is burned out, throw it in the trash can.” A burned-out candle is one that has burned down the wick to the point of self-extinguishment. The only thing left of a burned-out candle is a puddle of melted and resolidified wax. Resolidified wax served no purpose, at least not to my parents. As a professional adult, whenever I hear someone use the word burnout, for a split second, I still get an image in my head of a candle.
My personal shortcomings notwithstanding, the way we use language is important in how we conceptualize issues and solutions. I call on the theory of linguistic relativity to be in my corner on this. It states, the way people think of the world is influenced directly by the language that the people use to talk about it. I use linguistic relativity as a springboard to propose new language to conceptualize the syndrome of symptoms described in the WHO definition.
I propose that we consider a transition from describing the syndrome of symptoms in the WHO definition from the label “Burn-Out” to something that reflects the concept of a “Degree of Discharge”. Something that congers up the image of a battery.
In this age of electric vehicles and multiple electronic devices, we are all familiar with plugging in something when the battery indicates it is at a low state of charge. It seems to me, the syndrome of symptoms that make up the WHO definition, are a better fit for a battery analogy than a candle. The bullet points above also describe the behavior of all of my electronic devices when the battery is at low charge.
It is not just my personal history with this word that has made it difficult to comprehend and therefore make this proposal. It is also what I see in how organizations approach solutions to this issue. I have noticed how many organizations have developed programs whose content is more appropriate to the candle than to the battery. For example, resilience training programs are a popular organizational strategy to address burn-out. The resilience training programs that I have some information about seem to put the onus for burn-out management on the individual. They put a lot of weight on teaching resilience skills. Sticking with the candle metaphor, you CAN NOT teach a candle resilience! Moving to a battery metaphor; something else becomes obvious. I am not aware of any battery that is solely responsible for recharging itself. About a year ago the iPhone included a battery management system (resilience). That did not absolve me of my responsibility to notice the level of charge on my phone and to proactively buy charging cords and stations for all over my house (and car and truck). Organizations have a responsibility for being a primary place of energy discharge. Some organizations, in recognition of this, have put in place a policy to address this issue. They only hire people who can demonstrate their own resilience. Resilience is necessary but not sufficient.
In case it seems that this is simply insignificant wordplay, consider:
- A burnt-out candle is no longer capable of producing light, has no resemblance to the original and will not be discarded.
- A discharged, or even fully discharged battery is capable of being recharged and will be of service for the foreseeable future.
- If you are like me, you always have an eye on the level of your battery and you very infrequently allow it to fully discharge
I have tortured these metaphors in the service of prodding your thinking. I am really interested in your thoughts on this idea of relabeling this concept.
- Is it worth the effort to consider changing label (or would you suggest that it is I who should be considering extending some effort towards identifying some type of therapeutic intervention for my apparent childhood trauma of having to discard a lump(s) of wax which subsequently led to my inability to learn new concepts and associations)?
- What is the responsibility of organization?
- Is it fair to equate the responsibilities an organization has to its employees to be the same as the responsibilities a person has to their electronic devices?
- What does the implementation of that responsibility look like?
Maurice Dunn, PhD