Why addressing workforce burden alone is not enough

The term workforce burnout or workforce burden has been at the forefront of the health care industry discussion for decades, but it particularly rose as technology was introduced, innovation or change was designed, and EMRs were regulated. Technology was supposed to reduced burden, but it only managed to increase it and cause burnout. Then the pandemic drove a lot of moral injury and exhaustion in health care workers, and more digital technologies were introduced during and post pandemic that supposedly addressed workforce shortages by needing fewer FTEs due to automation of tasks, or again my enhancing clinician workflows lowering burden. However, many of those technologies have not scaled or been empty promises. This is clearly not easy, and it is going to take time for digital transformation to yield the promise of addressing workforce burden completely.

However, I was invited to a CHRO focus group discussion with McKinsey's Chief People Officer Katy George and Dallas-based Partner Stephanie Carlton , along with several people leaders from DFW corporations. It was a phenomenal discussion on promoting the holistic health of employees via meaning and purpose in their daily work. ?The research is based on a 2023 survey of more than 30,000 employees across 30 countries, which found that employees who had positive work experiences reported better holistic health, are more innovative at work, and have improved job performance. [mckinsey.com]

It got me to reflect on so many of my own experiences as an employee, as a leader, as a transformation leader, and innovative change agent throughout my career. So often we focus on process and structure changes to reduce workforce demand and hence address burden, however, what is required is also a look at workforce enablers to address holistic health that includes physical, mental, social, and spiritual components. This vernacular was such a powerful way of breaking down the problem across companies (health care or otherwise).

Thinking of health care, how is technology enabling the way we work in care delivery? How is it driving more meaning and not taking away what providers joined the profession for?

Thinking of corporations doing restructures and transformations, how is that enabling workforce flexibility or enabling them to reach their physical/mental health goals, or it is driving cuts so people have to do more with less with no other enabling tools/resources? Is it increasing sense of belonging and social support or is it reducing diversity and inclusion? Is it improving meaning due to expanded vision, and stronger impact or it is just moving deck chairs without incremental value to stakeholders and employees?

Thinking of individual leaders and employees right now who are burnt out, is less work going to improve your holistic health right now, or do we require a shift in the nature of our work or how we work?

As McKinsey's research suggests, there are nuances across countries and industries but what is consistently true is that we must look at employee's holistic health. Are corporations people and benefit teams equipped to do that? Are people leaders and C-suites accountable for that?

Here is where things break down on some teams:

1. Leaders think all people problems are HR's problem. This is far from the truth as we all know people leave managers and not jobs or benefits. Most levers for creating the right environment, meaning, onboarding, tools that reduce burden and enable employees are in the hands of their managers. However, managers are often incentivized to bring business results and not spend enough time on their employee's holistic health.
2. C-suites think benefits and salary and office environment are the only levers for addressing workforce satisfaction. Honestly, mostly all employees would care less about a snack wall or free meals if they just got their regular 1:1s and team meetings that provided direction, guidance, mentorship, sponsorship and an inclusive environment. So often these basic management meetings are not run well and don't happen at all. It takes a simple check-in and personalized coaching by leaders versus generic office programs.
3. C-suites think a high workforce engagement survey indicates there is no problem. We discussed how spot surveys or other "walk the hall" methods were more effective in getting specific and timely employee feedback rather than the annual engagement surveys. We need to stop blindly following a metric that is flawed, or at the very least not nuanced enough.

I am passionate about this question as AI comes of age - How do we change the nature of work? How do we change how work performance is measured? How do we change how leadership's role and accountability are defined in helping achieve holistic health of their workforce? How do we design and test tools and technologies to ensure they reduce burden while enabling more meaning and purpose? Having strong healthcare benefits, AI co-pilots, and digital technologies will not help if the people and culture enablers are not addressed to tap into its full potential.

I have written about how transformations need to start with the WHY. While that is still critical at the corporate level, it is time that digital transformations and operating model transformations also acknowledge the employee's WHY through the impact of those transformative shifts on their holistic health. I welcome thoughts particularly on spiritual health being such an untapped area of human potential. Perhaps we won't reach it without meeting the basic human needs of physical and mental health first, but the goal isn't that we are surviving, it is that we are thriving in our lives!

I look forward to McKinsey doing more in DFW local communities and corporations to reframe employee health and community health. I welcome more ideas on what is working and what is not!

Article: https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/reframing-employee-health-moving-beyond-burnout-to-holistic-health