Planned layoffs have now reached their highest rate since 2009’s Great Recession.
The data comes from Challenger, Gray & Christmas’ new layoffs report, which revealed that
U.S.-based employers announced 108,435 job cu…
The federal agency that enforces anti-discrimination laws in the workplace made an unexpected disclosure this week: Nike was under investigation for its approach to diversity, equity, and inclusion, due to claims that the company had discriminated aga…
For many women in the U.S. and around the world, motherhood comes with career costs.
Raising children tends to lead to lower wages and fewer work hours for mothers—but not fathers—in the United States and around the world.
As a sociologist, I st…
Rewind to 2025. The National Football League is fresh off an unbelievable, yet controversial, Super Bowl halftime performance by the superstar hip hop artist Kendrick Lamar. The country has just been introduced to a diversity-hostile administration, which has practically squashed any zeal toward diversity, equity, or inclusion that corporate America once seemingly held. As the NFL’s leadership team explores talent considerations for next year’s performance in the midst of this cultural backdrop, someone recommends Bad Bunny, the Puerto Rican-born megastar whose songs are performed almost entirely in Spanish, and, surprisingly, the league acquiesces. The public blowback is immediate, yet the NFL stands strong on its decision. On the outside, this may have seemed like a difficult decision for the league to make. But according to Javier Farfan, the global brand and consumer marketing consultant for the NFL, the decision was much easier than one would think.
Farfan, a career marketer executive and media professor at Syracuse University’s New School of Communications, has worked with the NFL for the past six years to help the organization broaden its audience and achieve its ambition for global expansion. He has sat in the small rooms where big decisions were made with regard to the league’s cultural engagement with talent and growth audiences. With the Super Bowl happening this week, we thought that he’d be the perfect guest to join us for this week’s episode of the From The Culture podcast to explore how organizations make difficult decisions.
Clarity of Conviction
The NFL has an ambition to become the biggest sports platform in the world, a vision set by league commissioner Roger Goodell. With a conviction to make American football a worldwide game under Goodell’s leadership, the NFL began playing regular season matches in international markets to broaden its reach. It even petitioned the Olympics to successfully institute flag football as an official event to help further its global adoption. But the universality of music as cultural production is unparallelled, making the Super Bowl halftime show a unique front door into the football universe, one that transforms a sporting competition into a pop-culture event.
And it’s the clarity of the organization’s commitment to expansion that makes Bad Bunny an obvious decision for the NFL. His tours sell millions of tickets around the world and his music is streamed billions of times on Spotify—crowning him the most globally-streamed artist for four of the last five years. Even with the local resistance from conservatives and the Trump administration, Bad Bunny’s global reach is undeniable. As Farfan asserts, it was easy for the organization and all its many stakeholders to get on board because they all subscribed to a shared ambition. The league, its teams, its partners, and Bad Bunny himself are all aligned, each bringing their talents and resources to help the collective realize its potential.
The same can be said within our own organizations. Our companies’ convictions not only help orient their direction but also guide their decision-making such that hard decisions aren’t so difficult. When the conviction is clear, decisions are made easy. Take the outdoor brand Patagonia. The company has long been committed to mitigating human evasiveness on the planet. This is the ambition that unites all its stakeholders. Along with its retail business, Patagonia outfitted high-end corporate clients with company apparel. Company vests and fleece jackets with the Patagonia logo etched on the chest became a sort of unofficial uniform for Wall Street bankers and Silicon Valley techies. This was a significant revenue driver for the company. However, when Patagonia realized that some of its corporate clients dealt in ventures that did not prioritize the planet, it decided to end its business dealings with them. Despite the loss of revenue, this was an easy decision for Patagonia because its convictions were clear.
Hard decisions are only truly hard when conviction is ill-defined. In the case of the NFL, if the ambition is to be a global sport, then you choose the options that get you closer to that ambition—even if it means facing some headwinds. Easy. If you’re Patagonia and your conviction is to protect the planet, then you take the path that preserves the Earth, although you may lose some revenue in the short run. Again, easy. Difficulty lies where your conviction is questioned and your commitment to it is uncertain. For organizations that know what they’re after and know who they are, the only real loss is loss of self when they deviate from it.
Check out our full interview with Javier Farfan that breaks down the dynamics of the NFL’s decision to partner with Bad Bunny for the Super Bowl halftime show and what takeaways leaders can glean about their own organizations.
We’ve been sold a myth about entrepreneurial success: sharpen your skills, tighten your systems, hustle harder. But after years of working with independent professionals across industries, I’ve noticed that the highest performers share something that rarely makes the productivity lists: they’ve intentionally built communities of colleagues, clients, and partners who expand how they think, create, and deliver impact.
Community isn’t a “nice to have” for the self-employed. It’s strategic infrastructure. And this is especially important for solopreneurs, entrepreneurs who work primarily solo.
The stakes are higher than most solopreneurs realize. According to research from Leapers, a UK-based organization studying self-employment and mental health, 70% of freelancers have experienced loneliness, disconnection, or isolation while working independently. That’s not just an emotional burden, it’s a creativity killer. When we work in isolation, our assumptions calcify, our thinking narrows, and our best ideas never get the friction they need to become great.
Community oxygenates your thinking
When you work solo, you start mistaking your perspective for the perspective. But a strong community acts as a foil for your ideas, exposing your ideas to new light, context, and critique. This isn’t just about generating more ideas, it’s about generating better ideas. The kind of synthesized, pressure-tested thinking that’s stronger than anything you’d develop in isolation.
Community provides reality checks and emotional ballast
Solopreneurship demands extraordinary mental fortitude. You’re simultaneously the product, the strategist, the salesperson, and the back office. A trusted community offers reality checks that keep you from veering off course, and gut checks that help you discern which risks are worth taking. Just as important, community provides emotional ballast—people who understand the volatility of self-employment and can normalize the inevitable ups and downs without judgment.
Community converts intention into momentum
Left to our own devices, it’s easy to confuse motion with progress. Communities help convert intention into actual momentum. When you’re regularly sharing what you’re working on, asking questions, and reporting back on experiments, you’re more likely to follow through. This kind of accountability shifts focus from mere output—like checking tasks off a list—to true impact: work that meaningfully moves clients, audiences, and industries forward.
Community accelerates learning
A well-designed community is a living archive of experiments, failures, and breakthroughs. Instead of learning only from your own trial and error, you’re drawing from a collective body of experience. You can ask for help, offer your own hard-won insights, and benefit from perspectives across sectors and disciplines. That diversity of vantage points is a powerful driver of both creativity and strategic clarity.
Community unlocks opportunity
Finally, community is how transactional encounters evolve into long-term, mutual relationships. When you consistently show up in spaces with colleagues, clients, and partners- whether in mastermind groups, professional associations, or communities of play- you’re building trust over time. That trust leads to collaborations, referrals, and invitations you simply cannot manufacture through cold outreach. And because these relationships are grounded in shared values and curiosity rather than immediate deals, they tend to be more resilient and more creatively fulfilling.
For independent professionals, community is not a distraction from “real work.” It’s the infrastructure that makes your best work possible.
Known as the self-help guru whose tagline “let them” has encouraged millions to stop worrying what others are doing or saying, and focus on their own personal growth, has another significant lesson: don’t be afraid to keep moving forward to …
Work has a way of waking up parts of us we thought we’d outgrown.
You can move forward professionally, take on more visible roles, and be widely regarded as capable—and still find yourself unsettled by moments that seem, on the surface, fairly ordinary. A comment lingers longer than expected. A meeting leaves you tense for days. A role you worked hard to earn suddenly feels exposing rather than energizing.
When that happens, it’s tempting to assume something is wrong now: that you’re underprepared, out of your depth, or simply not built for this level of responsibility. But often, what’s being stirred up has less to do with the present moment than with experiences that shaped you much earlier in your career.
The past isn’t gone. It’s patterned.
Consider Anna, a senior public health leader who had built a reputation for sound judgment and steady leadership. When she accepted a high-profile role in government, it looked like a natural next step.
Internally, it felt like a step backward.
Almost immediately, she began doubting herself in ways that were unfamiliar. She grew anxious before meetings and unusually sensitive to tone and hierarchy. After speaking, she would replay her comments, convinced she’d revealed some fundamental gap.
What made this disorienting was that nothing objectively negative was happening. Her colleagues were engaged. Her supervisor was supportive. Her performance was strong.
And yet her body reacted as if the stakes were much higher.
Over time, a pattern became clear. Anna had trained in an elite graduate program where intimidation was framed as rigor. Public critique was common. Questions were treated as exposures. Authority felt unpredictable.
At the time, she adapted in ways that made sense. She became meticulously prepared. She learned to anticipate criticism before it arrived. She made herself intellectually airtight.
That strategy worked. She succeeded. She moved on.
Except that some part of her never quite did.
Her new role didn’t create anxiety—it activated an old internal map, one shaped in an environment where visibility carried real risk. Intellectually, she knew she belonged. Psychologically, she was responding to an earlier chapter.
This is how the past often shows up at work: not as a memory, but as a reflex.
Why some roles feel heavier than others
Psychologists have long observed that unresolved experiences don’t fade with time. They flatten. They remain emotionally vivid and are reactivated when something feels familiar enough—especially situations involving evaluation, authority, or public exposure.
In those moments, the brain doesn’t reliably distinguish between then and now. The body responds as if the original stakes have returned.
This helps explain why certain roles or environments feel disproportionately taxing. It’s not always about the workload or the people involved. Sometimes it’s about what the role resembles—earlier contexts where the cost of being visible, wrong, or unprepared felt genuinely high.
Professional life has a developmental history
We tend to think of our professional selves as separate from our psychological development. But careers have formative periods, too.
Early mentors, first failures, environments where we learned what was rewarded, punished, or ignored—these experiences quietly shape how we lead, speak, take risks, and respond to authority years later.
Most of us already accept this logic when it comes to parenting. We know that unexamined childhood experiences can spill into how we parent—how we discipline, soothe, or overcorrect.
Professional life follows the same pattern.
Unprocessed career experiences don’t show up as stories we consciously tell ourselves. They show up as leadership styles, communication habits, and emotional reflexes that can feel confusing in hindsight.
What effective leaders tend to notice
Leaders who navigate this terrain well aren’t necessarily the most confident or fearless. They’re often the most curious.
They notice when a reaction feels bigger than the situation warrants. They pause before assuming the problem is a lack of skill or effort. They’re willing to ask whether an old pattern is being activated—and whether it still fits the present context.
That kind of reflection doesn’t make leaders less decisive. If anything, it tends to make them steadier. Decisions become less reactive. Authority feels less charged. Visibility becomes tolerable rather than threatening.
Letting the present have more say
This isn’t about “fixing” yourself or endlessly revisiting the past. Most high-performing professionals are already capable, conscientious, and deeply invested in doing their work well.
What’s often missing isn’t insight, but the space to notice what’s being activated and to treat those reactions as information rather than directives.
Unexamined professional experiences tend to resurface indirectly: as tension, hesitation, over-effort, or a familiar sense of bracing. It’s easy to mistake those signals for evidence that something is wrong now, rather than residue from an earlier context.
Over time, what tends to change isn’t the absence of discomfort, but how much authority it’s given.
The past doesn’t disappear. It simply stops running the meeting. And for many people, that’s what makes work feel steadier again.
Over the past two years, a troubling trend has started to take shape in the media; for a large majority of journalists, DEI framing became the default for covering Black businesses.
What should be stories about innovation, resilience, market disrup…
It’s Q1 2026. Your chief financial officer is cutting innovation budgets by 20%.
Your AI pilot showed 94% accuracy improvements. The LLM is yielding solid results. You’re getting defunded anyway.
The reason? You solved a problem AI c…
Burnout is best understood as a work-related psychological syndrome arising from sustained emotional and interpersonal strain. It has three core components: emotional exhaustion, characterized by chronic affective depletion; depersonalization, in which work becomes alienating and psychologically distancing rather than engaging; and reduced professional efficacy, marked by declining confidence, poorer self-appraisals, and a loss of self-worth.
Importantly, burnout is not the same as stress. Rather, it is a pattern of responses to work stressors, and can also be distinguished from depression by its work-specific context. Burnout is best assessed via self-report questionnaires (psychometrics), and the below statements provide a simple checklist for evaluating its three components.
1. Emotional exhaustion (energy depletion)
- I feel emotionally drained by my work.
- By the end of the workday, I feel used up or wiped out.
- I wake up feeling tired at the thought of another day at work.
- I feel I have nothing left to give emotionally at work.
2. Depersonalization (psychological distancing and cynicism)
- I have become more cynical or negative about my job.
- I feel detached or emotionally distant from my work.
- I am less interested in what my job means or contributes.
- I find myself being more irritable, blunt, or indifferent with colleagues or clients.
3. Reduced professional efficacy (poor self-evaluation and self-perceived impact)
- I feel that I am not accomplishing worthwhile things at work.
- I doubt my effectiveness or competence more than I used to.
- I feel less confident in my ability to handle my job well.
- Even when I work hard, it feels like it does not make much difference.
A workplace epidemic
As with most modern workplace malaise, precise prevalence figures are elusive. Yet multiple surveys show burnout is widespread in the industrialized world (where working conditions are actually better). According to a recent Gallup study, about 48% of employees globally report feeling burned out at work, and three-quarters say they experience burnout at least occasionally.
Regional data paints a similar picture. Surveys across Southeast Asia find that 62.9% of workers report high or very high burnout, and U.S. workforce research shows that roughly 31% of employees feel job-related stress often or always, a common precursor to burnout. Younger workers and those with high-demand roles typically report even higher rates, with some employer studies suggesting more than 80% of workers have experienced symptoms such as exhaustion or cognitive strain.
Overlapping forces
Burnout, like most behavioral outcomes, reflects the interplay of internal and external forces. Individual differences in personality and resilience shape vulnerability, while job design, organizational culture, and leadership determine exposure. The same role can exhaust one employee and leave another largely unscathed—not because the pressures differ, but because their capacity to absorb and interpret them does.
So, for instance, job control, or the degree to which individuals experience control over their jobs, is a consistent negative predictor of burnout: The less control you feel you have over your job and career, the more at risk of burnout you are. In contrast, when people are given autonomy and resources to perform their jobs, they will experience a sense of control and agency, which in turn increases employee engagement and motivation, and decreases exhaustion and depersonalization.
Much like the difference between driving a car and being a passenger stuck in the back seat, having control makes even demanding journeys more tolerable. It increases motivation and engagement while reducing the emotional fatigue and cynicism that sit at the core of burnout.
Personality as predictor
But no matter how well jobs are designed, individual differences matter a great deal. Most notably, personality is a remarkably consistent predictor of burnout, with lower emotional stability (or higher neuroticism) standing out as a particularly strong risk factor—increasing vulnerability while eroding resilience. Meta-analyses evidence suggests that a substantial share of the variance in burnout symptoms can be traced back to personality, which in turn helps explain downstream outcomes such as job performance, absenteeism, and turnover.
The implication is not that burnout is a personal failing or that organizations should select only the psychologically bulletproof. Rather, it is that prevention and support efforts should be unevenly distributed. Some employees are naturally more resilient and will weather demanding environments with little lasting cost. Others, equally capable and motivated, will require greater support, flexibility, and early intervention to avoid being pushed beyond their limits.
Treating everyone the same may feel fair, but it is rarely effective. In practice, this means paying closer attention to those most at risk and designing support systems that recognize differences in resilience, rather than assuming that the same pressures will be absorbed equally by all.
Situational factors
To be sure, some features of work increase the risk of burnout for almost anyone, helping to explain the high prevalence figures reported earlier. These risk factors are, for the most part, intuitive. Chief among them is workload. When demands consistently exceed the capacity of individuals or teams, energy is depleted faster than it can be restored, making recovery impossible. Burnout, in this sense, is less a sudden collapse than a slow failure to recharge.
Workload problems are not limited to quantity. A mismatch can also arise from the nature of the work itself. Even moderate demands become draining when people lack the skills, inclination, or temperament required to meet them. Emotional labor is especially costly: Roles that require employees to display feelings they do not genuinely experience (perpetual enthusiasm, calm, or empathy on demand) create a form of psychological friction that accelerates exhaustion. Unsurprisingly, workload mismatches are most strongly linked to the exhaustion component of burnout, the first and most common stage of the syndrome.
Another powerful driver of burnout is perceived fairness. A serious mismatch between individuals and their work arises when people feel they are treated unjustly. Fairness signals respect and affirms self-worth; its absence does the opposite. Perceptions of unfairness emerge in many familiar forms: inequities in workload or pay, favoritism in promotions, opaque performance evaluations, or grievance processes that deny employees a genuine voice.
Such experiences are not merely irritating but emotionally corrosive. They drain energy, erode trust, and weaken the sense of mutual obligation that underpins healthy workplaces. Over time, persistent unfairness accelerates burnout by intensifying emotional exhaustion and fostering cynicism, as individuals disengage not because the work itself is unmanageable, but because the system governing it feels arbitrary or rigged.
Likewise, burnout is more likely to take hold when a sense of community at work erodes. People function best when they feel socially connected to colleagues they respect and trust, and when everyday interactions allow for shared recognition, support, and even humor. Such connections do more than provide emotional comfort; they reinforce a sense of belonging and shared purpose.
By contrast, work environments that are isolating, transactional, or impersonal deprive employees of an important psychological buffer against stress. Most damaging of all is chronic, unresolved conflict. Persistent tension with colleagues or managers generates ongoing frustration and hostility, undermines trust, and steadily reduces the availability of social support. Over time, the workplace ceases to feel like a community and becomes merely a site of strain, accelerating the path to burnout.
The role of engagement
A final and often overlooked point concerns the relationship between engagement and burnout. Intuitively, the two are negatively related, but empirical evidence suggests the connection is far stronger than commonly assumed. Meta-analytic findings indicate that the overlap is so substantial that engagement and burnout may best be understood as opposite ends of the same underlying continuum rather than as distinct constructs.
Across studies, the average true correlation between burnout and engagement dimensions rises to nearly −.80, with burnout explaining well over half of the variance in core engagement components such as absorption, dedication, and vigor. The broader pattern of correlates is almost identical, with vector correlations approaching −.90, implying that what predicts burnout largely predicts disengagement in reverse.
Complicating matters further, longitudinal evidence suggests burnout may also reshape personality over time: Higher burnout predicts subsequent declines in extroversion, challenging the assumption that more outgoing individuals are simply less vulnerable.
Finally, job control is more strongly associated with cynicism and diminished efficacy than with exhaustion, a finding with important implications for practice. Given how frequently organizations track engagement, these measures may offer an early and scalable way to detect emerging burnout risks at both group and individual levels, often even before exhaustion becomes visible.
Taken together, the evidence suggests that burnout is neither a passing fad nor a purely individual affliction, but a predictable outcome of how modern work is designed, managed, and experienced. It emerges where chronic demands overwhelm recovery; where control, fairness, and community erode; and where individual vulnerabilities go unrecognized or unsupported. Because burnout closely mirrors disengagement—often preceding visible declines in performance or well-being—it can be detected earlier than many organizations assume, especially through careful attention to engagement data.
Ultimately, preventing burnout is less about eliminating pressure than about restoring balance—between demands and resources, effort and reward, autonomy and accountability, and uniform policies and differentiated support. Organizations that understand this are not just protecting their people; they are safeguarding their capacity to perform.
