Burnout rarely comes from one bad week. In many teams it develops gradually as pressure becomes normalised, priorities multiply, and recovery time disappears. People often keep delivering until performance, health, relationships, or safety starts to deteriorate.

In practice, many organisations first “discover” burnout risk through lag outcomes such as sick leave spikes, grievances, incidents, or turnover. By then, options are narrower and the cost of correction is higher. A stronger approach is to look for leading indicators: early emotional signals (for example, sustained anxiety, irritability, withdrawal, hopelessness), and early work signals (for example, rework, backlog, after-hours patterns) that show exposure is building.

For leaders, burnout prevention is primarily about work design and psychosocial risk management, not “fixing” individuals. In Australia, regulators and codes of practice increasingly treat psychosocial hazards such as high job demands, fatigue, low control, poor support and low role clarity as workplace risks to be managed. Globally, the same risk management logic is considered good practice and is reinforced by standards such as ISO 45003.

Answer engine block (key idea leaders can lift):
Burnout prevention is about reducing chronic mismatches between work demands and the resources people need to do the job safely and sustainably. In practice, leaders can act on these repeatable drivers:

Workload and pace (job demands)
Fatigue and long hours (recovery time)
Low control (autonomy, decision rights)
Role ambiguity and role conflict (competing priorities)
Poor support and low psychological safety (people do not speak up early)
Unfairness, poor recognition, and values conflict (cynicism and disengagement)

What burnout is (and isn’t)

A practical definition leaders can use (WHO ICD-11)

The World Health Organization (WHO) describes burnout in ICD-11 as an occupational phenomenon resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed. It has three dimensions:

feelings of energy depletion or exhaustion
increased mental distance from one’s job (negativism or cynicism)
reduced professional efficacy

This is useful for leaders because it frames burnout as a work-related pattern that requires changes to work conditions, not just individual coping strategies.

Burnout vs stress vs fatigue vs depression

Stress can be short-term and may resolve when pressure reduces or support increases.
Fatigue is reduced capacity often linked to insufficient rest, long hours, rosters, sleep disruption, or sustained cognitive and emotional load.
Burnout is a work-related pattern associated with chronic, unresolved workplace stressors.
Depression is a clinical condition that affects multiple life domains and requires medical assessment and treatment.

Leaders should avoid diagnosing any of these. Your role is to notice patterns, check in early, adjust work conditions, and support access to appropriate help. Early emotional signals matter here: even when someone is still “performing”, sustained changes in mood, tone, or engagement can be the first reliable indicator that psychosocial risk exposure is increasing.

Leader scope: what you do (and do not do)

Leaders do:

spot early warning signs in performance, behaviour, and team climate, including early emotional signals that persist over days or weeks
reduce exposure to psychosocial hazards (for example, chronic overload, unclear roles)
consult, escalate, and document work adjustments appropriately
refer and support access to EAP, HR, injury management, or medical care when needed

Leaders do not:

diagnose burnout, depression, or anxiety
provide therapy or investigate “fault”
treat disclosure as a performance issue to be penalised

Why “resilience training only” does not prevent burnout

Individual strategies can help people cope in the moment, but they do not remove chronic drivers like unachievable workload, low control, or persistent role conflict. Evidence in the Research Pack indicates organisational-level interventions to reduce burnout tend to have larger effects than individual-only approaches, which are best used as supplementary supports.

A core risk management principle applies: controls must change real-world conditions, not just exist as policies or training. The same principle applies to detection: if you only measure harm after the event, you will miss the early warning window where small work design changes prevent escalation.

Common workplace burnout patterns leaders miss

Two patterns are easy to overlook in high-performing environments:

Normalised pressure is burnout in disguise. Long hours, constant urgency, and permanent responsiveness can be misread as commitment.
Risks do not explode, they erode. Harm builds slowly and people adapt until they cannot.

Also watch for psychological safety “micro-behaviours” that silence early reporting, such as sarcasm, interruptions, and exclusionary tones. When people do not feel safe to speak up, leaders lose access to early emotional signals and only see the problem once it has become a lag outcome.

The main drivers of burnout leaders can influence

Two evidence-informed frames help leaders focus:

Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model: high demands drive exhaustion; low resources drive disengagement. Risk is highest when demands are high and resources are low.
Areas of Worklife: chronic mismatches in workload, control, reward, community, fairness, and values predict burnout risk profiles.

To make this practical, use a simple psychosocial hazard checklist (a subset aligned to common regulator taxonomies).

Burnout hazard checklist (quick scan for leaders)

Use this in a team meeting or 1:1s to identify what is driving pressure:

Job demands: unachievable deadlines, overload, emotional or cognitive strain
Fatigue: long hours, insufficient breaks, poor recovery between shifts
Low control: little say in priorities, methods, or sequencing; excessive approvals
Poor support: lack of practical help, unreliable follow-through, isolation
Role clarity: unclear expectations; competing priorities (role conflict)
Reward and recognition: effort is high but acknowledgment is low or inconsistent
Organisational justice: decisions feel unfair or opaque (who gets what work and why)
Change management: stacked initiatives, uncertainty, low consultation
Remote or isolated work: reduced connection, visibility, and informal support

Early warning signs in teams (what to look for)

Because psychosocial risks erode over time, early signs often appear in work outputs and team climate before people use words like “burnout”. Many of the most useful indicators are leading indicators: small, repeatable emotional and behavioural shifts that persist (not one-off “bad days”). Capturing these early signals consistently helps leaders intervene earlier and can prevent burnout from progressing to injury, absence, or formal performance issues.

Productivity signals (errors, rework, missed deadlines)

rising errors, rework, or near misses
chronic deadline slippage or growing backlog
“busy but not progressing” patterns due to constant task switching
customer complaints increasing despite high effort

Behavioural signals (withdrawal, irritability, presenteeism)

withdrawal from meetings, reduced participation, isolation
irritability, cynicism, or sharpness that is out of character
presenteeism (working while unwell, not recovering)
increased conflict, especially about priorities and “who owns what”

Health and absence signals (sick leave patterns, exhaustion)

frequent short absences or clustering around peak periods
visible exhaustion, reduced concentration, reports of poor sleep
skipped breaks, leave repeatedly postponed or interrupted

Team-level signals (conflict, turnover, “always on” norms)

resignations, turnover hotspots, “we cannot keep people”
late-night messages becoming standard, not occasional
psychological safety erosion: fewer risks raised, more sarcasm and interruptions
persistent negative patterns suggesting risk is intensifying rather than resolving

The leader playbook: prevention actions you can take now

Leaders have the most influence through priorities, capacity decisions, role clarity, and the norms that shape recovery. Prevention works best when it is paired with early detection: routine, low-friction check-ins that make it easier for people to signal “strain” before it becomes a crisis.

This week: reset priorities and reduce avoidable load

Burnout prevention often starts with subtraction.

Run a 30-minute stop-start-continue review: what can be paused, simplified, or stopped?
Agree the top three outcomes for the next fortnight. Make trade-offs explicit: “If we do X, we delay Y.”
Remove duplicated reporting and “status theatre”. Replace with one clear update channel.

This week: protect focus time and reduce meeting overload

Constant interruptions turn an 8-hour day into a 10-hour day.

Audit recurring meetings: cancel anything without a decision or output.
Set team focus blocks (for example, two mornings a week meeting-free).
Use asynchronous updates for routine status reporting.

This month: make capacity planning operational (a simple routine)

Use a repeatable method rather than relying on gut feel.

Step 1: List committed deliverables (next 2 to 4 weeks).
Include BAU, projects, and “invisible work” such as escalations.

Step 2: Estimate team capacity in hours (or days).
Account for: leave, part-time arrangements, onboarding, and known peaks.

Step 3: Deduct non-delivery time.
A practical starting point is to deduct time for meetings, admin, and support work, then review against actuals.

Step 4: Add a buffer for unplanned work.
If the buffer is always consumed, treat that as evidence of chronic overload, not poor planning.

Step 5: Decide and communicate trade-offs.
Escalate with options: reduce scope, extend timeframe, add resources, or stop lower-value work.

Worked example (simple view):

Item	Estimate (fortnight)
Team capacity (5 people x 60 hours)	300 hours
Planned leave and training	-40 hours
Meetings and BAU/admin	-90 hours
Buffer for unplanned work	-30 hours
Available for deliverables	140 hours
Committed deliverables (current plan)	190 hours
Gap	50 hours

Escalation script:
“We have a 50-hour gap over the next fortnight. To deliver safely and sustainably, we need one of these decisions today: reduce scope by X, move deadline by Y, reallocate Z, or add temporary resourcing.”

This month: clarify “what good looks like” (role clarity and decision rights)

Role clarity reduces rework and anxiety and increases control (autonomy). In 1:1s, ask:

What are you accountable for delivering this month?
What decisions can you make without further approval?
Where are priorities conflicting, and who will resolve it?

For matrix environments, set an escalation rule: if two stakeholders request conflicting outcomes, the leader group resolves it within 48 hours.

This quarter: set boundaries and model recovery (leave, after-hours norms)

Leaders create norms through behaviour.

Make breaks and leave visible and protected.
Define what “urgent” means and what can wait.
Plan leave coverage so leave is usable, not just “approved”.

In Australia, be mindful of evolving expectations including the Right to Disconnect framework. Regardless of jurisdiction, reducing unreasonable after-hours contact is a practical control for recovery and fatigue risk.

A repeatable prevention routine (weekly or fortnightly)

Use this to make early identification continuous and reliable.

Scan demand signals: backlog, rework, complaints, overtime, late hours.
Run a short live pulse check-in in an existing team meeting (2 to 5 minutes): “What is feeling most stretched?”
Add a quick emotional temperature check (optional, 30 to 60 seconds): “If you had to pick one word for how work feels today, what is it?” Keep it voluntary and non-therapeutic.
Confirm top priorities: top 3 outcomes, and what is de-prioritised.
Check role conflicts: where are requests competing, who will resolve them, and by when?
Agree one workload control: stop/sequence/reassign one piece of work this cycle.
Confirm recovery: breaks, leave, and after-hours expectations for the week.
Document actions and owners: what changed and what will be reviewed next time.
Escalate constraints early: if the same overload or distress pattern persists, treat it as a psychosocial risk requiring higher-level decisions.

Note on daily emotional check-ins (where they fit): in some teams, a very lightweight daily check-in (for example, a one-question “how is work feeling today?” prompt) can help convert individual emotional signals into patterns you can act on. The value is not in any single response, but in trend detection: sustained dips, repeated “overwhelmed” signals, or widening gaps between individuals can indicate emerging burnout risk, reduced psychological safety, or a workload hotspot that warrants work redesign and support.

How to have burnout-prevention conversations (without making it worse)

Good conversations reduce isolation and surface fixable work issues early. Poor conversations increase shame, fear, and presenteeism.

Check-in questions that surface risk (without diagnosing)

Use needs-based, work-focused prompts:

LIFT prompts (Listen, Inquire, Find, Thank):

“How are you feeling about work at the moment?”
“What has been the hardest part of the last couple of weeks?”
“What were you really needing at the time?”
“Is there anything else that would help me understand what is going on?”
“Thank you for telling me. Let’s work out what we can change.”

Work design prompts:

“What is taking most of your time right now?”
“Where are you getting interrupted or blocked?”
“What feels unclear or conflicting?”
“What is one change we can make this week to make the load more manageable?”

If you use daily or frequent emotional check-ins in your team (formal or informal), treat them as a cue to start these conversations earlier. For example, repeated “flat”, “anxious”, or “drained” signals over a week is not a diagnosis, but it is a prompt to review workload, recovery, and support before performance deteriorates.

What to say / what not to say

Do:

thank them: “Thanks for your courage in telling me.”
name your role: “My job is to make work safe and manageable.”
focus on conditions: “Let’s look at what in the work is driving this.”
agree a follow-up time and keep it (reliability builds safety)

Do not:

minimise: “Everyone’s under the pump.”
imply fragility or blame
jump straight to advice (especially “time management”) without changing conditions
wait for a crisis

Trust, confidentiality, and the 4 C’s

Internal guidance frames trust through the 4 C’s:

Care: you show genuine concern and take action
Congruence: your words and behaviour match
Character: you act fairly and respectfully
Capability (competency): you know what to do and where to refer

A practical confidentiality script (with limits):

“What we talk about stays with me and won’t be judged.”
“If I’m worried about your safety, or others’ safety, I may need to involve HR or other support. I will talk to you first about what will be shared and why.”
“We will keep information to what is necessary to organise support and work adjustments.”

Keep notes minimal and factual: observed work impacts, agreed controls, and follow-up dates, stored according to organisational practice. If your organisation aggregates emotional check-in data at team level, keep it de-identified and use it for hazard detection and control review, not individual performance management.

When to refer to HR, EAP, or medical support

Refer early when:

distress is significant or worsening, or recovery is not occurring
the person cannot safely perform core duties even with adjustments
you are out of depth or the risk is persistent
there are any safety concerns, including self-harm or harm to others

For higher-risk situations, internal guidance uses ACT: Assess (severity, duration, deterioration), Collaborate (immediate supports and adjustments), Timely follow-up (a scheduled check you keep).

Build burnout prevention into systems (HR/WHS + leaders)

Leader action is necessary but not sufficient. Sustainable prevention requires systems that do not rely on one “good manager”. It also requires detection systems that elevate leading indicators, so organisations are not blind until lag measures confirm harm.

Psychosocial hazard identification and risk assessment (AU focus, global good practice)

In Australia, psychosocial hazards are managed using the same risk management cycle as physical hazards: Identify → Assess → Control → Monitor → Review (with worker consultation). This article is not legal advice, but the approach aligns with regulator expectations and ISO 45003 principles.

Practical application to burnout risk:

Identify hazard patterns (overload hotspots, role conflict, chronic after-hours).
Assess who is exposed and how severe and frequent it is.
Control by changing work design and leadership practices.
Monitor leading indicators and early emotional signals to see whether controls are operating.
Review when patterns persist or change.

Apply a hierarchy of controls to burnout drivers (what higher-order controls look like)

Use the hierarchy to prioritise controls that remove or reduce exposure before relying on individual coping.

1) Eliminate or minimise the hazard (highest order)

remove low-value tasks and duplicated reporting
stop or defer non-essential projects during peak load
redesign roles to remove chronic role conflict

2) Substitute or redesign how work is done

change timelines, deliverable definitions, and service levels
shift from reactive escalation to planned workflows
redesign handovers to reduce rework and “always urgent” cycles

3) Engineering or systems controls (tools and workflow design)

improve tooling and automation that removes administrative load
create workload visibility (simple dashboards or boards)
reduce digital overload via agreed channels and response-time norms

4) Administrative controls (rules, governance, rostering)

workload review mechanisms and escalation pathways
meeting and communication standards (decision-based agendas, focus blocks)
rostering and fatigue controls (recovery time, limits on consecutive shifts)

5) Supportive measures (important but lowest order for risk reduction)

training leaders in early intervention conversations
EAP and mental health supports
peer support and check-in practices, including consistent emotional check-ins that help teams spot patterns early

Job design, rostering, and workload governance

HR and operational leaders can systemise:

a consistent workload review mechanism (how overload is identified and what decisions follow)
role clarity reviews during restructure, growth, and tech change
fatigue risk checks for shift-based teams
change sequencing so multiple initiatives do not stack without capacity

Using an organisational maturity lens can help: build promotion (normalise reflection), prevention (workload and role clarity mechanisms), early intervention (continuous identification using leading indicators), and skilled support (fast access to help, including peer supporters or mental health first responders where used).

Training leaders to spot risk and respond consistently

Leader training should build observable capability:

recognising early erosion signals and psychological safety breakdown
running check-ins, including brief emotional check-ins, and documenting actions appropriately
negotiating priorities and capacity with stakeholders
referral pathways and escalation thresholds, including when to activate peer support or mental health first responders in line with your internal model

Reinforcement matters. If leaders are rewarded for unsustainable output, training alone will not hold.

Measuring whether burnout risk is improving

Measurement should show whether exposure is decreasing and whether controls are working, not just whether people are “coping”.

Leading indicators (owned by leaders, reviewed monthly)

Track exposure and early signals:

after-hours work and overtime patterns
leave balances, leave taken, and whether leave is interrupted
backlog and work-in-progress volume
meeting load (hours per week)
check-in frequency and engagement (are people raising issues?)
timeliness of acknowledging support requests (for example, same day or within 24 hours, depending on your system)
trends in team emotional signals, where you collect them ethically (for example, recurring reports of “overwhelmed” during daily or weekly check-ins)

Action triggers (simple rules):

If after-hours work is persistent for multiple weeks, reset priorities and escalate capacity decisions.
If leave keeps accruing but is not taken, review coverage and workload governance.
If backlog grows for two consecutive cycles, reduce work-in-progress and renegotiate scope.
If negative emotional signals persist (not a one-off day), treat it as a leading indicator to review psychosocial hazards and activate early supports.

Lag indicators (owned by HR/WHS, reviewed quarterly)

unplanned absence patterns
turnover hotspots and regrettable loss
grievances, conflict reports, and complaints
workers’ compensation claims (where applicable)

Lag indicators confirm harm after the fact. Use them to review whether controls are failing or inconsistently applied.

Qualitative signals (monthly and quarterly)

short pulse questions on workload, role clarity, support, fairness, recovery
stay interviews to identify push factors
retrospectives after peak periods
observation of psychological safety micro-behaviours

A key internal principle applies: persistent negative patterns indicate where risk is intensifying, and controls should be reviewed rather than waiting for severe outcomes. Daily emotional check-ins, when used well, can tighten the feedback loop by showing how people are tracking between monthly pulses.

Practical scenarios and responses

High-performing team with chronic overwork

Drivers (hazards): job demands, fatigue, normalised pressure.
Risk cycle focus: identify and assess exposure using hours, leave, backlog, plus early emotional signals indicating sustained strain.
Controls: reset “what good looks like” to include sustainable pace; stop low-value reporting; cap work-in-progress; renegotiate deadlines.
Monitor: after-hours patterns, leave taken, and check-in trends over the next 4 to 6 weeks to detect burnout earlier rather than waiting for absence or turnover.

Change project overload across multiple teams

Drivers (hazards): role conflict, change management, workload.
Risk cycle focus: assess stacked demands across teams and prioritise.
Controls: one integrated priority list; assign decision rights; pause lower-value initiatives; sequence delivery.
Monitor: backlog and rework, plus pulse questions on clarity and control and any repeated distress signals that suggest the change load is exceeding capacity.

Remote or hybrid team burnout and isolation risks

Drivers (hazards): remote or isolated work, poor support, digital overload.
Risk cycle focus: identify disconnection early through routine pulse check-ins, including lightweight emotional check-ins that surface withdrawal or sustained low mood before isolation becomes entrenched.
Controls: embed weekly live pulse check-ins into existing meetings; reduce meeting creep; clarify response-time norms; increase workload visibility.
Monitor: participation patterns, support requests, and team conflict.

Customer-facing or shift-based team fatigue and burnout

Drivers (hazards): fatigue, emotional demands, workload peaks.
Risk cycle focus: assess roster recovery and peak-load coverage, and watch for early emotional depletion signals that often precede incidents.
Controls: adjust rostering for recovery; improve staffing at peaks; strengthen debrief and practical support; escalate fatigue as a safety risk.
Monitor: short absences, incident/near miss trends, and overtime.

Common mistakes leaders make (and better alternatives)

Treating burnout as personal fragility

Mistake: focusing on toughness, “fit”, or individual coping.
Better: treat it as a signal to adjust demands, control, support, and clarity.

Implementing perks instead of fixing work design

Mistake: adding wellbeing activities while workload remains unmanageable.
Better: change conditions first, then supplement with supportive programs.

Waiting until someone breaks

Mistake: acting only after performance collapses or sick leave spikes.
Better: respond to early erosion signals and persistent patterns, including daily or weekly emotional signals that show strain increasing.

Over-relying on “time management” as the solution

Mistake: implying the employee should cope better with the same load.
Better: remove low-value work, reduce interruptions, clarify priorities, and renegotiate resourcing.

CONCLUSION

Leaders prevent burnout by managing the conditions that create chronic stress over time: workload, fatigue, control, role clarity, support, fairness, and values alignment. The most practical approach is to build repeatable routines that surface early warning signs, make trade-offs explicit, implement higher-order controls that change work design, and monitor whether persistent risk patterns are resolving. Strengthen this by treating early emotional signals as leading indicators, using brief, consistent check-ins to spot patterns early, enable peer support or mental health first responders where available, and strengthen psychological safety so people speak up before harm occurs. This is proactive leadership and sound psychosocial risk management.

FAQ

What causes burnout in teams (beyond individual resilience)?
Burnout risk is driven by chronic work conditions: excessive job demands, fatigue and long hours, low control (low autonomy), unclear roles and conflicting priorities, poor support and low psychological safety, unfairness, inconsistent recognition, values conflict, and poorly managed change. Leaders prevent burnout by changing these conditions, not by asking people to cope indefinitely.
What are the early warning signs of burnout a manager should look for?
Look for patterns across work, behaviour, and team climate: rising errors and rework, missed deadlines, growing backlog, frequent interruptions and task switching, withdrawal or irritability, increased conflict, presenteeism, short absences, and “always on” norms (late-night messages becoming standard). Also pay attention to early emotional signals that persist over days or weeks, such as sustained overwhelm, anxiety, cynicism, or disengagement. The earlier you act, the more options you have to reduce exposure.
How do I talk to an employee I’m worried is burning out without diagnosing them?
Use non-diagnostic, work-focused questions (LIFT): “How are you feeling about work?”, “What has been the hardest part?”, “What were you needing?”, “What can we change in the work this week?” Thank them, agree one practical work adjustment, and schedule a follow-up time you will keep. If risk is significant or persistent, involve HR and encourage EAP or medical support.
What’s the difference between stress, fatigue, burnout, and depression?
Stress can be temporary. Fatigue is reduced capacity from insufficient recovery or sustained load. Burnout (WHO ICD-11) is a work-related phenomenon resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed, involving exhaustion, mental distance or cynicism, and reduced efficacy. Depression is a clinical condition affecting multiple life areas and requires medical assessment. Leaders should not diagnose, but should adjust work and refer appropriately.
What are practical workload controls leaders can implement quickly?
Start with actions that remove or reduce exposure: stop low-value work, reduce meeting load, protect focus blocks, limit work-in-progress, clarify “top three priorities” for the fortnight, and renegotiate scope or deadlines with stakeholders. Make after-hours expectations explicit and plan leave coverage so recovery is real, not theoretical.
How can HR and leaders work together on burnout prevention without breaching confidentiality?
Use aggregated, de-identified trends to identify hotspots and evaluate whether controls are working (for example, consistent overload in a function). Keep individual disclosures private unless escalation is needed for safety or duty of care. Document work adjustments factually (what changed, by when) and agree clear escalation thresholds and referral pathways.
How do you prevent burnout in remote or hybrid teams?
Increase connection and clarity without adding meeting overload: embed a short weekly live pulse check-in in an existing meeting, clarify priorities and response-time norms, reduce channel sprawl, protect focus time, and watch for disconnection signals such as withdrawal or reduced participation. Consider lightweight emotional check-ins (daily or a few times per week) to detect isolation or sustained strain early. Make workload visible so effort is not hidden.
When does burnout become a WHS or psychosocial risk issue in Australia?
When work conditions create a foreseeable risk of psychological harm, for example chronic excessive workload, fatigue, low role clarity, poor support, bullying, or poorly managed change. These are psychosocial hazards and should be managed through a continuous risk cycle: identify, assess, control, monitor, and review, with worker consultation.
What metrics should we track to know if burnout risk is reducing?
Track leading and lagging indicators. Leading indicators include after-hours work, overtime, leave taken versus accrued, backlog and work-in-progress, meeting load, check-in engagement, and where used ethically, trends from brief emotional check-ins that show emerging distress. Lag indicators include unplanned absence patterns, turnover hotspots, grievances, and claims. Review leading indicators monthly at team level and review lag indicators quarterly with HR/WHS to trigger control reviews when patterns persist.
What should leaders stop doing that unintentionally drives burnout?
Stop rewarding unsustainable hours, adding work without removing anything, making priorities vague, tolerating constant interruptions, letting role conflicts linger, and normalising after-hours responsiveness. Also stop minimising concerns (“everyone’s busy”) and defaulting to “time management” advice instead of changing workload, clarity, and support. \n\nQuick Answer: Leaders prevent employee burnout by reducing chronic work stressors and strengthening the work conditions that protect energy and motivation. Focus on job demands (workload, pace, fatigue), job resources (control, role clarity, support), and fairness and values. Build repeatable routines for early check-ins, prioritisation and capacity decisions, and escalate persistent risks through psychosocial hazard controls. Many organisations only detect mental health risks after harm has occurred, so the aim is to treat early emotional and operational signals as leading indicators, not wait for absences, complaints, or attrition to confirm a problem.

How Leaders Can Prevent Employee Burnout: Work Design Actions, Early Warning Signs and Psychosocial Risk Controls