🔥 The Burnout Paradox: The Hidden Contradictions Driving Employee Burnout 🔥

In today’s workplace, organizations frequently promote values such as work-life balance, flexible schedules, and mental well-being. However, the reality on the ground is often far from these ideals. Employees are often caught in double bind situations, where they receive conflicting messages, leading to confusion, stress, and ultimately, burnout. According to a 2023 report by Boston Consulting Group, nearly half of the global workforce is suffering from burnout, a staggering statistic that underscores the severity of this issue.

As an executive and team coach, I frequently encounter professionals struggling with these contradictions. Despite their best efforts, they often find themselves navigating unspoken expectations that undermine their well-being. This struggle reflects the double bind theory, first introduced by Gregory Bateson and colleagues (1956), which explains how individuals can become trapped in dysfunctional communication loops where no matter what they do, they cannot “win.” The workplace, much like the parent-child dynamic Bateson described, can create a situation where employees rely on the organization for survival (salary, career growth) while being subjected to contradictory expectations that make it impossible to comply fully without consequence.

Certain sectors, such as the exhibitions and events industry, are particularly vulnerable to high levels of stress and burnout due to heavy workloads, strict deadlines, and sometimes challenging work conditions, including frequent travel, unsociable hours, and high-pressure environments. Employees in these fields often experience intensified versions of workplace paradoxes, making burnout an even greater risk.

Three of the most common paradoxes contributing to workplace exhaustion are the "always-on" culture vs. the expectation to disconnect, the overwork paradox—where staff are told to respect work hours but given excessive workloads and blaming individuals for perfectionism whilst encouraging high performance.

👊 Paradox 1: "Always-On" vs. Official Work-Life Balance Policies

Many organizations have policies encouraging employees to set boundaries between work and personal life. Sounds good, right? Employees are not expected to check emails late at night, respond to messages over the weekend, or be available outside of official hours. However, in practice, workplace culture often tells a different story:

• Employees may be told they are not required to be available outside working hours, yet if their manager regularly answers emails late at night, they feel compelled to do the same.
• Promotions and career progression often favour those who appear most dedicated—measured not by efficiency but by constant availability.
• And human beings often mimic behavior, especially that of authority figures. If a manager stays late or checks in on weekends, their team feels an underlying obligation to follow suit.

This paradox creates cognitive dissonance, where employees struggle to reconcile official policies with workplace reality. The result? Employees either conform to the hidden expectation of being always available—leading to burnout—or they adhere to formal policies and risk being perceived as disengaged.

👊 Paradox 2: The Overwork Trap—"Respect Working Hours" vs. "Unrealistic Workloads"

Another contradiction arises when organizations advocate for reasonable work hours but fail to align workloads accordingly. Employees are expected to respect their working hours, yet they are simultaneously given an excessive volume of tasks that cannot be realistically completed within standard working hours.

• The expectation is to be productive within official hours, but systemic understaffing or increasing demands make this impossible.
• Employees may not be explicitly asked to work overtime, but they feel pressured to stay late in order to meet deadlines.
• Some companies promote flexible work arrangements, but in reality, this often means employees are just expected to work at all hours rather than having true control over their schedule (the flexibility illusion).

This paradox places employees in a no-win situation—leave on time and risk being labeled as underperforming, or work extra hours and suffer the consequences.

👊 Paradox 3: Blaming Individuals for Perfectionism While Encouraging High Performance

A third contradiction lies in how organizations address burnout by shifting the responsibility onto employees. While companies claim to support mental well-being, they often blame burnout on individual personality traits, particularly perfectionism:

• "Your perfectionism is the problem"—yet demanding flawless results under unrealistic deadlines.
• "You should prioritize self-care"—but leaving no room in workloads for employees to actually disconnect.

This paradox not only adds to the emotional burden but also fosters guilt—employees feel responsible for their burnout rather than recognizing the structural failings of their organization.

❗️The Double Bind of Workplace Burnout

The paradoxes outlined above closely resemble Bateson's theory of the double bind, where individuals receive contradictory messages from authority figures that they cannot challenge or escape. Much like the mother-child dynamic described in the original double bind theory, employees depend on their organization for financial security, career growth, and professional identity. They are placed in situations where:

• They receive conflicting messages (e.g., “prioritize balance” vs. “deliver at all costs”).
• They cannot meta-communicate (they cannot openly address the contradiction without professional risk).
• They cannot escape the situation (leaving the organization is not always a feasible option).

This leads to a psychological spiral, where employees become trapped in chronic stress, confusion, and learned helplessness. The symptoms identified by Watzlawick, Beavin Bavelas, and Jackson (2014)—such as paranoia, withdrawal, and in certain cases hyperactivity, can all be attributed to this form of injunction.

🙋 Breaking the Cycle: How Coaching Can Help

The role of the executive and team coach in this context is crucial. As a coach, I work with individuals and teams to help identify and reframe the paradoxes they are trapped in. Much like Bateson’s concept of meta-communication, coaching provides a mirror that allows professionals to recognize the dysfunctional patterns they are caught in and develop strategies to navigate them.

Key ways coaching can help include:

1. Making the Invisible Visible: helping employees and leaders identify the hidden contradictions within their organization.
2. Reframing Expectations: shifting the focus from constant availability to real productivity and more balance.
3. Creating Psychological Safety: encouraging organizations to foster environments where employees can set boundaries without fear.
4. Developing Resilient Leadership: training managers to model healthy work behaviours and avoid perpetuating burnout cycles.

👉 Conclusion: Toward a Healthier Workplace

For organizations to truly combat burnout, they must go beyond policies and address the structural contradictions that create workplace paradoxes. By recognizing the double binds at play, leaders can take proactive steps to align behaviors with expectations, ensure workloads match work hours, and build a culture where employees feel valued for their actual contributions rather than their constant availability. Happier employees lead to stronger organizations.

References:

• Boston Consulting Group (2023). The State of Burnout: How Half the World’s Workforce is Struggling.
• Bateson, G., Jackson, D. D., Haley, J., & Weakland, J. H. (1956). Towards a Theory of Schizophrenia.
• Maslach, C. & Leiter, M. P. (2016). The Truth About Burnout.
• Watzlawick, P., Beavin Bavelas, J., & Jackson, D. D. (2014). Pragmatics of Human Communication.
• Deloitte (2022). Workplace Burnout Survey.
• Eurofound (2021). Working Conditions and Sustainable Work.