Work-Related Stress and Burnout: Why It’s Not an HR Issue, but a Productivity Problem

If work-related stress were only an HR issue, we could stop talking about it here.
The problem is that it is not.

Work-related stress directly affects:

• quality of decisions
• speed of execution
• ability to collaborate
• retention of key people

In other words: it affects real productivity, not what appears in quarterly KPIs.

Yet, in many companies it continues to be treated as a technical requirement: the assessment has been done, the document exists, the DVR is updated. HR and RSPP have divided the tasks, the consultant has delivered the checklist, everyone is satisfied.

But then a question remains on the table:
if we are really fine, why are people increasingly tired, irritable, defensive, absent… or present but disconnected?

Here we start telling ourselves the truth: work-related stress is not a compliance issue.
It is an early indicator of productivity loss.
And when we treat it as a checkbox, we are choosing not to see a problem that we will pay for much more dearly later.

Stress Is Not Individual Fragility, It Is Organizational Design

INAIL states it clearly, even if we often misread it: work-related stress is an organizational risk. It does not concern “fragile people.” It concerns how work is designed, distributed, managed, and led.

When a person says “I am too stressed,” in most cases they are not saying:

• “I can’t handle it”
• “I am weak”

They are saying:

• I cannot recover
• I have no control over my work
• I never know what is enough
• I only receive corrective feedback
• I am always under judgment

This is not pop psychology.
It is organization that does not work.

But Be Careful: Resilience Must Be Trained, Not Replaced with Fake Well-Being

This needs to be said clearly, without hypocrisy.

Work is not (and will never be) a place without frustration.
It requires confrontation, responsibility, pressure, mistakes, feedback that sometimes hurts.

And on this point, yes: people—especially new generations—need to be trained in resilience.
We cannot build organizations made only of positive feedback, smiles, and emotional protection.
That is not well-being. It is fragility.

But resilience does not arise in a vacuum.
It does not arise in confused, judgmental, opaque contexts, where:

• you never know what is enough
• the workload grows without sense
• recovery is not provided
• stress is normalized

That does not train resilience.
It builds burnout.

The real challenge is not choosing between “being tough” or “being kind.”
It is designing contexts in which:

• effort makes sense
• rules are clear
• feedback is also tough, but fair
• pressure is not random

Stress Assessment: Done Well on Paper, Useless in Decisions

The methodology exists. The steps are clear: preliminary assessment, possible in-depth analysis, action plan, monitoring. All correct. All regulated.

The problem is how it is used.

In the preliminary assessment we look at indicators such as absenteeism, turnover, accidents, disputes. Sometimes also residual vacation days, which are one of the most underestimated signals of overload and inability to recover. Then, if something emerges, we move on to questionnaires, focus groups, interviews.

And there something curious often happens:
the data remains confined to the assessment.

It does not really enter into decisions about:

• workloads
• priorities
• roles
• leadership style
• implicit expectations

Thus the assessment becomes formally correct, but organizationally sterile.

Burnout: The Final Chapter We Pretend Not to Read

Burnout is not a sudden event.
It is the final chapter of work-related stress ignored for a long time.

It arrives when for months—sometimes for years—the same things keep happening:

• high workloads become normal
• vacation is not taken (or taken poorly)
• conflicts remain informal
• feedback is skewed toward the negative
• listening arrives only when it is too late

At that point the person does not report.
Does not use whistleblowing.
Does not immediately go to the doctor.

They continue to work.
But they work worse.

And this is where the CEO should pay attention:
burnout does not empty your office tomorrow, it empties people’s decision-making capacity today.

Presenteeism: The Cost That Does Not Appear in Financial Statements

Major international research (WHO, ILO, Gallup) is very clear on this point: stress and burnout cost enormously in terms of productivity, but not due to absenteeism.
Due to presenteeism.

People physically present, but:

• slow
• defensive
• not very creative
• not very collaborative
• focused more on not making mistakes than on doing well

This is the highest cost.
And it is the one that no checklist really intercepts.

“Too Much Stress” and New Generations: Fragile or Less Willing to Burn Out?

New generations—Gen Z first and foremost—talk about stress much earlier.
They name it.
They put it on the table.
They do not wait to break down.

This does not mean they are less productive.
It means they have different thresholds of acceptability.

And for a company this is not a moral judgment.
It is data that must be considered, a fragility that must be understood and then actively managed, as my friend Cristina Brusati has clearly highlighted in her interviews and in-depth research. Her research deserves reflection that we will have the opportunity to do with Federmanager and AIDP.

When a generation leaves earlier, the problem is not fragility.
It is the sustainability of the organizational model.

When Stress Is Minimized, the Ground Is Prepared for More Serious Problems

Ignored work-related stress does not disappear.
It transforms.

It becomes:

• chronic conflict
• perception of injustice
• isolation
• labels (“can’t handle it,” “is problematic”)
• toxic climate

And this is where, later on, we will start talking about mobbing and whistleblowing.
But at that point we are already late.

The Question a CEO Should Ask (Really)

It is not:
“have we done the assessment?”

It is:
“are we using that data to make better decisions?”

Because if the answer is no, work-related stress is not a requirement.
It is an ignored early warning.

And ignoring an early indicator does not make the company tougher.
It makes it slower, more short-sighted, and more expensive.