[davesque]

While I see that this research is aimed at leadership positions and this must surely be a problem, I feel obligated to point out that the issue of burnout could be an even worse problem in non-leadership positions.

It seems that a lot of the suggested solutions (take time off, be more honest about your emotions, etc.) are necessarily things that are difficult to do for people who are not in management positions. Requesting long blocks of time off or being forthcoming about your emotions are easily things that can be used against you in employee reviews and other similar situations.

In cases of severe burnout, the situation is more dire since people earning a lower salary might simply not be able to step back from work to take a year off, for example (something that was suggested by another poster here).

[waynesonfire]

of course! however, this demographic most likely doesn't have as much disposable income and thus is not the target audience of the authors coaching program.

[Aqua]

While I understand the intention to highlight the other side of the problem, all these issues are significantly more severe for people in leadership positions.

I can't imagine taking more than 2 weeks off from work. These solutions aren't really solutions unless the person in question decides to quit their job. There is no snowballs chance in hell that a company will tolerate absence of their management staff that is longer than 4 weeks. A replacement or substituion would be required fairly soon.

Being open about one's emotion in a leadership position is a ridiculous advice, it's obvious that the authors have no idea what they're recommending.

[alxlaz]

> There is no snowballs chance in hell that a company will tolerate absence of their management staff that is longer than 4 weeks.

I've worked in places where, at any given time, at least one something-something manager was on a one-year sabbatical. One of them literally requested it -- and got it -- in order to spend more time with their daughter, who was going to college the following year, since that was their last chance to spend quality time with her for a few years. Lots of people in a non-management positions have trouble attending their kids' graduation ceremonies if they're out of state -- getting a whole year off to see them off to college is pretty much science fiction.

Yes, they generally didn't leave smack in the middle of a project, but there's a lot of no man's land in-between projects.

I don't understand how any of this is surprising. Justifiably or not, benefits and perks are clustered around leadership positions, that's literally one of the reasons why people are seeking them.

Plus, in many large companies, it can easily take 6-12 months to recruit someone for a leadership position. Granting three-month vacations to the people you already have is a really good idea.

[hammock]

Manager? How high up were they?

[alxlaz]

Way closer to a junior dev than a C-level position ;-).

Edit: one-year sabbaticals aside, which aren't that common outside large companies, longer vacations are normal simply because extra paid vacation days are a standard benefit you get with a promotion.

[outworlder]

> There is no snowballs chance in hell that a company will tolerate absence of their management staff that is longer than 4 weeks

That's a very US-centric view.

In some countries, people get 4 weeks vacations yearly, and can take them all in one block. Yes. A full month outside work. Fully outside, not this "I'm away but will be available by mail" BS.

If this is expected, companies will plan for it and will survive just fine. Normalizing the non-stop grind should not be acceptable.

[xupybd]

Burn out cost me a job. I was just getting back of on track when they let me go. I'm in a new job and loving being productive again.