Are Companies Mistaking Employee Burnout For Poor Performance?

An employee misses a deadline, so their manager books a daily progress call, adds another target and asks for a written update at the end of every day. The employee was already treading water and now has to spend the first hour of each morning proving it. It has a certain logic to it, like trying to fix a flat tyre by adding more passengers.

When output dips, businesses may respond with tighter targets and closer monitoring. But if the workload is part of the problem, these measures risk adding pressure without addressing what caused the decline in performance. Managers could end up judging employees on results shaped by decisions made elsewhere in the business.

 

The Colleague Who Used To Be Brilliant

 

Emma Clark, co-founder at SSP Wellness Center, works with people who have been labelled underperformers while running on empty. She says burnout and disengagement can look similar from the outside, even when the reasons behind them differ.

“Performance is measured on output, and output depends on capacity. A burned-out employee and a disengaged one may both appear to underdeliver. But one has nothing left to give, and the other chooses not to give.”

Emma says burnout typically involves a decline in someone who previously performed well. She describes these employees as often being “over-givers, perfectionists and people pleasers” who are prone to taking on too much.

That doesn’t mean every employee whose performance slips is burned out. However, a change in someone’s work deserves investigation before a manager assumes they’ve stopped trying.

Sergio Ermacora, co-founder and COO of Nexteam, which recruits remote finance and accounting professionals, recommends asking three questions when performance becomes a concern: does the person know how to do the work, do they have enough time to complete it and are they receiving the information and decisions they need?

A missed deadline shows that something went wrong, but it doesn’t establish who or what caused it.

 

 

More Targets, Less Progress

 

Nick Petschek, managing director and European practice lead at Kotter, warns that extra scrutiny can compound existing problems.

“Unrealistic workloads, competing priorities and a constant stream of change can leave people struggling to keep up – despite considerable effort. Placing them under greater scrutiny risks compounding the problem.”

He explains that constant pressure can push employees into a “survive” mindset, making them more defensive and less willing to speak openly about the obstacles affecting their performance. Managers who introduce more monitoring to understand what’s going wrong could therefore make it harder for employees to raise the very issues they need to hear about.

Emma also warns that more targets and closer monitoring can become another threat to an already overloaded nervous system.

Workloads grow, output slips, managers add targets and pressure rises while the original obstacles remain. The company gets more data about the problem without necessarily getting a better explanation for it.

Dr. Kate Strohm, managing director of Lift College, highlights what else can suffer when employees are stretched too thin; “People who are stretched stop asking questions, stop learning and stop flagging risks, and that looks like disengagement on a dashboard.”

An employee who once raised problems early may stop doing so under pressure. If managers only see the drop in communication, they could mistake it for a lack of interest rather than a sign that something has changed.

 

Sometimes The Job Quietly Got Harder

 

Not every delay comes down to an employee’s workload or motivation. Sometimes the work itself is held up elsewhere.

Sergio gives the example of an accountant waiting for missing records or an analyst waiting for approved assumptions. Both may appear slow despite not being responsible for the delay.

His advice is to review a recent task with the employee before adding more targets or monitoring. What was requested? What changed? Where did they get stuck? What else were they expected to deliver?

Dr. Kate approaches the problem through workload management, asking employers to consider “what has been added in the last six months, and what has been taken away?”

She sees a similar pattern among adult learners studying alongside their jobs. When managers protect time for learning, people have a better chance of finishing their qualifications. When development is squeezed into evenings on top of a full workload, she also says learners can burn out and abandon their studies.

Adding another target won’t make missing records arrive faster or create more hours in the day. If a task depends on decisions, resources or time an employee doesn’t have, managers need to address those constraints before deciding that closer supervision is the answer.

 

Burnout Is Not The Only Suspect

 

It would be a mistake to assume every struggling employee is burned out. Angela Steel, founder and CEO of SuperWellness, argues that workload is an important factor but not the only one.

She says organisations have invested in prevention and support for employee wellbeing, while paying less attention to what she calls “flourishing”. In her view, employees also need meaningful work and constructive challenges. Work without enough challenge or meaning can be draining, and disengagement can itself contribute to burnout.

Managers therefore need to establish what’s changed before deciding whether someone needs more support, different responsibilities or a performance plan. An employee who is overwhelmed may need a more manageable workload, while someone who feels unchallenged may need opportunities to develop.

Barb Hyman, founder and CEO of Sapia.ai, approaches employee performance from the recruitment side. She argues that employers can place too much weight on qualifications and previous experience instead of assessing whether someone’s strengths and working style suit a particular role.

She cites Holland & Barrett as an example, saying early churn among retail colleagues fell from 74% to under 10% after the company changed its approach to assessing candidates. These figures relate to recruitment and staff turnover rather than burnout, but they raise a related point: the demands of a role and the person hired to fill it need to be a good match.

 

Before Another Performance Review

 

Before changing someone’s targets, managers need to work out what has changed. Emma Clark suggests looking back at the employee’s history to identify when their performance started to dip. Sergio Ermacora recommends checking whether they have the time, information and support to complete the work, while Dr Kate Strohm asks managers to consider what has been added to the workload and what has been taken away.

Angela Steel also points to the manager’s role in these discussions. They need to be able to talk honestly about whether someone is overloaded, struggling with the work or no longer being challenged by it. Those are different problems, and treating them all as poor performance won’t resolve any of them.

As Sergio says, “A missed target should start a conversation about the work, workload and support available, rather than automatically lead to closer monitoring.”

 

The People Setting The Targets Aren’t Exempt

 

None of this means deadlines no longer matter or that every performance concern can be explained away by burnout. Employees still need to meet expectations, and managers still need to address genuine performance problems.

But if priorities conflict, workloads are unrealistic or employees are waiting on decisions they can’t control, another performance review won’t resolve those obstacles. It will only record the consequences.

Nick urges leaders to consider whether they’ve created the conditions in which people can do their best work. Before asking employees to prove they can do more, businesses need to establish whether they’ve given them a reasonable chance to do the work in the first place.

 

Our Experts:

 

• Emma Clark: Co-founder at SSP Wellness Center
• Nick Petschek: Managing Director and European practice lead at Kotter
• Sergio Ermacora: Co-Founder and COO at Nexteam
• Dr. Kate Strohm: Managing Director of Lift College
• Angela Steel: Founder and CEO of SuperWellness
• Barb Hyman: Founder and CEO of Sapia.ai

 

Emma Clark, Co-founder, SSP Wellness Center

 

 

“Performance is measured on output, and output depends on capacity. A burned-out employee and a disengaged one may both appear to underdeliver. But one has nothing left to give, and the other chooses not to give.”

“How can you tell? Burnout typically looks like a clear decline in someone who used to be good. These people aren’t lazy. They’re often over-givers, perfectionists and people pleasers – those prone to burnout.”

“When they start dropping the ball, it’s often a nervous system stuck in survival mode. In that state, focus and productivity become a struggle, and more targets or closer monitoring become another threat to their already overloaded system.”

“Before writing a performance plan, consider their history. Was there a turning point? What changed in their workload? Are they getting any meaningful breaks?”

“A performance plan asks for more from someone who has already given everything. Productivity returns when capacity is restored.”

 

Nick Petschek, Managing Director and European Practice Lead, Kotter

 

 

“Unrealistic workloads, competing priorities and a constant stream of change can leave people struggling to keep up – despite considerable effort. Placing them under greater scrutiny risks compounding the problem.”

“Constant pressure shifts people into a “survive” mindset: becoming defensive and focusing on immediate demands rather than contributing their best ideas. Employees become less willing to speak openly about challenges affecting their performance, making it harder for leaders to identify the real obstacles to productivity.”

“Creating the opposite – a “thrive” mindset – requires a different approach. Leaders need to clarify priorities, explain how work contributes to business goals and create opportunities for employees to influence how work gets done. Without that context, exhaustion sets in not simply because there is too much to do, but because people cannot see how it fits together.”

“Before tightening performance controls, leaders should ask whether they have created the conditions in which people can do their best work.”

 

Sergio Ermacora, Co-founder and COO, Nexteam

 

“At Nexteam, we recruit remote finance and accounting professionals. When reviewing a performance concern, I would first separate three questions: does the person know how to do the work, do they have enough time, and are they receiving the information and decisions they need?”

“An accountant waiting for missing records or an analyst waiting for approved assumptions may look slow without being the cause of the delay.”

“Before adding targets or monitoring, review a recent task with the person. What was requested? What changed? Where did they get stuck? What else were they expected to deliver?”

“We use regular check-ins and client feedback to understand how placements are working.”

“A missed target should start a conversation about the work, workload and support available, rather than automatically lead to closer monitoring.”

 

Dr. Kate Strohm, Managing Director, Lift College

 

 

“Many employers treat a dip in output as an effort problem, when it is often a capacity problem. People who are stretched stop asking questions, stop learning and stop flagging risks, and that looks like disengagement on a dashboard. More targets and closer monitoring add pressure to the very people who are already running out of headroom.”

“The better first step is a workload conversation: what has been added in the last six months, and what has been taken away?”

“We see the same pattern in adult learners who study around work. When their manager protects even a small amount of time each week, they finish their qualification and stay; when development is squeezed into evenings on top of a full load, they burn out and drop it.”

“Investing in people’s skills only pays back if you also give them the time to use it.”

 

Angela Steel, Founder and CEO, SuperWellness

 

 

“Burnout is easily mistaken for poor performance, but the key is understanding what’s causing it. Workload is often a pivotal factor, but I’d urge caution before jumping to conclusions. Tackling the real causes needs a holistic approach that covers three key pillars: prevention, support and flourishing.”

“With greater awareness of mental health, organisations have rightly invested in prevention and support, but flourishing gets far less attention. Senior leaders in our research told us wellbeing includes being stretched and challenged constructively, yet some managers now hold back, worried about tipping people over. Work without challenge or meaning can be just as draining, and disengagement can itself be a route to burnout.”

“Before tightening targets or monitoring, check whether managers have the skills, and the safety themselves, to have honest conversations about workload, ability and growth.”

 

Barb Hyman, Founder and CEO, Sapia.ai

 

 

“Too often, employers rely on CVs, previous experience and educational qualifications as proxies for potential, rather than looking at the qualities, motivations and behaviours that will help someone succeed in a particular role. That can mean hiring someone who looks right on paper but whose strengths, expectations or working style do not align with the reality of the job.”

“We saw the impact of taking a different approach at Holland & Barrett. The team stopped treating experience and education as the benchmark and instead used evidence of candidates’ suitability for the role, with managers reviewing shortlists alongside the evidence behind every recommendation. Early churn among retail colleagues fell from 74% to under 10%.”

“Getting the match right at the outset is one of the most effective ways to address avoidable turnover. It means looking beyond who someone has worked for or what qualifications they hold to understand what they can bring to the role and whether they are likely to thrive in it.”