In the final part of our mini-series on absenteeism, we focus on burnout, which is currently probably the most common cause of absenteeism in Belgium.
Recently, the Antwerp Employment Court ruled that it is discriminatory to limit health insurance companies’ payments to two years for disabilities caused by mental disorders, personality disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome, or fibromyalgia. , burnout was once again featured in the Belgian press. However, no such time limit was imposed for other physical illnesses. The rationale behind this was that the recovery period for a mental illness is his two years, whereas for a physical illness the recovery period is usually shorter, so there was no need to put a cap on it. The court did not accept this argument and considered the distinction to be discriminatory.
Asuraria, the insurance company’s professional association, has already announced that it will review this decision and take the necessary steps, which will almost inevitably involve either insurers raising the cost of this type of insurance or Alternatively, it could include imposing a two-year cap on all new claims regardless. The type of disease.
Ashularia’s concerns about this decision are understandable, as the number of burnout cases in Belgium increased by 66% from 2018 to 2021. Viewed at face value, this is quite surprising. Certainly, the pandemic’s expanded scope for flexible working, choosing your own hours, and avoiding rush hours should all be alleviated. against Burnout syndrome? But the numbers show a different picture. Experts are calling for better organization of work and adjustments to employment conditions to combat this new pandemic.
The Belgian National Labor Council (NLC) also weighs in on this theme in its recommendations on primary prevention to help employees avoid quitting due to psychosocial complaints in general and burnout in particular. This recommendation, Nr. 30 of his article of November 8, does not contain very interesting content, so I decided to summarize the main points.
The NLC begins by reminding employers of their legal obligation to address the risk of employee burnout. The Code on Wellbeing at Work requires all employers to identify situations that may give rise to psychosocial risks in the workplace, to determine those risks (of which burnout is just one), and to It stipulates that it must be evaluated. Based on this risk assessment, employers should take appropriate preventive measures to minimize the risk of employee burnout as much as possible (primary prevention).
The NLC provides six recommendations for the requirements of a robust primary prevention policy to reduce the risk of burnout.
Recommendation 1: Integrated multidisciplinary approach
The priority in an employer’s prevention policy should always be primary prevention. Research shows that well-being approaches to burnout must target organizational structures to achieve true primary prevention. This prioritization of the organization also avoids personalizing the problem, which is not only unhelpful but may also foster taboos around burnout and create resistance to implementing countermeasures.
Organizational-level approaches are therefore most effective when combined with attention to individual employee resilience. These include training to increase knowledge and awareness of psychosocial risks and work situation issues, as well as measures aimed at bringing about behavior change. Special attention should also be paid to managerial awareness, education, and behavior change. But burnout is definitely a personal issue as well. Some people are more resilient than others, and people with similar resilience may be more resilient if their circumstances are different, such as if they have additional pressures at home or if they feel unappreciated. It can be affected in a number of ways, such as when Being unrecognized or treated unfairly in comparison to others. Burnout is never just a problem of workload.
Recommendation 2: Advance commitment to build strong internal support
Strong internal support is needed before primary prevention measures for burnout can be rolled out internally. If senior management clearly has no interest in anything other than results, there is no benefit to nice words and understanding from HR or line managers.
Recommendation 3: Tailor-made situation analysis and approach
All policies must start with an analysis of the company’s specific situation and weaknesses. A one-size-fits-all approach won’t work. The first challenge is to gain knowledge of these company-specific bottlenecks. Surveys and interviews with current and former employees are an important step in fully understanding the issue. To this you can sensibly add anonymized analysis of staff complaints and exit interview notes to highlight recurring issues.
Recommendation 4: This approach should be integrated into the company’s long-term strategic direction.
Structurally incorporating attention to burnout into integrated prevention policies can help ensure the necessary resources (time, money, human resources), attention, and multidisciplinary approaches to prevent burnout .
Planned actions to prevent burnout must be integrated into an employer’s broader annual action plan. This should be reflected in his five-year global prevention plan and continually adjusted according to the results of the implementation of the annual action plan.
Recommendation 5: Bottom-up participation and dialogue: the key role of employees
No policy will work without the support of employees and their representatives. The NLC recommends establishing a multidisciplinary task force and involving employee representatives from health and safety committees, works councils or trade union delegations in all stages of the project.
Recommendation 6: The important role of domain expertise
Sectoral support allows us to share best practices across the industry, and external perspectives help us achieve cultural change, stay on track and support our broader vision for primary prevention .
* * *
Are these recommendations groundbreaking or innovative that I would never have come up with on my own? Unlikely. The biggest benefit of the NLC report is that it reminds employers of their legal obligation to address the risk of burnout within their companies, and provides some sort of step-by-step plan for tackling this challenge. I’m sure there are. We are already seeing examples of current and former employees suing companies for not taking sufficient precautions to prevent harassment and other types of psychosocial risks in the workplace. Naturally, burnout comes next.