Read Before Burning Issue 13 asks the question, “If I’m burning out, should I stay or should I go?”
Welcome to Read Before Burning, a monthly newsletter by organisational psychologist Dr Ben J. Searle. Come here for simple but informative coverage of burnout-related concepts, research findings, and actionable advice – all firmly grounded in science (and guaranteed AI-free).
Who am I? After earning a PhD in psychology, I spent 20 years in academia studying stress and burnout until I went through burnout myself. I now research, consult, and communicate about burnout and what to do about it.
I also do other consulting work, such as investigating psychosocial hazards and developing reliable tools for measuring workplace phenomena. Reach out if you think I might be able to help you!
SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?
The titular question from the 1982 punk rock song by The Clash (familiar to some younger folks due to its inclusion in Stranger Things) is a question I get asked by many people who feel burned out. In its longer form, the question is, “Should I wait for these problems in my workplace to get resolved, or should I quit the job now?”
“Should I wait for these problems in my workplace to get resolved, or should I just quit the job now?”
I was planning to write a feature about this topic anyway, but while writing up more results from my Experiences of Burnout 2025 study, it became clear I had to address this sooner rather than later.
Staying vs Going: The Basics
I’ll start by describing the simple arguments for staying as well as those for leaving.
Why Stay?
As I’ve explained before (e.g., RBB Issue #02), many work factors can contribute to burnout and other forms of psychological injury; collectively, we call these factors psychosocial hazards. Like any workplace hazards, employers are (in Australia and many other parts of the world) responsible for managing the risks associated with psychosocial hazards.
In principle, an employer’s response to employee burnout should be straightforward. When an employee experiences burnout, this should not just be handled sensitively (see RBB Issue #10 and RBB Issue #11), it should — like any other workplace injury — be reported. That report should trigger an investigation into the associated hazards. That investigation would normally recommend implementing changes and controls to address the hazards.
So in principle, there is a process to resolve the underlying problems that contributed to an employee burning out. It isn’t always a simple process, but there are a huge number of resources available to help organisations through it: guides from government bodies, books and articles by researchers and professionals, and people and organisations who can provide advice and assistance.
This means there should be advantages arising from reporting burnout and waiting for the underlying hazards to be resolved.
1. Better Protections.
With a new job, you’re expected to hit the ground running and demonstrate your capability as soon as possible. But a long-term employee who is injured at work (burnout is a psychological injury) may be entitled to a prolonged period of leave, followed by an appropriately planned and supported return to work. As I’ve described elsewhere (RBB Issue #08), accommodations such as gradual return to work can do much to facilitate the process of recovery from burnout. If your workplace is supportive, you can benefit from these protections if you stay.
2. Less Risk.
Leaving a job seems risky. Other job options might not be as well suited to someone’s skills and interests. It might pay less, offer worse benefits, or be located farther away. In periods of technological disruption and economic instability, people might have reason to worry about finding a new job. If the hazards affecting the current job might be fixed, it might seem safer to stay.
3. Less Effort.
Changing jobs is hard. It’s so much more than just the time and effort of finding alternative work, writing applications, and preparing for interviews. A new job means learning new systems, learning to work with new people, and learning a new set of unwritten rules and priorities. It’s so much to cope with when someone is already burning out! If the hazards affecting the current job might be fixed, it might be easier to stay.
4. More Helpful.
If psychosocial hazards harmed one person, they’re probably harming others. Even if these hazards are specific to a single job (uncommon but it can happen), leaving means that someone else will face those hazards. Reporting the hazards and contributing to the change process can help make the workplace better for everyone. If the hazards might be fixed, it might be more helpful to stay.
Why Go?
Arguments for staying in the job seem reasonable, but they assume a best case scenario. In practice, there are reasons why someone experiencing burnout might prefer to leave.
1. Less Risk to Reputation.
It’s common for people to put off disclosing their burnout because they think it will harm their reputation or social standing. I’ve already discussed (see RBB Issue #03) how much shame people feel when they are burning out, and how other people’s reactions can make this a lot worse. This is one reason why so many burnout disclosures are handled poorly (see RBB Issue #09). Since burnout happens at higher rates in unsupportive environments, it’s reasonable to expect people who burn out might work in places where there reputational damage may be a valid concern. In such places, it might feel safer to leave without explaining why.
2. Less Risk of Retribution.
Even if the initial burnout disclosure is handled sensitively, there can still be risks. Investigations into psychosocial hazards often reveal problems with people, such as:
- co-workers who take credit for others’ work,
- team members who don’t do their fair share,
- leaders who set unclear expectations, or
- serial bullies or harassers.
If someone information provided during a hazard investigation could reveal someone’s misconduct, that person may engage in retaliation against the person making the report. This shouldn’t happen in a workplace with healthy culture and norms, but again, burnout is more likely to occur in workplaces that have more harmful interpersonal behaviour. If retaliation seem possible, it might feel safer to leave without reporting the problems.
3. Less Risk of Denials and Delays.
A report of a psychological injury or psychosocial hazard should prompt an investigation, but many organisations are still working out how to handle such reports. This can lead to such problems as:
- Reports about burnout and/or psychosocial hazards not being taken seriously,
- Reports lacking sufficient details (perhaps due to a fear of retribution) to trigger an investigation, or
- Investigations that do not confirm, to the satisfaction of decision-makers, the presence of the psychosocial hazard(s).
Even if the investigation identifies hazards, the ensuing recommendations may not be implemented. They may seem too expensive, they may clash with entrenched practices or cultural expectations, or they may threaten powerful people. Implementation may be delegated to people who are overwhelmed with other responsibilities or who don’t know how to achieve the implementation steps. Or it may simply take a long time to make relatively little progress towards a hazard free environment. In such cases, looking for another job might seem a faster route to a healthy work environment.
Which brings me to the findings of my study.
Stay or Go? Findings from the Experiences of Burnout Study
I conducted the Experiences of Burnout 2025 study in June-July 2025, recruiting people with lived and living experience of burnout to help us learn more about the nature of the condition. I described some of the study’s findings in my newsletter feature on burnout’s early warning signs (RBB Issue #06).
The study also explored the use and perceived effectiveness of burnout coping strategies, many of which I’ll discuss in a future issue of the newsletter. The relevant finding for this article is the strategy participants rated highest in effectiveness for coping with burnout.
Consistent with other research showing the benefits of problem-focused approaches to coping with burnout, that strategy was Seeking changes at work or moving to a new job. Unfortunately, this was a single item that combined the two options discussed in this article (which are similar in being direct responses to workplace psychosocial hazards, making them distinct from such forms of coping as relaxation exercises, seeking support from others, or lifestyle changes). From effectiveness ratings alone, it was not possible to identify which of these approaches was considered more useful.
Fortunately, most study participants were also willing to answer open-ended questions, and there were many responses about coping. The most commonly mentioned coping strategy, which nearly all who wrote about it described as highly effective, was leaving a bad job (or a bad work environment). Far fewer written responses mentioned the benefits of workplace change, and those who did were outnumbered by those who described appeals for change that were rejected or ignored.
The most commonly mentioned coping strategy, which nearly all who wrote about it described as highly effective, was leaving a bad job
In short, results from my study suggest people who burn out may prefer (and find it more beneficial) to Go rather than to Stay.
To be clear, none of this means psychosocial hazard management is ineffective at reducing burnout. What the findings suggest is that the hazard management often doesn’t happen. Instead, too many employers ignore reports of hazards and appeals for change, or they maintain an environment that discourages people from making such reports or appeals. In such workplaces, leaving may be the only way people feel able to escape the hazards and recover from burnout.
We need to do better. Employers, not employees, are the ones who should be taking action to prevent and manage burnout and other psychological injuries. Employers are not just legally responsible (in Australia and many other countries); they are also the ones with the power to investigate and control workplace hazards. Employees should not feel a need to leave jobs, abandon careers, or retire early simply to manage their own health, not just because it’s not their responsibility, but because many employees don’t have the freedom or financial security to make these choices!
Stay should be at least as good an option as Go.
References
Lee, H. F., Kuo, C. C., Chien, T. W., & Wang, Y. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of coping strategies on reducing nurse burnout. Applied Nursing Research, 31, 100-110.
Safe Work Australia. (2022). Model code of practice: Managing psychosocial hazards at work.
Searle, B. J. (2025). Experiences of burnout 2025: Preliminary results report 1/2.
Shin, H., Park, Y. M., Ying, J. Y., Kim, B., Noh, H., & Lee, S. M. (2014). Relationships between coping strategies and burnout symptoms: A meta-analytic approach. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(1), 44-56.
News
Coming Soon
- The second report of findings from my Experiences of Burnout 2025 study (read the first report here).
Monthly Updates
- Burnout symptom status: Low to moderate.
- Secret burnout book query status: [REDACTED]
- Podcast status: Season 4 is in development.
- Number of submissions approved for presenting at the 2026 APS IOP Conference: Two.
Spread the Word
If you found this newsletter useful, please share it! If you haven’t shared it for a while, you can probably afford the 30 seconds it will take to share it again.
You can sign up here to get this newsletter via email before it drops anywhere else, or subscribe on LinkedIn to get notified whenever I release a new issue there.
Questions? Suggestions? Reach out to me at mindonthejob@gmail.com
(c) 2026 Ben J. Searle