Read Before Burning Issue 14 explains how your organization’s burnout defences have holes.

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 advising organisations on how to improve their systems and practices for preventing and alleviating burnout. Reach out if you think I might be able to help you!

YOUR BURNOUT DEFENCES HAVE HOLES

I started planning this article after being invited to speak about how to support employees at risk of burnout. My initial response to the invitation was to think of policies and practices that research has shown can help prevent burnout. I then started compiling an even longer list of things organisations should stop doing.

But lists aren’t great for communication. They aren’t compelling, they aren’t memorable, and they don’t show how to solve problems independently. Fortunately, I knew a framework that would help.

There’s a model named after Swiss cheese?

“adverse events are the result of flaws in multiple defence layers”

Professor James Reason’s Swiss Cheese model illustrates how adverse events that are often attributed to “human error” are actually the result of deeper problems. The model characterises different aspects of an organisation that affect risk of adverse events as separate “defence layers”. Each layer may have its own flaws or limitations. According to the model, adverse events are the result of flaws in multiple defence layers. For example:

Why is the model named after cheese? Swiss cheese gets cut into slices (which can represent defence layers). Each slice contains holes (which represent limitations, weaknesses, or other failures). A hole in a defence layer means something can pass through (i.e., the risk of an adverse event). Where holes line up across the layers, this represents the risk of an adverse event bypassing all of the defences.

In short, the model shows how adverse events result from a series of failures across defence layers.

How does this apply to burnout?

Many leaders claim that burnout only happens because employees lack resilience. But according to the World Health Organisation’s International Classification of Diseases, burnout is caused by failures in workplace stress management. Using the Swiss Cheese model, we can conceptualise these failures as holes in multiple defence layers. To improve an organisation’s handling of burnout, you need to understand your burnout defences and identify (and fix) the holes within them.

The nature of a defence layer depends on a variety of factors, including which adverse events you’re trying to prevent. In the context of burnout, I’ve found it helps to focus on three defensive layers: preventive, alleviative, and rehabilitative.

Preventive Layer

What is this defence layer (in the context of burnout)?

The preventive layer represents things an organisation can do to make employees less likely to burn out.

What does this layer look like?

Defences against burnout can look different from one organisation to the next, but there are some similarities. In particular, each defensive layer is made up of systems elements (e.g., policies, processes, and tools) and people elements (e.g., values, behaviours, and relationships).

Some examples of systems that can provide a preventive defence against burnout include (but are not limited to):

• Psychosocial risk management: An organisation’s systems for identifying and eliminating, reducing, or otherwise controlling emerging psychosocial hazards (check out my interview with FlourishDx founder Jason van Schie);
• Workload management systems: Systems that organisations use to appropriately allocate work to, and to equitably balance workload amongst, employees; and
• SMART work design: The extent to which jobs, teams, and systems follow principles that decades of organisational psychology research have shown to support employee mental health (check out my interview with Professor Sharon Parker, architect of the SMART work design model).

Some people factors that contribute to preventive defence against burnout include:

• Sustainable behavioural norms: Behaviours modelled by leaders to encourage sustainable work and recovery practices (e.g., finishing work on time, not sending after-hours emails), and
• Collaborative work cultures: Embedded work values that encourage people to share their knowledge, to help others when they can, and to seek help when they need it.

What holes are often present in this layer?

Again, this can depend on the defences in place, which can differ between organisations. Nevertheless, some preventive defence failures that I hear about regularly include:

• Psychosocial risk management limitations: Some of these systems are overly compliance-focused or simply under-resourced;
• Minimums not maximums: Many workload management systems are only designed to ensure employees do enough work, and they lack the ability to identify or discourage overload; and
• All work and no play: Many leaders model or encourage unsustainable behaviours on- and off-the-job, such as emailing team members late at night and expecting them to respond.

Alleviative Layer

What is this defensive layer (in the context of burnout)?

The alleviative layer represents things an organisation can do to recognise emerging burnout quickly and to respond to it in ways that minimise its impact.

What does this layer look like?

Person factors in the alleviative layer are often at the team level, since this is where early-stage burnout might be recognised and responded to. Examples include:

• Psychological safety: When people feel comfortable voicing concerns about psychosocial hazards to a team leader, or even to one another, such hazards tend to be identified earlier. Psychological safety can also empower people to be open about symptoms of burnout or other psychological injuries, instead of feeling too anxious or ashamed to talk about them (see RBB Issue 3).
• Team support: In teams where people feel comfortable asking for help when they are struggling (either with their work tasks or with their mental health), the need for support may be apparent earlier, when it can do more good.

Systemic factors that can help alleviative early stage burnout may include:

• Workplace mental health training: This includes how well people understand mental health issues, how aware they are of early warning signs of burnout (see RBB Issue 6), and how well they could support someone through a disclosure of burnout or mental illness (see RBB Issue 10).
• Hazard management systems: This includes how easy it is to make formal reports about psychosocial hazards, how well conducted are any resulting hazard investigations (i.e., how timely, thorough, and trauma-informed they are), and how well implemented are the recommendations arising from such investigations (an issue discussed in RBB Issue 13).

What holes are often present in this layer?

Some alleviative defence failures I hear about regularly include:

• Misunderstandings about burnout: When people have serious misunderstandings about the nature of burnout (e.g., seeing it as a sign of weakness or a badge of honour), this interferes with early identification and action;
• Lack of psychological safety: When leaders and teams speak and act in ways that undermine psychological safety (e.g., “Don’t bring me problems, bring me solutions!”), this discourages early identification and action; and
• Problematic hazard management: So many things can go wrong here — many organisations don’t even have hazard reporting systems that aren’t designed for reporting psychosocial hazards.

REHABILITATIVE LAYER

What is this defensive layer (in the context of burnout)?

The rehabilitative layer represents things an organisation can do to support employees who have experienced, and been harmed by, burnout and other psychological injuries. Even when a worker reaches the point of needing work accommodations or time away from work, supporting them through rehabilitation can help ease the burden of injury and facilitate an earlier and better return to work.

What does this layer look like?

Rehabilitative support systems include:

• Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs): Good EAP services can help employees quickly access support from mental health professionals;
• Leave provisions: Clear guidance for how to access leave provisions in cases of severe burnout can make a big difference for affected workers;
• Handover practices: Systems and practices that allow rapid work handovers can make a big difference when a worker’s health depends on stopping work rapidly; and
• Return-to-work (RTW) programs: Evidence-based RTW programs that explore reasonable accommodations such as gradual return can make a big difference not only to the affected worker’s physical and psychological wellbeing but also to their financial wellbeing and long-term capacity to work (see RBB Issue 8).

Rehabilitative supports also include interpersonal elements, including the extent to which co-workers are compassionate, trusting, respectful, and inclusive.

What holes are often present in this layer?

Common rehabilitative defence failures include:

• “It isn’t our problem”: Many organisations still treat burnout as an individual problem that they don’t need to engage with. Often this shows up as treating EAP referrals as both the start and the end of the burnout management process.
• “It shouldn’t be easy”: Many employers seem to think they are discouraging bogus claims of burnout by requiring people to negotiate innumerable obstacles to access accommodations or leave, when in fact the obstacles are a far bigger problem for genuinely burned-out individuals.
• “It reveals the weak links”: Many people seem to interpret a worker’s stress-leave, accommodation requests, or other indicators of serious burnout as signs of incapability or untrustworthiness. Many burnout survivors describe how they began to be treated very differently, not just by leaders but even by some co-workers.

How does it help to know my burnout defences have holes?

There are other models and frameworks we can use to evaluate how well we we’re supporting employees experiencing, or at risk of, burnout. The Swiss Cheese model nevertheless provides some valuable lessons:

Don’t blame the victim. Rather than treating the adverse event (burnout) as an individual failure, this model tells us to focus on the systemic and interpersonal factors that should be defending employees against burnout.

A good defence is layered. The model acknowledges that good outer defences are valuable, but it also shows us why multiple defence layers are effective. In the case of burnout, this affirms the value of good psychosocial risk management while recognising there are other ways organisations can and should support employee wellbeing.

Your burnout defences have holes. We shouldn’t assume, or expect, that defences will work perfectly. Once we accept that defences will have “holes”, we can draw on analysis tools influenced by the Swiss cheese model to look for weaknesses and limitations. Some of the holes may be fixable, while others may be offset by other defences.

References

Ahola, K., Toppinen-Tanner, S., & Seppänen, J. (2017). Interventions to alleviate burnout symptoms and to support return to work among employees with burnout: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Burnout Research, 4, 1-11.

Fisher, S., Blau, A., & Gendler, Y. (2026). Unpopular patients and compassion fatigue among nurses: a mixed-methods study on emotional burden, workforce well-being, and patient safety. BMC Nursing, 25(1), 349.

Reason, J. T. (2000). Human error: models and management. BMJ, 320, 768-70.

Schultz, I. Z., & Gatchel, R. J. (Eds.). (2015). Handbook of Return to Work: From Research to Practice. Springer.

Shappell, S. A., & Wiegmann, D. A. (2000). The human factors analysis and classification system–HFACS. FAA / US Department of Transportation.

World Health Organization (2021). International statistical classification of diseases and related health problems (11th ed.). https://icd.who.int/

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.
• Phishing and other scam messages received (via phone, text, email, or social media): Twenty-eight.

Spread the Word

If you found this newsletter useful, please share it!

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