The Great Pause: Systemic Shortfalls in the Return to Work

The Missed Moment: Why the Return to Work Fell Short

Today we are moving swiftly into understanding how exactly the return to work was orchestrated. The COVID-19 pandemic fundamentally disrupted workplaces globally, presenting a unique opportunity to redefine traditional work structures. As vaccines allowed for cautious reopening, many anticipated transformative changes—including flexible schedules, hybrid models, and enhanced employee well-being.

However, the post-pandemic returns largely defaulted to pre-pandemic norms, highlighting significant missed opportunities. In this part I aim to critically evaluate why global efforts failed to effectively leverage this period, revealing inadequacies in strategic planning, mental health initiatives, and resulting increases in employee burnout and dissatisfaction.

Strategic Myopia: When Recovery Plans Lacked Vision

Globally, return-to-work policies lacked strategic depth and long-term vision. Although the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA, 2020) urged sustainable and inclusive recovery measures, most nations prioritised immediate economic revival and physical health measures (e.g., hygiene protocols and social distancing), neglecting comprehensive psychological safety strategies. According to the World Health Organization (WHO, 2022), while 90% of countries included mental health in their response plans, actual implementation was inconsistent and superficial. Companies further compounded the issue by imposing rigid return-to-office mandates with minimal employee consultation, exacerbating frustration and disillusionment. Gallup (2022) reported that over 40% of the global workforce considered leaving due to dissatisfaction with these inadequate strategies, reflecting systemic shortfalls.

Burnout Wasn't New—But We Still Weren’t Ready

Figure 1.0: Global Burnout Rates Pre- and Post-COVID (2019–2023)
Burnout rates surged significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic, peaking in 2021 and remaining elevated through subsequent years, reflecting sustained workplace stress (Gallup, 2023; Deloitte, 2022).

The consequences of poor strategic planning manifested rapidly, amplifying employee burnout, anxiety, and stress. WHO (2022) documented a global increase of 25% in anxiety and depression cases post-pandemic, indicating prolonged psychological distress. Gallup’s State of the Global Workplace report (2023) revealed employee stress peaked at 44% in 2021, only marginally decreasing to 41% by 2023, far exceeding pre-pandemic levels.

Figure 1.1: Share of Adults Reporting Symptoms of Anxiety and/or Depressive Disorder During COVID-19 (2020–2023)

The prevalence of anxiety and depressive symptoms significantly rose during the COVID-19 pandemic, with peak rates observed in early 2021, highlighting ongoing mental health impacts during and after return-to-work phases (KFF, 2023).

Deloitte (2022) highlighted that 53% of women across ten countries reported increased burnout, significantly influencing workforce attrition rates. Furthermore, McKinsey & Company (2021) found one-third of office returnees experienced deteriorating mental health, and nearly half of remote employees anticipated similar impacts if forced to return.

Despite these alarming indicators, mental health remained sidelined in workplace policies, largely due to persistent stigma. McKinsey’s research indicated fewer than 10% of workplaces were perceived as free from stigma related to mental health issues (McKinsey & Company, 2021). Consequently, chronic stress and disengagement remained largely unaddressed, driving significant workforce attrition, as evidenced by Gallup’s finding that 52% of workers were actively seeking or open to new employment opportunities by 2023 (Gallup, 2023).

Untapped Potential: What We Could Have Redefined

The return-to-work phase could have been a pivotal moment to fundamentally rethink traditional workplace structures, yet many promising opportunities were overlooked. During the pandemic, remote and flexible working arrangements emerged not just as feasible but demonstrably beneficial. According to comprehensive OECD surveys (2021), teleworking significantly improved employee productivity, well-being, and work–life balance. Managers and employees alike reported enhanced focus, reduced commuting stress, and increased overall job satisfaction, effectively dismantling pre-pandemic stigmas surrounding remote work. Despite this robust evidence, most organisations hastily returned to conventional, office-based schedules. Executives often cited preserving "corporate culture" or enhancing "team collaboration" as justification for these reversions, even as data repeatedly indicated hybrid models offered sustained productivity gains and higher morale.

Equally perplexing was the failure to adopt innovative work-hour models despite clear evidence of their effectiveness. Notably, a UK trial conducted in 2022 involving 61 companies demonstrated the substantial benefits of a four-day workweek. Over a year later, 54 of those companies continued with the shortened week, citing maintained or increased productivity, marked improvements in employees’ physical and mental health, significantly better work–life balance, and reduced burnout (NPR, 2022). Similarly, Iceland's earlier trials (2015–2019) found shortened workweeks overwhelmingly successful, achieving sustained productivity without economic drawbacks. Nonetheless, despite such compelling results, most organisations globally remained tethered to the traditional 40+ hour workweek. Rather than institutionalising proven systemic changes, companies settled for superficial adjustments like occasional wellness days or meeting-free periods—temporary measures insufficient for meaningful, lasting burnout reduction.

Further, physical workspace redesign aimed at psychological well-being was notably under-prioritised. The early pandemic period sparked promising discussions around redesigning office spaces to incorporate open-air areas, enhanced ventilation systems, quiet zones designed for focused tasks, and communal spaces to foster reconnection and morale. Unfortunately, few of these concepts translated into comprehensive workplace transformations. The innovative concept of "resimercial" design—combining the comfort and relaxation of residential spaces with commercial productivity—remained largely theoretical, leaving many employees returning to offices still fraught with pre-existing stressors and discomfort.

Additionally, governmental and policy-level interventions fell markedly short of driving sustainable workplace reforms. Although certain progressive labour reforms were implemented sporadically—Belgium's legislation allowing employees to condense workweeks, and strengthened rights-to-disconnect in France and Spain—these initiatives lacked cohesion or global coordination (ILO, 2021). Despite repeated recommendations by organisations such as the OECD and ILO urging countries to use post-pandemic recovery to structurally enhance job quality and working conditions, urgency to restore immediate economic stability overshadowed longer-term strategic planning. As a result, most countries defaulted to superficial economic normalisation rather than embracing transformative labour standards, a profound missed opportunity with lasting social and economic costs.

Figure 1.2: Adoption of Hybrid and Flexible Work Arrangements (OECD Countries, 2023)

Despite clear benefits demonstrated during the pandemic, a majority of OECD countries returned predominantly to traditional onsite working arrangements, representing a significant missed opportunity for sustained workplace innovation and employee well-being (OECD, 2023).

Ultimately, the rush to return to "business as usual" overshadowed proven solutions capable of addressing systemic burnout and sustainably enhancing workplace productivity and well-being. The evidence was clear, the path was available, yet organisational inertia and short-sighted policy decisions meant the post-pandemic workplace largely reverted to its pre-pandemic state—highlighting a troubling global reluctance to prioritise well-being as a cornerstone of economic recovery and growth.

Mental Health: Marginalised When It Mattered Most

Several interconnected factors led to mental health and burnout being inadequately addressed during the return-to-work phase. Historically, mental well-being has been viewed as an individual's responsibility rather than a core aspect of occupational health, unlike physical safety measures. Consequently, employers frequently relied on superficial initiatives, such as meditation apps or resilience training, neglecting underlying systemic issues like excessive workloads, limited autonomy, and toxic management practices. According to McKinsey (2022), despite 90% of companies offering wellness programmes, most interventions merely treated burnout symptoms rather than their root causes, resulting in persistent employee distress and disengagement.

Economic pressures also played a significant role. Post-pandemic urgency to revive financial stability and productivity overshadowed long-term workplace improvements. Short-term economic concerns led organisations to deprioritise mental health investments, despite mounting evidence linking burnout directly to reduced productivity and increased turnover costs (Gallup, 2023; Deloitte, 2022). This oversight exacerbated issues like the 'Great Resignation,' undermining the very economic recovery they aimed to achieve.

Additionally, policy inertia and fragmented leadership impeded effective action. Few governments or organisations had contingency plans for strategic post-pandemic workplace reform. Instead, many defaulted to familiar yet inadequate approaches, hastily improvising return-to-office policies without adequate mental health considerations (ILO, 2021). The lack of coordinated leadership between public health, labour regulators, and corporate decision-makers further complicated the development of coherent, systemic solutions.

Lastly, the scale of the mental health crisis simply overwhelmed existing resources. Globally, countries allocate less than 2% of health budgets to mental health services, leaving psychological support systems critically underfunded and unable to cope with pandemic-driven demand (WHO, 2022). This resource gap left many employees without access to professional support, placing unsustainable pressures on individuals and workplace relationships alike.

The Alternate Scenario: What a Better Reset Could Have Delivered

Had workplaces been proactively restructured during the return-to-work phase, the outcomes could have been transformative, significantly reducing burnout and enhancing employee retention. For instance, adopting flexible work arrangements and shorter workweeks, as demonstrated in successful UK trials, could have dramatically lowered stress levels and improved overall employee well-being (NPR, 2022). Such changes would have provided workers with more time for rest, family responsibilities, and personal activities, directly mitigating pandemic-induced burnout.

Furthermore, a proactive approach to workplace redesign could have bolstered employee engagement and reduced widespread resignations. Gallup (2023) links employee engagement directly to productivity, underscoring that organisations implementing flexible and inclusive policies typically experience higher morale, stronger commitment, and lower turnover. By integrating employee preferences into hybrid work policies, organisations could have maintained a more stable, satisfied, and productive workforce.

Economically, investing in mental health and workplace flexibility would have likely enhanced overall resilience. The estimated global loss of $8.9 trillion annually due to disengagement (Gallup, 2023) highlights the critical economic benefit of prioritising human capital. Strategically addressing workplace stress and burnout could have accelerated economic recovery and improved workforce diversity—particularly benefiting women's labour force participation, which suffered disproportionately due to inflexible return-to-work policies.

Ultimately, the missed opportunities of the post-pandemic period reveal the urgent need for structural reform. By learning from these shortcomings, future policies can prioritise employee well-being as fundamental to sustainable economic growth and organisational resilience.

From Reflection to Reinvention: What Comes Next

Reflecting on the post-pandemic workplace, it's clear that what we missed was not opportunity but willingness. The conditions were ripe for a transformative reset—yet the majority of organisations defaulted to outdated norms, compounding employee burnout and dissatisfaction. However, recognising these failures isn't merely about critique; it's a catalyst for meaningful change.

In the final part of this saga tomorrow, I will try to shift from diagnosis to prescription. Rather than awaiting another crisis to dictate action, we propose proactively designing a deliberate global pause. This structured pause would intentionally recalibrate work environments, prioritise mental health as a strategic asset, and embed resilience into our economic and social systems. By doing so, we can transform burnout from an inevitability into a preventable phenomenon. The alternative—business as usual—has already proven untenable. The next step is not merely recovery but strategic reinvention.

References

Deloitte. (2022). Women @ Work: A global outlook. Deloitte Insights. https://www2.deloitte.com/global/en/pages/about-deloitte/articles/women-at-work-global-outlook.html

Gallup. (2022). The next great disruption is hybrid work – Are we ready? https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace-2022.aspx

Gallup. (2023). State of the global workplace: 2023 report. Gallup Press. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace-2023.aspx

International Labour Organization (ILO). (2021). COVID-19 and the world of work: Country policy responses. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/coronavirus/country-responses/lang--en/index.htm

Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). (2023). The implications of COVID-19 for mental health and substance use. https://www.kff.org

McKinsey & Company. (2021). Return to work in a psychologically safer office. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/people-and-organizational-performance/our-insights/returning-to-work

McKinsey & Company. (2022). Addressing employee burnout: Are you solving the right problem? McKinsey Health Institute. https://www.mckinsey.com/mhi/our-insights/addressing-employee-burnout-are-you-solving-the-right-problem

National Public Radio (NPR). (2022). These companies tried a 4-day workweek. More than a year in, they still love it. https://www.npr.org/2022/11/29/1139861237/uk-companies-4-day-workweek

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2021). Telework after COVID-19: Survey evidence from managers and workers on implications for productivity and well-being. https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/

United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). (2020). Recovering better: Economic and social challenges and opportunities. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/policy/recovering-better.html

World Health Organization (WHO). (2022). World mental health report: Transforming mental health for all. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240049338