How to Avoid Burnout and Find Joy in Corporatized Care Settings

• The Toll of Healing
• The Irony of Healing
• Change to Address the Self-Care Deficit
• Unveiling Corporate Complicity
• Rethinking Corporate Dynamics
• Our Mental Health Heroes

As a clinical supervisor and marriage and family therapist, I’ve encountered, as most in our profession have, a challenging paradox entrenched within today’s corporate landscapes: while our mission revolves around healing others, we often find ourselves navigating environments that overlook our own well-being. This striking contradiction serves as a wake-up call, signaling a pressing need for a radical overhaul in how we perceive and implement mental health care within corporate structures. It’s a reality I’ve witnessed firsthand as I guide my supervisees through overwhelming caseloads, intricate cases, and resource constraints; where chronic stress, pervasive burnout, compassion fatigue, and moral distress become all too familiar companions on our journey.

This reality underscores the urgency for change. Creating sustainable healing environments demands a fundamental shift in our approach — one that goes beyond individual self-care and embraces a paradigm of structural support rooted within organizations. In this article, I will explore the intricate dynamics of healing within corporate entities, aiming to shed light on the myriad factors influencing mental health care practices. Furthermore, I will confront the complicity of corporate structures in perpetuating the challenges faced by mental health professionals. This exploration serves as my call to action, as I advocate for a more compassionate and empowering approach that not only supports the resilience of mental health professionals but also enhances employee retention and overall well-being within organizations.

The Toll of Healing

Pressures in Practice

One of the most glaring issues facing mental health professionals in corporate settings is the overwhelming caseload they tackle daily. According to research, these professionals often find themselves swamped with numerous cases, leaving little time for rest or reflection (1). Moreover, the complexity of these cases adds another layer of challenge to their already demanding workload. The intricate nature of cases handled by mental health practitioners highlights the considerable cognitive and emotional resources required for effective navigation (2).

In conversations with my supervisees, a recurring concern emerged: many felt they had no time during their workday to engage in essential tasks like case conceptualizations. This left them grappling with their clients’ issues even after leaving the office, encroaching on their personal time meant for family and relaxation. Several of my supervisees expressed frustration over this predicament. They found themselves unable to fully switch off from work, constantly mulling over client cases while at home. This not only affected their ability to unwind but also strained their relationships with family and loved ones. In essence, the boundary between work and personal life blurred for these mental health professionals, highlighting the need for more support and resources within corporate structures to enable them to effectively manage their workload and maintain a healthy work-life balance.  

Adding to these challenges is the pervasive issue of resource deficits within corporate mental health settings. Roth (3) shed light on the scarcity of resources such as time, funding, and institutional support, acting as persistent barriers to effective mental health care delivery. This limited access not only hampers practitioners’ ability to provide comprehensive care, but also exacerbates feelings of frustration and helplessness.

Consequences

The cumulative impact of navigating overwhelming caseloads, intricate cases, and resource deficits reverberates throughout mental health care, resulting in many adverse consequences for practitioners. Chronic stress, a prevalent outcome of prolonged exposure to high-stress environments exacts a significant toll on mental health professionals’ physical and emotional well-being (4). The incessant pressure to meet the demands of their caseloads while contending with limited resources contributes to a sense of perpetual strain and unease.

Burnout, another pervasive consequence of the relentless demands placed on mental health professionals, manifests through emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a diminished sense of personal accomplishment (5, 6) underscores the toll of burnout on practitioners’ professional efficacy and personal satisfaction, highlighting its detrimental effects on both individual well-being and organizational effectiveness. Moreover, the phenomenon of compassion fatigue emerges as a significant concern within the field, as mental health professionals become emotionally drained and desensitized to the suffering of their clients. The empathic engagement required to provide effective care can exact a heavy emotional toll, leading to feelings of emotional exhaustion and detachment.

Furthermore, moral distress, defined as the psychological anguish experienced when individuals feel unable to act in accordance with their moral beliefs, further compounds the challenges faced by mental health professionals (6). The ethical dilemmas inherent in navigating complex cases within resource-constrained environments can evoke profound feelings of moral distress, contributing to a sense of moral injury and moral erosion among practitioners (7).

One of my supervisees faced a challenging case involving a client experiencing severe trauma that required Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy instead of traditional talk therapy. However, institutional policies limited the client’s access to EMDR sessions to only one per week. Despite our recognition of the urgent need for more frequent sessions to address the client’s trauma effectively, they felt constrained by these policies and unable to provide the recommended level of care.

As the supervisee continued to engage with the client’s case, they began to experience symptoms of compassion fatigue. The emotional toll of witnessing the client’s distressing experiences day after day left them feeling emotionally drained and desensitized. They struggled to support the same level of empathy and engagement that they once had, leading to a sense of detachment from their work.

As the demands of their caseload persisted and the constraints of institutional policies became more apparent, the supervisee eventually found themselves experiencing burnout. The emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and diminished sense of personal accomplishment became overwhelming. Despite their dedication to their clients, the supervisee felt increasingly disillusioned and disconnected from their work, questioning whether they could continue in their role as a mental health professional.

In summary, the toll of healing within corporate mental health settings is multifaceted and profound, encompassing a range of challenges that imperil the well-being of practitioners and compromise the quality of care provided to clients. Addressing these issues requires a comprehensive understanding of the systemic factors contributing to practitioner distress and a concerted effort to implement structural interventions that prioritize practitioner well-being and enhance the resilience of the mental health workforce. It is imperative that organizations acknowledge and address these challenges head-on, fostering a supportive and nurturing environment that empowers mental health professionals to thrive in their roles and deliver optimal care to those in need.

The Irony of Healing

Contradiction in Practice  

I’ve witnessed firsthand the struggle mental health professionals face in prioritizing their own well-being while caring for others. This paradox is deeply ingrained in societal expectations that prioritize clients’ needs over practitioners’ self-care, perpetuating a harmful cycle of neglect and burnout. This cycle of neglect and burnout is deeply entrenched in societal expectations (8).

Despite my expertise in promoting mental wellness, I've observed many professionals, including myself, grappling with implementing self-care practices due to time constraints, stigma, and the normalization of overwork within the field (9). Moreover, the demanding nature of our work — dealing with trauma, emotional distress, and crises — often leads to emotional exhaustion and blurs the boundaries between professional and personal life, making it challenging to maintain a healthy work-life balance.

The contradiction inherent in the mental health profession, I purport, is exacerbated by systemic factors entrenched within corporate structures. I’ve witnessed the negative impact of hierarchical power dynamics, productivity pressures, and a pervasive culture of perfectionism as they dissuade mental health professionals from seeking support or acknowledging their vulnerabilities (10). Consequently, practitioners find themselves compelled to prioritize productivity over their own well-being, resulting in heightened stress, burnout, and diminished job satisfaction.

I have seen many pre-licensure practitioners facing significant challenges in accessing essential mental health support due to financial constraints, particularly with the burden of student debt. This lack of corporate prioritization and support directly contributes to the scarcity of resources, such as adequate time and financial assistance, leaving many practitioners struggling to afford essential mental health services. This systemic inadequacy further compounds the challenges faced by mental health professionals, exacerbating the toll on their well-being and hindering their ability to provide optimal care to their clients. 

Change to Address the Self-Care Deficit

In my assessment, addressing this irony demands a fundamental overhaul in how mental health care is perceived and administered within corporate frameworks. Instead of relegating self-care solely to individual responsibility, I recommend that organizations acknowledge it as a collective pursuit necessitating systemic backing and resources. Recognizing the intrinsic link between caregiver and client well-being, I suggest that corporations dismantle the obstacles upholding the cycle of neglect and cultivate environments that promote sustainable healing.

Self-Care Deficit Theory states that individuals possess an innate capacity to engage in self-care activities to uphold their health and well-being (11). However, when individuals face physical, psychological, or developmental limitations that impede their ability to meet these needs, a self-care deficit arises, leading to adverse health outcomes. Applying this theory to mental health professionals within corporate settings, it becomes evident that the prevailing emphasis on individual self-care imposes an unrealistic burden on practitioners, contributing to burnout and compromised care quality. To address this issue, I recommend that organizations acknowledge their responsibility in supporting and facilitating self-care practices among employees. 

One recommendation based on this theory is to implement self-care support programs within corporate structures. These programs could encompass educational workshops on stress management techniques, mindfulness practices, and boundary-setting strategies tailored to the unique needs of mental health professionals. Additionally, organizations could offer resources such as self-care toolkits, online forums for peer support, and access to counseling services to assist employees in addressing their self-care deficits and preventing burnout.

This transformative shift entails not only providing mental health professionals with the resources and support necessary to prioritize their own well-being but also cultivating a culture of care that values vulnerability, self-compassion, and work-life balance. This may involve implementing policies that promote flexible scheduling, providing access to affordable mental health care services, and offering ongoing training and supervision to help practitioners develop effective self-care strategies. Moreover, organizations must actively work to destigmatize help-seeking behaviors and create environments where individuals feel safe and supported in addressing their mental health needs. By recognizing and addressing the irony of healing within corporate structures, organizations can not only improve the well-being of their employees but also enhance the quality and efficacy of the mental health care services they provide. This requires a commitment to systemic change, one that prioritizes the holistic health and resilience of both healers and those they serve.

Unveiling Corporate Complicity

Corporate Culpability

Within corporate structures, I’ve observed how profit-driven motives often take precedence over employee well-being, creating a challenging environment for mental health professionals. The imperative to maximize productivity and minimize costs can lead to understaffing, excessive workloads, and limited resources, all of which contribute to increased stress and burnout among practitioners. As mental health services become increasingly commodified within corporate settings, the focus on profitability overshadows considerations of ethical practice and quality care. Consequently, mental health professionals like me and my supervisees may find ourselves pressured to prioritize financial goals over the well-being of our clients, leading to ethical dilemmas and moral distress.

Moreover, in my experience, the hierarchical nature of many organizations often creates power imbalances that inhibit open communication and transparency, making it difficult for employees, including mental health professionals, to advocate for their own needs. Decision-making processes are often centralized among upper management, leaving frontline workers feeling disempowered and undervalued. This lack of autonomy and involvement in organizational decision-making can contribute to feelings of alienation and disengagement among mental health professionals, further exacerbating issues of burnout and turnover.

In one poignant instance, a supervisee of mine, a compassionate mental health professional, opened up to me about their struggles within the organizational hierarchy. Despite their unwavering dedication to providing top-notch care, they often felt constrained by the rigid structure of the organization. Decision-making power remained tightly held by upper management, leaving them feeling voiceless and undervalued. They felt unable to advocate for their own needs, which left them feeling disconnected and disheartened. The toll of this environment weighed heavily on them, exacerbating feelings of burnout and having them considering abruptly quitting.

In my experience, the commodification of mental health care within corporate structures often prioritizes short-term financial gains over the long-term well-being of employees and clients alike. Cost-cutting measures, such as limiting access to therapy sessions or reducing staffing levels, can compromise the quality and effectiveness of care, ultimately undermining the mission of promoting mental wellness. Furthermore, the relentless emphasis on profitability may deter organizations from investing in preventive measures or comprehensive support systems for mental health professionals, perpetuating a cycle of crisis management rather than proactive care.

The Fallacy of Resilience

Despite the increasing awareness of mental health issues in the workplace, many organizations persist in prioritizing resilience as the primary solution to employee stress and burnout. This focus on individual coping skills fails to address the systemic factors within corporate structures that contribute to mental health challenges. It perpetuates the notion that employees should simply “tough it out” rather than tackling underlying organizational issues. While resilience training programs are well-intentioned, they often place the burden of responsibility solely on the individual, implying that better coping strategies alone can counteract the effects of toxic work environments or high-pressure job demands.

In my view, individual resilience, while valuable, cannot fully offset systemic deficiencies like excessive workloads, inadequate resources, or toxic organizational cultures. Additionally, I believe that the disproportionate emphasis on resilience may inadvertently stigmatize individuals who struggle to cope with workplace stress. It implies that their inability to “bounce back” is a personal failing rather than a reflection of broader systemic issues.  

Moreover, I assert that the expectation of unwavering professionalism can foster a culture of silence regarding mental health issues, causing employees to internalize their struggles and refrain from seeking help due to concerns about appearing incompetent or weak. This culture of stigma and shame can hinder individuals from accessing necessary support and perpetuate a cycle of secrecy and denial within organizations. In prioritizing the appearance of resilience over the actual well-being of employees, corporations are inadvertently fueling a culture of silence and denial surrounding mental health issues, thereby intensifying the challenges encountered by mental health professionals.

Ultimately, I believe the fallacy of resilience highlights the necessity for organizations to embrace a more comprehensive approach to employee well-being, one that acknowledges the significance of tackling systemic factors and fostering supportive work environments. Instead of expecting individuals to simply “tough it out,” organizations should take proactive measures to address the root causes of workplace stress and cultivate a culture characterized by openness, support, and compassion. It is only by addressing these underlying structural issues that corporations can establish environments genuinely conducive to the mental health and well-being of their employees.

Rethinking Corporate Dynamics

In my experience, I firmly advocate for a holistic approach to fostering employee wellness within corporate structures. This encompasses policy reform to incorporate provisions for mental health support, flexible work arrangements, and stress management initiatives. Adequate resource allocation is equally crucial, ensuring investment in mental health resources, training programs, and employee assistance programs. Moreover, fostering cultural shifts within organizations, promoting open communication, destigmatizing mental health issues, and prioritizing work-life balance, is essential for creating a supportive and thriving work environment.  

I’ve witnessed firsthand the toll that excessive caseloads can take on our well-being. That’s why I advocate for implementing manageable caseloads within corporations. By ensuring mental health professions have a reasonable number of clients to attend to, quality of care standards can be maintained, and burnout and exhaustion can be reduced or possibly prevented. Moreover, I firmly believe in the power of comprehensive training programs tailored to the needs of mental health therapists. These programs should not only cover clinical techniques and interventions but also prioritize self-care strategies and stress management techniques. By equipping therapists with the necessary skills and knowledge to navigate the challenges of their profession, corporations empower them to thrive in their roles while prioritizing their own mental health.

In addition to manageable caseloads and comprehensive training, access to mental health support resources is essential for the well-being of therapists. This includes easy access to counseling services, peer support groups, and supervision sessions. Having a supportive network and resources readily available ensures that therapists can seek help when needed and receive the support they require to maintain their emotional resilience in the face of challenging cases and demanding work environments.

Our Mental Health Heroes

In closing, it’s important for me to recognize the immense challenges faced by our mental health heroes within corporate structures. Their tireless dedication to the well-being of others often comes at a significant cost to their own mental health and resilience. Despite the barriers they encounter, these professionals continue to show up day after day, driven by a genuine passion for helping others navigate life’s complexities. Their commitment is both admirable and deeply impactful, yet it’s essential for me to acknowledge the toll it takes on their well-being.

As I reflect on the experiences shared in this article and those throughout my career, it’s clear that our mental health heroes are not immune to the struggles they help their clients overcome. Hindered by corporate structures, they grapple with burnout, compassion fatigue, and the weight of ethical dilemmas, all while striving to provide the best possible care in often challenging circumstances. Their journey is one marked by resilience and dedication, but it’s also one that demands acknowledgment, support, and compassion from the corporations that employ them.

In extending empathy to our mental health heroes, I must also recognize the inherent humanity within each practitioner. They are not invincible superheroes but rather individuals with their own vulnerabilities, struggles, and needs. By fostering a culture of empathy and understanding within corporate structures, we can create environments where mental health professionals feel valued, supported, and empowered to prioritize their own well-being alongside that of their clients.

In essence, the empathy I extend to our mental health heroes mirrors the compassion they demonstrate in their daily work. Addressing the systemic challenges they face within corporate structures is crucial to paving the way for a future where both healers and those they serve can thrive in an environment of genuine care and support. This entails recognizing the toll of burnout, compassion fatigue, and ethical dilemmas, and actively working to alleviate these burdens through systemic change and support structures. I propose that high-quality client care is linked to the well-being of our mental health professionals, and this must be prioritized by corporations that employ them.

Questions for Thought and Discussion

What are your impressions of this author’s perspective on corporate mental health?

How might you work with a company or corporation to improve the mental health of its employees?

In what way have you been impacted by corporate mental health challenges and how did you address them?  

References
(1) Kim, J. J., Brookman-Frazee, L., Gellatly, R., Stadnick, N., Barnett, M. L., & Lau, A. S. (2018). Predictors of burnout among community therapists in the sustainment phase of a system-driven implementation of multiple evidence-based practices in children’s mental health. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 49(2), 132–141. 

(2) Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397-422.

(3) Roth, C., Wensing, M., Kuzman, M. R., Bjedov, S., Medved, S., Istvanovic, A., ... & Petrea, I. (2021). Experiences of healthcare staff providing community-based mental healthcare as a multidisciplinary community mental health team in Central and Eastern Europe findings from the RECOVER-E project: An observational intervention study. BMC Psychiatry, 21, 1-15.  

(4) Awa, W. L., Plaumann, M., & Walter, U. (2010). Burnout prevention: A review of intervention programs. Patient Education and Counseling, 78(2), 184-190.

(5) Bakker, A. B., Demerouti, E., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2004). Dual processes at work in a call centre: An application of the job demands-resources model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 13(4), 393-417.  

(6) Jordan, K. B. (Ed.). (2015). Couple, marriage, and family therapy supervision. Springer.

(7) Canin, N. (2023). Exploring countertransference in psychoanalytic research: Reflecting on being a researcher, a psychotherapist, a mother and a human being in a neonatal high care unit. Psychoanalytic Practice, 31(1), 19-53.

(8) Adams, R. E., & Boscarino, J. A. (2005). Differences in mental health outcomes among Whites, African Americans, and Hispanics following a community disaster. Psychiatry, 68(3), 250-265.

(9) Greenberg, N., Docherty, M., Gnanapragasam, S., & Wessely, S. (2020). Managing mental health challenges faced by healthcare workers during covid-19 pandemic. BMJ, 368, m1211.

(10) Ocampo, A. C. G., Wang, L., Kiazad, K., Restubog, S. L. D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2020). The relentless pursuit of perfectionism: A review of perfectionism in the workplace and an agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 41(2), 144-168  

(11) Underwood, P. R. (1990). Orem’s self-care model: Principles and general applications. In D. Orem (Ed.). Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing (pp. 175-187).   

©2024, Psychotherapy.net