4 Relationship Traps That Lead to Burnout | Eric Quintane | TED

As a professor of organizational behavior, my focus is on studying people within organizations through the lens of their relationships and networks. This network perspective reveals a different image of organizations, making previously invisible interconnections obvious. For instance, some departments may be far more interconnected than initially perceived, while others, like a purple department at the top of an organizational chart, might appear almost completely disconnected. This perspective offers mathematical and statistical tools to understand the precise position of individuals and how their surrounding network impacts their thinking, performance, creativity, promotion prospects, and likelihood of leaving an organization. Over the last three decades, extensive empirical evidence has shown the significance of these networks across various cultural contexts, industries, and organization types. Two typical network structures are particularly noteworthy. The first is a cohesive network, exemplified by Kelly, who has strong relationships with colleagues who also know, trust, and frequently communicate with each other. This structure provides Kelly with reliable support during crises, recognition and validation for her work due to frequent information exchange, and the ability to coordinate, solve problems, and implement ideas quickly because communication spreads effectively. The second is an open network structure, like Alex's, where colleagues are largely unaware of each other, coming from different social groups, functions, departments, or even countries. This exposes Alex to diverse information, perspectives, and problem-solving approaches, fostering translation skills—the ability to adapt solutions from one context to another. Alex also gains significant power through control over this varied information, leading to recognition for creativity and the ability to combine different perspectives. While much is known about the positive benefits of these network structures, there has been limited understanding of their potential negative outcomes until recently. Early insights into this gap emerged from personal observations during my PhD, where my wife's research on victims of domestic violence highlighted how strong social norms among family and friends could prevent victims from leaving abusive relationships. This concept resonated with the idea that network structures in organizations might also have negative impacts, beyond easily identifiable issues like a difficult coworker or a bad boss. The rising awareness of burnout as a workplace epidemic, recognized by the World Health Organization in 2019, provided a crucial context. Burnout, characterized by exhaustion, cynicism, and caused by excessive work stress, is a widespread phenomenon, with nearly half of employees in one McKinsey survey reporting experiencing it. A toxic work environment is often identified as a cause, but this term is typically vague. Network analysis, with its ability to precisely characterize and visualize hidden aspects of networks, offered a promising approach to understanding the specific relational dynamics contributing to burnout. For the past five to six years, my research projects have involved studying seven organizations of various sizes and industries, encompassing over 5,000 employees. Through interviews, surveys, and analysis of email traffic, we've collected data on burnout experiences and individuals' positions within social structures. Our predictive models have shown that network structures can predict burnout with over 80% precision. From this ongoing research, four relational traps have been identified, corresponding to the two network structures. The first two traps are associated with cohesive networks. Trap one involves "binding norms," where the strong connections and frequent interactions in a cohesive group lead to the emergence of powerful behavioral norms. While initially beneficial, these norms can become so strong that they constrain individuals, making it difficult to deviate or break free, especially when personal interests diverge significantly from group expectations, mirroring the domestic violence example. Trap two is "emotional contagion," where frequent communication in cohesive structures acts as an echo chamber for emotions. While positive emotions are fine, shared frustration, complaints, and negative thoughts about the organization can be amplified, leading to increased stress, exhaustion, and burnout. The open network structure, while free from strong norms or echo chambers, is subject to its own two relational traps. Trap three, "uncontrollable interdependencies," arises when individuals, like nurses in a hospital study, must rely on many different people (doctors, radiologists, legal experts, administrators) to perform their job. This extensive dependency can lead to a loss of control over work quality and timing, resulting in inordinate stress and burnout. Trap four, "excessive demands," occurs when many people from diverse perspectives and departments depend on a central individual in an open network, like Alex. This dramatically increases the individual's workload, leading to excessive demands and significantly higher likelihood of burnout. These traps are not always easy to identify. A cohesive network, initially comfortable, can gradually become constraining. An open network, initially exciting due to diverse perspectives, can eventually lead to feeling stretched too thin. To address these, a regular "relationship health check" every six months is recommended. For trap one, assess if you are learning new ideas from coworkers and can propose new perspectives without fear of rejection. For trap two, evaluate if colleagues still energize you or if you feel exhausted by gossip and frustration. For trap three, question if you maintain control over your work's quality and timeliness despite dependencies. For trap four, consider if you feel constantly pulled in different directions by numerous demands. If traps one or two (cohesive network issues) are identified, the solution is to diversify your network by interacting with new coworkers, even simple actions like a monthly lunch. Reducing interactions with the very close group can also help. If traps three or four (open network issues) are present, the recommendation is to refocus on your core group and build support within it. This involves creating opportunities for disconnected contacts to meet and build their own connections, thereby bypassing you and fostering synergies that reduce your burden. In summary, networks are powerful and offer many benefits, but they also have a negative side to be aware of. The two key takeaways are: if you are in a cohesive network that feels constricting, break free and create new connections; if you are in an open network with disconnected contacts pulling you in multiple directions, bring them together to create a more cohesive support system. My fascination with networks and their implications continues, and I hope to have conveyed some of that excitement.