Why Workplace Burnout Is Still Seen as a Leadership Strength
- Ravi
- Dec 4
- 2 min read
In conversations about workplace burnout leadership, a recurring question keeps surfacing:
When did long hours start becoming evidence of “strong leadership”?
Across many workplaces, teams that appear stretched, overloaded, or visibly tired often end up reflecting positively on the person managing them.
Quiet, efficient teams sometimes trigger more suspicion than appreciation. Targets may be met, clients satisfied, and work completed on time — yet the absence of strain can still raise eyebrows.
This kaapi with Ravi cartoon was sparked by that subtle but persistent workplace narrative.
Why Do Long Hours Still Signal “Good Leadership”?
Even in some modern workplaces, the belief persists that a leader’s strength is reflected in:
how late their team stays
how visible the workload appears
how frequently people feel “stretched”
how little downtime is seen
But where does this expectation originate?
Do organizations subconsciously equate busyness with dedication?
Do some leaders feel pressure to show that their people are always “pushing”?
Has the idea of sustainable performance become too quiet to be noticed?
Are we rewarding visible effort more than effective leadership?
These questions linger because the answers are not always simple.
Is Burnout Becoming an Unspoken Performance Metric?
Many employees hear feedback like:
“I need to see more urgency.”
“Your team seems too relaxed.”
“Are they stretching themselves enough?”
Yet if a team meets goals without appearing overwhelmed, does that challenge traditional views of what leadership is supposed to “look like”?
Could it be that some workplaces have unintentionally turned burnout into a benchmark for high ambition?
Worth thinking about.
What Might Leadership Look Like Without Burnout Signals?
Some possibilities to consider:
Could leadership be measured by clarity instead of chaos?
What if calm teams were interpreted as capable rather than complacent?
Could efficiency become more visible than exhaustion?
What changes when a team performs without being visibly drained?
If burnout wasn’t a proxy for commitment, how differently would leaders be evaluated?
A Closing Reflection
This post isn’t about praising one style or criticizing another.It’s about examining whether the signs we reward — long hours, constant pressure, visible strain — still serve the workplaces we hope to build.
And if they don’t, what new signals might replace them?
Sometimes a cartoon is simply a doorway into a deeper workplace question.
What Do You Think?
Have you seen burnout treated as evidence of “good leadership”?
Are long hours still the main indicator of commitment in some teams?
What signs of leadership should we be rewarding instead?
Share your experiences in the comments — they often inspire future kaapi with Ravi cartoons and insights.
Comments