4.2 Activity: case study by Gia Instructor

Question 1

2025-03-22 22:59:30 UTC

I actually viewed this particular case study as a shifting the burden archetype, due to the root cause being workplace culture and lack of psychological safety within the workplace, where staff were feeling judged and under pressure to deliver, leading to burnout.

Question 2

2025-03-22 23:04:33 UTC

In my workplace the issue is not so much a lack of leave being taken, but rather fatigue and burnout leading to excessive leave (unplanned / extended sick leave). This is due to poor job control, job clarity and staff capability. More needs to be done with workforce planning to reduce this impact, as well as review of technical on-call roles against the right to disconnect. Up to this point in time, there has been a shift in burden with quick fixes (hire more staff!) but review of role requirements and management expectations have been overlooked to this point.

Q1

2025-06-24 11:15:16 UTC

The case study notes the proposed solution of mandating minimum days leave, but this falls into the shifting the burden archetype as it may relieve some workplace stress/pressure over the short term but does not solve the underlying issues of psychological safety creating the preconditions of employees not wanting to take leave in the first place.

Q2

2025-06-24 11:20:00 UTC

In my current workplace which is very small and in startup phase, the challenge is in shifting the goals as there is little opportunity to delegate work whilst on leave so the work simply builds up to be completed on an employees return. This leads to an acceptance that productivity for the organisation overall will decline when any individual takes leave.

Q1

2025-07-28 01:07:10 UTC

As well as the 'fixes that backfire' archetype, as others have noted, the 'shifting the burden' archetype is also relevant. This would require looking at the source(s) of the problem in more detail, and with a broader organisational lens that psychological safety. For example, workload patterns and work distribution, particularly if some roles/categories of staff were finding it more difficult than others to find suitable times to take leave without their work piling up and their absence causing more stress

Q2

2025-07-28 01:12:10 UTC

In my workplace, excess leave is managed by putting people on enforced leave in January to reduce their balance to a manageable level. This is seen as a last resort, with staff and managers actively encouraged to formulate leave plans collaboratively to avoid this outcome. However, as with the 'quick fixes' archetype, staff who have a pattern of not taking leave during the leave then are resigned to being put on enforced leave and accept that as the outcome. In doing so, they are effectively giving their agency to the organisation.

Q1

2025-09-18 03:54:12 UTC

This is an example of shifting the burden archetype, where there is an existing cultural problem of psychological safety within the workplace. It also happens when there is a compulsory shutdown, reducing choice for employees when to take leave.

Q2

2025-09-18 03:55:22 UTC

At our workplace there is a history of not taking long service leave by long term employees. There is a cost to the organisation in terms of higher salaries when taking leave later, but also a concern for the wellbeing of the staff member entitled to long service leave.

in my current organisation there are a few staff members who have excess leave balances that are very high. These people have been offered a 4 day fortnight to "use up" leave. Most of these employees are long term foundation employees.

2026-01-05 01:15:36 UTC

This archetype is shifting the burden in my opinion.

2026-01-05 01:16:09 UTC

2026-07-06 22:31:27 UTC

A leave related archetype may be Fixes that Backfire. Controls on maximum leave balances and professional renewal leave for leaders can encourage employees and leaders to take leave, which supports wellbeing and reduces leave liabilities. But when long-term employees or leaders take extended periods of leave, particularly when combining annual leave, long service leave and professional renewal leave, this can create disruption and uncertainty for teams. While acting opportunities can be positive for staff development, the unintended consequence may be reduced continuity, increased workload pressure and lower morale.

2026-07-06 22:33:05 UTC

Another archetype could also be Drifting Goals if the organisation gradually lowers its expectation from employees as trusted and supported to manage their wellbeing to the narrower goal of employees have to take the minimum number of leave days. This risks shifting attention away from the original intent of a healthy, autonomous and supportive work environment.

Q1

2026-08-08 00:19:42 UTC

Shifting the burden - the organisation responds to burnout by introducing policy change (unlimited leave) rather than addressing the structural drivers of burnout like: unrealistic workload, poor prioritization, excessive meeting load, culture expectations around availability/accessibility.

Drifting Goals - over time, unhealthy levels of leave utilisation are normalised and the standard of what constitutes healthy recovery gradually decreases/erodes too.

Observations of archetypes

2026-08-08 00:29:06 UTC

Yes, there are two archetype cycles I see commonly at work.

Burnout > Recovery leave > reduced capacity > more burnout.

Reinforcing burnout cycle- often played off as an individuals resilience issue rather than a capacity-management/holistic wellbeing issue.

Leave Liability reduction pressure

The fixes that fail archetype. The symptom is temporarily addressed (you've got too much leave, you need to take at least X off) but the underlying work design remains unchanged (why were they not using their leave? culture pressures, backfill arrangements not available etc).