Comment by samstokes | Hacker News Reader

Comment by samstokes | Hacker News Reader

My own anecdata definitely supports this study's conclusion. I wish I'd been in the habit of regular exercise when I first got into the startup scene.

That said, I fear the outcome of their recommendation:

> Organisations wishing to proactively reduce burnout can do so by encouraging their employees to access regular exercise programs.

If burnout is prevalent enough among an organisation's workforce for "proactively reducing" it to be strategically worthwhile, that suggests it would be much more important to introspect on why they are burning out so many of their employees in the first place. e.g. does your culture explicitly value "hard work", which can turn into encouraging unpaid overtime? When you celebrate hitting deadlines, do you look back on whether it was thanks to good planning or "crunch mode"? Do people understand the reasons for decisions that affect them?

Not that these are easy problems to fix, but I'd hate to see companies start thinking burnout is something that can be "fixed" with a gym discount and workout incentive schemes.

> I'd hate to see companies start thinking burnout is something that can be "fixed" with a gym discount and workout incentive schemes.

I agree, but dedicated time for exercise in the existing workday could go a long way.

And it doesn't have to just be exercise: I used to work for a company where the one of the directors of development (60-80 people under him) would go for walks and people could come along to discuss work topics. Another manager I worked for at a different employer would have walking meetings where the whole team would get up and discuss current problems from tasks they were working on, etc.

You do have to be careful however, otherwise you could get accused of bias against the less-able (e.g. disabled, pregnant, older). So you can provide time to exercise, but if exercise-related activities become a core part of the work day, people who cannot take part might complain that they're being sidelined (see IT Crowd and Jen with the dance-meetings).

I know we have someone with cerebral palsy who definitely would struggle to take part.

Just because some cannot participate, you should not deprive others of the opportunity!

Just because people cannot participate, you shouldn't exclude them from part of a job.

If I owned a company, I would allow at least 45-60 minutes a day for exercise on my dime--if the job was sedentary--like office jobs. A lot of jobs are so rigorous, I wouldn't expect my workers to exercise more. That might be the only benefit to blue collar jobs? I think if office workers exercised more, they might be happier, and more productive? I would let the workers come to work in sweats, if they wanted. Never understood uncomfortable clothes--especially when most employees never interact with the public?

If I found the majority of employees just abused the gift; I would squash the program.

I have used exercise as a drug my entire life. Started in 5th grade, and kept running. I don't run like I used too, but still get in daily rigorous walks. In my late forties, I didn't exercise--for various reasons. I have further found exercise does help with anxiety, but I had some bouts of anxiety that didn't respond to any exercise. Anxiety so bad only drugs seemed to help. Everyone chemistry is different though?

As you mentioned, small incentives definitely don't cut it. In comapanies where thriving in high stress environments is part of the culture, detoxifying that stress should equally be part of the culture. Sadly, it often isn't, and the imbalance leads to burnout.

If companies want to take an interest in the health & fitness of their employees, I'm not sure I care what their reason is.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com