Latest / The Burnout Podcast with Fexingo: Workplace Exhaustion, Recovery, and Sustainable Careers / The High Cost of Always-On Culture
Transcript
- Lucas: So last week we talked about burnout at the individual level — that story of the surgeon who just couldn't keep going inside the OR. But today I want to zoom out to something that affects nearly every knowledge worker in the developed world. Luna: I'm guessing this is the 'always-on' thing we keep hearing about? Lucas: Exactly. The always-on culture. And I want to anchor this in a specific number: a Gallup study from 2025 found that 44 percent of U.S. employees check work email outside of business hours at least twice a day. Not once a week — twice every single day. Luna: That's wild. I mean, I'm guilty of that myself. After I switched to a fully remote role last year, I found myself replying to messages at 10 p.m. just because I could. Lucas: And the thing is, that behavior doesn't come from nowhere. McKinsey put out a report last year trying to quantify the economic cost of always-on culture. They estimated it costs the U.S. economy around two point one trillion dollars annually in lost productivity and burnout-related turnover. Luna: Wait — two point one trillion? That's bigger than the GDP of a lot of countries. Lucas: It is. And part of the reason it's so high is that this isn't just about people feeling tired. There's a psychological concept called 'telepressure' — the urge to respond quickly to work messages, even when you're not on the clock. It's been linked to higher rates of anxiety, insomnia, and even cardiovascular issues. Luna: So the cost isn't just economic — it's personal, too. What's driving this? Is it just smartphones? Lucas: Smartphones are the enabler, but I think the deeper driver is a norm shift that happened over the past decade. In the 2010s, many companies started expecting near-instant replies. A 2023 survey by the American Psychological Association found that 57 percent of employees said their organization expects them to be available outside of standard work hours. Luna: That's more than half. And I bet it's even higher in certain industries — like finance or tech. Lucas: Absolutely. But here's the thing — some companies are starting to push back. And I want to talk about one specific case study today: SAP. The German software company. Luna: Oh, I've heard something about their no-email Fridays. Lucas: That's exactly it. Back in 2022, SAP rolled out a pilot program where one Friday per month was designated 'no internal email day.' The idea was to cut down on the constant ping-pong of messages and let employees focus on deep work. But they didn't stop there. Luna: Right, because one Friday a month is more of a symbolic gesture. Lucas: Exactly. So in 2024, they expanded it. Starting January of that year, every Friday became a no-email day — but with a twist. Employees could still send emails, but they were delayed until Monday morning. So the sender could write it whenever they wanted, but the recipient wouldn't see it until the start of the next week. Luna: So it's like a mandatory 'send later' feature? That's clever. It respects the sender's need to get thoughts down but protects the receiver's off-time. Lucas: Exactly. And the results were pretty striking. SAP tracked internal surveys before and after the policy. Within six months, they saw a 15 percent drop in self-reported stress levels among participating teams. Also, the average number of internal emails sent per employee dropped by about 20 percent. Luna: Did productivity take a hit? I feel like that's the first question management asks. Lucas: That's the surprising part — it didn't. In fact, many teams reported higher output on Fridays. Because without the constant interruption of incoming emails, people could focus on coding, writing, or strategic thinking. One product team said their sprint velocity increased by about 8 percent. Luna: So it's a win-win. Less stress, more productivity. Why isn't every company doing this? Lucas: Because it's hard to change culture. The always-on norm is deeply embedded. And there's also this fear — especially among managers — that if you're not constantly available, you might miss something important. But SAP's data suggests that's mostly a myth. Luna: I mean, think about it — if something's truly urgent, you can call or text. Email was never designed for real-time communication anyway. Lucas: Right. And that's the distinction SAP made: they didn't ban all communication on Fridays. Just internal email. So urgent matters could still be handled via phone or instant messaging. But the default mode shifted from reactive to intentional. Luna: I wonder if that model would work for a company like, say, a startup that's in hypergrowth mode. Where the expectation is already that you're grinding 24/7. Lucas: It's harder, no doubt. But there's evidence that even small steps make a difference. A separate study from Microsoft in 2025 looked at their own employees and found that even a single 'no-meeting afternoon' per week reduced employee stress levels by 12 percent and increased satisfaction scores. And Microsoft is a massive company. Luna: So it's about starting somewhere. Doesn't have to be a full Friday ban from day one. Lucas: Exactly. And I think the broader point is that the always-on culture isn't just bad for individuals — it's bad for business. The McKinsey number — two point one trillion — that's not just a cost to employees. That's a cost to shareholders, too. High turnover, low engagement, more mistakes. Luna: Speaking of turnover, do we have any data on how always-on culture affects retention? Lucas: We do. A 2024 report from the Society for Human Resource Management found that 42 percent of employees who left their jobs cited 'unreasonable expectations around availability' as a major factor. That's higher than those who cited salary. Luna: So people are literally quitting because they're expected to be on 24/7. Lucas: And the irony is that the companies that enforce always-on often end up with the highest turnover costs. A mid-level professional's departure can cost anywhere from 50 to 200 percent of their annual salary when you factor in recruiting, training, and lost productivity. Luna: So then the question becomes: what can a listener do if their company hasn't caught on yet? If you're in a culture where checking email at 10 p.m. is the norm, how do you protect yourself? Lucas: I think there are two levels. At the individual level, you can set boundaries. Turn off notifications after a certain hour. Use Android's or iOS's focus mode to block work apps. And honestly, communicate your boundaries to your manager and team. Luna: But that's easier said than done. If your boss expects immediate replies, saying 'I won't check email after 7' can feel like a career risk. Lucas: It can. So the second level is collective action. If multiple team members express the same concern, it becomes harder to ignore. Some teams have instituted 'quiet hours' — say, no internal messages after 6 p.m. — as a group norm. Luna: There's actually research on that. A 2023 study from Harvard Business School found that teams that collectively set off-hours communication norms reported significantly lower burnout than teams that left it to individual choice. Lucas: So it's better to do it together. And I think that's where companies like SAP can serve as a model. They didn't just tell employees 'you should disconnect more.' They redesigned the system to make it easier. Luna: Let's talk about the role of managers specifically. Because even if a company has a policy, middle managers can undermine it by sending emails at 9 p.m. and expecting replies. Lucas: Absolutely. A Gallup study from early 2026 found that the single biggest predictor of whether an employee felt pressured to be always on was whether their direct manager sent emails outside of work hours. Even if the manager didn't expect a reply, the mere act of sending created pressure. Luna: So it's not just policy — it's behavior modeling. If the boss is online at midnight, the team feels they need to be too. Lucas: Right. And that's why SAP's delay feature is so elegant. It allows the manager to write an email whenever they want, but it doesn't arrive until Monday. The employee never sees it over the weekend, so they don't feel that pressure. Luna: It almost seems like a no-brainer. So why do you think more companies haven't adopted similar measures? Lucas: I think it's a combination of inertia and a mistaken belief that constant connectivity equals productivity. Many executives still equate 'busy' with 'effective.' But the data shows the opposite — that constant interruptions reduce cognitive performance. Luna: And there's also the competitive pressure. If your competitor is available 24/7, you worry that slowing down will put you at a disadvantage. Lucas: That's the classic prisoner's dilemma. But the companies that have successfully implemented boundaries — like SAP, or some parts of Microsoft, or even small tech firms — they've found that the benefits outweigh the costs. Quality of work improves, innovation goes up, and turnover goes down. Luna: So it's not about being less productive. It's about being more productive in a sustainable way. Lucas: Exactly. And I think that's the core message of this show — sustainable careers. You can't sprint forever. At some point, you have to recover. Luna: I think a really practical takeaway for listeners — and something I'm going to try myself — is to start with one small boundary. Like, no work email after 8 p.m. for a week, and see how you feel. Lucas: And if you can, get a colleague to try it with you. The research is pretty clear that collective action works better than going it alone. Even two people agreeing to 'no after-hours emails' can shift the team culture. Luna: And if you're a manager listening, maybe consider what message your after-hours emails are sending — even if you don't expect a reply. Lucas: So here's a question I've been thinking about: as AI tools make it easier to generate emails and responses, do you think always-on culture will get worse or better? Luna: That's a great question. On one hand, AI could automate responses, so you don't actually have to be online. On the other hand, it might make it easier to send more messages, flooding people even more. Lucas: I'm a bit worried about the second scenario. Already, some companies are using AI to draft emails and schedule them at optimal times. If everyone starts sending more messages because it's cheap and easy, the noise level goes up. Luna: So then the solution might be not just individual boundaries, but organizational policies that limit the volume of communication. Like SAP's no-email Friday, or a cap on internal emails per day. Lucas: Some companies are experimenting with that. A few startups have adopted 'asynchronous communication' as a core principle, meaning you don't expect an immediate reply. They use tools like Slack, but with the understanding that people might reply hours later. Luna: That requires a huge cultural shift, especially in industries used to real-time trading floors or newsrooms. Lucas: It does. But the data is mounting that the cost of not making that shift is enormous. Two point one trillion dollars enormous. Luna: I'd love to check back in a year and see if more companies have followed SAP's lead. Maybe we'll do a follow-up episode. Lucas: Definitely. For now, I think the takeaway is that always-on culture is a choice, not a necessity. And the first step is recognizing that you have the power to set boundaries, even if it's just one small one. Luna: And that it's not selfish to disconnect. It's actually good for your career in the long run. Lucas: Alright, that's our time. Thanks for listening to The Burnout Podcast with Fexingo. We'll see you next episode. Luna: Take care of yourselves.