For a long time, workplace stress was viewed mostly as an individual concern that human resources managed—usually via wellness programs or stress management workshops—instead of handling it as both a systemic and business-critical risk needing the oversight of company executives.
According to Harvard Business Review (HBR), the impacts of this outmoded view are still in effect today—not because to a lack of awareness, but because workplace stress is usually seen merely as peripheral to business strategy instead of being an integral part of it.
HBR cited a
Deloitte survey that found that 94% of C-suite executives said being health-savvy leaders is important. But 68% acknowledged they are not taking sufficient action to protect employee and stakeholder health. This indicates a considerable gap between acknowledgment and implementation. Meanwhile, data from
Aflac indicates that even though 54% of employees last year felt their employer were concerned about their mental health—rising from 48% in the previous year—38% still reported high stress at work, increasing from 33% in 2023 indicating that current investments are not enough for the needs that are stress-specific.
The question is why these investments are not working. We say that one of the root causes of increasing stress levels—despite investment—is firms’ limited ability to quantify the problem. Just as firms rigorously measure financial, operational, and reputational risks, The recommendation is for firms to manage stress as a business risk.
In the article, the authors introduce the Stress Risk Thermometer—which is a new framework to assist companies in assessing and tracking stress-driven business risk while offering strategies that are actionable to generate resilience via structured measurement, cross-functional accountability, and targeted interventions.
In the authors' recent study comprising 1,005 full-time professionals in high-intensity industries in the U.S. and U.K., they found that elevated stress levels mean an added $5.3 million annually in costs for every 1,000 employees at a firm. Additionally, their analysis showed that the cost of stress for employers can be seen across three areas: cost control, risk mitigation, and sustained performance.
After seeing where their workforce is failing, firms can analyze how these stress zones correlate with operational data that they already look at such as revenue, compliance failures, and client satisfaction. This involves comparing patterns to see if specific departments are seeing higher stress and have more errors or decreasing feedback from clients versus less stressed departments or teams. The aim is to find out if higher stress is focused in areas with critical business outcomes, and if this elevated stress is related to higher risk or diminished performance.
Finally, to act on these insights, firms can pinpoint the fundamental elements that can indicate stress. These factors can be examined by asking employees questions including, "To what extent do your workload and deadlines feel manageable?” or “Do you feel psychologically safe raising concerns or asking for help?” The added insights could assist organizations in creating targeted, structural interventions to respond to the key predictors of this stress-related risk.
