[Burnout] Diagnos[is|er|ed]

Leaders often treat employee performance the way a medical professional treats a patient: they apply a label that carries long-term consequences. The author's recent diagnosis of acute adjustment disorder exposes how a seemingly clinical process mirrors the way managers evaluate, categorize, and sometimes stigmatize staff. The core insight is that diagnostic systems-whether DSM-5 or a performance review-are built by a small group of experts and then imposed on the rest, creating a power imbalance that can erode trust.

The article walks through the mechanics of diagnosis: a professional uses a standardized set of criteria, records the label in a chart, and lets that label travel with the person for years. In a corporate setting, similar labels appear as performance ratings, promotion tracks, or PIPs. They look objective, but they rest on subjective judgments and cultural norms, just as mental-health diagnoses do. The author points out that the DSM itself has shifted over time-removing homosexuality in 1973, for instance-showing how what counts as "disordered" reflects societal expectations, not immutable facts.

When a label is applied, the person often feels exposed, powerless, and reduced to a single data point. The author describes feeling like a "frog on a dissection table," a vivid picture of how diagnostic language can strip agency. For leaders, this means that the way we label and evaluate can unintentionally reinforce hierarchies and damage morale, especially for those already at risk of burnout.

The practical takeaway is to scrutinize the language and structures we use to assess people. Ask whether a rating system truly captures the nuance of a team member's contributions or simply serves as a convenient shorthand. By making evaluation criteria transparent, involving employees in the definition of success, and treating labels as provisional rather than permanent, leaders can reduce the stigma that fuels burnout and build a healthier culture.