Book An Appointment
Patient Portal
Home
Articles
Why High Performers Burn Out Even When They Love What They Do

Why High Performers Burn Out Even When They Love What They Do

June 2026 | Clinical Commentary
Author: Michael Murphy MSN, PMHNP-S
The usual assumption is that people who are stressed and fatigued will pause when they need to. A University of Waterloo study from Dr. Vincent Phan and Professor James Beck challenges that assumption, and the findings carry practical relevance for anyone managing a sustained cognitive or operational workload.

About the study

The researchers ran the project in two parts. First, they asked 107 employees to explain their reasons for taking — and for not taking — breaks during the workday. Then they followed 287 more employees, surveying them twice daily over five days about their sleep, fatigue, performance concerns, workload, and the number of breaks they took.
The pattern was counterintuitive. Heavy workloads increased the desire for a break, as expected, because higher workload was associated with more stress, fatigue, and concern about performance. Yet heavier workloads also predicted fewer breaks taken. Participants wanted to step away and kept working anyway. The primary explanation the authors identified was what they term “expedience concerns” — the pressure to complete work quickly. When time pressure is high, people forgo recovery even when they recognize they need it.
A secondary factor was the work environment itself. When employees perceived that breaks were discouraged, they took fewer of them regardless of how depleted they felt. The authors also noted that break-taking was not a marker of disengagement; many participants paused precisely because they were trying to sustain focus and performance.

Other things that we know

This is consistent with a broader literature. Sonnentag and colleagues (2022) describe a “recovery paradox”: recovery tends to be lowest precisely when demands are highest, because sustained workload impairs the psychological detachment that recovery depends on. Physiologically, this is unsurprising. Recovery requires downregulation of the stress response — the sympathetic nervous system and the HPA axis — and an environment of continuous demand keeps that system engaged. That is the same chronic activation implicated in fatigue, impaired cognition, disrupted sleep, and longer-term cardiometabolic risk.
The intervention side is well documented. A 2022 meta-analysis in PLOS ONE pooling more than 2,000 participants found that even brief micro-breaks reliably improve well-being, with longer breaks producing measurable gains in performance. The benefit of recovery is established; the difficulty is adherence under load.
The burnout literature underscores the stakes. Physician burnout peaked near 63% in 2021 and, while it eased to roughly 45% by 2023, physicians still carry close to double the burnout risk of other workers, with administrative burden and long hours among the leading drivers. As Maslach has long characterized it, burnout is not simple tiredness — it is emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and a reduced sense of accomplishment, a syndrome with documented effects on both clinician well-being and patient care.

What this means

This is fundamentally a behavioral and occupational-health problem rather than a motivational one. The Waterloo data indicate that under high load, recovery behavior breaks down in a predictable way — and the populations most exposed to sustained demand are precisely those least likely to recover adequately. Clinicians, executives, first responders, military and veteran populations, competitive athletes, and parents carrying heavy caregiving loads tend not to lack effort or commitment. The limiting factor is the conditions they operate in, not their intent.
A few points carry clinical weight. First, recovery is best treated as a planned element of workload management, not a discretionary reward. The principle is familiar from sports medicine, where inadequate recovery relative to training load produces overreaching and measurable declines in performance, mood, and immune function; the same logic applies to cognitive and operational work. Second, the type of recovery matters. The evidence favors active, qualitatively different breaks — brief physical activity, time outdoors, genuine mental disengagement — over passive screen time, which offers limited physiological recovery. Third, environment shapes behavior. When leadership signals that stepping away is unacceptable, individuals override their own fatigue, so addressing workplace norms is often more effective than counseling the individual alone.
For the high-performing patients we work with at Operation Resiliency, the relevant clinical conversation is rarely about working harder. It is about building recovery into the structure of the day and monitoring the downstream markers of chronic stress — sleep quality, mood, cognitive performance, and early signs of burnout — so that intervention happens before depletion compounds into something harder to reverse.

The bottom line

Wanting a break and taking one are different behaviors, and the gap between them widens under exactly the conditions that make recovery most necessary. The clinically sound approach is to treat recovery as a scheduled, monitored component of sustained performance rather than something earned after the work is done. Recovery is not a productivity tactic — it is a measurable factor in stress physiology, cognitive function, and long-term resilience, and it deserves the same attention as any other modifiable health variable.

Sources

Albulescu, P., Macsinga, I., Rusu, A., Sulea, C., Bodnaru, A., & Tulbure, B. T. (2022). “Give me a break!” A systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of micro-breaks for increasing well-being and performance. PLOS ONE, 17(8), e0272460. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272460
Phan, V., & Beck, J. W. (2023). Why do people (not) take breaks? An investigation of individuals’ reasons for taking and for not taking breaks at work. Journal of Business and Psychology, 38(2), 259–282. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-022-09866-4
Sonnentag, S., Cheng, B. H., & Parker, S. L. (2022). Recovery from work: Advancing the field toward the future. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 9, 33–60. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012420-091355
Stanford Medicine. (2025, April 9). U.S. physician burnout rates drop yet remain worryingly high, Stanford Medicine-led study finds. https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2025/04/doctor-burnout-rates-what-they-mean.html