Why We Need the WHO to Reclassify Burnout — Without Letting Employers Off the Hook

Every time the World Health Organization is mentioned in the same breath as Burnout, confusion follows.

Is it a medical condition?

Is it a workplace issue?

Is it stress?

The WHO’s current definition doesn’t go far enough.

It acknowledges burnout as “a syndrome conceptualized as resulting from chronic workplace stress that has not been successfully managed.” That’s a start - but it’s not the whole truth.

Burnout is more than mismanaged stress. It’s systemic toxicity. It’s loss of identity. It’s the rewiring of the body and brain. And until the WHO acknowledges that, people will keep being misdiagnosed, misunderstood, and mistreated.

Why Reclassification Matters Right Now, burnout is in a grey area. It’s recognised, but not as a full medical condition.

Which means:

- Doctors struggle to diagnose it.

- Insurance rarely covers treatment.

- Workplaces dismiss it as “just stress.”

- Individuals are left questioning their own reality.

Reclassification would change that. It would validate lived experience, give doctors clearer guidelines, and push governments and workplaces to take burnout seriously. But, and it’s a BIG but, we can’t let reclassification become a free pass for employers.

The Danger of Medicalisation

Here’s the risk: if the WHO labels burnout as a medical condition, the responsibility shifts entirely to the individual. It becomes “your illness to manage.” Employers step back. Policies stay the same. Toxicity continues.

We’ve already seen this happen with mental health. Organisations run awareness weeks and offer mindfulness apps, while doing nothing to tackle overwork, exploitation, or bullying. If burnout is medicalised without accountability, we’ll end up in the same trap.

Shared Responsibility: System and Self Burnout sits in the messy space between individual and system.

Yes, recovery requires personal work: healing the body, reconnecting to the self, making different choices.

But it also requires systemic change: safe workplaces, ethical leadership, cultures that value humanity over performance.

Reclassification should reflect that dual responsibility. Otherwise, we risk pathologising people for surviving systems that were never designed for their wellbeing in the first place.

What Needs to Change?

If the WHO is serious about tackling burnout, reclassification must come with nuance. That means:

- Recognising burnout as embodied, systemic, and relational.

- Training doctors to spot it beyond stress and fatigue.

- Holding employers accountable for prevention, not just individuals for recovery.

- Funding research into the long-term neurological and physical impacts. Only then will reclassification drive the change we need.

The Bigger Picture

Burnout is not a footnote to stress. It’s not a productivity glitch. It’s a global health crisis that destroys lives, careers, and futures. Reclassification is overdue. But it has to be done right. Because this isn’t just about a new label, it’s about rewriting the story of burnout so that people stop being dismissed, shamed, and left to recover alone.

Burnout deserves recognition. But recognition without accountability is meaningless. The WHO has the power to move this forward and it’s time they used it.

Kelly

I’m daring to imagine a world where Burnout no longer exists, and if you’re daring to imagine a world like that too, then come and join me.

Connect with me on LinkedIn

Subscribe to the Burnout Bulletin my daily email that gives you the insights you won’t find on LinkedIn

Join me in the Burnout Academy, because Burnout ends with Awareness