For a long time, pay dominated workforce discussions with employers focusing on salary bands, benefits, and retention packages. Something more nuanced is happening today, with employees questioning not only what they earn but what work costs them personally in terms of energy levels, time, headspace, and health.
HSE figures show that over 900,000 workers experienced depression, stress, or anxiety from work between 2024 and 2025. That number is difficult to ignore. When nearly a million people are struggling with work-related mental health issues, the conversation shifts from “How much are we paying?” to “How are people coping?”
What Employees Are Reassessing
In hiring conversations and exit interviews, a different set of questions now surfaces.
Is the workload realistic? Are priorities stable or constantly shifting? Does my manager listen when pressure builds? Can I switch off without reputational risk?
CIPD’s Good Work Index frames job quality as more than compensation. Autonomy, purpose, relationships, and role clarity weigh heavily in how people judge their experience. Fair pay remains foundational, yet it no longer guarantees loyalty.
If you increase salaries without tackling how work is organised, you may delay departures rather than prevent them. People can tolerate intensity for a period, but they start to struggle when it becomes the norm.
Burnout Cannot Be Bonused Away
CIPD research continues to highlight mental ill health as a leading cause of absence, with workload and management style frequently cited. That points to structure, not simply reward. You might offer a generous bonus or benchmark above market, but if employees are consistently overextended, those financial gestures serve as short-term relief rather than long-term repair.
Many professionals are seeking predictability in working hours, clarity in expectations, and genuine flexibility. Flexibility here does not mean policy language but practical permission, including trust around when and how work gets done, without subtle penalties.
Mid-career leaders, in particular, are weighing this carefully. They carry responsibility both at work and at home. When either side becomes unsustainable, they reassess their options.
Designing Work That People Can Sustain
The wellbeing discussion has matured beyond surface initiatives. It now centres on how roles are structured and how leaders behave day-to-day. When priorities are disciplined, teams can focus. When managers hold regular, open conversations about workload, pressure is surfaced early. When role boundaries are clear, duplication and conflict reduce.
These are operational decisions, not wellbeing campaigns. Treating wellbeing as part of performance management changes tone. Instead of rewarding endurance, you reward effectiveness. Instead of celebrating constant urgency, you value considered delivery. Employees are not rejecting pay. They’re signalling that fairness is a starting point. What keeps them committed is whether work remains viable over time.
Novo’s Perspective
In executive search discussions, we see this recalibration first-hand. Senior candidates ask direct questions about culture, pace, governance discipline, and leadership cohesion. They want to understand how decisions are made and whether workload expectations are realistic.
Although pay is still important, it won’t close the deal on its own. Wellbeing now represents leadership quality. When you appoint leaders who create clarity, protect focus, and model balanced performance, retention strengthens naturally.
