Wellbeing & Ethics Checklist

Look at the work, not at the people: whether resources match demands, where the six areas of worklife are out of balance, and whether anyone who is treated badly knows how to say so. Then change the conditions, with a date to check again.

Burnout research is strong (Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Maslach & Leiter, 1997), and the World Health Organization (2019) classifies burnout as an occupational phenomenon, not a medical condition. The job demands-resources model is strong research (Demerouti et al., 2001; Bakker, Demerouti & Sanz-Vergel, 2023). The ethics questions and the reporting set-up are practice, not research; the legal duties are standard or regulation. Thresholds and counts on this page are rules of thumb.

Use it when:

• You run a regular check of working conditions, for example as part of systematic work environment management.
• A busy period is coming or has just ended, and you want to know what it cost the team.
• Overtime, sick leave across the team or turnover is rising, or people have stopped raising concerns.

Skip it when:

• One person needs support: talk with them privately, and see the guidance on supporting someone below; nothing about their health goes into this template.
• You want to understand one person's motivation and job design: use 4.9 Development & Coaching Notes.

Burnout can be measured, and it is rooted in the job. The measurement tradition starts with Maslach and Jackson (1981), and the World Health Organization (2019) treats burnout as an occupational phenomenon, not a diagnosis, which tells a manager where the lever is: working conditions, not judging individuals. Two lines of research explain how it builds. Maslach and Leiter (1997) trace burnout to mismatches between people and their work in six areas: workload, control, reward, community, fairness and values. The job demands-resources model states the general rule: strain grows when demands outrun the time, autonomy and support available to meet them (Demerouti, Bakker, Nachreiner & Schaufeli, 2001).

Both point away from resilience courses and toward redesigning the work. So this page asks whether resources match demands before it asks how people cope, sorts risk by the six areas so a fairness problem is not treated with hiring, and records only team-level conditions. The limit: a checklist finds the risk; only changed work removes it.

This is a check of working conditions, not a record about anyone. Use team discussion and anonymous pulse averages. Do not record anyone's sleep, health, mental health or use of benefits.

Strong answer: "Audit team, nine people, with the safety representative, 3 March; sources: the anonymous pulse (team averages only) and the team discussion."

Team and date:

Completed with (for example the team, the safety representative):

Sources used (pulse averages, overtime aggregates, team discussion):

Illustrative example: the roles, the firm and all details are made up.

The manager of an audit team of nine at a regional accounting firm in Sweden runs the check in early January, before the closing season, with the safety representative.

Section 2: resources match demands only partly; work does not fit normal hours in the season, because client material arrives late. On-call duty is not an issue.

Section 3: workload is high in the season, as expected. The surprise is fairness: the two most senior auditors always take the hardest clients, by habit rather than decision. Control is medium, since clients set many deadlines.

Section 4: two newer team members did not know that concerns about the manager go to the partner.

Section 5: three actions. Material after the cut-off moves to the next week's plan (partner, by 1 February). Complex clients rotate across the team, with a senior as reviewer (manager, from this season). The reporting routine is walked through at the next team meeting (manager, next week). Follow-up in April, after the season, with the same pulse.