> Is employee health really something that can be traded away?
In theory? No. In practice? Very much yes.
Health (particularly mental well-being) isn't readily and reliably quantifiable. As a manager, you may think your subordinate is happy and productive all the way up to the point they hand you their resignation letter. Meanwhile, employees have every reason to pretend everything is OK up to the very moment they secure a new job elsewhere. And to the extent they're becoming less productive due to burnout, most software jobs has a lot of slack in it - between high variance in problem solving and plenty of bullshit tasks to juggle, someone working at 10% of their normal capacity can stay unnoticed for a while.
With no good feedback being available, it's hard to see you're putting too much pressure on your employees, particularly if you don't look for it (whether because you're too busy or just don't care).
> As a manager, you may think your subordinate is happy and productive all the way up to the point they hand you their resignation letter.
This is the same problem we have with depression and suicide. The answer is to actively look for it.
> Meanwhile, employees have every reason to pretend everything is OK up to the very moment they secure a new job elsewhere.
An evaluation of a person's mental health produces medical information which should of course be confidential. People will not open up if they think this information will be shared with others, especially their bosses or colleagues.
> And to the extent they're becoming less productive due to burnout, most software jobs has a lot of slack in it - between high variance in problem solving and plenty of bullshit tasks to juggle, someone working at 10% of their normal capacity can stay unnoticed for a while.
Many diseases also have a subclinical phase where they show few or no symptoms. This is actually a good thing since it allows you to intervene before a complication manifests itself. The answer is to actively look for them.
> it's hard to see you're putting too much pressure on your employees, particularly if you don't look for it (whether because you're too busy or just don't care).
Hard, but not impossible. The answers won't be found if the people responsible aren't looking for them. If managers are too busy, maybe they should make the time. If they don't care, they should straight up be fired for gross negligence.
> An evaluation of a person's mental health produces medical information which should of course be confidential. People will not open up if they think this information will be shared with others, especially their bosses or colleagues.
How would this information be useful if it's not shared with the boss?
Regardless, I don't think the biggest issue is people are afraid that the information will be shared, but that there's a stigma around being associated with a mental health issue that causes lower productivity in the workplace. Employees are more likely to keep that kind of thing a secret because they likely believe knowledge of it will make it harder to get raises and promotions.
> How would this information be useful if it's not shared with the boss?
Indirection and anonymization. The details of each individual aren't supposed to be shared but a healthcare professional can recommend changes to the manager that if implemented would promote a healthier workplace. They can point out that the whole workplace is stressful and talk to the managers about how they can improve that. Hopefully deadlines will be addressed.
There's an entire medical specialty devoted to this: occupational medicine.
> Employees are more likely to keep that kind of thing a secret because they likely believe knowledge of it will make it harder to get raises and promotions.
Unreasonable deadlines are likely to stress entire groups of people, not single individuals. It's worth addressing as an issue affecting the collective workforce.
In theory? No. In practice? Very much yes.
Health (particularly mental well-being) isn't readily and reliably quantifiable. As a manager, you may think your subordinate is happy and productive all the way up to the point they hand you their resignation letter. Meanwhile, employees have every reason to pretend everything is OK up to the very moment they secure a new job elsewhere. And to the extent they're becoming less productive due to burnout, most software jobs has a lot of slack in it - between high variance in problem solving and plenty of bullshit tasks to juggle, someone working at 10% of their normal capacity can stay unnoticed for a while.
With no good feedback being available, it's hard to see you're putting too much pressure on your employees, particularly if you don't look for it (whether because you're too busy or just don't care).