Work makes people sick when management fails

At the beginning of this year, Brazilian companies reached an alarming level in a relatively recent problem, still insufficiently understood, but already laden with complex consequences for people, organizations and the social security system itself. In 2025, more than 546,000 leaves of absence due to mental disorders were recorded, setting a new historical record for the second time in just ten years.

Data from the Ministry of Social Security, published by G1, indicate that anxiety and depression grew by about 15% compared with the previous year and already rank as the second leading cause of medical leave in the country, behind only musculoskeletal disorders, such as spinal problems. The estimated cost of this illness exceeds R$ 3.5 billion in benefits paid by the INSS alone. This figure does not capture indirect losses such as presenteeism, turnover, falling productivity and deterioration of the organizational environment.

The numbers are striking. However, perhaps the most relevant question is a different one: to what extent does the management model adopted by organizations itself contribute to this scenario? The way work is structured, prioritized and conducted directly influences the mental health of professionals. If management can amplify risk factors, it can also reduce structural pressures and act as a significant part of the solution.

The phenomenon is not exclusive to Brazil. The World Health Organization estimates that depression and anxiety result, globally, in about 12 billion lost working days per year, with an economic impact of more than one trillion dollars in productivity. Approximately 15% of the working-age population lives with some mental disorder. The issue is no longer peripheral. It has become a strategic matter.

The causes are clearly multiple. Technological acceleration, hyperconnectivity, economic instability, job insecurity and post-pandemic transformations make up a relevant backdrop. Work has become more volatile, more demanding and cognitively more intense. Ignoring these factors would be reductionist.

However, attributing the increase in leaves of absence exclusively to external forces also oversimplifies the problem. A significant part of the pressures that today generate psychological suffering arises within organizations themselves, in the way work is designed and managed.

Recent reports from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) point out that high demands combined with low autonomy, little predictability and insufficient support are consistent risk factors for stress-related disorders. Chronic overload, targets misaligned with real capacity, conflicting priorities and imprecise communication are not just operational dysfunctions. They are conditions that increase the likelihood of anxiety and burnout.

Two aspects stand out in this context: purposes and processes. When the strategic purpose is not clear or changes repeatedly, operational decisions become reactive. Teams start to operate under constant ambiguity. If, in addition, processes are unstable or poorly defined, an environment of unpredictability sets in. The combination of diffuse direction with disorganized execution generates a continuous sense of urgency and lack of control.

Prolonged ambiguity raises the cognitive load and reduces the individual sense of control. And low control is one of the most documented risk factors for stress-related disorders. Professionals subjected to changing priorities and chaotic flows tend to experience progressive, often silent, exhaustion.

The scenario changes when there is strategic clarity and operational consistency. Well-defined purposes reduce decision-making noise. Structured processes reduce rework, avoid priority conflicts and make the workflow predictable. Predictability, in this context, acts as a stress regulator.

This is where lean management offers a relevant contribution. Understood as a management system oriented toward value creation, waste elimination, operational stability and people development, the lean approach acts directly on structural sources of organizational tension. By emphasizing clear standards, continuous improvement and structured problem solving, it reduces unnecessary variability and increases predictability.

Standardization, in this sense, does not mean rigidity. It means making explicit the best method known up to that point. By clarifying priorities and making the workflow visible, the need for constant improvisation and successive corrections is reduced. Mental energy is no longer consumed by ambiguities and is instead directed toward effectively solving problems.

Operational predictability reduces the accumulated mental load. When professionals understand what is expected of them and have clear mechanisms to carry out and improve their own work, the feeling of powerlessness is replaced by a sense of competence.

Consistent follow-up routines, visual indicators and structured spaces for dialogue reinforce this logic. Problems are identified early and addressed at their root causes, not attributed to individual failures. By shifting the focus from blame to learning, the organization strengthens psychological safety and encourages responsible autonomy.

Naturally, management does not explain everything. Individual vulnerabilities, social factors and macroeconomic pressures continue to influence the overall picture. Mental health is a biopsychosocial phenomenon. However, ignoring the architecture of work as a structural determinant means failing to act on a concrete lever for transformation.

Mental health cannot be treated merely as a human resources agenda or as a set of isolated wellness programs. It is a consequence of the management system adopted. The way targets are set, priorities are communicated and problems are tackled produces real psychological effects.

If the recent records reveal anything, it is that offering support after the collapse is not enough. The design of work must be reviewed. Establishing consistent purposes and clear processes is not just good administrative practice. It is a preventive measure. It is a strategy for organizational sustainability. It is a leadership responsibility.

If work is to be productive and profitable, it must also be cognitively sustainable. Otherwise, today's numbers will be only the beginning of a trend whose human and economic cost is likely to become ever higher.