A study by teale and Ipsos bva involving 1,000 employees from companies with more than 250 people shows that 55% of them show signs of burnout, according to the Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI), a clinical tool used to measure professional exhaustion. Surprisingly, 55% of these employees also consider their mental health to be good. This means that two out of three employees who are suspected of burnout still see their mental state as either good or neutral. This contradiction is not a statistical error but a key feature of burnout itself, as explained by Anaïs Roux, scientific director at teale and an industrial psychologist. Burnout, as defined by psychologist Christina Maslach, is a slow and subtle process that often goes unnoticed by the person experiencing it. The World Health Organization has classified burnout as a "work-related phenomenon" since 2019, rather than a medical illness. According to the High Authority for Health, the most critical time to act is when someone has not yet recognized their burnout. However, identifying early signs of burnout is a challenge, especially for managers, who are often the first to notice changes in their team. Managers play a crucial role in recognizing burnout, but many feel unprepared. Nearly 58% of managers report having at least one team member with burnout in the past two years. They also recognize the impact of burnout on the workplace, with 70% believing it significantly affects the workload of others, 69% on general motivation, and 68% on team cohesion. However, only 21% of managers feel very capable of identifying early signs of burnout, and nearly one in four admit to being unable to do so. Anaïs Roux explains that this is not due to a lack of attention, but because managers are often caught between performance targets and the need to support their teams, which leaves them with limited time and mental capacity to detect subtle changes. Employees struggling with burnout are also less likely to seek help within the company. Only 25% of those in difficulty find assistance through their workplace, typically through external sources like psychologists, psychiatrists, or close friends. The direct manager and human resources are far less frequently used, at just 1% each. The reasons for this include a belief that the problem will pass (47%), a lack of time (34%), fear of professional repercussions (26%), or a desire to avoid being seen as weak (20%). Only 23% of employees with burnout consider their management to be "supportive and caring," compared to 34% of all employees. Additionally, 59% of those with burnout feel they are not fairly rewarded for their work, compared to 44% on average. Despite this, most employees are open to receiving help. 84% would support their insurance or mutual offering personalized assistance in case of burnout. The issue is not a lack of desire for help but the absence of a clear, safe, and accessible path to it. The study also highlights common working conditions that contribute to burnout, such as frequent urgency (44%), excessive workload (40%), and an inability to disconnect from work (40%). These are not isolated incidents but part of a broader work culture. Anaïs Roux concludes that these findings do not indicate an inevitable outcome but a blind spot that can be addressed. She argues that two out of three employees with burnout are unaware of it because no one is currently equipped to recognize it or know where to turn. The solution, she suggests, does not require overhauling the company but making concrete choices: measuring burnout using validated tools like the CBI, training managers in early detection, giving them more control over their team's workload, and ensuring confidential, external support outside the hierarchy. The study outlines these four key areas for improvement.