What’s really driving burnout among administrative healthcare staff
A variety of drivers have reshaped administrative work and left health systems with a workforce approaching its limits.
In the first article of this series, we presented a compelling contradiction; while quantitative survey results among administrative healthcare employees suggested relatively low levels of burnout, qualitative interviews revealed intense periods of distress, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now, we shift from measurement to meaning to determine what specifically is driving burnout among non-clinical staff.
What emerges is a pattern not of isolated frustrations, but of compounding systemic factors — pandemic response demands, workload escalation and organizational volatility. These drivers, layered atop one another, have reshaped the administrative work environment and left health systems with a workforce quietly approaching its limits.
COVID-19 as A catalyst and stress amplifier
The pandemic wasn’t just a public health crisis — it was an operational earthquake. Interviewees frequently cited COVID-19 as the singular tipping point in their experience of burnout.
Unlike clinical staff, administrative teams weren’t treating patients in ICUs. Instead, they were the architects and operators of rapid-fire response systems — handling evolving state mandates, data dashboards, policy memos and emergency planning. Many were tasked with compiling daily reports for regulatory agencies, even on weekends. Their work became continuous, time-sensitive and often invisible.
“COVID, especially from a healthcare perspective… Everybody was pretty much on-call. We were meeting seven days a week, nonstop,” one HR executive shared.
Another administrator described a surreal moment when they would welcome the stress relief of a traffic stop instead of a long shift. “Getting a speeding ticket would be a lot less stressful than what I had to deal with at work,” the administrator related.
This isn't a mere anecdote. It’s a reflection of cumulative overload — operational expectations that expanded rapidly without corresponding support structures. The emotional burden of uncertainty, urgency and nonstop responsiveness created the conditions for sustained burnout, even among highly competent and motivated professionals.
Workload escalation and role creep
COVID-19 accelerated a longstanding trend: expanding scopes of responsibility without commensurate increases in staff or resources. The term “role creep” appeared repeatedly in interviews, and with it, a deeper sense of fatigue.
Several participants shared that their responsibilities grew beyond the boundaries of their original roles, often under the well-intended banner of flexibility. A community health manager was reassigned to patient experience functions for nearly eight months, handling complaints and concerns outside their training or passion.
“I was still communicating with patients, but it wasn’t something I wanted to do (long-term). By the time I went back to my old job, I was a little burnt out,” the manager noted.
Other employees were left to absorb the work of departed colleagues. One data analytics manager described how, after several team members were let go because of budget cuts, the remaining staff were expected to produce the same output with far fewer hands.
These compounding demands weren’t just stressful. They compromised performance and engagement. One executive assistant, responsible for supporting multiple leaders, summarized the feeling succinctly. They admitted that while they genuinely want to give their best, they're just throwing things together to get through, because that’s the reality.
The broader takeaway is clear – unsustainable workload becomes unsatisfactory work. As demands rise and support contracts, burnout becomes an outcome, not a risk.
Organizational volatility and change fatigue
Administrative burnout isn’t only a matter of task volume — it’s also about task context. When organizational structures are in flux, stress intensifies.
Many participants described turbulence in leadership, restructuring of departments or unclear organizational priorities as major contributors to their exhaustion. One director cycled through four supervisors in three years, leaving them unsure whether they were aligned with current expectations or vulnerable to redundancy. They worried about what they should be working on and felt unsettled.
Other interviewees expressed concern about the financial health of their organizations, citing fears of workforce reductions. These concerns often came with little formal communication, heightening the emotional strain of navigating change without clarity.
This phenomenon aligns with a growing body of literature on “change fatigue,” the idea that repeated, poorly managed organizational transitions can exhaust employees’ capacity for resilience. In our study, these conditions were present not just during pandemic surges, but in the “normalization” phase that followed, as staff were expected to pick up additional responsibilities or re-integrate into office-based routines with little recalibration of expectations.
For non-clinical professionals — particularly those in mid- to upper-level roles — this instability fostered an ongoing sense of precariousness. The implicit message is to always stay alert and always be adaptable, even if that adaptability comes at the expense of well-being.
Reframing burnout: It’s systemic, not personal
It’s tempting to frame burnout as a personal failing, putting the blame on insufficient resilience, a lack of time management or a deficit of passion. But what our study confirms is that burnout among administrative professionals is rooted in systemic pressures.
Many interviewees spoke with pride about their ability to manage stress. But the recurring theme was that individual resilience has limits when organizational support falters.
One assistant shared that they needed more staff and leaders who saw that one team can’t be managed the same way as another.
In other words, this isn’t just about workload — it’s about mismatch between demands and resources, between effort and recognition, and between capacity and expectation.
Recognizing the pressure before it’s too late
This second installment in the series illustrates that administrative burnout isn’t a theoretical risk. It is the byproduct of policies, structures and decisions that, while logical in isolation, accumulate into unsustainable systems of work.
In the final article, we’ll examine what helps, from individual coping strategies like mindfulness and movement, to organizational policies that embed recognition, restoration and rebalancing. Burnout doesn’t emerge in a vacuum, and neither does recovery.
Teray Johnson, PhD, MS, MBA, FACHDM, is a director of healthcare analytics and operations. She drives organizational transformation by facilitating data-driven decisions.