Considering industry burnout in 2018, we could see familiar themes: the emotional burden associated with management, the challenges of work-life boundaries, and the physiological impacts of chronic stress [1]. The pattern of these ‘traditional’ stressors followed that described in McEwen's foundational work on allostatic load [2].
The intervening years have fundamentally reconfigured the workplace. The COVID-19 pandemic forced an unprecedented experiment in employment practices, with particular focus on the pharmaceutical industry's shift to remote and hybrid working models, creating unprecedented challenges in training, onboarding, and professional connection. At the same time, the advent of accessible large language models (LLMs) and artificial intelligence (AI) tools has transformed how professionals execute their core functions, from clinical trial management to regulatory writing and drug discovery.
Overall, these changes have introduced novel cognitive demands including mental fatigue, validation stress, and blurred work-life boundaries and demands a reconceptualisation of burnout prevention strategies.
The Remote Work Revolution
The shift to remote and hybrid working following the advent of COVID represents perhaps the most profound change in pharmaceutical work organisation since the industry's inception. Pre-pandemic, remote work was exceptional; by 2022, over 80% of ‘remote-capable’ employees in the pharmaceutical sector were working hybrid or fully remotely [3]. This transformation brought undeniable benefits: Miller and colleagues' evaluation of a remote hybrid staffing model for investigational drug service pharmacists demonstrated that remote work arrangements maintained operational efficiency while delivering greater job satisfaction and no self-reported burnout [4].
However, the industry-wide picture is more complex. Our own surveys published in 2021 and 2022 suggested increasing stress within the work force [5][6]. Research from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development found that employees' level of support for their organisation's remote work strategy significantly impacted turnover intention, with this relationship mediated by burnout and feelings of inclusion [7]. Employees who felt their organisation's remote approach was poorly conceived or implemented experienced higher burnout and greater intention to leave. This finding aligns with the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) model, which posits that burnout emerges when job demands exceed available resources [8]. Remote work, implemented without adequate attention to social connection and organisational support, transforms from a resource into a demand.
The fragmentation of pharmaceutical teams has particular consequences for innovation. Pre-2018 research established that creativity flourishes in environments with positive affect and social connection [9]. The informal exchanges that spark novel solutions to clinical trial challenges or regulatory strategies occur less frequently in distributed teams. A 2025 benchmarking study of commercial biopharma organisations identified that remote employees consistently report missing the informal interactions and creative exchanges that occur spontaneously in office environments [10]. This loss of serendipitous collaboration represents not merely an aesthetic preference but a genuine threat to the creative problem-solving on which pharmaceutical innovation depends.
The implications for leadership, as described in my 2018 considerations, are significant. I originally emphasised the importance of ‘connection’ and building trusted networks, noting that talking to other business owners provides perspective and reveals shared challenges. In a remote environment, these connections do not happen organically. They require deliberate cultivation, and when organisations fail to facilitate them, leaders and employees alike experience the isolation that precedes burnout.
The Pandemic Bubble
The industry's response to the pandemic created a unique cohort of professionals whose development pathways diverged markedly from historical norms. Between 2020 and 2023, unprecedented demand for clinical trial capacity coincided with acute talent shortages, triggering what one analysis describes as "frenetic hiring, rapid promotions and pay inflation, high turnover, and an emergency-paced workload" [11]. Clinical research associate turnover jumped to 28% in 2021 and 32% in 2022, far above historical levels, with some academic medical centres reporting turnover as high as 61% [11].
The consequences for workforce preparation were profound. New hires during this period often received hurried remote orientations and were assigned to complex studies with minimal oversight. By 2024, these individuals appeared on paper to have three or more years of experience, yet many possessed fundamental gaps in Good Clinical Practice knowledge or project management skills-gaps that would have been addressed through more rigorous training in earlier eras [11]. This phenomenon echoes the concerns raised in the 2018 document about the importance of delegation and trust. When leaders cannot trust that their teams have received adequate preparation, the temptation toward micromanagement intensifies, creating a vicious cycle that the original author identified as personally challenging. My reflection that "learning to trust my team to get the job done without my interference was a big step" becomes exponentially more problematic when team members' competence cannot be assumed based on their tenure.
The psychological impact of this hiring bubble extends beyond competence gaps. Rapid salary inflation, with job-changers receiving 15–20% pay increases during 2021, created expectations that the post-boom market could not sustain [11]. When high compensation becomes decoupled from performance, employees can experience what organisational psychologists term "entitlement," but more significantly, they experience confusion about the relationship between effort and reward. The cooling market of 2024–2026, characterised by extensive biopharma layoffs exceeding 14,000 positions in 2024 alone [11], has left remaining employees carrying heavier workloads with diminished expectations of advancement or reward, a classic precursor to burnout according to the JD-R framework.
My 2018 document advised readers to "plan modestly" by establishing clear short-term goals and mini milestones, noting that focusing on 5-year goals overwhelms. For professionals whose career trajectories have been disrupted by market volatility, even short-term planning becomes precarious. When job security is uncertain, the psychological safety required for creative work and risk-taking, essential components of pharmaceutical innovation, gets eroded.
AI: Productivity Tool or Cognitive Burden?
The integration of AI into pharmaceutical workflows represents perhaps the most significant new burnout driver since 2018. Large language models are being used to assist with protocol development, regulatory writing, literature reviews, data analysis, and even aspects of clinical trial design. The potential benefits are substantial: automation of routine tasks, accelerated information synthesis, and enhanced problem-solving capabilities. However, emerging research reveals a more complex picture.
A 2025 investigation into the impact of AI-assisted tools' on software practitioner well-being, grounded in the JD-R model, identified several concerning patterns [8]. Among their 41 respondents, 65% reported occasional feelings of being overwhelmed by the volume of information generated by AI tools, with 13% experiencing frequent cognitive overload. Almost half of participants reported mental fatigue attributed to AI interaction, with 57% finding work with AI tools mentally demanding. Particularly relevant for pharmaceutical professionals, who must maintain absolute accuracy in regulated environments, is what the researchers term "validation fatigue," the cognitive strain of continuously verifying AI outputs for inaccuracies or unexpected behaviour [8]. Effectively, these tools are reducing the ‘white space’ or thinking time appropriate to make considered decisions that affect safety.
This validation burden resonates with my 2018 emphasis on the physiological impacts of chronic stress. Equally, McEwen's research established that elevated cortisol levels interfere with normal bodily functioning, impacting sleep, digestion, and immune systems [1]. The cognitive load imposed by continuous AI verification represents a new source of such stress, one that was entirely unforeseen 8 years ago. When every AI-generated output must be scrutinised for errors that could have regulatory or patient safety implications, the mental demands on pharmaceutical professionals intensify considerably.
The work-life boundary implications are equally significant. Fifty-two percent of respondents admitted to occasionally working beyond regular hours due to AI tool usage, with 17% frequently extending their workdays [8]. This finding challenges the narrative that AI will liberate knowledge workers from excessive work. Instead, AI appears to enable a 24/7 work culture that my 2018 reviewed warned against. When AI tools are available at all hours, and when professionals fear being left behind by colleagues who leverage AI more effectively, the pressure to remain perpetually ‘active’ intensifies. The feelings of guilt I described, "if we aren't at least 'active' 24/7," finds new expression in the era of AI.
Thorpe and colleagues' contemporaneous research on generative AI usage, job demands, and burnout reinforces these concerns, documenting associations between AI adoption and increased cognitive load [12]. The pharmaceutical context adds particular salience: when AI assists with tasks ranging from literature review to adverse event reporting, the consequences of undetected errors are not merely productivity losses but potential patient harm. This ‘heightened stakes’ environment amplifies the validation burden on pharmaceutical professionals.
My 2018 document's Rule #3 advised readers to "create creativity" by embracing downtime, noting that "creativity lives in your downtime" and that individuals are "more likely to do your best thinking when you are most relaxed." The constant cognitive engagement required by AI interaction, even when not actively working, the awareness that AI tools are available and that colleagues may be using them, erodes the mental space necessary for creative thought. When the boundary between work and non-work becomes permanently permeable, the conditions for innovation suffer.
The Exhaustion Evidence
The scientific understanding of burnout's aetiology has advanced since 2018, with important implications for pharmaceutical workplaces. A comprehensive meta-analysis of longitudinal studies examining exhaustion, considered to be the core symptom of burnout, combined evidence from 65 studies assessing 242 predictors across diverse occupations [13]. Their findings challenge simplistic notions of burnout prevention. Most associations with exhaustion were weak, and for key predictors including job control, job resources, interactions at work, communication and leadership, job attitudes, and work-family interface, longer follow-up periods revealed weaker associations with exhaustion.
This pattern suggests what the researchers’ termed "a relatively short latency period, followed by recovery" [13]. In practical terms, the factors that predict exhaustion in the short term may not predict chronic burnout, and individuals may naturally recover from exhausting periods when circumstances improve. However, the pharmaceutical industry context complicates this optimistic interpretation. The industry has experienced not a single exhausting episode but a cascade of disruptions: pandemic emergency, remote transition, hiring frenzy, AI integration, a funding famine, and market contraction. The proposed "recovery" that longitudinal studies observe may not occur when stressors are layered and sustained.
This finding underscores my 2018 observations on respite and how "chronic stress is associated with elevated levels of cortisol which can interfere with the normal bodily functioning" and warned that "burnout may be on your horizon." The industry's experience of sustained, multi-dimensional disruption creates conditions where recovery is never fully achieved before the next stressor arrives.
Reimagining Prevention
My 2018 document offered practical rules for individuals to protect themselves from burnout: prioritise health, establish boundaries, create creativity, connect, delegate, play, plan modestly, and forgive. These recommendations remain valuable, but the evolved burnout landscape demands complementary organisational strategies. When stressors are systemic, rooted in industry-wide transformations rather than individual work habits, responses must also be systemic.
Research on sabbaticals in the pharmaceutical context illustrates this shift. One analysis, drawing on data from hundreds of professionals, documented how 80% of leaders returned from sabbaticals with more energy and focus, 60% experienced values clarification, and 40% achieved breakthroughs in creativity and problem-solving [14]. Notably, the research emphasises that brief vacations are insufficient: it takes nearly 2 months to mentally detach from work's rhythms sufficiently to achieve genuine cognitive reset [14]. This finding directly challenges pharmaceutical culture's celebration of urgency and sustained high output. We might invite ourselves to "embrace weekly guilt-free time for relaxation," but the evidence suggests that in the current environment, weekly breaks, while valuable, may be insufficient to counter the accumulated cognitive load of remote work and AI interaction.
The Tufts research on remote work strategies offers another organisational lever: when employees support their organisation's remote work approach, burnout decreases and inclusion increases [7]. This suggests that the specific configuration of hybrid work matters less than the process by which it is designed and communicated. Organisations that impose top-down return-to-office mandates without addressing employee concerns risk exacerbating the very burnout they may be attempting to counter. My 2018 emphasis on connection and building trusted networks finds organisational expression in deliberate investments in virtual and hybrid team-building, mentorship programs, and inclusive decision-making about work arrangements.
The delegation principle raised in 2018, "delegate tasks that weigh you down, it's an investment," acquires new meaning in the AI context. Delegation to AI, unlike delegation to human team members, requires different skills: prompt engineering, output validation, and critical evaluation of AI-generated content. We can only conclude that organisations should invest in training professionals in these skills, not assuming that AI literacy emerges naturally. When professionals are expected to use AI tools without adequate preparation, the delegation that should reduce burden instead becomes another source of stress.
Conclusion
The last 8 years have seen a transformation in the pharmaceutical workplace in ways that demand corresponding evolution in our understanding of burnout. The remote work revolution has fragmented teams and complicated professional development. The pandemic hiring bubble has created a cohort of professionals whose preparation may not match their apparent experience. The integration of artificial intelligence has introduced novel cognitive demands and blurred work-life boundaries further. Meanwhile, longitudinal research suggests that the relationship between workplace factors and exhaustion is more complex than previously appreciated.
My 2018 review’s concluding observation, "sustainable pipelines demand sustainable people," resonates more powerfully than ever. However, sustainability can no longer be conceptualised primarily as individual resilience. The pharmaceutical industry must confront systemic questions: How do we design hybrid work that preserves the creative collisions on which innovation depends? How do we train and support professionals whose careers have unfolded entirely within pandemic-disrupted paradigms? How do stop the ‘hell-bent’ drive to reduce the white space essential for safe pharmaceutical development? How do we integrate AI in ways that augment rather than overwhelm human cognition? How do we build organisations capable of absorbing shocks without transmitting them to employees as unmanageable demands?
These questions admit no easy answers, but they should define the agenda for pharmaceutical leadership in the coming decade. The stakes extend beyond employee well-being to the industry's fundamental mission. When exhausted minds make expensive mistakes, delayed market entries, missed regulatory filings, suboptimal clinical trial designs, patients wait longer for therapies and pay more for those that arrive [14]. Preventing burnout in the pharmaceutical industry is not merely a human resources objective; it is a patient safety and public health imperative.
My 2018 document reminded readers that "the world will not collapse if you turn it off." In 2026, this reminder is both more necessary and more difficult to implement. The always-on capabilities of AI, the fragmentation of remote teams, and the pressure of sustained industry disruption create conditions where turning off feels like falling behind. Yet the evidence is clear: without deliberate respite, without systemic support, without organisational commitment to sustainable work, the burnout that threatens individual leaders also threatens the innovation on which patients depend.
References
- Hardman TC (2018). Avoiding leadership burnout - 8 top tips.
- McEwen BS. Protective and damaging effects of stress mediators. N Engl J Med. 1998 Jan 15;338(3):171-9. Available from: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199801153380307
- Hardman TC, et al. Challenges of working from home during the COVID-19 pandemic: A survey to inform working practices. Medical Writing 30:18-29
- Hardman TC., et al. Changes to working practices in medical communications during the COVID-19 pandemic: Insights from two surveys. Medical Writing 31; 3
- United States Census Bureau. The Number of People Primarily Working From Home Tripled Between 2019 and 2021. 2022 Sep 15. Available from: https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2022/people-working-from-home.html
- Miller T, et al. Evaluation of a remote hybrid staffing model for investigational drug service pharmacists. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2024 Jul 22;81(15):e412-e418. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38477471/
- Kim J, et al. Is Your Organization's Remote Work Strategy "Working"? Exploring the Impact of Employees' Attitudes Toward Flexible Work Arrangements on Inclusion and Turnover Intention. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2023 Nov;57(6):1209-1216. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37458899/
- Meem FN, Johnson B. Investigating the Impact of AI-Assisted Tools on Software Practitioner Well-Being. ACM Digital Library. 2025 Jun 22. Available from: https://dl.acm.org/doi/full/10.1145/3707640.3731915
- Amabile TM, Barsade SG, Mueller JS, Staw BM. Affect and creativity at work. Adm Sci Q. 2005 Sep;50(3):367-403. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.2189/asqu.2005.50.3.367
- Best Practices LLC. Improving Hybrid Work Models in Commercial Biopharma Organizations: Driving Workforce Engagement and Strategic Impact. 2025. Available from: https://www.bestpracticesllc.com/bestp/domrep.nsf/products/db-commercial-hybrid-work-models-workforce-engagement-strategic-impact
- Benjamin A. Post-Pandemic Performance Decline in Clinical Research: Causes and Solutions. LinkedIn. 2025 Sep 14. Available from: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/post-pandemic-performance-decline-clinical-research-causes-benjamin-in5we
- Thorpe D, Bean C, Krieg J. Associations between generative artificial intelligence usage, Job Demands, Job Control and Burnout. AI & Society. 2025. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Associations-between-generative-artificial-usage%2C-Thorpe-Bean/6e714f5ce4d747116bfdcb08a959561ba59f82eb
- Shoman Y, Rousson V, Bianchi R, Canu IG. Holistic Assessment of Factors Associated with Exhaustion, the Main Symptom of Burnout: A Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. 2026 Feb 11. Available from: https://m2.mtmt.hu/api/publication/33420690
- Khokhar-Billiouw N. Biopharma's costly blind spot: Exhausted minds, expensive mistakes. pharmaphorum. 2026 Mar 4. Available from: https://pharmaphorum.com/sales-marketing/biopharmas-costly-blind-spot-exhausted-minds-expensive-mistakes
