Women's Burnout at Work: Statistics, and How Women and Men Compare

In the surveys we have reviewed, women consistently report burnout more often than men at work, but the gap varies by survey, country, and year. The most recent large-scale data comes from Gallup's Q4 2025 U.S. workforce study (n = 22,368), which found that 31% of women in full-time work say they "very often" or "always" feel burned out, compared with 23% of men. All figures in this article are self-reported and are not directly comparable across surveys.

Key takeaways

• In Gallup's Q4 2025 U.S. survey (n = 22,368), 31% of women and 23% of men in full-time work reported frequent burnout, an 8-point gap.
• In an earlier Gallup U.S. analysis, the gap averaged 8 points in 2021 (34% women vs. 26% men) and had widened from just 3 points in 2019.
• Survey results differ by country, sample, and question wording; figures from different surveys should not be averaged or combined.
• All figures in this article are self-reported. Burnout and stress are different measures and are kept separate in the table below.
• For HR: use your own workforce data alongside national benchmarks, not instead of them.

How common is burnout among women and men at work?

The table below brings together the surveys we were able to verify with primary sources. Each row is treated separately: the countries and methodologies differ too much to allow averaging.

A note on the Mintago figure: the 48% vs. 31% gap is a measure of financial stress driven by the cost-of-living crisis, not of burnout as defined by the WHO's ICD-11. It appears here because it is frequently cited in burnout discussions, but the two measures are distinct and should not be treated as equivalent.

The burnout gap is widest at the top

The Gallup Q4 2025 data includes a breakdown by employment level. Among women in leadership roles, the average burnout rate from 2022 through 2025 was 29%, compared with 19% for men in the same roles, a 10-point gap. Among managers specifically, the gap averages 7 points (34% women vs. 27% men). The pattern holds regardless of whether women have children: the 8-point gap between women (31%) and men (23%) is identical for parents and non-parents in the Q4 2025 data.

Why do the numbers differ between surveys?

If you have seen a range of burnout statistics in HR reports, the variation is not an error. It reflects genuine differences in study design. Four factors drive most of the divergence.

1. Definition used

The WHO's ICD-11 defines burnout as a syndrome arising from chronic, unmanaged workplace stress, with three dimensions: exhaustion, cynicism toward work, and reduced professional efficacy. Surveys that use a single question ("Do you feel burned out?") capture something broader and vaguer. Gallup's measure asks about frequency of feeling burned out, which is a self-report of subjective experience, not a clinical assessment.

Stress and burnout are not interchangeable. Stress is a response to pressure that typically resolves when the pressure lifts. Burnout, in the WHO framework, is the result of chronic unmanaged stress and involves a more persistent shift in how a person relates to their work. The Mintago figure in the table measures stress, not burnout.

2. Country and labor market context

The Gallup figures are US-specific. Burnout rates vary across countries, shaped by working hours norms, employment law, parental leave policy, and cultural attitudes toward overwork. A UK figure cannot be assumed to apply to a US workforce.

3. Sample composition

A survey of full-time workers will produce different results from one that includes part-time workers. A survey of a specific industry will differ from a nationally representative sample. Gallup's Q4 2025 panel (n = 22,368) is large and randomly sampled, which makes it more reliable than smaller vendor surveys.

4. Survey timing

The gender gap in burnout has shifted over time. Gallup recorded a 3-point gap in 2019, which widened to 8 points by 2021 and has held at 8 points through Q4 2025. A figure from 2020 is not wrong; it reflects a different moment.

What do these numbers not show?

The statistics above tell us that women report burnout more frequently than men across multiple surveys. They do not tell us why, and they tell us nothing about any individual employee or any specific organization.

They do not explain causes

Survey data shows a correlation between gender and self-reported burnout. It does not establish what drives that gap. Researchers have proposed a range of contributing factors, including unequal distribution of unpaid caregiving, higher rates of single parenthood among women, underrepresentation in senior roles that carry more autonomy, and the accumulation of small inequities over a working life. The data cannot confirm which of these factors applies in any given workplace, or in what proportion.

They do not predict individual experience

A woman at your company is not "31% burned out." These are population-level figures. Some women in full-time work report no burnout at all; some men report burnout constantly. The numbers describe a pattern across large samples, not a rule that applies to individuals.

They do not describe your workforce

National averages are a starting point, not a benchmark for your organization. A company in healthcare, education, or another high-burnout sector may see rates well above national figures for both women and men. A company with strong flexible working policies and equitable workloads may see rates below the average. The only way to know where your workforce stands is to measure it directly.

The real limitation of national data: it tells you the shape of a problem that exists somewhere out there. It does not tell you whether that problem exists in your building, on your teams, or at what severity.

We explore the structural factors behind the gender burnout gap in more depth in our article on why the burnout crisis has a gender problem.

What can HR do with this data?

National statistics are useful for making the case that a gender burnout gap exists. They are less useful for deciding what to do about it. Here are four actions that move from data to practice.

1. Measure burnout in your own workforce

Do not assume national figures apply to your organization. Run a validated burnout assessment, broken down by gender, role level, and department. The Gallup Global Indicator on Employee Wellbeing uses a simple frequency question that is easy to include in a pulse survey. More detailed assessments use the three ICD-11 dimensions (exhaustion, cynicism, reduced efficacy) as separate subscales, which gives you a more actionable picture.

2. Look at workload distribution, not just outputs

Burnout is a workload and management problem as much as an individual resilience problem. Review whether women and men at the same level carry comparable workloads, including informal responsibilities such as mentoring junior colleagues, organizing team events, and handling administrative tasks that often fall disproportionately to women. These "office housework" tasks rarely appear in job descriptions but consistently appear in burnout research.

3. Audit flexibility and recovery time

The Gallup data show the gap is consistent regardless of parental status, which means caregiving alone does not explain it. Examine whether flexible working arrangements are genuinely available and used equally by women and men, whether recovery time (vacation, no-meeting days, protected lunch) is built into the working week, and whether managers model these behaviors or quietly signal that taking them is a career risk.

4. Treat burnout as an organizational metric, not a personal failing

If your wellbeing initiatives focus primarily on individual coping strategies, they are unlikely to close a structural gap. Useful reading on why self-care advice often falls short for burned-out employees is available in our article on the problem with self-care advice when you're burned out. For a full guide to evidence-based HR actions on burnout, see Article 3 in this series (link to be added on publication).

FAQ

How common is burnout among women compared with men at work?

In Gallup's Q4 2025 U.S. workforce survey (n = 22,368), 31% of women in full-time work said they "very often" or "always" feel burned out, compared with 23% of men. In 2021, the same series recorded 34% of women and 26% of men. Both figures are self-reported. Results from other countries and surveys will differ.

Do women really burn out more than men?

Women consistently report higher burnout rates in the surveys we reviewed, but the data does not tell us that women are inherently more vulnerable. Self-reported figures reflect lived experience, not a biological predisposition. The gap likely reflects structural differences in workload and role expectations. The data shows a pattern; it does not explain it.

Is burnout officially a medical condition?

No. The WHO's ICD-11 classifies burnout as an occupational phenomenon, not a medical condition. It is defined as a syndrome from chronic, unmanaged workplace stress, characterized by exhaustion, cynicism toward work, and reduced professional efficacy. It applies specifically to the occupational context.

How can employers support women's mental health at work?

Start with measurement: run a validated burnout assessment disaggregated by gender and role level. Then examine workload distribution (including informal tasks), the genuine availability of flexible working, and whether your wellbeing programs address structural causes rather than individual coping alone. Treating burnout as an organizational metric keeps it visible to leadership. 

How should HR read national statistics for its own company?

National averages confirm that a gender burnout gap exists at a population level. They do not confirm it exists in your workforce. Use them to build the business case for measurement and to set context for leadership conversations, but base your interventions on your own data.

About Soula

Soula's workplace wellbeing programme includes a validated self-assessment that measures burnout across the three ICD-11 dimensions at the start of the programme and again at the end. HR teams see only aggregated, anonymized results, never individual scores. This means your organization can build its own picture of burnout prevalence and track whether it changes over time, rather than relying on national averages that may not reflect your workforce at all.