Running on Half Power: Why Women Burnout and How to Reclaim Alignment

Photo by Lewis Wickes Hine, 1910 (Art Institute of Chicago)

Imagine running a power plant at full capacity, day after day, no time for maintenance, no pause to refuel. The lights might stay on for a while, but eventually, even the most resilient system begins to dim. The same is true for women today. Across industries and roles, women are often the central source of energy that keeps families, teams, and communities running. Yet the systems around them rarely replenish what they take.

When demand continually exceeds generation, engineers call it a brownout: The system still functions, but at reduced capacity. In psychology, brownout has emerged as a concept describing the gradual erosion of energy and meaning that often precedes full burnout, a state marked by exhaustion, cynicism, and reduced professional efficacy (Maslach & Leiter, 2022). Both exist on the same continuum of depletion, signaling that the human system is drawing more power than it can sustain. Globally, women are burning out at record rates (McKinsey & Company & LeanIn.Org, 2024; World Health Organization, 2019). They report significantly higher emotional exhaustion than men and are more likely to describe themselves as constantly burned out at work (McKinsey & Company & LeanIn.Org, 2024). This depletion extends beyond the workplace. Women perform nearly three times more unpaid labor, childcare, eldercare, and household management than men, increasing cognitive load and reducing opportunities for recovery (UN Women & United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA), 2023). Even as women’s workforce participation has grown, systemic support for renewal has not kept pace (OECD, 2024).

The imbalance has economic and human costs. Women’s unpaid labor is estimated to contribute up to $11 trillion annually, roughly 9% of global GDP, yet remains invisible in most productivity metrics (International Labour Organization, 2022). Beyond economics, the cost is deeply human. When women’s energy is depleted, families lose stability, organizations lose innovation, and communities lose connection. Within the science of well-being, this depletion represents the inverse of thriving—a failure not of individual willpower, but of systemic design.

The causes are complex and cumulative: constant multitasking, invisible labor, and the cultural myth of “doing it all.” And while women are often praised for their resilience, resilience alone cannot power a system indefinitely. Without restoration, even the strongest individuals eventually run on half power. No system and no person can thrive that way. Much of what drains women’s energy remains unseen, not in the hours worked, but in the weight carried quietly between them.

The hidden energy crisis: What we carry but cannot name

Burnout rarely arrives as a sudden collapse. More often, it’s a slow erosion, a gradual dimming that happens beneath the surface of daily life. Beneath visible responsibilities lies an invisible layer of labor, such as anticipating needs, planning logistics, and tending to others’ emotions. This phenomenon has been well documented in research on emotional labor, the regulation of feelings to meet relational and organizational expectations (Hochschild, 1983), and cognitive load, both of which quietly deplete energy and attention over time.

Part of the challenge lies not only in the weight of these demands, but the lack of language to name them. Women balancing work, caregiving, health, or life transitions often internalize their strain as personal failure rather than a design flaw of the system itself. Without a shared framework to surface these competing demands visibly, depletion becomes the unspoken norm.

This invisible work is also unequally distributed. Women continue to perform the majority of unpaid care and household labor globally (UN DESA, 2023). They are also more likely to absorb “substantial life events” such as childbirth, caregiving for aging parents, or managing family crises, without meaningful organizational adjustment or recovery time (Ladge et al., 2012). For women leaders, the stakes are even higher. They are expected to deliver results while embodying relational warmth, a dual standard that research shows increases evaluative pressure and emotional strain (Eagly & Wood, 2016).

In professional settings, acknowledging this unseen work can feel risky. Many women hesitate to disclose the scope of their caregiving or boundary-setting needs, fearing it will be perceived as weakness or lack of commitment. Yet unspoken energy loss becomes internalized invisibility. When output is visible but the energy cost is not, women can begin to undervalue their own labor.

In Oprah’s wise words, “When you undervalue what you do, the world will undervalue who you are” (Winfrey, 2014). Meaning-making research supports this insight: People find fulfillment not just in doing, but in understanding why they do (Steger, 2021). Without the language to describe their workload, women lose that understanding, and energy quietly drains away. When invisible work of life becomes visible, it becomes possible to reassess what truly matters and to restore energy where it has been leaking unnoticed.

For many women, the pressure to do it all only deepens this invisibility, recasting systemic overload as a personal test of balance rather than a signal to realign. This brings us to the next layer of the situation, the cultural narrative of balance itself.

Beyond balance: Redefining what “it all” really means

Even when policies promise flexibility or paid leave, workloads often remain unchanged. After life transitions like having children, caring for parents, health situations, or returning from leave, many women resume the same professional expectations in altered circumstances. This failure to recalibrate strongly predicts burnout (Shockley et al., 2017). In the U.S., endurance is often rewarded over sustainability (Collins, 2019).

Beneath this structural strain lies a powerful cultural narrative: If women just try harder, prioritize better, or delegate more, they can do it all. This message sounds empowering, but quietly reinforces depletion by framing balance as a personal responsibility rather than a shared one. It is not that women cannot do many things; it is that they are told they should do all things, all at once, without pause or recalibration.

We often chase balance as if it is a finish line, as if one day, everything will be in place. But true balance is not stillness; it is movement with purpose. Like standing on a paddleboard, it demands constant micro-adjustments to stay upright amid shifting tides, a form of dynamic self-regulation (Carver & Scheier, 1998). It is active and necessary, yet can become exhausting when the waters themselves are changing—when the stage of life, environment, or conditions around us is in flux.

The cultural fixation on maintaining balance can also narrow perspective. When we focus on not falling, we stop noticing that the tides have changed or that it may be time to rest. Direction alignment restores that wider perspective. It reconnects effort to purpose, described as intrinsic motivation, and helps individuals discern what truly deserves our energy (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Balance restores stability; alignment restores direction. Sustainable well-being depends not only on managing energy but on maintaining congruence between one’s values and actions (Maslach & Leiter, 2022; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Recent studies likewise find that fit and values alignment, more than time distribution, predict engagement, meaning, and well-being across work and life domains (Lee & Jo, 2023; Steger, 2021).

There is no universal definition of “having it all.” What counts as success changes across life stages, cultures, and values. Without noticing, many of us chase ideals designed by others, measured by productivity rather than peace. Research in self-determination theory suggests that motivation and well-being flourish when goals align with autonomy and intrinsic values, not when driven by external approval (Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2017). In other words, thriving is not about doing everything; it is about doing what matters most. Well-being stems from fit and congruence between our values and actions, not from perfect balance (Pawelski, 2016; Steger, 2021). Alignment invites curiosity and the question, “Where am I out of sync, and what needs renewal?”

The Environmental Alignment Model (EAM): Mapping what matters

The Environmental Alignment Model (EAM) emerged from my capstone research in the University of Pennsylvania's Master of Applied Positive Psychology (MAPP) program. It is a practical diagnostic tool designed to assess and realign energy across three domains: Work, Self, and Home. Building on the strengths of existing well-being and burnout frameworks, which have contributed significantly to our understanding of stress, job demands, and organizational dynamics (e.g., Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Maslach & Leiter, 2022), the EAM offers a complementary perspective. It invites a broader view, recognizing that personal well-being is shaped not only by the workplace but also by the continuous interplay of professional, personal, and relational environments.

     Figure 1

Environmental Alignment: Diagnostic Illustrative Output

Note. This illustrative diagnostic output is based on original capstone research by Jessie Reese (2025), integrating concepts from established burnout and well-being frameworks.

The EAM invites reflection through a simple self-assessment and visual diagnostic that maps energy inputs and outputs across domains. Respondents consider questions such as:

• Where are you giving energy freely, and where are you giving it away?

• What one shift could bring Work, Self, and Home into closer alignment?

These reflections reveal patterns of energy flow, where it moves freely, where it stagnates, and where it leaks unnoticed. The resulting visual output, often displayed as an intuitive heat map, helps individuals see which areas of their life system are overextended, stable, or replenishing. By mapping energy alignment as an ecosystem rather than a single dimension, the EAM makes the invisible visible. It provides a shared language for individuals, leaders, and teams to discuss energy dynamics and recovery without judgment, creating space for curiosity instead of criticism. The model is currently in early beta testing with leaders and teams.

Each domain represents a distinct but interconnected environment influencing well-being and performance:

• Work | The external domain of purpose, fairness, autonomy, and recognition. This is where professional identity meets system design. When demands consistently exceed control or meaning, energy drains.

• Self | The internal domain encompassing physical and emotional energy, self-compassion, and spiritual grounding. This is the renewable core of the system, the source from which all other energy flows.

• Home | The relational domain of belonging, connection, and environmental safety. It includes family, community, and physical surroundings that either replenish or deplete.

Misalignment across these domains is the hallmark of brownout, sustained overextension without renewal. One domain operating in deficit eventually destabilizes the others: Unresolved work stress spills into home life; lack of self-care erodes purpose; depleted relationships undermine resilience.

The EAM is both mirror and map. It surfaces unseen dynamics, how energy moves through a person and a system, and reframes recovery as design, not willpower. Over time, the model can help leaders and individuals replace “fix-yourself” approaches with alignment strategies rooted in awareness, fairness, and fit.

From awareness to action: A shared responsibility

Personal insight is powerful, but sustained change requires more than awareness. Too often, systems treat self-care as the solution, turning well-being into another task on an already full list. The EAM reframes this paradigm; living in alignment with one’s values is not individual willpower, it is collective design.

Individuals, leaders, teams, families, and organizations can use this model and diagnostic to surface hidden drains such as emotional labor, unsustainable norms, and inequality. This opens a new kind of conversation, not just “How do we help her recharge?” but “How do we realign the system that’s draining her?”

Research in Positive Organizational Scholarship shows that fairness, belonging, and purpose are not peripheral; they are central drivers to well-being and performance (Cameron et al., 2011; Dutton, 2003). These types of conversations can redesign how teams and families allocate roles, time, and emotional energy, but this isn’t just leadership work. Each of us—partners, colleagues, friends—can notice and name the invisible work that powers our world. Recognition itself renews energy. Simply naming the invisible work that powers families, teams, and communities restores dignity and fairness to its exchange. When women’s energy is seen and valued, systems begin to rebalance.

Awareness is the spark, but alignment is the current that sustains. When women realign their energy, they don’t just recover; they help rebalance the grid that powers collective well-being. And when systems reciprocate, designing for fairness, rest, and renewal, the whole network glows brighter. The EAM invites this recalibration. Alignment is not perfection; it is integrity in motion, the ongoing practice of syncing energy with what matters most. When women realign, they remind the world that no one thrives alone and that vitality depends on reciprocity.

It is time to stop asking women to shine in systems built to dim them. Instead, we must restore what sustains and keep the grid glowing.

References

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683940710733115

Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.163

Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Positive psychology in practice (P. A. Linley & S. Joseph, Eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470939338

Cameron, K., Mora, C., Leutscher, T., & Calarco, M. (2011). Effects of positive practices on organizational effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 47(3), 266–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886310395514

Collins, C. (2019). Making motherhood work: How women manage careers and caregiving. Princeton University Press.

Dutton, J. E. (2003). Energize your workplace: How to create and sustain high-quality connections at work (1st ed). Jossey-Bass.

Gallup. (2023). State of the global workplace: 2023 report. https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx

Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.

International Labour Organization. (2022). Care work and care jobs for a work-life balance: Key statistics and trends (Updated global estimates). https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_845455

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2022). The burnout challenge: Managing people’s relationships with their jobs. Harvard University Press.

McKinsey & Company, & LeanIn.Org. (2024). Women in the workplace 2024. https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace

OECD. (2024). Measuring well-being and progress. https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/measuring-well-being-and-progress.html

Pawelski, J. O. (2016). Defining the ‘positive’ in positive psychology: Part I. A descriptive analysis. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 11(4), 339–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2015.1137627

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Shockley, K. M., Shen, W., DeNunzio, M. M., Arvan, M. L., & Knudsen, E. A. (2017). Disentangling the relationship between gender and work–family conflict: An integration of theoretical perspectives using meta-analytic methods. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(12), 1601–1635. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000246

Steger, M. F. (2021). Meaning in life: A unified model. In C. R. Snyder, S. J. Lopez, L. M. Edwards, & S. C. Marques (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology (p. 0). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199396511.013.56

UN Women, & United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA). (2023). Progress on the Sustainable Development Goals: The Gender Snapshot 2023. https://www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2023/09/progress-on-the-sustainable-development-goals-the-gender-snapshot-2023

Winfrey, O. (2014). What I know for sure (First edition). Flatiron Books.

World Health Organization. (2019). Burn-out an occupational phenomenon: International Classification of Diseases. https://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/burn-out/en/

About the author | Jessie Reese, MAPP (C'25), ACC, specializes in the intersection of executive development and organizational strategy, helping leaders and systems evolve together. With over fifteen years of experience, including more than a decade at Deloitte Consulting, she designs leadership, succession, and culture strategies that drive sustainable impact. A trained executive assessor, certified coach, experience designer, and facilitator, Jessie bridges evidence-based practice and human insight to help leaders thrive. Her University of Pennsylvania MAPP Capstone, The Tipping Point: Executive Burnout, Brownout, and Realignment, introduces the Environmental Alignment Model (Work, Self, and Home), a reflective framework for leader and system renewal. She lives in Idaho with her husband and two young children.