Managing Stress Alone Is a Silent Battle

By Adrianna Rudolph, Founder of Shining Bright Consulting | Mental Wellness for the Resilient

Published June 2026

Stress does not announce itself with a memo. It does not schedule a meeting or give two weeks’ notice. It seeps into the corners of the workday quietly — in the moment a deadline collides with a personal obligation, in the meeting where an employee’s voice goes unheard, in the policy change nobody explained until it was already in effect. By the time most organizations notice it, stress has already cost them something they cannot get back: the psychological well-being of their workforce.

This is not a problem unique to one country, one industry, or one generation of workers. A peer-reviewed study published in Business, Management and Economics Engineering (Lapiņa, Nikitina, & Ozoliņa-Ozola, 2026), which examined workplace stress among employees in Latvia through the IMPRESS Project, confirmed what human resource professionals across the globe already know intuitively — the stressors that break people down are not random. They are structural, predictable, and, most importantly, addressable.

The question is whether organizations are willing to do something about them.

Two Workforces. One Problem.

On the surface, the United States and Latvia appear to occupy very different professional landscapes. Latvia’s gross average earnings stand at approximately €1,547 per month, compared to the EU27 average of €3,417 (EURES, 2024), reflecting a workforce navigating significant economic constraints. According to Gallup’s 2026 State of the Global Workplace Report, 37% of Latvian employees reported experiencing stress a great deal of the day, while only 20% report being engaged at work (Gallup, 2026) — a figure that, while above Europe’s regional average of 12%, still signals that the majority of Latvia’s working population is disengaged and under pressure.

Across the Atlantic, the numbers tell a similar story, only louder. According to Aflac’s 2025 WorkForces Report, 72% of U.S. workers report moderate-to-high stress levels — the highest figure recorded in seven years (Aflac, 2025). Workplace stress costs the U.S. economy an estimated $300 billion per year in absenteeism, turnover, productivity loss, and medical costs, and chronic job stress contributes to approximately 120,000 deaths annually in the United States (Wellhub, 2024).

The scale differs. The system differs. The culture differs. But the wound is the same.

Stress does not discriminate by geography. Whether an employee sits in Riga or New York, the experience of being overloaded, unheard, and unsupported looks and feels the same.

Where the Two Workforces Converge

Despite their economic and structural differences, the U.S. and Latvian workforces share striking similarities when it comes to workplace stress. In both countries, roles and responsibilities consistently emerged as the dominant stressor — not workload alone, but the ambiguity, conflict, and overextension that come with poorly defined professional expectations (Lapiņa et al., 2026).

Both workforces also demonstrate that managerial behavior is the single most powerful moderating factor in stress outcomes. Research from the IMPRESS Project found that supervisor support significantly buffered stress among Latvian employees, and U.S. data confirms the same: employees in companies with ineffective management practices are nearly 60% more likely to experience stress than those in environments with effective leadership (Gallup, 2024).

Finally, both workforces reveal a critical gap between the support employers believe they are providing and the support employees report actually receiving. In the U.S., over two-thirds of managers believe their employees’ well-being has remained stable or improved — yet 45% of employees report their well-being has declined during the same period (Gallup, 2024). This perception gap is not a communication inconvenience. It is a retention and productivity crisis.

What Stress Actually Is — And Why That Matters

Before organizations can address stress, they must understand what they are actually dealing with. Schuler (1980), after reviewing and analyzing the definitions of stress offered by numerous authors, concluded that stress is “a subjective, intense, and uncomfortable state of tension arising from the subjective perception of the situation.” That word — subjective — is critical. Two employees can sit in the same meeting, receive the same directive, and walk away with entirely different stress responses based on their resources, their history, and their sense of control.

This is precisely why blanket wellness policies so often fail. A fruit bowl in the break room does not address a culture of role ambiguity. A one-time mindfulness seminar does not correct a manager who assigns conflicting responsibilities without clarity. Stress is not solved at the surface. It is solved at the source.

The Three Working Conditions That Are Harming Your People Most

Research consistently identifies three working conditions that bear the heaviest psychological weight on employees — regardless of geography, industry, or organization size.

1. Excessive Workload and Poor Work-Life Balance

This is the most cited and the most costly stressor in both the American and Latvian workforce. Nearly half of American workers — 45% — report having to work more hours per week than they want to, and 83% report losing sleep over work stress (Gallup, 2024). The IMPRESS study found that roles and responsibilities emerged as the dominant driver of stress across both 2018 and 2021 survey samples in Latvia, with a notably heightened impact in the 2021 post-pandemic period (Lapiņa et al., 2026).

According to Aflac’s 2025 WorkForces Report, in 2025 nearly 85% of workers reported experiencing burnout or exhaustion, and 47% were forced to take time off for mental health issues (Aflac, 2025). When employees are consistently expected to carry more than they can reasonably hold, they do not simply become less productive — they become less present, less committed, and, eventually, gone. More than half of the U.S. workforce has seriously considered resigning due to mental health issues stemming from their jobs (NorthOne, 2025). Turnover is not a hiring problem. It is a stress problem in disguise.

2. Lack of Involvement in Decision-Making That Directly Affects the Employee

There is something quietly devastating about being required to implement a decision you had no hand in making — especially when that decision directly changes how you work every day. The IMPRESS research identified lack of employee involvement as a significant psychosocial risk factor, and U.S. data confirms it.

According to the APA’s 2025 Work in America Survey, around two-thirds of employed adults reported that their organization has been affected by recent government policy changes, with more than two in five anticipating further disruptions — intensifying feelings of uncertainty and powerlessness among workers who feel they have no seat at the table (APA, 2025). Employees do not need to run the organization. They need to feel that the organization sees them as more than a function. Inclusion in decisions that shape their daily professional lives is not a luxury. It is a retention strategy.

3. Lack of Influence on the Process of Carrying Out Work

Autonomy and stress share an inverse relationship: as one decreases, the other increases. When employees are told what to do and precisely how to do it with little room for professional judgment, the result is not efficiency — it is chronic anxiety. The IMPRESS study found that well-defined processes and organizational clarity significantly reduced stress levels among Latvian employees, reinforcing that structure and autonomy must coexist in balance (Lapiņa et al., 2026).

U.S. data supports this conclusion as well. Eagle Hill Consulting’s November 2025 survey found 55% of the U.S. workforce currently experiencing burnout — a six-year high — with poor workplace communication cited as a contributing factor by 80% of respondents (Springworks, 2025). When employees cannot influence how their work gets done, their sense of agency erodes. And without agency, stress becomes the default operating mode.

What Employers Can and Must Do

The IMPRESS study makes a point that every HR executive should bring into their next leadership meeting: to prevent stress and its impact, a company must first identify the places, conditions, and processes — the stressors — that create problem situations within the organization. It is equally crucial to identify the resources the company already possesses to mitigate and improve the situation (Lapiņa et al., 2026).

This is not passive work. It requires audit, intention, and follow-through.

Supervisor support is not optional infrastructure — it is a frontline intervention. Managers must be equipped to assist employees in coping with increasing workloads and deadlines, constant planning and decision-making, and the stress that results from ever-changing working conditions (Lapiņa et al., 2026). The 2025 NAMI Workplace Mental Health Poll found that approximately four in five employees report it would help them to receive information or training about stress and burnout management, identifying and responding to a mental health crisis, and mental health condition signs and symptoms (NAMI, 2025). The appetite for support exists. The question is whether organizations are prepared to meet it.

Practically speaking, organizations can begin with three commitments:

•  Conduct a stress audit. Survey employees anonymously about their top stressors. Do not assume. Ask.

•  Train your managers. Leadership effectiveness is the single most powerful lever for reducing workplace stress. Managers who cannot regulate their own stress cannot support their teams through it.

•  Create communication channels that matter. Employees need more than an open-door policy — they need structured, consistent opportunities to voice concerns and influence the decisions that affect their work.

What Employees Can Do Right Now — On the Hardest Days

While systemic change is the long-term solution, employees need practical tools for today. On the most stressful days, two of the most evidence-supported and immediately accessible strategies are intentional breathwork and protected rest.

Breathing exercises. The 4-7-8 technique is one of the most effective tools for acute stress relief and requires no equipment, no appointment, and no explanation to a manager. Inhale for four counts, hold for seven, exhale slowly for eight. Repeat four times. This technique activates the parasympathetic nervous system, signaling to the body that the perceived threat has passed. Even two intentional minutes of breathwork between back-to-back meetings can measurably reduce cortisol, restore focus, and interrupt the physiological stress cycle before it escalates.

Using sick time for mental health. According to the 2025 NAMI Workplace Mental Health Poll, only 13% of employees told their manager or supervisor their mental health was suffering due to work demands (NAMI, 2025). Only 40% of workers who do acknowledge stress to their employer receive any support at all (ADAA, 2025). Mental health days are not a sign of weakness. They are a performance strategy. Organizations that normalize and actively encourage mental health leave will see the return in engagement, retention, and long-term productivity. HR leaders have a role to play here: communicate explicitly and repeatedly that sick time is available for mental health, and that using it will not result in professional penalty.

Managing stress alone is a silent battle. But it does not have to be fought that way.

Where Shining Bright Consulting Comes In

At Shining Bright Consulting, we see this problem every day — and we built something to fix it.

We work with organizations, HR leaders, and teams who understand that their greatest asset is their people, and that stressed people cannot perform at the level their organizations need. We offer two corporate training solutions designed specifically to address the three stressors outlined in this article:

Team Dynamics and Communication Training equips teams with the practical tools to communicate under pressure, navigate conflict constructively, and build the kind of psychological safety that reduces stress at its interpersonal root. Role conflict and poor communication are not personality problems — they are skills gaps. This training closes them. Because most workplace tension does not start with policy. It starts with a conversation that went wrong and was never repaired.

Leadership Effectiveness Workshops are designed for the managers and executives who set the tone for everything else. When leaders know how to regulate their own stress, distribute workload equitably, communicate change with clarity, and involve their teams in meaningful decisions — the entire organizational stress ecosystem shifts. This is not soft skills training. This is business-critical leadership development that produces measurable outcomes in retention, engagement, and team performance.

If your organization is ready to build a workforce that does not just survive pressure but grows through it — let’s talk.

Visit www.shiningbc.com or connect with Shining Bright Consulting on LinkedIn to learn more about our corporate training programs.

References

1. Aflac. (2025). WorkForces report.    https://www.aflac.com/business/resources/aflac-workforces-report

2. American Psychological Association (APA). (2025). Work in America survey.    https://www.apa.org/pubs/reports/work-in-america/2025

3. Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA). (2025). Workplace stress and mental health.    https://adaa.org/workplace-stress-anxiety-disorders-survey

4. EURES — European Employment Services. (2024). Labour market information: Latvia.    https://eures.europa.eu/living-and-working/labour-market-information/labour-market-information-latvia_en

5. Gallup. (2024). State of the global workplace: 2024 report.    https://www.gallup.com/workplace/349484/state-of-the-global-workplace.aspx

6. Gallup. (2026). State of the global workplace: Latvia country-level data.    https://www.gallup.com/workplace/705986/state-global-workplace-latvia-country-level-data.aspx

7. Lapiņa, I., Nikitina, T., & Ozoliņa-Ozola, I. (2026). Balancing workplace stress: Empirical insights from the IMPRESS project. Business, Management and Economics Engineering, 24(1), 143–157.    https://doi.org/10.3846/bmee.2026.24121

8. National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). (2025). The 2025 NAMI workplace mental health poll.    https://www.nami.org/support-education/publications-reports/survey-reports/the-2025-nami-workplace-mental-health-poll/

9. NorthOne. (2025). Workplace stress statistics.    https://www.northone.com/blog/small-business/workplace-stress-statistics

10. Schuler, R. S. (1980). Definition and conceptualization of stress in organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 25(2), 184–215.    https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(80)90063-X

11. Springworks. (2025). Workplace stress statistics 2025–2026.    https://www.springworks.in/blog/workplace-stress-statistics

12. Wellhub. (2024). State of work-life wellness 2024.    https://wellhub.com/en-us/blog/wellness-and-benefits-programs/work-related-stress-in-the-united-states/