Government Can't Run on Burnout: Why Work-Life Balance Is a Public Service Responsibility

After more than two decades in New York City government, I've learned that asking fewer employees to do more may produce short-term budget savings. But without realistic workloads, flexible schedules and succession planning, those savings can come at the expense of the workforce government depends upon.

By Scott Webber, DrPH, MBA, MPA, MPH

I've spent more than two decades working in New York City government, including approximately 15 years at the Department of Correction.

During that time, I've managed budgets, overseen technology procurements, worked through funding constraints and helped maintain essential government operations.

I've also witnessed how dramatically staffing levels can change while the workload remains.

Earlier in my career, I worked with a substantially larger administrative team. Today, I oversee significant technology procurement and budget responsibilities with a much smaller group of employees and part-time consulting support.

The contracts still need to be processed.

The budgets still need to balance.

Vendors still need to be paid.

And essential systems still need to operate.

The work doesn't disappear simply because fewer people are available to perform it.

That experience has shaped my perspective on work-life balance.

Government cannot build a sustainable workforce by treating the willingness of dedicated employees to absorb additional responsibilities as an unlimited resource.

Public service requires commitment. But commitment shouldn't mean accepting organizational arrangements that depend indefinitely on overwork.

The Hidden Cost of Doing More With Less

In government budgeting, reducing personnel expenditures can produce immediate and measurable savings.

Eliminating a position or leaving a vacancy unfilled reduces payroll costs.

Those savings appear in financial reports.

But the consequences may be more difficult to quantify.

A procurement may take longer to complete.

A contract renewal may receive less advance planning.

An employee may spend evenings reviewing documents that previously could have been handled during normal working hours.

A manager may become responsible for tasks that should have been delegated.

Eventually, the organization may become dependent on a small number of employees who possess critical institutional knowledge.

From a financial perspective, that's a risk.

If those employees resign, retire or become unavailable, the agency may need consultants, overtime or emergency staffing arrangements to maintain operations.

In my experience, government is often very good at measuring the savings associated with reduced staffing.

We're not always as effective at measuring the cost of the workload that remains.

A position vacancy is not necessarily an efficiency improvement. Sometimes it's simply a transfer of work to someone else.

My Perspective Has Changed as My Family Has Grown

My views on work-life balance have also evolved as I've become a father.

I have two young children.

Like many working parents, I want to be present for their childhood while continuing to meet my professional responsibilities.

That means balancing school schedules, family activities, household obligations and the unpredictable demands of government work.

There are times when professional responsibilities require additional attention.

That's part of accepting a management position.

But I've become increasingly conscious of the difference between occasional periods of intensive work and a permanent expectation that employees remain available at all hours.

Government employees have families, responsibilities and personal interests outside their agencies.

Those responsibilities don't make them less committed to public service.

They make them human.

I believe managers should recognize that employees who can maintain reasonable boundaries are often better positioned to sustain productive careers.

The objective shouldn't be to eliminate demanding work.

It should be to ensure that demanding work remains manageable over time.

Remote Work Has Changed the Equation

One of the most meaningful changes in government employment has been the expansion of remote and hybrid work arrangements.

In my own position, having the flexibility to work remotely for part of the week has practical value.

It reduces commuting demands, creates additional scheduling flexibility and can make it easier to concentrate on assignments requiring sustained attention.

For employees with young children, elderly relatives or lengthy commutes, those benefits can be particularly important.

New York City's remote work pilot began in 2023, and subsequent agreements expanded or extended flexible work arrangements for eligible employees.

In June 2026, District Council 37 reported that the City's flexible work pilot had been extended through May 31, 2027.

The program provides eligible employees with opportunities for remote work or alternative schedules, depending on their responsibilities and applicable agreements.

I believe these initiatives represent a sensible recognition that government employment must evolve.

But remote work shouldn't be treated as an entitlement disconnected from performance.

Nor should agencies assume that every position can be performed remotely.

Correction officers, firefighters, sanitation workers, healthcare personnel and many other frontline employees must be physically present to perform essential duties.

That reality deserves recognition.

For positions that can be performed effectively through hybrid arrangements, however, government should evaluate flexibility based on operational results rather than tradition.

If employees meet deadlines, maintain service quality and remain accessible, physical presence should not automatically become the primary measure of productivity.

The question should be whether the work is being accomplished effectively—not simply where the employee is sitting.

Flexibility Can Be a Recruitment and Retention Tool

Government competes with private employers for skilled professionals.

That competition is particularly significant in information technology, finance, procurement and other specialized fields.

Public agencies may not always be able to match private-sector compensation.

But they can offer other advantages.

Pension benefits, healthcare, job stability, meaningful work and flexible schedules all contribute to the overall value of government employment.

I believe agencies should view work-life balance as part of their recruitment and retention strategy.

That view is supported by New York City's own workforce discussions.

At an October 2026 City Council hearing on municipal retention strategies, the Committee on Civil Service and Labor cited approximately 32,000 workforce departures in fiscal year 2025.

The hearing materials also reported that 54% of respondents to the City's Employee Viewpoint Survey would consider another job offering greater remote-work flexibility.

Those figures suggest that employee preferences deserve serious attention.

A talented analyst who leaves government because of inflexible working arrangements represents a loss of expertise.

Replacing that employee may require recruitment, training and a lengthy period of adjustment.

Providing reasonable flexibility may be less expensive than repeatedly replacing experienced personnel.

Burnout Is Also a Public Health Issue

My academic background in environmental and occupational health sciences has reinforced my interest in the relationship between working conditions and employee well-being.

The U.S. Surgeon General's Framework for Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being identifies five essential components of a healthy workplace: protection from harm, connection and community, work-life harmony, mattering at work, and opportunity for growth.

These principles are relevant to government.

Employees need reasonable workloads, supportive supervision and opportunities to develop professionally.

They also need to understand how their work contributes to the agency's mission.

Chronic workplace stress can affect concentration, morale and employee health.

In government, the consequences can extend beyond the individual employee.

A procurement specialist working under excessive pressure may have less time to review complex contract provisions.

A budget analyst managing too many assignments may struggle to identify emerging financial risks.

A supervisor responsible for an overstretched team may have insufficient time for mentoring and quality assurance.

I don't believe every demanding assignment constitutes burnout.

Government employment can involve periods of extraordinary responsibility.

But agencies should distinguish between temporary demands and chronic organizational problems.

Emergency Readiness Requires Sustainable Staffing

My experience at the Department of Correction has also influenced how I think about the relationship between staffing and emergency readiness.

Essential government operations must continue during holidays, emergencies and unexpected disruptions.

During Hurricane Sandy, I reported to work despite the severe conditions, even having to move storm debris from the road to reach the highway.

That experience reinforced my appreciation for the obligations that accompany public service.

There are moments when government employees must respond despite extraordinary personal inconvenience.

But those moments should be exceptions requiring special effort—not the model for everyday staffing.

An organization that depends on employees continually operating at emergency intensity will eventually encounter problems with morale, retention or operational reliability.

Government should maintain sufficient staffing and backup capacity to respond to unexpected events.

That may appear more expensive than operating with the absolute minimum number of employees.

But emergency readiness has value.

The absence of a crisis doesn't mean the resources needed to respond are unnecessary.

Managers Have Responsibilities Too

I don't believe work-life balance is solely an employee responsibility.

Managers influence workload distribution, communication expectations, scheduling and professional development.

They also determine whether employees feel comfortable raising concerns about capacity.

A manager who consistently assigns more work than employees can reasonably complete should examine whether the problem involves staffing, priorities or inefficient processes.

Sometimes technology can help.

Automation may reduce repetitive administrative tasks.

Better contract management systems may improve workflow visibility.

Clearer procedures may eliminate unnecessary duplication.

But technology cannot solve every staffing problem.

And managers shouldn't assume that increased productivity means employees can absorb unlimited additional responsibilities.

I believe effective leadership requires distinguishing between work that is genuinely essential and work that can be deferred, simplified or eliminated.

Not every request deserves the same priority.

Not every meeting is necessary.

And not every administrative process needs to remain unchanged simply because government has always performed it that way.

Five Changes I Would Make

If I were developing a work-life balance strategy for a public agency, I would focus on five improvements.

First, measure workload alongside headcount. Agencies should evaluate the volume and complexity of assignments, not simply the number of funded positions.

Second, expand flexibility where operationally appropriate. Hybrid schedules, compressed workweeks and alternative start times should be evaluated according to service requirements and performance.

Third, identify staffing vulnerabilities. Managers should know which functions depend heavily on a small number of employees and develop appropriate backup arrangements.

Fourth, invest in process improvement. Automation, better documentation and simplified workflows can reduce unnecessary administrative burdens.

Fifth, make employee retention a financial management priority. Recruitment costs, training expenses, turnover and lost institutional knowledge should be considered when evaluating workforce policies.

These changes don't require abandoning accountability.

They require defining accountability more intelligently.

Public Service Should Be a Sustainable Career

I remain proud of my career in New York City government.

Public service has given me opportunities to work on complicated problems, manage substantial resources and contribute to essential operations.

I've also invested considerable time in education and professional development while balancing work and family responsibilities.

Those experiences have reinforced my belief that a fulfilling career should be sustainable.

Employees shouldn't have to choose between professional commitment and being present for their families.

Managers shouldn't have to rely indefinitely on extraordinary personal effort to compensate for structural staffing problems.

And taxpayers shouldn't have to accept declining service quality because agencies failed to maintain a capable workforce.

Government has legitimate fiscal constraints.

We must manage resources carefully.

But workforce well-being should be part of responsible financial management—not an expense to ignore.

The most effective government workforce isn't the one that works the longest hours. It's the one that can consistently deliver high-quality public services year after year.

That requires experienced employees, realistic workloads, capable managers, and working arrangements that recognize employees have lives beyond government.

After more than two decades in public service, I've come to believe that protecting those conditions isn't simply good for employees.

It's essential to protecting the services New Yorkers depend upon.

References and Further Reading

1. New York City Mayor's Office — Extension of Remote Work Pilot for City Employees (March 18, 2025)

https://www.nyc.gov/mayors-office/news/2025/03/mayor-adams-dc-37-executive-director-garrido-extension-remote-work-pilot-city

2. District Council 37 — Flexible Work Renewed for Another Year (June 17, 2026)

https://www.dc37.net/take-action/media-center/blog/2026/06/17/flexible-work-renewed-for-another-year/

3. District Council 37 — Compressed Workweek Pilot for NYC Employees (January 17, 2024)

https://www.dc37.net/take-action/media-center/news-release/2024/mayor-adams-dc-37-launch-compressed-workweek-pilot-for-new-york-city-employees-who-cannot-work-remotely/

4. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — Surgeon General's Framework for Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being (2022)

https://www.hhs.gov/surgeongeneral/reports-and-publications/workplace-well-being/index.html

5. U.S. Surgeon General — Workplace Mental Health and Well-Being Framework, Full Report (PDF)

https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/workplace-mental-health-well-being.pdf

6. New York City Council — Committee on Civil Service and Labor: Municipal Retention Strategies Hearing (October 16, 2026)

https://hearinghearings.nyc/hearings/committee-on-civil-service-and-labor-municipal-retention-strategies-2026-10-16/

7. NYC Department of Citywide Administrative Services — Municipal Childcare Pilot Program (March 30, 2026)

https://home4.nyc.gov/site/dcas/news/004-26/mayor-mamdani-advances-new-york-city-s-first-free-child-care-program-pilot-municipal-workers

The views expressed in this article are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions of the New York City Department of Correction or the City of New York.