Tobias Judmaier – Coaching Wien

Blog

  • Change Fatigue at Work: When the Next Restructuring Meets a Tired Team

    Change Fatigue at Work: When the Next Restructuring Meets a Tired Team

    I have lived through two “re-orgs” myself: once at a large software company in Germany and once at a media group in Greece. What they had in common was that both were deeply unpleasant and left me and my colleagues with a great deal of uncertainty. And with the uncertainty, of course, came exhaustion. There is no question that growing organisations need to reorganise from time to time, but for the people who work in them it is a considerable challenge every time. It might go something like this:

    The announcement comes on a Tuesday morning, by video call, with eleven slides. A new divisional structure, new reporting lines, two teams merged into one. It is the third reorganisation in four years. What is striking is what happens next: nothing. No critical questions, no pushback, the chat stays empty. The next morning, work carries on as before. Just a little slower. Anyone who knows a scene like this knows change fatigue.

    What is missing in a scene like this is rarely a willingness to change. What is missing is energy. The term for it, change fatigue, describes the exhaustion that sets in when changes follow each other faster than people can absorb them. This article looks at how it shows up at work, what the figures for Austria suggest, why constant change drains so much energy, and what organisations can do differently in their next restructuring.

    What change fatigue is, and what it is not

    Change fatigue is not a diagnosis and not a personality trait. It describes a state in which people still go along with changes but no longer engage with them. Someone who is tired of change often does not reject the next initiative at all. They simply have no reserves left to invest in it.

    That change is part of life was already clear to Heraclitus. What is new is the pace. The research and advisory firm Gartner has measured it: in 2016, the average employee experienced two planned enterprise changes a year, and by 2022 that number had risen to ten. Over the same period, the share of employees willing to actively support such changes fell from 74 to 43 percent (Harvard Business Review, 2023). A survey by Accenture of more than 1,000 executives and 5,000 employees in 17 countries shows the same picture from the company side. 95 percent of organisations have gone through at least two transformations in the past three years (Accenture, 2024).

    Two distinctions help. Change fatigue is not the same as resistance. Resistance has energy, it argues and wants to stop something. Fatigue has run out of that energy. Nor is it the same as burnout, which the WHO describes in ICD-11 as an occupational phenomenon with three features: exhaustion, mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy. Prolonged change fatigue can lead in that direction. But it can be addressed much earlier, and that is the opportunity.

    What the figures for Austria suggest

    Austria has no dedicated statistic on change fatigue. Two figures, however, show how thin the reserves are in many workplaces. According to Gallup, only 9 percent of employees in Austria were engaged at work in 2025. The European average is 12 percent, the global average 20 percent (Gallup, State of the Global Workplace 2026). And according to the Work Climate Index of the Upper Austrian Chamber of Labour, 65 percent of employees in Austria worked while sick at least once in the past six months. In 2015 the figure was around 30 percent (AK Upper Austria, 2026, in German).

    Neither figure measures change fatigue directly. Both describe the starting point the next restructuring runs into: people who are functioning but have little left to give. I summarise how psychological strain shows up in sick-leave figures in my article on employers’ duty of care.

    How change fatigue shows up at work

    Change fatigue rarely announces itself loudly. It shows up as small shifts in behaviour that are easily mistaken for indifference or complacency:

    • Meetings about new initiatives no longer produce questions, not even critical ones.
    • One sentence comes up more often: “This is another project nobody will remember in a year.”
    • Teams formally adopt new tools and processes, then quietly work around them.
    • People who used to suggest improvements hold back.
    • Resignations come from exactly those you would have needed for the next phase.

    These observations are a signal to the organisation, not a finding about individuals. If you still notice something about a particular person on your team, read how to start that conversation without interpreting.

    Why constant change is so draining

    Change costs energy because it switches off autopilot. In diary studies by Wendy Wood and colleagues, 35 to 43 percent of everyday actions were habitual, performed almost daily and usually in the same place (Wood, Quinn & Kashy, 2002). Every new structure turns part of those routines back into conscious work. Who is responsible now? Where does the approval go? What is the form called these days? None of it is difficult. Added up, it is exhausting.

    That alone does not explain the exhaustion. Stress arises when people judge a demand to be greater than the resources they have to deal with it. Understanding Resilience explains how that interplay works. Restructuring shifts this balance twice over. Demands increase, and at the same time the sense of having any influence shrinks. Decisions are made elsewhere, one’s own job is being redrawn, and months pass before everything is settled. That high demands combined with little control are particularly stressful has been a core idea in work psychology since Robert Karasek’s job demand-control model of 1979.

    On top of that, changes overlap. The new system has not been fully rolled out when the department is restructured again. The phase in which something new could settle and a team could catch its breath simply does not happen.

    How serious this can become is shown by a Finnish study of more than 22,000 municipal employees. After major downsizing, medically certified sickness absence rose among those who stayed, and cardiovascular mortality was around twice as high as in units without downsizing (Vahtera et al., BMJ 2004). A restructuring is not the same as downsizing. But the study shows that the burden of organisational change is carried above all by the people who remain.

    What does not help against change fatigue

    Here is a position I state deliberately: I consider a resilience workshop in the week after a restructuring is announced to be a mistake. The message that lands is: the problem is yours, so fix it. For people whose exhaustion comes from the organisation, that is hurtful.

    The evidence supports this scepticism. William Fleming analysed survey data from 46,336 employees in 233 UK organisations. For eleven common individual offerings such as mindfulness courses, resilience training and wellbeing apps, he found no benefit, and some even showed slightly negative associations (Industrial Relations Journal, 2024). The data are cross-sectional, so this is not proof of cause and effect. The WHO guidelines on mental health at work also give individual stress management programmes only a conditional recommendation based on low-certainty evidence. More slides, another town hall and a fruit bowl in the break room do not change the underlying equation either.

    What organisations can do differently next time

    The effective levers sit where the strain originates: in volume, pace and influence. None of them is new. Under time pressure, they are simply the first to be sacrificed.

    Fewer changes at once

    The Gartner authors recommend prioritising initiatives and deliberately planning periods of rest between waves of change. In practice, that means ending or pausing one project before another starts, and saying so openly. A simple one-page list of all ongoing change initiatives is a sobering first step for many leadership teams.

    Give influence, not just information

    The strongest single lever is the sense of being able to shape what happens. According to Gartner, managers who create psychological safety can reduce change fatigue in their teams by up to 46 percent (Gartner, 2023). This means two things. People can try things out without a failure being held against them. And they can challenge the status quo, including with those who make the decisions. The methodology behind the figure has not been published, but the direction fits Karasek’s findings on control.

    In concrete terms, this means not only informing teams about the outcome of a decision but genuinely handing them parts of the implementation. How the new division of tasks should look in detail is often something a team knows better than senior management.

    Clarify roles before the next wave

    After a reorganisation, it often stays unclear for months who is responsible for what. That uncertainty wears people down because it resurfaces in every single coordination. One meeting per team in which responsibilities, deputies and decision paths are written down costs an afternoon. It saves a great deal of friction afterwards.

    Update the risk assessment

    In Austria there is also a legal reason. The Employee Protection Act requires employers to assess workplace hazards, including psychological strain, and explicitly with regard to workflows and work organisation (section 4 ASchG, in German). According to the Austrian Labour Inspectorate, the assessment has to be reviewed and adapted where necessary when working conditions have changed to the extent that circumstances can be considered different. A reorganisation that redraws teams, roles and workflows is an obvious occasion to check. The assessment looks at working conditions, not at individual people.

    Prepare managers

    Managers are under double pressure in a restructuring. They are expected to represent the change and are affected by it themselves. For training managers to support their workers’ mental health, the WHO issues a strong recommendation based on moderate-certainty evidence. It is one of the best-supported recommendations in the guidelines, and a good reason to put this step ahead of any offering for individuals.

    Where individual counselling fits in

    Even when prioritisation, involvement and role clarity work well, a restructuring hits some people particularly hard. A typical situation: after a merger of two teams, a team leader is now responsible for twice as many people. She sleeps badly and does not raise it internally, because she is seen as resilient and does not want to be the first who “can’t keep up”. A few conversations then focus on priorities, on delegation and on what she can and cannot say to her own manager.

    For situations like this, a confidential space outside the company makes sense. It complements the work on conditions and does not replace it. It is not psychotherapy, not diagnosis and not medical treatment. Where therapeutic support seems appropriate, I say so openly and help find a suitable service. The service page describes how I organise one-to-one sessions for employees in Vienna. A separate article explains how far confidentiality extends when the company pays.

    Frequently asked questions about change fatigue

    Is change fatigue the same as burnout?

    No. The WHO describes burn-out as an occupational phenomenon with three features: exhaustion, increased mental distance from one’s job, and reduced professional efficacy. Change fatigue is narrower. It is the tiredness that comes from too many changes following each other too quickly. If it lasts long enough, it can move in the direction of burnout.

    Isn’t change fatigue just resistance to change?

    Resistance has energy. It argues and tries to stop something. Change fatigue tends to show up as silence, withdrawal and going through the motions without real involvement. More persuasive arguments therefore do little. It helps more to reduce the pace and the number of changes and to give people real influence.

    What can a manager do differently in the next restructuring?

    Make all ongoing initiatives visible and end one before a new one starts. Leave real decisions about implementation to the team. Clarify responsibilities in writing after the reorganisation. And explicitly allow disagreement, even when it is uncomfortable.

    Do Austrian employers have to reassess psychological strain after a reorganisation?

    The risk assessment under section 4 of the Austrian Employee Protection Act (ASchG) explicitly covers workflows and work organisation. According to the Austrian Labour Inspectorate, it has to be reviewed when working conditions have changed to the extent that circumstances can be considered different. Whether that applies to a specific restructuring is best clarified with your occupational health and safety experts.

    Conclusion

    Change fatigue is not a sign that a team no longer cares. It shows that an organisation is changing more than its people can absorb. So the question for the next leadership meeting is not how to make the workforce more resilient. It is this: which of our ongoing initiatives do we end next?

    This article is not legal advice. For the legal assessment of a specific case, please consult your occupational health and safety experts, a lawyer, the Austrian Economic Chamber or the Chamber of Labour.

    Sources

  • The Cost of External Employee Counselling – and How to Judge the Benefit

    Anyone evaluating a counselling service for their workforce runs into an awkward gap quickly: almost no provider publishes a price. Websites say „individual quote“, and the first presentation offers an ROI graphic instead of a number. This article attempts the opposite: to set out the pricing models that exist, the orders of magnitude that can actually be evidenced, and – the more honest part – how much the benefit claims are really worth.

    A disclosure first: I provide external employee counselling myself. This is not a neutral market analysis. That is precisely why I have restricted myself to figures that can be checked publicly – and said so wherever the evidence is thin.

    The three pricing models

    Practically every offering reduces to one of three billing logics. The difference is not cosmetic: it decides who carries the utilisation risk.

    • Per-capita annual fee. A fixed amount per employee per year, regardless of how many sessions actually take place. The classic EAP model. You buy availability, not usage.
    • Hour contingent. An agreed volume of counselling hours, drawn down until exhausted. You pay for delivery, but carry the risk of sizing the contingent wrongly.
    • Pay per session. Billing per hour with no framework volume. The most flexible, the hardest to plan – and often the least attractive for employees, because every session has to be visibly paid for.

    Which model suits which organisation, and how these offerings differ from in-house provision and workplace health promotion, is a separate topic: EAP, external employee counselling or wellbeing programmes compared.

    What can actually be evidenced on price

    Not much – and that finding is itself informative. The German-speaking market largely operates without public prices. What can be found:

    • For Austria, an interview with the managing director of one of the larger domestic EAP providers names a flat fee of 28 to 50 euros per employee per year. Important: this is from 2015 – usable as an order of magnitude, not as a current price.
    • For Germany, a provider comparison discloses figures: a market reference point of around 2.50 euros per employee per month, and one named provider at 39 to 123 euros per employee per year depending on company size. Bear in mind that the comparison comes from a provider that appears in it – disclosed, but still an interested party.
    • There are no fee schedules for life and social counselling in Austria. What is publicly available are costing aids such as the WKO calculation guide for management consultants – a method for computing an hourly rate, not a price list.

    For budgeting purposes: an order of magnitude of roughly 30 to 60 euros per head per year for a flat-fee model is plausible, but no more than that. Rely on concrete quotes, not on benchmarks.

    The catch in the per-capita fee

    A flat fee sounds like the safe model, and for budget planning it is. But it displaces a question worth asking: what does one counselling hour that actually happened cost?

    That requires the utilisation rate, and the reported figures are strikingly low. A compilation of published benchmarks cites an average of around 10 per cent for the United Kingdom (from the UK EAP association), roughly 5 to 7 per cent for the United States, and figures for Europe that frequently fall below 5 per cent. Providers routinely report higher rates for their own services – those are self-reported and not methodologically comparable with association surveys.

    A simple calculation makes the consequence visible. A company with 300 employees pays 35 euros per head per year, or 10,500 euros. At a utilisation rate of 4 per cent, twelve people use the service, averaging three sessions each – 36 counselling hours. That works out at roughly 290 euros per hour. At 10 per cent utilisation it falls to about 115 euros. The flat fee is therefore not a price but a bet on uptake.

    None of which argues against flat fees – large workforces with genuine round-the-clock need are often right to choose them. It does argue for one question to every provider: what utilisation rate did comparable clients reach with you last year, and how is it defined? A provider who cannot give you a number is selling availability blind.

    What the benefit case actually supports

    This is where it gets uncomfortable. Sales materials circulate ROI figures claiming a multiple return on every euro invested. Such numbers typically come from models with assumed effect sizes rather than controlled measurement, and the houses behind them have a commercial interest in the result. For the German-speaking market, researching this article turned up no independent effectiveness or ROI study on employee counselling.

    What does exist is a serious note of caution from research. William Fleming analysed survey data from 46,336 employees across 233 British organisations in the Industrial Relations Journal (2024) and found no evidence of benefit for eleven common individual-level wellbeing offerings – mindfulness, resilience training, stress management, apps; some were even associated with slightly worse outcomes. Two caveats belong with it: the data are cross-sectional, so this is not causal proof, and what was studied were courses and apps – not individual counselling sessions with qualified practitioners. The study does not refute employee counselling. It refutes the ease with which workplace wellbeing offerings are sold as effective.

    The WHO guidelines on mental health at work (2022) put this in order: manager training receives a strong recommendation on moderate evidence, reasonable work accommodations a strong recommendation on very low evidence, individual stress-reduction programmes only a conditional recommendation on low evidence. Buying a counselling service means buying something whose effectiveness is plausible but not well evidenced – and it should be positioned accordingly: as access to help for individuals, not as a remedy for structural overload.

    What to measure instead

    If ROI cannot be measured credibly, the question becomes how to judge a service at all. Five metrics that say something real without breaching confidentiality:

    • Time to access: days between first contact and first session. The hardest quality metric there is – a service with a six-week wait does not exist in a crisis.
    • Uptake, in aggregate: number of initial sessions and total hours. No names, no departments, no topics.
    • Completion rate: how many counselling processes ended as agreed rather than being abandoned.
    • Onward referrals: how often cases were handed to therapy, medicine or crisis services. A provider who never refers on should give you pause.
    • Qualitative feedback in anonymised form – voluntary, not a mandatory survey after a difficult session.

    What does not work: sickness absence days as a success metric. They fluctuate for dozens of reasons, and a good counselling service can raise them in the short term when people finally seek treatment. And none of these metrics may allow conclusions about individuals – why that is more than etiquette is explained in how confidentiality from the employer actually works.

    Cost items quotes tend to omit

    • Minimum term and notice period. Two-year contracts are common – a pilot year is negotiable if you ask.
    • Set-up and communication fees for announcements, intranet material and kick-off sessions.
    • Languages. Counselling in a second language is often a surcharge or has limited availability – in internationally staffed organisations, the most expensive blind spot.
    • 24/7 hotline. It drives the price and is rarely used. Sensible for shift operations and safety-critical settings, often redundant for office organisations.
    • Reporting packages. Elaborate dashboards cost money and deliver nothing robust at small case numbers – and the finer they break data down, the closer they come to re-identification.
    • Crisis pathway. Check whether a defined procedure for acute risk is included. If it is not, precisely what you need in an emergency is missing.

    Frequently asked questions

    What does external employee counselling cost, roughly?

    Reliable public prices barely exist. For flat-fee models in the German-speaking market, orders of magnitude of roughly 30 to 60 euros per employee per year are evidenced or plausible; hour contingents are billed per hour drawn down. What matters is which model fits actual demand.

    Does it pay off financially?

    Not answerable credibly with an ROI figure. Independent effectiveness studies in the German-speaking market are missing, and the research on individual wellbeing offerings is sobering. The better question is how much confidential, qualified access to help is worth to the organisation.

    Why do providers not publish prices?

    Because price depends on workforce size, model, languages, availability and contract term – and because opacity improves the negotiating position. Ask for a sample quote for your size; a provider who refuses will not be transparent later either.

    Is a pilot worthwhile?

    In most cases yes. A limited hour contingent over a few months reveals actual uptake in your organisation, and that is the only sound basis on which a flat-fee model can be calculated.

    Conclusion

    The cost of external employee counselling is not a secret but a function of model, uptake and scope. If you do not know the utilisation rate, you do not know your hourly price. And when someone presents an ROI figure, ask about the methodology – the answer tells you more about the provider than the number does. The most honest approach is usually the smallest one: a pilot, clear metrics, then a decision based on real data from your own organisation. How such a service is set up here is described on the page for external employee counselling in Vienna; what managers can do in an individual case is covered in the article on supporting employee mental health.

    Sources

  • Supporting Employee Mental Health as a Manager: What to Do – and What Not to Do

    Supporting Employee Mental Health as a Manager: What to Do – and What Not to Do

    It rarely begins with a conversation. It begins with someone on your team being different for weeks: quieter in meetings, short on the phone, three absences in quick succession, tasks slipping that used to run by themselves. You notice. And then you face the question most managers stay stuck on for far too long: do I say something – and if so, what?

    Supporting employee mental health puts managers in a role they were never trained for. The two most common reactions are both unhelpful: saying nothing for months so as not to intrude – or going too far and starting to look for causes in someone’s private life. This article maps the ground in between: what you may raise, how such a conversation is built, what you must not record, and where you can refer people in Austria.

    Your role: manager, not clinician

    The most useful clarification comes first, because it makes everything else easier. It is not your job to work out what someone has. It is not your job to fix it either. Three other things are your job – and they are demanding enough:

    • the working conditions you actually control: workload, availability expectations, deadlines, role clarity, conflict within the team
    • being approachable – so that nobody has to guess whether they are allowed to raise something
    • pointing the way to help, rather than trying to provide it yourself

    That this role can be learned is well evidenced. The WHO guidelines on mental health at work (2022) issue a strong recommendation for manager training, with moderate certainty of evidence. What is notable is where the effects show: on managers’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviour, and on reducing stigmatising attitudes – not on managers becoming a source of care. That is exactly the right expectation to hold.

    What Austrian law requires – and what it does not

    The Austrian Occupational Health and Safety Act (ASchG) is clearer here than many assume. Under § 2 (7), work-related psychological strain explicitly counts among the hazards that can lead to harmful stress; § 2 (7a) states that health, in the sense of the Act, means physical and mental health. Sections 4, 5 and 7 govern the assessment process, and § 4 (4) requires hazards to be tackled at source where possible.

    What matters, though, is what this duty applies to – and this is where the most common misconception arises. The workplace assessment of psychological strain targets objectifiable working conditions acting on employees. It is not a screening of individuals and says nothing about how a particular person is doing. Treating the assessment as a tool for identifying struggling employees misreads it – and puts you on thin ice under data protection law.

    The wider legal frame – duty of care, the assessment obligation, what employers actually owe – is covered in a separate article: Duty of care and mental health at work.

    The conversation: observation, not interpretation

    One sentence carries the whole conversation: talk about what you see, not what you suspect. Observations can be checked and leave the other person in charge of interpreting their own experience. Assumptions – however well meant – push them into defending themselves.

    Setting the frame

    • Schedule it. A concern raised in passing lands as a concern worth a passing moment.
    • Two people, no minutes taken, no third party „just sitting in“.
    • Say at the outset what this is and what it is not: not a performance review, not the groundwork for consequences.
    • Plan the ending: one concrete agreement and a follow-up date. Without that, even a good conversation evaporates.

    What you can say

    Three factual, work-related observations are enough: „I’ve noticed you’ve barely spoken in our team meetings these past few weeks. And the analysis that used to be routine for you has slipped twice. That’s on my mind – how are you finding the work at the moment?“

    The sentence that opens the most doors is the one that removes the pressure: „I don’t need to know what’s going on. I’d like to know what would make the work easier for you right now.“ It makes unmistakably clear that this is not an interrogation – and it keeps you inside your remit.

    What not to say

    • No suspected diagnosis. „Are you burnt out?“ is not a question but an attribution – and not yours to make.
    • No digging into private life. If someone volunteers it, listen. Do not ask.
    • No promises you cannot keep – above all, no unconditional confidentiality.
    • No instant fix. „Why don’t you take a week off“ usually ends the conversation rather than the problem.

    What you must not record

    Health data falls under the special categories of personal data in Article 9 GDPR. Processing is prohibited in principle, and the exceptions are narrow. In plain terms: assumptions about someone’s mental state, the health-related content of a conversation, a diagnosis someone confided in you – none of it belongs in a personnel file, an HR system, a notes app or an email to the division head.

    What you may and should record are the work arrangements: that a task was temporarily reassigned, that a follow-up is scheduled. The distinction is not a formality – it decides whether your conversation builds trust or destroys it. Why confidentiality works differently again in external counselling, and what an employer does and does not get to see, is explained in how confidentiality from the employer actually works.

    Where to refer people in Austria

    Referring on is not offloading; it is the most professional part of your role. Four routes that genuinely exist in Austria:

    A note on how you offer them: name several routes and leave the choice. A single route pressed with conviction quickly reads as an instruction – and voluntariness is the precondition for counselling to work at all.

    When it becomes acute

    Rare, but possible: there are signs of immediate danger. A different rule applies then – safety takes priority over confidentiality. Do not leave the person alone, make no promises of secrecy, and bring in professional help (the emergency service; in an emergency, 144). You do not have to be able to assess the situation yourself. You only have to know whom to call – which is why it is worth knowing the numbers before, not during, an emergency.

    What organisations can do structurally

    Finally, the uncomfortable part, because it moves the subject from the individual back to the organisation. A widely discussed study by William Fleming (Industrial Relations Journal, 2024) analysed survey data from 46,336 employees across 233 British organisations and found no evidence of benefit for eleven common individual-level wellbeing offerings – mindfulness, resilience training, stress management courses, wellbeing apps; some were even associated with slightly worse outcomes. An important caveat: the data are cross-sectional, so this is not causal proof. As a warning signal it still holds.

    The WHO guidelines point the same way. Alongside manager training, their second strong recommendation is to provide reasonable work accommodations for employees with mental health conditions – that is, to work on conditions, not only on people. The practical reading: conditions first, offerings second. A counselling service is no substitute for addressing causes. It is, however, the only lever that changes anything for a particular person today – which makes it not a contradiction but the second half. Which models exist and how they differ is compared in EAP, external employee counselling or wellbeing programmes.

    Frequently asked questions

    May I raise mental health with an employee at all?

    You may raise your work-related observations – not a suspected condition. There is no obligation to answer: the other person may say they would rather not discuss it. The conversation still matters, because it signals that the door is open.

    What if the person shuts the conversation down?

    Accept it and do not push. Make an open offer, name the external services and agree a later follow-up. Separately, review what is in your hands: workload, deadlines, role clarity, conflict in the team.

    May I document the conversation?

    Not its health-related content – that falls under Article 9 GDPR. You can document the work arrangements: what was temporarily reassigned, until when it applies, and when you will speak again.

    Do I have to inform HR?

    Only as far as work organisation requires it – cover arrangements, reassignments, deadlines. Health details are not part of that, not even in abbreviated form.

    Conclusion

    When an employee is struggling, the management task is smaller and at the same time harder than it feels: not to understand what is going on, but to stay approachable, work on the conditions and keep the route to help open. Managers who draw the boundary around their own role clearly tend to fill it well – and to do less damage than those who mean too well.

    This article is not legal advice. For the assessment of an individual case under employment law, consult a legal representative, the Austrian Economic Chamber or the Chamber of Labour.

    Sources

  • Confidential Employee Counselling: How Confidentiality from the Employer Actually Works

    Confidential Employee Counselling: How Confidentiality from the Employer Actually Works

    When a company considers external employee counselling, almost the same question stands at the start – from HR as much as from employees themselves: is this really confidential? Will my employer find out? This article explains how confidential employee counselling is protected legally and in practice, what the employer sees and does not see – and how to recognise a serious offering.

    Why confidentiality is the real barrier

    Whether someone uses a counselling offering rarely comes down to need – that almost always exists. It comes down to trust. Anyone who fears that a conversation about stress, a conflict or a private crisis might reach their manager or „end up in the personnel file“ would rather stay silent. Confidentiality is therefore not a detail of such an offering but its precondition. If it is credibly protected, the offering is used; if it is not, it remains a fig leaf.

    What the law says: anchored confidentiality

    In Austria, the confidentiality of life and social counselling is not merely a matter of goodwill but anchored in law (§ 119 Austrian Trade Act). This has a practical consequence many are unaware of: because the duty of confidentiality is statutory, in civil proceedings there is a right to refuse testimony (§ 321 para. 1 no. 3 ZPO) – the legal position is thus comparable to that of other confidential counselling and health professions (cf. overview of confidentiality in social professions).

    For companies this means: the confidentiality of professional external counselling rests not on a contractual promise alone, but on a statutory basis (§ 119 GewO).

    What the employer sees – and what it does not

    The model is clearly separated: the employer enables the counselling and funds it, but receives no access to what happens in it. Concretely that means:

    • No access to identity and content: who uses the counselling and what is discussed remains confidential.
    • Reporting only in aggregate: the employer receives only figures for managing the contingent – hours used and remaining. No names, no departments, no topics.
    • No reporting on individuals: there are no assessments, no evaluations and no feedback about single employees.

    With small pilot groups in particular, care is needed here: even a breakdown by topic, department or gender can make individuals re-identifiable. A serious offering therefore deliberately forgoes such analyses at small case numbers.

    The limits of confidentiality

    Honesty is part of credibility: absolute confidentiality exists in no counselling profession. As everywhere, legal limits apply – for example where there is immediate danger to life and limb (justifying emergency), suspected endangerment of a child’s welfare, or certain duties to report. What matters is that these limits are made transparent before counselling begins and that, in a serious case, only what is legally permitted and necessary to avert danger is passed on – no more.

    Data protection: separate data, clear roles

    Confidentiality does not end with the conversation; it includes how data is handled. Appointment and counselling data are kept separately from the employer’s systems and personnel files, only the necessary data is collected, and storage, access and deletion follow the GDPR. It is also important to clarify the data-protection roles cleanly – who is responsible for which processing – and not to assume a data-processing agreement where there is in fact an independent, professionally autonomous responsibility (the Data Protection Authority offers orientation).

    How to recognise a serious offering

    • Confidentiality and its legal limits are explained clearly from the start – not as fine print.
    • Reporting to the employer is expressly limited to aggregate figures.
    • There is a documented approach to crises and to data protection, not just a promise.
    • Contract, client information, privacy notice and the actual process match.
    • The counselling is professionally independent of the employer – spatially, organisationally and in responsibility.

    External employee counselling is built precisely on these principles: confidential, independent, with clear limits and aggregate reporting.

    Frequently asked questions

    Does the employer learn who uses the counselling or what is discussed?

    No. The employer receives no access to identity or content – only an aggregate account of hours used and remaining.

    Is confidentiality legally protected?

    Yes. It is anchored in law (§ 119 Austrian Trade Act) and grounds a right to refuse testimony in civil proceedings (§ 321 ZPO).

    Are there limits to confidentiality?

    Yes – for example where there is danger to life and limb, endangerment of a child’s welfare, or certain duties to report. These limits are made transparent in advance.

    How is data protected?

    Separately from the employer’s systems, with data minimisation and in line with the GDPR; the data-protection roles are clarified bindingly in advance.

    Conclusion

    Confidential employee counselling works because here confidentiality is not merely promised but structurally and legally protected: statutory confidentiality, an employer without access to content, aggregate reporting, clear limits and clean data protection. Only this foundation turns a well-meant offering into one that employees actually use.

    Sources

    Note: This article offers general orientation and is not legal advice. For the concrete design of confidentiality, data protection and contracts, the applicable laws and qualified advice are decisive.

  • EAP, External Employee Counselling or Wellbeing? Employee Support Models Compared

    EAP, External Employee Counselling or Wellbeing? Employee Support Models Compared

    Employee Assistance Program, external employee counselling, workplace health promotion, wellbeing – many terms circulate around supporting employees, and they are easily confused. This article sorts the common models, shows their strengths and limits, and helps with the question of which fits what. At the centre is the term heard most often: the Employee Assistance Program.

    Why employee support is becoming more important

    Psychological strain has become one of the most expensive and longest-lasting reasons for absence from work, and skilled professionals increasingly look for genuine duty of care in an employer. Companies respond with different offerings – from preventive programmes to individual counselling. The legal framework (such as the duty to evaluate psychological strain) covers the organisational level; individual support is voluntary, and this is exactly where the following models come in.

    Which obligations employers in Austria already carry is covered in the article on duty of care and mental health at work.

    What is an Employee Assistance Program (EAP)?

    An Employee Assistance Program is an employer-funded support offering, usually delivered by an external provider: employees can confidentially seek counselling on work-related and personal matters (see the definition at Haufe). Large EAP providers typically work with telephone hotlines and a broad network of counsellors, covering many locations and languages. In Austria the model is increasingly seen as an employee benefit (see karriere.at).

    The four models at a glance

    • Internal contact points (occupational medicine, and in large organisations dedicated staff counsellors): close to the company, but with the familiar confidentiality barrier.
    • Classic EAP from large providers: broadly scalable, 24/7 hotline, many languages – but often anonymous and distant.
    • External one-to-one counselling (boutique): personal, local, with a fixed point of contact and usually bilingual – but without 24/7 availability.
    • Workplace health promotion / wellbeing: preventive and at the organisational level (working conditions, movement, ergonomics) – complements individual counselling but does not replace it.

    Strengths and limits

    No model is best for everything. Internal services are valuable but reach a trust limit with sensitive personal topics. Large EAPs score on reach and availability but feel impersonal to many employees – the anonymous hotline often goes uncalled when it matters. External one-to-one counselling is personal and low-threshold but cannot provide 24/7 emergency care. Workplace health promotion works broadly and long-term but helps the individual in acute distress only indirectly.

    Which model fits which organisation?

    For very large, globally distributed corporations, a scaled EAP is often the pragmatic choice. For smaller, international or heavily loaded teams – for example in Vienna with many international professionals – personal, local and bilingual external counselling can fit much better: closer to people, with a fixed, trustworthy point of contact. Many organisations combine several models: health promotion for prevention, external counselling for the confidential individual case.

    What to look for in an external provider

    • Demonstrated professional qualification and a clear distinction from psychotherapy.
    • Credibly protected confidentiality and aggregate, non-personal reporting.
    • A documented approach to crises and a referral network for cases needing further help.
    • Linguistic and cultural fit – especially for international teams.
    • A low-threshold start (e.g. a pilot) rather than an immediate large contract.

    External employee counselling is deliberately built as a personal, confidential and bilingual model – as a complement to existing EAP, wellbeing and occupational-health structures, not a replacement for them. What external employee counselling costs, and what drives the price, is set out separately.

    Frequently asked questions

    What is an Employee Assistance Program (EAP)?

    An employer-funded, usually externally delivered offering through which employees can confidentially receive counselling for work-related and personal strain.

    What is the difference between an EAP and workplace health promotion?

    Health promotion works preventively at the organisational level; an EAP or external counselling works at the individual level. The two complement each other.

    Does a smaller company need a large EAP?

    Not necessarily. For smaller or international teams, personal, local, bilingual external counselling often fits better than an anonymous hotline.

    What should you look for in an external provider?

    Qualification, protected confidentiality, a clear approach to crises and referral, aggregate reporting, and a clear distinction from psychotherapy.

    Conclusion

    There is no single right model of employee support, but a set of options that must fit the size, culture and workforce. An Employee Assistance Program, external one-to-one counselling and workplace health promotion are not mutually exclusive – combined wisely, they cover both prevention and the confidential individual case.

    Sources

  • Duty of Care and Mental Health at Work: What Employers in Austria Should Know

    Duty of Care and Mental Health at Work: What Employers in Austria Should Know

    Psychological strain at work is no longer a marginal topic – for employers it is both a legal duty and a very tangible economic factor. This article sets out what employers in Austria should know about mental health at work: what the law requires, where the duty of care goes further, and how external, confidential counselling sensibly complements internal structures.

    Psychological strain at work: an underestimated factor

    The figures speak clearly. Mental illness causes comparatively few individual sick-leave cases but leads to particularly long absences: according to the Austrian Absence Report 2024 (Fehlzeitenreport), the average sick-leave duration for mental illness is around 37 days – markedly higher than for other causes. It accounts for only about 2.6% of cases, but roughly 10% of all sick-leave days.

    Behind these numbers are people whose strain often builds over months before it becomes visible – through ongoing stress, conflict, feeling overwhelmed or private crises that spill into work. It is precisely in this early phase that support is most effective and least costly (see also the Chamber of Labour overview of psychological strain).

    The legal duty: evaluating psychological strain

    In Austria the legal position is unambiguous. The Occupational Health and Safety Act (ASchG) expressly understands hazards to include „work-related physical and psychological strain that leads to over-demand“ (§ 2 para. 7). Employers are therefore obliged, as part of the workplace evaluation (§§ 4, 5 and 7 ASchG), to identify and assess not only physical but also psychological strain. Since 2013 this duty has been expressly anchored in law.

    The Labour Inspectorate describes the process in four steps: planning and organisation, identifying and assessing the strain factors, documenting them in the safety and health document, and implementing measures and checking their effectiveness. The Austrian Economic Chamber also summarises the requirements for businesses concisely.

    Duty of care is more than an evaluation

    The evaluation identifies strain at the organisational level – in workflows, time pressure or leadership culture. That is important, but it has a limit: it does not help the individual who is currently in acute distress. Duty of care therefore means more than ticking off a legal requirement. It shows itself in whether employees, in a concrete situation, find a low-threshold, trustworthy path before pressure turns into a long absence.

    Internal limits – and where external counselling comes in

    Many companies have good internal structures: occupational medicine, workplace health promotion, and in larger organisations dedicated contact points. These are valuable – but they run into a typical limit: confidentiality. Anyone who fears that a conversation about stress, a conflict or a private crisis might reach their manager or HR often does not turn to an internal service at all.

    This is where external, confidential employee counselling comes in. It takes place outside the company, is professionally independent, and the content of conversations is not reported back to the employer. That lowers the barrier to seeking support early – exactly when it helps most. Such external offerings do not replace the statutory evaluation; they complement it at the individual level.

    What employers can concretely do

    • Take the evaluation of psychological strain seriously – not as a formality, but as a starting point for real measures.
    • Enable managers: they often notice warning signs first – and should know where to refer people.
    • Create a low-threshold, confidential point of contact that employees can use without fear of consequences.
    • Respect clear boundaries: professional counselling yes, but no remote diagnosis and no substitute for medical or therapeutic care.
    • Communicate the offering visibly and without stigma – otherwise it will not be used.

    Which model of employee support fits your organisation – an internal offering, a classic EAP, external individual counselling or workplace health promotion – is set out in a comparison of the four models.

    Frequently asked questions

    Must employers in Austria assess psychological strain?

    Yes. The ASchG expressly treats work-related psychological strain as a hazard (§ 2 para. 7). Employers must identify and assess it as part of the workplace evaluation, take measures and document them – expressly in law since 2013.

    Does external employee counselling replace the statutory evaluation?

    No. The evaluation remains a duty at the organisational level. External, confidential counselling complements it at the individual level.

    Why do employees hesitate to use internal support?

    Usually out of concern for confidentiality. An external, independent option lowers that barrier because counselling takes place outside the company.

    What does psychological strain cost companies?

    Above all through long absences: around 37 days average sick-leave duration for mental illness (Absence Report 2024). Early support can help before strain escalates.

    Conclusion

    Mental health at work is, in Austria, both a legal duty and a matter of corporate responsibility. The evaluation is the prescribed first step – but it only takes effect when employees also find a concrete, confidential path to support when it matters. An external counselling offering closes precisely this gap between legal requirement and lived care.

    Sources

    Note: This article offers general orientation and is not legal advice. For the concrete implementation of evaluation and employer duties, the applicable versions of the laws and qualified advice are decisive.

  • Limiting Beliefs: How Our Inner Convictions Shape Us – and How to Change Them

    Limiting Beliefs: How Our Inner Convictions Shape Us – and How to Change Them

    On a recent long drive I listened to an episode of the podcast „Psychologie konkret“ – the podcast of the IAP, Institute of Applied Psychology at the ZHAW. The topic: how our beliefs shape our lives. The psychologist Susanna Borner describes how strongly we are shaped by sentences we often don’t consciously formulate but simply hold to be true. Three examples that stuck with me because they sound so everyday: „Where there’s a will, there’s a way.“ „Only those who work hard get ahead.“ „I’m just not good enough.“

    In coaching I deal with exactly these kinds of sentences again and again. People come with a concrete concern – a career step, a conflict, a decision that hasn’t moved for months. And when we look more closely, what stands in the way is often not a missing plan but a quiet, deep-seated conviction about what is possible and what is not. That is why I want to take up the topic here: what limiting beliefs actually are, how they form, why they are so powerful – and how limiting beliefs can be changed.

    What are limiting beliefs?

    A belief is a generalised, mostly unconscious conviction about how the world, other people or we ourselves „are“. It doesn’t feel like an opinion but like a fact. And that is exactly what makes it so powerful: we don’t question it, we simply act on it. A limiting belief is one that quietly narrows what we allow ourselves to try.

    In cognitive psychology these deep-seated convictions are called core beliefs. The psychiatrist Aaron T. Beck, founder of cognitive therapy, showed that such basic assumptions work like a filter: when negative convictions dominate our thinking, they distort even neutral situations so that they fit the conviction (Beck Institute). Someone convinced at their core that they are „not enough“ will read neutral feedback as criticism, a missing compliment as confirmation, and a success as luck.

    One distinction matters, and it comes up in the podcast too: there are helpful and limiting beliefs. „I can learn if I keep at it“ opens things up. „Mistakes prove that I can’t do it“ slows us down. Both feel equally self-evident – the difference lies not in how true they are, but in their effect on what we do.

    How limiting beliefs form

    Most of our core beliefs are old. They form early, often in childhood, out of recurring experiences and out of what important caregivers modelled and said. A child whose effort only ever gets attention when the result is perfect draws a rule from it: „I’m only worth something when I perform.“ That rule was once a sensible adaptation to a specific environment – it just stays in place long after the environment has changed.

    There is a close link here to the family systems we grow up in: convictions about achievement, money, closeness or conflict are handed down across generations, usually without anyone ever spelling them out. Anyone who wants to understand where their own sentences come from almost always ends up with the patterns of their family of origin. (More on this in the article „Family systems: how they shape us“.)

    The psychologist Albert Ellis, another pioneer of cognitive behavioural therapy, described such generalised convictions as irrational beliefs – often recognisable by words like „always“, „never“, „must“ and „may not“. His well-known ABC model makes the decisive point visible: it is not the event (A) that triggers our reaction (C), but the belief (B) in between (Albert Ellis Institute). Two people experience the same rejection – one thinks „not my day“, the other „typical, I’ll never manage it“. The difference is the belief in between.

    Why beliefs are so powerful

    Beliefs like to confirm themselves. Anyone convinced they will fail anyway approaches challenges more hesitantly, gives up sooner, tries less hard – and in the end experiences exactly the failure the conviction predicted. Psychology knows this as the self-fulfilling prophecy: the expectation shapes the behaviour, and the behaviour shapes the outcome.

    A central concept behind this is self-efficacy, described by the psychologist Albert Bandura as the subjective conviction that one can cope with new or difficult demands through one’s own competencies (Dorsch – Lexikon der Psychologie, Hogrefe). The decisive point: it is not the same as actual ability. People with high self-efficacy take on demanding tasks more readily and stay with them longer – not because they objectively can do more, but because they believe they can manage it. The belief thus becomes the switch that decides between attempt and retreat.

    The psychologist Carol Dweck argues along similar lines with her distinction between a fixed and a growth mindset: those who see abilities as innate and unchangeable experience every setback as a verdict on their own worth. Those who see them as developable experience the same setback as information and a step of practice (The Decision Lab). It is the same situation – but a different belief, and therefore a different life.

    How to change limiting beliefs

    The good news: beliefs are learned – and what has been learned can also be changed. In the podcast, Susanna Borner describes the path in four movements that match my coaching experience well: recognising your own convictions, making them conscious, strengthening the helpful ones and dissolving the limiting ones. In a little more detail, in coaching it looks like this:

    1. Recognise. The first step is almost always the hardest, because a belief disguises itself as truth. Recurring phrasings in your own head are helpful – especially the ones with „always“, „never“, „that’s just how I am“ or „I can’t do that“. They are the linguistic traces where a belief becomes visible.

    2. Question. Is this sentence really true – or just familiar? Where does it come from, and whom did it once serve? Are there counter-examples I have overlooked so far? This is not about glossing things over positively, but about honest examination: a sentence that doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny loses part of its power.

    3. Reformulate. A new belief has to stay credible, otherwise it won’t take hold. „I’m great at everything“ convinces no one who has believed the opposite for years. „I can learn new things if I give myself time“ does. The most effective replacement is usually the realistic one, not the euphoric one.

    4. Practise in behaviour. And this is where the real lever lies. A belief doesn’t change because we have seen through it once, but because we make new, contradicting experiences. Someone who believes „I can’t say no“ changes that not through reflection, but through the first small, actually spoken no. That is why I keep seeing in coaching: insight alone changes little. It is the beginning, not the goal. (Why that is so I have described in more detail in the article „I know what I should do – so why don’t I do it?“.)

    This is exactly where coaching comes in: not in telling you what to believe, but in making your own sentences audible in the first place, examining them gently, and then step by step enabling new experiences that can carry a new conviction. It is at the heart of any real change: in the end it shows itself not in the head, but in behaviour.

    Reflection questions

    • Which sentence about yourself recurs most often – especially in moments when you are under pressure?
    • When you say this sentence out loud: does it sound like you – or like a voice from your childhood?
    • What would this sentence have cost you over the past years if it hadn’t been true?
    • Which one realistic sentence would you like to believe instead – and what would be the smallest action that fits it?

    Frequently asked questions about limiting beliefs

    What exactly is a limiting belief?
    A belief is a generalised, often unconscious conviction about ourselves, other people or the world that feels like a fact rather than an opinion. In cognitive psychology, such deep-seated convictions are called core beliefs. They act like a filter through which we interpret new experiences, and a limiting belief is one that holds us back.

    Where do limiting beliefs come from?
    Most form early, from recurring experiences in childhood and adolescence and from what important caregivers modelled and said. Convictions about achievement, money or closeness are often passed down unspoken across generations in families. A belief that was once a sensible adaptation persists long after the circumstances have changed.

    Can you really change limiting beliefs?
    Yes. Because beliefs are learned, they can also be re-learned. The path runs through recognising your own sentences, questioning them honestly, reformulating them into a realistic and credible version, and above all making new experiences that contradict the old conviction. Thinking alone is usually not enough; change shows itself in behaviour.

    Are all beliefs bad?
    No. There are just as many helpful beliefs as limiting ones. Convictions such as „I can learn if I keep at it“ provide support and confidence. In coaching the point is therefore not to get rid of all convictions, but to recognise the unhelpful ones and consciously strengthen the ones that carry us.

    Conclusion

    We live to a large extent along sentences we never consciously chose for ourselves. Some carry us, others keep us small. Working on beliefs is therefore not a technique for „positive thinking“, but the willingness to listen closely to our own inner convictions for once and to check whether they still hold true today. The podcast boils it down to a simple formula: recognise, make conscious, strengthen what helps and let go of what limits. And the most important step comes afterwards – when we start to behave differently from what the old sentence had planned.

    Sources and further reading

    Note: This article was prompted by the podcast episode mentioned. The account of the episode is based on the publicly available show notes; the psychological framing draws on the sources cited. This article is not a substitute for psychotherapy or medical advice.

  • Co-Leadership: Can Leadership Responsibility Really Be Shared?

    Co-Leadership: Can Leadership Responsibility Really Be Shared?

    Leading is a complex job today. Anyone who runs an organisation or a team is no longer simply „the boss”: you decide, you shape, you develop, you guide change, you mediate conflict, you enable others to do their best — often all on the same day. And the higher you climb, the lonelier the role becomes. The circle of people you can speak to openly and as an equal keeps shrinking. Add economic pressure to the mix, and the pressure on the person at the top rises right along with it.

    What if you could share this demanding work — two people, on equal footing, with joint responsibility? That is exactly the idea behind co-leadership. For some it is a model of the future that relieves the burden and improves the quality of leadership; for others it is a construct that only creates extra problems. The IAP podcast Psychologie konkret, produced by the ZHAW, devoted a whole episode to the topic. Host Ellen Gundrum talks with organisational psychologist Dr. Michael Burtscher, who researches leadership and teamwork at the ZHAW, leads an Innosuisse project on how best to staff co-leadership roles — and has worked in a co-leadership arrangement himself. I have summarised the episode’s central ideas and added my own perspective as a coach.

    Why co-leadership is becoming more common

    The impression that shared leadership is on the rise is not deceptive. Burtscher points to the numbers: an international study from 2023 found that in almost half of the companies surveyed, co-leadership is possible and actually exists. In Switzerland, too, the trend can be traced through hard data — for example in the research on topsharing, the particular variant in which two people share a leadership position on a part-time basis. Over roughly the past ten years there has been a marked increase.

    What is striking is who now relies on such models: it is no longer only agile start-ups, but also large traditional companies. Burtscher cites the Swiss Federal Railways (SBB) as an example. Shared leadership has well and truly arrived in the mainstream.

    A remedy for the skills shortage — not a contradiction

    At first glance it sounds paradoxical: we feel the skills shortage, and now two people are sharing a single job? Burtscher turns the argument on its head. When people reach a certain career stage, it often coincides with starting a family. Women and men alike then think harder about how to reconcile work and private life. Where an organisation only knows the strict model of „leadership means one person, working 100 (in practice more like 120) percent”, many well-qualified people are lost to the labour market as leaders — or leave altogether.

    Co-leadership is therefore above all an opportunity: an additional model that makes leadership possible beyond the classic full-time solo act, and that keeps talent inside the company. It is a model that makes leadership responsibility compatible with a more self-determined life.

    The advantages: flexibility, relief, better decisions

    For the people involved, co-leadership brings more flexibility: you can divide up tasks, cover for one another, and not everyone has to sit in every meeting. That makes it easier to arrange working hours and to balance work and family. In knowledge and expert organisations there is a further benefit: if you share leadership, you can keep one foot in your specialist field rather than disappearing entirely into management work.

    For the organisation, employer attractiveness rises — and depending on how it is set up, the company gets „two for the price of one”: two people with different competencies and experiences, which can have a positive effect on leadership effectiveness. That shared leadership can improve a team’s performance is also well documented scientifically: a meta-analysis in the Journal of Management shows a positive relationship between „shared leadership” and team performance.

    Perhaps the most important advantage is one Burtscher describes from his own experience: relief through shared responsibility. There are issues you can discuss neither with your staff nor with your own superior. Having someone on the same level — a sparring partner with whom you can turn a decision over and back — he found to be a real gain. An additional perspective and more experience often lead to better solutions than you would have found on your own.

    No sure thing: why co-leadership can also fail

    As appealing as this sounds, co-leadership is neither a cure-all nor something that runs by itself. It can fail too — and the most common reason is a lack of matching on the personal level. Experts speak of interpersonal fit.

    An important distinction matters to Burtscher here: matching does not mean putting two people who are as similar as possible together. You need no twins and no clones. It is about a clever mix of similarity and difference — experts distinguish between supplementary (similar) and complementary (contrasting) characteristics:

    • Similar the two should be in their values, working style and leadership stance. If one person is highly detail-oriented and the other thinks in broad strokes, or if basic attitudes are far apart, it gets difficult.
    • Different their professional skills and experience may — and should — be. That is precisely where a strength lies: more diversity, more angles. Two identical people would squander that potential.

    Interestingly, whether a co-leadership consists of two women, two men or a mix hardly matters according to the research — for better or worse. An age gap is no problem either. What really counts is similarity in working style and leadership stance — and open, transparent, reliable communication.

    What almost certainly does not work is „two alpha animals”, each convinced they alone hold the truth. Anyone who is not willing to hold back, to let another opinion stand and to make compromises is simply not suited to co-leadership.

    What co-leadership needs to succeed

    Several success factors can be drawn from the episode:

    • A lot of communication and coordination. The effort is regularly underestimated. You feel: „I can do leadership, so can the other person, so we can do it together.” But with two leaders the need for alignment grows. Better to say something twice than to let information get lost — because an incomplete flow of information quickly leads to misunderstandings and conflict.
    • A willingness to compromise. You have to be able to let go of your own opinion — for leaders used to deciding alone, often not so easy. Decisions are made together and then also defended together to the outside; half-hearted agreement followed by quiet undermining does not work.
    • Appreciation and respect. You have to want the model and be convinced that the other person contributes something you do not bring yourself. Co-leadership imposed from above does not work.
    • Clear roles towards the team. A consistent message to the outside is absolutely central. Internally you may — and should — argue, but once the decision is made, both appear as a unit. Otherwise you get what Burtscher wryly calls the „mum-and-dad problem”: staff who ask one leader and, if the answer does not suit them, ask the other a week later. A clear clarification of roles and tasks — who is responsible for what, what the two decide jointly — helps enormously here.

    At the organisational level you need a culture that genuinely wants co-leadership (and is not just following the zeitgeist), the acceptance of the level above and of the team (both leaders must be seen as equal) — and the willingness to provide resources. Because coordination costs time. Two co-leaders working 50 percent each are doomed to fail; the necessary exchange requires an overlap. And finally, co-leadership is a development process: hardly any duo works perfectly from the start. Shared support — for instance through coaching in the first year — can make the difference.

    Why women above all — and mostly middle management

    Two observations from the episode are worth noting. First: co-leadership arrangements currently tend to feature more women — various studies point to roughly two thirds women, one third men. Against the backdrop of better work-life balance, that is plausible. Co-leadership can therefore also be a lever for bringing more women into leadership positions and keeping them there.

    Second: topsharing is found above all in middle management. At the very top — think co-CEO — experiences are mixed. In Switzerland, Rivella runs a dual leadership; in the German-speaking world SAP tried a co-CEO constellation years ago, though without resounding success. Burtscher also recalls a historical example: when Apple paired Steve Jobs with Pepsi executive John Sculley in the 1980s, it failed spectacularly. The higher you go, the more the qualities in demand can be ones that sit badly with a readiness to share — people who expose themselves strongly. And this too matters to Burtscher: there is no right and no wrong. For some settings, such an exposed personality is exactly right — and then co-leadership may not be the fitting model.

    What this means for leaders — and for coaching

    One thought from the episode lingers in particular: in the end, co-leadership is relationship work. You spend about as much time with your co-leader as with your own partner. No wonder, then, that it takes interpersonal fit. Co-leadership is often viewed heavily in terms of skills, competencies and framework conditions — all of which matter. But at its core it is a relationship in which psychological factors decide: being able to communicate well, taking on the other person’s perspective, making compromises, sometimes standing behind decisions you would not have made yourself.

    This is exactly where I see the connection to my own work. Much of what makes co-leadership succeed can be developed: your own communication, the way you handle control and autonomy, the ability to genuinely let another view stand. These are themes that play a central role in coaching for leaders and executives and in personal and professional coaching anyway — whether you lead as a duo or on your own. Because anyone who practises listening, bringing perspectives together and carrying compromises will, in quite different situations, become a more consensus-oriented, broader-thinking leader. You give up a piece of autonomy — and gain a sparring partner, additional insight and, as Burtscher is convinced, more balanced decisions.

    Conclusion

    Co-leadership widens the spectrum of how leadership can be practised. It has many advantages — flexibility, relief, work-life balance, often better decisions — and it can even help address the skills shortage and keep more women in leadership. At the same time it is neither a cure-all nor suited to every organisation and every combination of people, and certainly not a sure thing. It needs the right matching, clear communication, resources and the willingness to genuinely share responsibility. Where those conditions are met, shared leadership can be a great gain — for the leaders themselves and for the organisation.

    Frequently asked questions about co-leadership

    What is co-leadership?
    In co-leadership, two people share a leadership position and the responsibility that comes with it on an equal footing. A particular variant is topsharing, in which both share the role part-time. Both models extend the classic picture of „one leader, full-time”.

    What are the advantages of shared leadership?
    More flexibility and a better balance of work and family, mutual relief through shared responsibility, two perspectives and more experience — and, as a result, often more balanced decisions. For organisations, employer attractiveness rises on top of that.

    Why do co-leadership arrangements sometimes fail?
    Most often because of a lack of personal fit. When values, working style and leadership stance are too far apart, or when two „alpha animals” are unwilling to hold back and compromise, the model does not work. Underestimated coordination effort and unclear external communication are typical stumbling blocks too.

    What should co-leaders watch out for in dealing with the team?
    Clear, consistent communication: internally you may debate, but to the outside you appear as a unit. A clear clarification of roles and tasks helps, so that everyone can see who makes which decisions — and which are made jointly.

    Source

    Psychologie konkret (IAP podcast of the ZHAW): „Co-Leitung: Ist Führungsverantwortung teilbar?”, a conversation between Ellen Gundrum and Dr. Michael Burtscher, published on 5 January 2026. To the episode on Apple Podcasts

    More on shared leadership: Job and topsharing in Switzerland (FHNW) · Topsharing — shared leadership (HSLU) · Meta-analysis on shared leadership, Journal of Management

    Note: This article is based on a conversation made available by the podcast. The transcript is protected by copyright and has deliberately not been reproduced verbatim here, but paraphrased and edited journalistically.

  • Online Coaching Vienna: Coaching by Phone and Video Call

    Online Coaching Vienna: Coaching by Phone and Video Call

    Online Coaching Vienna — Professional Coaching Without Location Constraints

    Sometimes everyday life leaves little room to maneuver: your calendar is full, your commute is long, or you simply don’t live in Vienna. In-person coaching can then be hard to arrange — but that doesn’t have to be an obstacle. As an experienced life and business coach, I offer professional Online Coaching Vienna that fits flexibly into your everyday life without losing depth or effectiveness.

    Who Is Online Coaching Suitable For?

    Online coaching isn’t a stopgap solution — it’s a distinct, proven form of collaboration. It’s especially well suited for people who travel a lot for work and don’t have a fixed location where they can regularly attend appointments. It’s equally beneficial for people who live outside Vienna but still want to work with a coach who’s a good fit for them. Anyone who is a parent and has to organize appointments around childcare and family life also finds significantly more flexibility in the online setting. And not least, many people appreciate being able to have the conversation in their own, familiar environment — which can foster openness and focus.

    Advantages of Online Coaching

    Flexibility: You don’t need to plan any travel time. A quiet room and a stable internet connection are enough. This makes it much easier to fit regular sessions into everyday life — and consistency is a key factor in the success of a coaching process.

    Continuity: A business trip, vacation, or change of address doesn’t have to interrupt the process. Online coaching makes it possible to keep the thread going, even when external circumstances change.

    Low-threshold entry point: Especially for people who are coming into contact with coaching for the first time, the online setting can be a comfortable way to take that first step — without much organizational effort.

    Online Coaching vs. In-Person Coaching — An Honest Comparison

    In-person sessions have their own value. Direct presence, non-verbal communication, and the shared atmosphere in the room can make a difference in certain situations. Anyone who has the choice shouldn’t underestimate this aspect.

    At the same time, practice shows: online coaching is, in the majority of cases, just as effective as in-person coaching. What matters isn’t the medium, but the quality of the relationship between coach and client, the clarity of the goals, and the willingness to reflect. These factors can be fully realized over a screen or phone as well.

    It’s important, however, to know the limits of coaching: online coaching does not replace psychotherapeutic treatment. If you notice that your issues run deeper and require professional therapeutic support, I recommend reaching out to the appropriate professionals. You can find a first overview of contact points at Psychotherapie.at.

    How an Online Coaching Session Works

    Getting started is simple: you contact me by email and briefly describe your concern. Together we find a suitable appointment. The session then takes place by phone or by video call (Zoom, Teams, or similar) — depending on your preference. Online coaching can be used both as a standalone process and as a complement to ongoing in-person coaching, for example when an in-person appointment isn’t possible.

    If you’d like to learn more about the focus of my work, you can find further information at Life Coaching Vienna.

    Family Constellation in One-on-One Sessions — Also Available Online

    In addition to classic coaching, I also offer family constellations in one-on-one sessions online — using specialized software that makes it possible to visually represent positions and relationships within the system, without any physical presence required. This allows the effect of this method to be used in the online setting as well. You can find out more at Family Constellation Vienna.

    Payment

    The agreed coaching fee is paid by bank transfer prior to the session. Details will be provided when scheduling your appointment.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Who is this format especially suitable for?

    Online coaching is especially suitable for people who travel a lot for work, live outside Vienna, or as a parent have little room for fixed in-person appointments. It’s also well suited as a low-threshold entry point into coaching.

    Is online coaching just as effective as in-person coaching?

    In most cases, yes: what matters for success isn’t the medium, but the quality of the relationship between coach and client, the clarity of the goals, and the willingness to reflect. These factors can be fully realized over a screen or phone.

    How does a session work?

    After a brief initial contact by email, a suitable appointment is arranged together. The session itself then takes place by phone or video call (Zoom, Teams, or similar) — depending on preference — and can also be used as a complement to ongoing in-person coaching.

    Does online coaching replace psychotherapy?

    No. Online coaching supports goals, development, and reflection, but does not replace psychotherapeutic treatment. For deeper-seated issues, it’s advisable to contact appropriate professionals, for example via a resource like Psychotherapie.at.

  • Gratitude Creates Contentment

    Gratitude Creates Contentment

    Anyone who wants to practice gratitude discovers quickly: gratitude isn’t just a word, but a way of life that brings profound contentment. It’s about being thankful for what we get to experience every day. This includes appreciating the small joys of everyday life — like a stranger’s smile, birds chirping in the morning, or the warm feeling of sunlight on your skin. Each of these encounters and experiences is a gift worth treasuring.

    One example is the joy of an unexpected message from an old friend. Or the gratitude we feel when we come home to our cozy space after a long day. These moments of gratitude give life more depth and meaning.

    By focusing on what we have, instead of constantly chasing something new, we find inner calm. We learn to appreciate the present and discover the beauty in simplicity. This attitude of gratitude allows us to enjoy life in all its facets and lets the small joys of everyday life inspire us. Ultimately, this leads to a more content, balanced, and fulfilled life.

    The Power of Gratitude for a Fulfilled Life — How to Get Started

    If you want to enrich your life with more contentment and inner peace, practicing gratitude is a simple yet powerful starting point. Here’s a simple guide to activating the power of gratitude in your everyday life:

    1. Take a quiet moment for yourself, undisturbed.
    2. Close your eyes and take a few deep breaths to relax.
    3. Now think of three things in your life that you’re grateful for. These can be big or small, from important relationships to simple everyday pleasures.
    4. Silently form the sentence: “I am grateful for …” and fill in one of the things you’re grateful for.
    5. Repeat this sentence three times for each of the three things, consciously focusing on the feeling of gratitude that grows stronger with each repetition.
    6. Notice how something inside you expands and a warm feeling spreads through you. It’s not unusual for even more things to come to mind that you’re grateful for.

    By practicing this exercise regularly, you realign your focus and open yourself up to the positive aspects of your life. This can have a profound effect on your overall well-being and lead to a more fulfilled life.

    Practicing Gratitude — Practical Exercises for Everyday Life

    Anyone who wants to practice gratitude doesn’t need big changes. Small, regular rituals are entirely enough. They work deeply and sustainably. And they’re easy to integrate into daily life.

    One particularly effective method is the gratitude journal. Take five minutes each evening. Write down three things that were good today. These can be small moments. All that matters is consistency. Because this trains your focus on the positive.

    Another exercise is the so-called gratitude letter. Think of a person who means a lot to you. Write them a short letter. Explain what you’re grateful for. This letter doesn’t need to be sent. The act of writing alone creates a deep sense of connection.

    A morning routine can also help. Start the day consciously. Name a reason for gratitude, out loud or silently. It only takes a few seconds. But it sets a positive tone for the whole day. Practicing gratitude often begins right here — in the small things.

    These exercises sound simple. And yet getting started can sometimes be difficult. Especially when life is challenging. When thoughts keep circling. When energy is lacking. In moments like these, professional support can make a real difference.

    How Life Coaching Vienna Helps Cultivate Gratitude

    Life Coaching Vienna isn’t just about goals and strategies. It’s also about inner attitude. And gratitude is one of the most powerful attitudes we can develop. It creates contentment. It strengthens resilience. And it changes how we perceive ourselves and others. How closely gratitude is connected to a fulfilled, happy life is also described in the post Learning to Be Happy.

    In the coaching process, gratitude is specifically cultivated. Together with Tobias Judmaier MSc, you look at what’s already working well in your life. That sounds obvious, but often it isn’t. Because many people unconsciously focus on what’s missing. Coaching helps shift that focus.

    Various methods are used here — from the exercises already mentioned to individually tailored reflection questions. How effective a simple gratitude journal can be is shown by a widely cited study by Emmons and McCullough: people who regularly write down what they’re grateful for report noticeably greater well-being and life satisfaction over several weeks.

    More on coaching methods for greater mindfulness and contentment.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Why does gratitude create contentment?

    Gratitude directs attention to what’s already good, rather than what’s missing. This shift in attention isn’t a superficial mental exercise — it demonstrably changes how content people are with their lives, regardless of external circumstances.

    How can you practice gratitude in everyday life?

    The gratitude journal (writing down three good things daily), a gratitude letter to someone important, and a short morning routine that consciously starts the day with a thought of gratitude have all proven effective. Consistency matters more than scope.

    How quickly does a gratitude journal work?

    Studies show a noticeable increase in well-being and life satisfaction after just a few weeks of regular practice. What matters isn’t perfection, but continuous, small repetition.

    How can Life Coaching help cultivate gratitude?

    In the coaching process, focus is deliberately directed toward what’s already working in life — a shift in perspective that many people find difficult to make alone. Together, suitable exercises are found and practiced until gratitude becomes a lasting habit.