"Stressogenic Work Situation": a reflection from neuroscience

-

In recent years, the consequences of occupational stress have become a major focus of applied neuroscience research within the world of work. However, an important and necessary conceptual nuance is starting to gain traction: distinguishing occupational stress as an individual clinical experience from the stressogenic work situation (a concept we introduce here today) as the structural breeding ground that generates such distress. This nuance, which I find useful to coin and share, invites a deep reflection on how the socio-occupational environment is capable of literally sculpting the brain over time. A recent South Korean study (Jang et al., 2025) sheds light on this issue by exploring how overwork and a stressful organizational context alter the brain’s anatomy in those exposed to them.





From “Occupational Stress” to “Stressogenic Work Situation”

When we speak of occupational stress, we usually refer to the clinical syndrome experienced by workers: anxiety, insomnia, irritability, fatigue, somatic problems, and, in many cases, reduced motivation and performance. This is the typical picture diagnosed by occupational health services, whose origin is attributed to factors such as work overload, role ambiguity, time pressure and deadlines, or poor relationships with supervisors.

But occupational stress is only the tip of the iceberg—the symptomatic expression of something deeper: the context. It is not enough to focus solely on the individual; understanding the environment that fuels this distress is crucial. This is where the concept of stressogenic work situation comes into play, which I propose to define as:

“A systemic set of organizational, cultural, and social conditions—either pre-existing or established in the workplace—that facilitates the onset of chronic stress, emotional illness, and cerebral deterioration in employees, beyond individual vulnerability.”

In other words, just as we speak of obesogenic urban environments (urban settings that encourage unhealthy habits and collective obesity), we can now refer to organizational contexts structurally prone to generate psychological suffering. This includes not only workload but also:

  • the impossibility of disconnecting,

  • the uncritical glorification of productivity,

  • social pressure to prioritize work above any other aspect of life,

  • psychologically toxic corporate leadership,

  • compulsory presenteeism policies,

  • denial of the right to rest or recover after illness,

  • cultural narratives (social and media) equating personal worth with permanent work sacrifice.

From this perspective, the focus shifts from “the worker does not know how to manage stress” to “the organizational ecosystem is systemically designed to inevitably generate pathology.”

The Jang et al. Study

The paper “Overwork and changes in brain structure: a pilot study” (Jang et al., 2025) offers an interesting contribution in this area. South Korean researchers analyzed 110 healthcare professionals, grouped by weekly working hours, and used structural neuroimaging (MRI) to compare the brain anatomy of those with excessive workloads against colleagues with “reasonable” schedules.

They found volumetric increases in regions linked to executive and emotional regulation: medial frontal cortex, insula, and superior temporal gyrus. The authors interpret this as a possible adaptive response to prolonged exposure to organizational stress—a transient “reinforcement” of self-control and emotional regulation circuits.

Crucially for our neurohormetic community, they also found a dose-response relationship: the greater the number of hours worked and the higher the perceived organizational pressure (stress-prone environments: supervisor pressure, lack of autonomy, presenteeism culture, etc.), the greater the detected anatomical changes.

They also reported associations between brain changes and clinical symptoms: professionals with greater structural alterations scored higher on fatigue, anxiety, and cognitive dysfunction scales. In short, the environment was modifying the brain, and the altered brain increased the risk of illness or, ultimately, withdrawal from the profession.

This was only an exploratory, cross-sectional study of 110 individuals (32 with overwork exposure), with no longitudinal analysis. Lifestyle confounders such as physical activity, sleep, diet, or environmental pollutants were not controlled for. Still, it is the first to show that overwork correlates with structural brain changes.

We are used to thinking of learning and memory as processes that increase brain volume. This result—showing increased grey matter volume in certain brain regions due to overwork—may be surprising. The authors suggest that this variation is probably a plastic adaptation to a stressogenic situation, but one that may become pathological if stress becomes chronic. As we have seen in our own laboratory data, neural adaptation has limits: situational demands must not exceed the brain’s capacity to adapt.

We value this work not for its definitive impact, but for breaking away from an exclusively psychological approach. Overwork and “productivist obsession” have a tangible, measurable biological correlate visible in brain grey matter. Moreover, it underscores the importance of primary prevention: tools for individual coping (mindfulness, emotional intelligence) are not enough—the key lies in dismantling the stressogenic work situation at a systemic level (company, public policy, culture).

Just as initiatives like the Brain Capital Alliance and the Brain Economy promote adherence to physical training protocols by redesigning sedentogenic urban environments (Trejo et al., EMEA White Paper), we need to apply similar strategies to stressogenic work environments. This entails identifying new public health monitoring targets: tracking not only accident rates and stress-related sick leave, but also brain health through objective biomarkers in high-risk groups. Most importantly, it reinforces the right to rest: recovery is not a luxury, but a prerequisite for brain health and human dignity.

Work itself is not the enemy. The real danger lies in contexts where productivity becomes a moral imperative, self-exploitation is normalized, and social narratives impose perpetual sacrifice. A stressogenic work situation is one where the system is intrinsically designed to cause cerebral suffering, regardless of the employee’s personality, resilience, or coping strategies—and despite the brain’s attempts to adapt.

Turning our attention to the environment, reformulating organizational priorities, and giving professionals a voice to redesign their own work systems are urgent yet hopeful measures. As the study by Jang and colleagues shows, the brain is plastic—but it requires environments that allow for healthy plasticity. Prevention means transforming the stressogenic situation, not merely “adapting” to it at the individual level.

References

Comentarios

Publicar un comentario

Entradas populares de este blog

Descanso y Cerebro

-
Imagen
Fallos de atención tras la privación de sueño: un fenómeno ligado a dinámicas integradas neurovasculares, pupilares y de flujo del líquido cefalorraquídeo. En una sociedad que de manera creciente valora en extremo el esfuerzo y el sacrificio hasta puntos que los hallazgos en el ámbito de la neurobiología no sostienen en absoluto, toma forma de manera preeminente la exaltación de dormir poco (Informe del Día Mundial del Sueño, Win Voices! 2025) , con pensadores que promueven e instan a dormir lo mínimo posible y levantarse ritualmente a las cinco de la madrugada, por poner solo un ejemplo. La evidencia en el ámbito de la Neurobiología del estilo de vida acaba de añadir un nuevo peldaño a este asunto. La privación de sueño es un factor conocido por afectar negativamente nuestra función cognitiva, especialmente la atención sostenida, un fenómeno que puede tener consecuencias graves, desde errores cotidianos hasta accidentes trágicos. Los efectos conductuales de la falta de sueño son ampli...
Leer más

Situación laboral estresogénica. Una reflexión desde la neurociencia

-
Imagen
En los últimos años, las consecuencias del estrés laboral han centrado gran parte de la investigación en neurociencia aplicada al mundo del trabajo. Sin embargo, un matiz conceptual interesante y necesario comienza a abrirse paso: diferenciar el  estrés laboral  como experiencia clínica individual, de la  situación laboral estresogénica  (concepto que presentamos hoy aquí) como caldo de cultivo estructural que origina ese malestar. Este matiz, que me ha parecido útil acuñar y compartir, apunta a una reflexión profunda sobre cómo el entorno sociolaboral es capaz de esculpir —literalmente— el cerebro a lo largo del tiempo. Un reciente estudio surcoreano (Jang et al., 2025) arroja luz sobre esta cuestión al explorar cómo el exceso de trabajo y el contexto organizacional estresante transforman la anatomía cerebral de quienes lo sufren. De "estrés laboral" a "situación laboral estresogénica" Habitualmente cuando hablamos de estrés laboral nos referimos al  síndrome c...
Leer más

Motricidad y Cognición, de Albert Batalla y Marc Guillem

-
Imagen
En el mundo de la ciencia del cerebro y la educación, hace tiempo que sabemos que cuerpo y mente están comprometidos en una interacción constante, cada uno influyendo en el otro. Pero la forma en que aprovechamos ese vínculo en las escuelas suele estar impregnado por métodos poco ambiciosos: correr por correr, saltar sin más, sin pensar demasiado en qué significa movernos para el aprendizaje real. Es justo aquí donde aterriza el libro  Motricitat i Cognició , coordinado por Albert Batalla y Marc Guillem. No estamos ante un simple manual de juegos motrices para primaria, sino ante un proyecto con raíces profundas en la neurociencia actual, que nos invita a repensar no solo qué tipo de movimiento proponemos, sino cómo lo hacemos para que beneficie realmente a nuestras funciones ejecutivas, atención, memoria y lo que casi todos queremos para nuestros alumnos: “aprender a aprender”. El eje central de la obra es simple, pero potente: para que la motricidad influya en el cerebro no basta...
Leer más