Why CEOs Must Wake Up To Sleep Deprivation In The Workplace
Employee sleep deprivation is a cultural drainer.
Sleep may not be the flashiest workplace topic, but it's foundational to nearly every performance and productivity metric. From decision-making to emotional intelligence, focus to physical vibrancy—sleep is the invisible infrastructure holding everything together. Yet many employees and high-ranking leaders are operating on a harmful deficit. We're in the midst of a global sleep deprivation crisis.
According to The Lancet, 62% of the world's population fails to get the recommended minimum of seven hours per night. It's not just about feeling tired—chronic sleep deprivation is linked to a 29% increase in mortality risk, according to a JAMA Network Open study of nearly 47,000 Americans. Like any significant health or lifestyle issue, what happens at home isn't self-contained. Sleep-deprived employees bring their exhaustion straight into the workplace. And the consequences are costly.
When employees are chronically sleep-deprived, every aspect of organizational performance suffers: morale, communication, focus, creativity, and long-term retention. Fatigue isn't just an individual issue. It quietly compounds across teams, eroding culture and draining resources. ResMed's Global Sleep Survey of more than 30,000 people reveals just how widespread the issue is:
Even more telling: 47% of employees don't believe their employer cares about their sleep health. After a poor night's sleep, 31% reported difficulty concentrating. Women, in particular, reported fewer nights of quality rest (averaging 3.83 nights per week versus 4.13 for men) and suffered more from its effects. Sleep deprivation lowers productivity, increases absenteeism, and worsens presenteeism (where employees show up but perform well below their capacity). Over time, this leads to burnout and higher turnover, which hurts growth and cohesion.
Fatigue isn't just a health problem—it's a business liability. According to the National Safety Council, fatigue costs employers $1,200 to $3,100 per employee per year in reduced productivity and performance. Meanwhile, fatigued employees are estimated to cost U.S. businesses $136 billion annually in health-related lost productivity. Those numbers are based on studies that are more than a decade old. Given current well-being trends, the actual costs are likely even higher.
While sleep is often framed as a personal responsibility, the lines between work and life have increasingly blurred. Leaders can no longer afford to view sleep as a separate "home issue." It's now an organizational issue and a potential opportunity. Here are two starting points for CEOs.
Culture flows from the top. CEOs are responsible for more than business results. They shape the invisible norms that govern behavior, including how well-being is valued, discussed, and modeled. Leaders don't need to mandate 10 p.m. bedtimes, but they do need to reflect boundaries in their behavior.
That might mean discouraging non-important late-night emails, creating space for recovery after intense work sprints, or reinforcing that rest is not a sign of weakness. Some employees may know sleep is important but lack the tools or education to change their habits. Workshops, internal campaigns, and expert-led sessions that connect sleep to the everyday things of life can go a long way.
Across demographics and geographies, one issue connects us all: stress. In the Global Sleep Survey, 57% of people cited stress as the top reason for poor sleep, followed by anxiety (47%) and financial pressure (31%). Mental and financial well-being are top concerns for today's workforce. Leaders who proactively support these areas through training, mentorship, financial literacy programs, and access to mental health resources aren't just being compassionate—they're being strategic.
Stress and anxieties manifest differently across individuals, so support should be comprehensive and holistic. When organizations equip their people to manage stress better, they indirectly improve their sleep and, by extension, their performance.
Think of sleep as the head of an octopus. Its health affects every tentacle. In the workplace, the "head" is employee well-being. When it thrives, so does everything else: mood, engagement, focus, physical health, innovation, and output. Addressing sleep deprivation isn't a luxury—it's imperative for business. It becomes one of your company's most strategic levers for elevating performance, retention, and long-term growth. The Global Sleep Survey shared that 89% of people agree that getting enough sleep makes them feel better. That's more than just a nice-to-have metric. It's a signal that sleep might be your company's most underrated competitive advantage.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
36 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kentucky bourbon raking in money doesn't mean we can ignore alcohol's risks
Brian Edwards' op-ed ('Kentucky's bourbon business is vital to our economy. Don't let DC dry it up") seems wrongheaded. If there is a near-prohibition lobby as he claims, I, too, would disagree and think them Menken's Puritans. While I will make the argument for consumption here, doing so on economic grounds for a substance that the National Institutes for Health estimates costs the nation $249 billion and results in 178,000 annual deaths according to the Center for Disease Control seems antithetical. To start, the science is clear: 'We cannot talk about a so-called safe level of alcohol use. It doesn't matter how much you drink – the risk to the drinker's health starts from the first drop of any alcoholic beverage. The only thing that we can say for sure is that the more you drink, the more harmful it is … the less you drink, the safer it is' (Dr. Carina Ferreira-Borges, World Health Organization, 2022). Further, the purported health benefits of alcohol use have been repudiated. From JAMA ('Association of Habitual Alcohol Intake With Risk of Cardiovascular Disease', March 2022): 'Observational studies have repeatedly demonstrated a lower risk of cardiovascular disease with light to moderate alcohol intake compared with either abstinence or heavy consumption, suggesting J- or U-shaped epidemiologic associations. However, the observed cardiac benefits of alcohol have been hypothesized to be the product of residual confounding (variables) because of favorable lifestyle, socioeconomic and behavioral factors that tend to coincide with modest alcohol intake.' In sum, there is no safe use and no cardiovascular benefit of alcohol. Opinion: COVID isn't over. RFK Jr.'s vaccine recommendation is a terrible choice. However, there is evidence of human use of alcohol from 900,000 years ago, and alcohol is a well-established part of life in America. The National Academies notes that many alcohol-containing beverages provide flavors and sensations that people enjoy, and the effect on how we act and respond in social situations are two of several reasons for widespread alcohol use in our culture. Concerning responsible drinking, the data are split. The United States Census Bureau estimates that there are 258.3 million adult Americans. The National Institutes for Health estimates that 63% use alcohol at least on occasion, or 177 million Americans imbibe. Among these, the Centers for Disease Control estimates 29.6% of young adults and over 10% of seniors binge drink by consuming toxic amounts in one sitting. The CDC estimates that there are, separately, 15 million heavy drinkers who drink beyond moderation every week. The NIH estimates that there are 54 million Americans who need treatment for Substance Use Disorder. Let's use some rough, back of the envelope math, allowing that the groups defined above overlap, let us say that we have at least 100 million Americans who drink responsibly but very many who do not. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) defines moderate drinking as two drinks per day and seven per week for men and one drink per day and four a week for women (alcohol is on the whole metabolized differently by gender). A standard drink is 12 ounces of beer at 5% alcohol by volume (ABV), 5 ounces of wine at 12% ABV, or 1.5 ounces of spirits at 40% ABV. Opinion: Share Parkland's present, shape its future at Courier Journal mobile newsroom Concerning risk, it is also true that Americans take similar and more severe risks than alcohol use on a regular basis. For instance, Driving Test America estimates that in 2021 Americans drove cars and light trucks 3 trillion miles. These drivers are guided by rules of the road and formal laws that guide their driving behavior, and the manufacture of automobiles is very regulated for safety purposes. Nonetheless, there were 6.1 million vehicular crashes, resulting in 1.7 million injuries and 39.3 thousand deaths in 2021. This analogy falls apart at some point, as all do, but the point is made that alcohol use is not the only widely popular, risk-taking behavior in America. Applause to Mr. Edwards for contributing to the public debate. We would agree about a near-prohibition agenda if, as he says, such exists. America and most of Europe have tried prohibition. We know how that ends. Further, regulating the amount of consumption would be a regulatory nightmare. However, holding up the economic benefit as a reason to ignore the science is not the way to go. Better for the alcoholic beverage industry to recognize and promote responsible use and take those steps within their ken to reduce heavy and binge drinking. A market of 100 million American adults should suffice. For the nation as a whole, increasing access to treatment would be a far better use of our time and treasure. Agree or disagree? Submit a letter to the editor. Gene Gilchrist is the chief executive officer for Stay Clean, a cloud-based addiction treatment and recovery community. This article originally appeared on Louisville Courier Journal: Kentucky shouldn't ignore alcohol's health risks for profit | Opinion
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
Philadelphia TV host Mike Jerrick discovers he has skin cancer during live on-air broadcast
A Fox TV news anchor discovered this week that he had skin cancer during a live TV segment. Mike Jerrick, co-host of 'Good Day Philadelphia' on FOX29, was broadcasting a skin care segment with Dr. Joanna Walker, a dermatologist with the Tara Miller Melanoma Center at the University of Pennsylvania. As they discussed the importance of checking the skin for signs of cancer, Walker inspected a spot on Jerrick's right elbow, pronouncing that it was basal cell carcinoma, a common type of skin cancer. 'It has all the features of the most common type of skin cancer, which is also very treatable when it's caught early,' Walker said in the segment. Jerrick expressed surprise, asking, 'What are you going to do to it, burn it off?' The dermatologist replied that the cancerous spot most likely needs to be 'cut and stitched.' 3 FOX29 'Good Day Philadelphia' host Mike Jerrick has his skin examined by dermatologist Dr. Joanna Walker during an on-air segment. FOX29 The good news, she said, is that basal cell is a 'very slow-growing type of skin cancer' that's not likely to spread anywhere else on the body. 'But you do need to remove it so it doesn't keep growing and take over normal skin,' Walker advised. Jerrick spoke with Fox News Digital about the revelation, noting that it was a complete surprise to him. 'I did say that we should have her bring her [micro]scope because I wanted to check out a couple of things on my arms, so that part was planned, but I never really thought it was going to be skin cancer,' he said. 3 The good news, she said, is that basal cell is a 'very slow-growing type of skin cancer' that's not likely to spread anywhere else on the body. The dermatologist recognized it right away, Jerrick shared. 'When she blurted it out, I didn't get alarmed or anything,' Jerrick said. 'It was just like, 'Oh dang, I should have done this a long time ago.'' 'I was more shocked that she said she was going to cut it out instead of burn it off — that's where I got surprised.' 3 As they discussed the importance of checking the skin for signs of cancer, Walker inspected a spot on Jerrick's right elbow, pronouncing that it was basal cell carcinoma, a common type of skin cancer. FOX29 Jerrick is scheduled to have the cancerous spot removed on Friday. 'I should be fine,' he said. 'She'll just suture me up and I'll be on my way.' Many people have reached out to thank Jerrick for airing the segment. To those with similar markings or skin changes, 'it's important to get those checked,' he advised. Basal cell carcinoma is the most common type of skin cancer, affecting about 3.6 million Americans each year, according to the Skin Cancer Foundation.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bookman: There's no way to cut $800 billion from Medicaid without hitting bone
Opinion writer Jay Bookman argues that Trump administration officials are being dishonest when they say cuts to Medicaid won't lead to people losing benefits. the_burtons/Getty Images After repeatedly promising on the campaign trail that he would never cut Medicaid benefits, Donald Trump is pushing a 'big, beautiful' spending bill that would slash Medicaid and other health care spending by $800 billion over the next decade. And if you still believe the administration, they're going to make those cuts without anyone losing benefits. As White House official Russell Vought put in last week, 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense. No one will lose coverage as a result.' If your BS detector isn't ringing by now, you need to take it in for repair. Confronted with the absurdity of claiming that you can cut $800 billion without canceling health care coverage, Trump officials retreat to their fallback position. Yes, they admit, they'll be cutting benefits, but only for those who don't deserve it. 'Medicaid does not belong to people who are here illegally, and it does not belong to capable and able-bodied men who refuse to work,' another White House official told Politico. 'So no one is getting cut.' Once again, though, your BS detector ought to be blaring. Under existing federal law, undocumented immigrants are already barred from getting Medicaid. They're promising to cut benefits to people who are already not getting those benefits. So no savings there. And the truth is, most of the able-bodied men who are too lazy to work are also too lazy to worry about jumping through the hoops needed to get Medicaid health-care coverage. Such men do exist, no doubt, but in numbers far too small to generate $800 billion in savings. To get savings on that scale, you have to look elsewhere. And the truth is that millions of lower-income Americans, many of them working people, would be stripped of their health insurance if the bill becomes law. In Georgia alone, the projections are that as many as 200,000 people would lose coverage. And because Medicaid plays a larger health care role in rural communities, where the population is older and private sector jobs less likely to offer health insurance, the impact would be greater in those areas, putting additional financial strain on rural hospitals and health-care providers already struggling to stay open. (If Congress also refuses to extend subsidies for the Affordable Care Act later this year, as seems likely, the total number of Georgians who lose health insurance could top 700,000.) And no, the money saved by such measures would not be used to reduce the nation's deficit. It would instead be used to finance tax cuts, the overwhelming majority of which would benefit the wealthy. A big chunk of the projected savings, an estimated $280 billion, would come from instituting work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The model for that nationwide requirement is supposedly the Pathways program instituted here in Georgia in 2020 by Gov. Brian Kemp. By most measures, however, that program has proved a massive disappointment. According to the original projections by the Kemp administration, some 25,000 low-wage Georgians should have been enrolled in Medicaid through the program in its first year of operation. The actual number was 4,300. By the end of its second year of operation, which comes next month, total enrollment was projected to be almost 50,000. As of April 25, it was 7,400, according to reporting by ProPublica and The Current. The monthly reporting requirements, record-keeping and bureaucratic red tape proved so discouraging that many Georgia applicants gave up in frustration, choosing instead to take the risk that they would not need coverage. If it seems odd that such a program would be embraced as a model by the GOP, it might be a matter of perspective. It might be that your idea of a failure is somebody else's idea of a success, because the two of you have different goals in mind. In this case, if your goal is to provide at least a bare-bones health insurance plan to lower-income Americans, then Georgia's Pathways program has failed. However, if your goal is to discourage and obstruct as many Americans as possible from participating in that coverage, because you want to generate $800 billion in savings so the rich can get more tax cuts, then it starts to look a whole lot better. Those yachts aren't going to buy themselves. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
